Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF
People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al.
S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64
in the Hall of Justice, on the 4 th floor.” (Joint Decision, p. 26, last paragraph, italics
mine).
So what if Joel was brought to the IBP Quezon City Chapter office (which was
done under close police escort and with a police-prepared statement)? Was that enough
to meet the required degree (if we may use this term again) of “competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice” 11 and “adequate legal assistance” 12 ?
According to jurisprudence, the right to counsel attaches upon police
identification or line-up of suspects (U.S. vs. Wade, 388 U.S. 218; and People vs. Usman
Hassan, 157 SCRA 261). And that the following are not deemed independent counsel:
PAO lawyers, 13 police lawyers, 14 and prosecutors. 15 The right to counsel refers not to
pro-forma and perfunctory counsel but to “effective and vigilant counsel” (People vs.
Lucero, 244 SCRA 425; and People vs. Bacamante, 248 SCRA 47). And this covers
not only the moment of signing a police-prepared statement but more importantly the
prior period of custodial investigation and tactical interrogation – “from the time the
confessant answers the first question asked by the investigating officer until the signing
of the extra-judicial confession.” For violation of this right to effective and vigilant
counsel in one case, the confession obtained despite assistance of counsel was excluded
by the Supreme Court and the accused was ACQUITTED (People vs. Bacamante, 248
SCRA 47).
Violations of similar constitutional rights were likewise a ground for acquittal or
dismissal in other cases. In one case, the long delay in the termination of the preliminary
investigation was found to be violative of the constitutional rights of the accused to
procedural due process and to speedy disposition of cases, the latter under the
Constitution’s Art. III, Sec. 16. Accordingly, the case was DISMISSED by the Supreme
Court, as a matter of radical relief:
11 Const., Art. III, Sec. 12(1).
12 Const., Art. III, Sec. 11.
13 People vs. Olvis (154 SCRA 513).
14 People vs. Labuac (G.R. No. 80764, September 28, 1992).
Page 91 of 127
91