People v. Saludar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: At approximately 8:30 PM on September 12, 1986, Francisco Catu was fatally stabbed inside his store. The store's proceeds, amounting to P4,000.00, were missing. Eufrocina Porlaje witnessed a group of men approaching the store and heard Catu shout before the men fled. Richard Catu, the victim's son, saw a man stabbing his father and another stabbing their dog before they ran off. The victim was pronounced dead upon arrival at a medical clinic. His wife reported P18,000.00 spent for the funeral and the missing P4,000.00 in daily store revenue. Procedural History: On November 5, 1986, Romeo Saludar was apprehended based on information linking him to the killing. During custodial interrogation, Saludar executed an extra-judicial confession admitting his participation and implicating several others. Subsequently, Wilfredo Babon and Julio Mabansag were arrested but denied involvement. An Information for Robbery with Homicide was filed against Saludar, Babon, and Mabansag. The Information was later amended to include Rafael Rosala and Manuel Rosala, who remained at large. At trial, Saludar claimed his confession was coerced and that he was home the entire day of the incident. His wife corroborated his alibi. Babon and Mabansag filed a demurrer to the evidence. The Petition: Romeo Saludar appealed his conviction, arguing that his extra-judicial confession was inadmissible due to coercion and lack of counsel during custodial interrogation.
Issue(s)
Whether the extra-judicial confession of the accused Romeo Saludar is admissible in evidence. Whether the guilt of the accused Romeo Saludar was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The judgment of conviction is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Romeo Saludar y Mondigo alias "Bay" is ACQUITTED of the charge against him. Costs de oficio.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession: The Court held that the extra-judicial confession (Salaysay, Exh. H) executed by Romeo Saludar during custodial investigation is inadmissible in evidence. This is because the investigation failed to comply with the constitutional mandate requiring the presence of counsel. The testimony of the police investigator indicated that Saludar was not assisted by counsel during the interrogation, and while there was a note on the confession indicating assistance from a CLAO attorney, this was insufficient. The CLAO attorney was not presented to confirm her presence or authority, and the investigator's own testimony contradicted the claim of counsel's presence. The rule explicitly states that any statement obtained in violation of the procedure laid down, including the right to counsel, shall be inadmissible in evidence. The fact that the accused was asked if he was willing to give a statement without a lawyer further highlights the procedural lapse. On the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt: Since the sole evidence linking Romeo Saludar to the commission of the crime was his extra-judicial confession, which was declared inadmissible, his guilt could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found no other evidence on record that would link the defendant-appellant to the commission of the crime. Consequently, the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused must prevail. The acquittal of his co-accused, Julio Mabansag and Wilfredo Babon, for failure of the prosecution to rebut their constitutional presumption of innocence, further underscores the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in this case.
Main Doctrine
An extrajudicial confession obtained during custodial investigation is inadmissible in evidence if the accused was not assisted by counsel, as mandated by the Constitution and procedural rules, unless a valid waiver is made with the assistance of counsel.