People v.

Agustin - 240 SCRA 541

Facts:
Quiao, the gunman who killed the victims, confessed during the
investigation conducted by Baguio City Fiscal Erdolfo Balajadia in his office
that he was the triggerman. He implicated Abenoja, Jr., who engaged him to
kill Dr. Bayquen for a fee, Cartel, who provided the armalite, and a certain
"Jimmy." During the investigation, Wilfredo Quiao was assisted by Atty.
Reynaldo Cajucom. Stenographic notes of the proceedings during the
investigation as transcribed with the sworn statement of Quiao was signed,
with the assistance of Atty.Cajucom, and swore to before City Fiscal
Balajadia. The following day, Agustin was apprehended, and was
investigated and was afforded the privileges like that of Quiao. Agustins
defense interpose that he was forced to admit involvement at gunpoint at
Kennon Road. He further declared that although he was given a lawyer,
Cajucom (a law partner of the private prosecutor), he nevertheless, asked for
his uncle Atty. Oliver Tabin, and that Atty. Cajucom interviewed him from only
two minutes in English and Tagalog but not in Ilocano, the dialect he
understands. The promise that he would be discharged as a witness did not
push through since Quiao escaped. However the RTC convicted him, since
conspiracy was established hence this appeal
Issue:
Whether or not accused-appellants extrajudicial statements are admissible
as evidence to warrant conviction
Held:
No. The statement of the accused is inadmissible as evidence in court.
Extrajudicial statement is not extrajudicial confession. In a confession, there
is an acknowledgment of guilt of the accused, while an admission is a
statement direct or implied of facts pertinent to the issue. The rule on
inadmissibility, however expressly includes admissions, not just confessions.
The extrajudicial admission of the appellant, contained in twenty-two pages
appear to be signed by him and Atty. Cajucom but for reasons not explained
in the records, the transcript of the notes which consists of twelve pages was
not signed by the appellant. Since the court cannot even read or decipher
the stenographic notes it cannot be expected that appellant, who is a farmer
and who reached only the fourth grade, to read or decipher its contents.
Despite asking for his uncle to represent him he was provided with an
impartial counsel who is an associate of the private prosecutor. It also
appears that some of the transcripts of the notes of the proceeding that
show the extrajudicial statement made by the accused were not signed by
him. By making his statements the accused voluntarily waived his right to
remain silent but that was not put in writing either.

It would be in violation of the mandate of custodial investigation to admit the

statement of the accused when the process undertaken is one bereft of
meeting the standard requirements of the due process that should be
accorded to the accused in custodial investigation, hence he should be
acquitted.