105.

Lumanog v People GR 182555, September 7, 2010

Facts:
On June 13, 1996 there was an ambush-slay of former Chief of the Metropolitan
Command Intelligence and Security Group of the Philippine Constabulary, Colonel Rolando
N. Abadilla in the middle lane of Katipunan Avenue, Quezon City.
Prosecution witness Freddie Alejo, a security guard assigned at the Katipunan
Avenue, Blue Ridge Quezon City pinpointed to Joel de Jesus, and others as the perpetrator of
the ambush-slay. On June 19, 1996 Joel de Jesus was arrested. He was with the custody of the
police until he was brought to the IBP Office, Quezon City Hall of Justice in the afternoon of
June 20, 1996 for the taking of his statement in the presence of Atty. Confesor Sansano.
Joel claims to have been subjected to intimidation and violence by the police
investigators.

Issue:
Whether or not the requirement of conducting the custodial investigation with the
presence of counsel was complied with in the instant case.

Held:
No, there was a violation of the right to have a counsel present during custodial
investigation.
When Joel was arrested, he was already considered a suspect.;Joel was pinpointed by
Alejo. As used in R.A. No. 7438, custodial investigation shall include the practice of issuing
an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to
have committed.
Police officers claimed that upon arresting Joel, they informed him of his constitutional
rights to remain silent, that any information he would give could be used against him, and
that he had the right to a competent and independent counsel, preferably, of his own choice,
and if he cannot afford the services of counsel he will be provided with one. However, since
these rights can only be waived in writing and with the assistance of counsel, there could not
have been such a valid waiver by Joel, who was presented to Atty. Sansano at the IBP Office,
Quezon City Hall only the following day and stayed overnight at the police station before he
was brought to said counsel.
P/Insp. Castillo admitted that the initial questioning of Joel began in the morning of
June 20, 1996, the first time said suspect was presented to him at the CPDC station, even
before he was brought to the IBP Office for the taking of his formal statement. Thus, the
possibility of appellant Joel having been subjected to intimidation or violence in the hands of
police investigators as he claims cannot be discounted. The constitutional requirement
obviously had not been observed. Settled is the rule that the moment a police officer tries to
elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information from a suspect, the latter should, at
that juncture, be assisted by counsel, unless he waives this right in writing and in the presence
of counsel.