People v.

Obrero
May 17, 2000 | Mendoza, J.
Duty of police during custodial investigation; procedure

Doctrine: Under Art. III, §12(1), it is required that the suspect in custodial interrogation must be given
the following warnings: (1) he must be informed of his right to remain silent; (2) he must be warned that
anything he says can and will be used against him; and (3) he must be told that he has a right to counsel,
and that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.

Art. III, §12(1) requires that counsel assisting suspects in custodial interrogations be competent and
independent.

Case Summary: Obrero is charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. He was apprehended and
brought to the police station where he was provided with a lawyer who is a station commander of
another police station, and interrogated. Trial court found Obrero guilty beyond reasonable doubt. SC
held that Obrero’s extrajudicial confession was invalid and inadmissible in evidence. Obrero was not
given the Miranda warnings effectively. Obrero was assisted by Atty. De los Reyes, who, though
presumably competent, cannot be considered an “independent counsel” as contemplated by the law for
the reason that he was station commander of the WPD at the time he assisted Obrero.
Facts:
 Jimmy Obrero is a delivery boy employed by Angie Cabosas whose business was selling chickens to
customers.
o Obrero was asked to deliver chickens to Emma Cabrera, a regular customer.
 In Obrero’s extrajudicial confession, he stated that the day before the robbery, his fellow employee,
Ronnie Liwanag, proposed that they rob Emma in order to be able to go to La Union to visit his
family.
o On the day of the robbery, they learned that only two helpers were then at the
residence of Emma Cabrera, thus they decided to pull the heist.
o Ronnie covered the mouth of one Nena Berjuega to prevent her from shouting but, as
she tried to run away, Ronnie stabbed and killed her. Ronnie then gave the knife to
Jimmy who stabbed the younger maid, Remedios Hitta from which she died.
o Thereafter, they divided the money.
 This extrajudicial confession is in Tagalog and signed by Obrero in the presence of Atty. De los
Reyes.
o Atty. De los Reyes is a PC Captain of the WPD Headquarters in UN Avenue. He was at
Station 7 of the WPD because he was representing a client accused of illegal
recruitment. He was asked by Lt. Javier of the WPD Homicide Section to assist Jimmy
Obrero in executing an extrajudicial confession.
o At the trial, Obrero pleaded not guilty of the crime charged.
 He said that he came back from his errand and remitted the amount of P2000
which had been paid to him. He also claimed that after being informed of the
charges against him, he was beaten up and detained for a week and made to
execute an extrajudicial confession. He denied having known or seen Atty. De
 los Reyes before and stated that he did not understand the contents of the
extrajudicial confession which he signed because he did not know how to read.
 Trial court – found Obrero guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
o The court held that Obrero consented to giving his extrajudicial confession and that
absent any showing that the assisting lawyer, though a station commander but of
another police station, was remiss in his duty as a lawyer, the Court will hold that the
proceedings were regularly conducted.

Issue: WON Obrero’s extrajudicial confession was valid and admissible in evidence. – NO

Ruling:
 There are two kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions treated in this constitutional provision:
(1) those which are the product of third degree methods such as torture, force, violence,
threat, intimidation, which are dealt with in paragraph 2 of §12, and
(2) those which are given without the benefit of Miranda warnings, which are the subject of
paragraph 1 of the same §12.

 Nor can it be inferred that the confession was involuntarily executed from the fact that accused-
appellant refused to sign the booking and information sheet.

o For if he were simply forced to execute the extrajudicial confession and sign it for five times,
there is no reason the police was not able to make him sign the said sheet as well.

o The inference rather was that no force was used to make accused-appellant execute the
confession, otherwise, he could also have been forced to sign the booking and information
sheet. Extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary, and, in the absence of conclusive
evidence showing the declarant’s consent in executing the same has been vitiated, such
confession will be sustained.

 The confession contains details that only the perpetrator of the crime could have given.

o No one except accused-appellant could have stated that it was he who killed the younger
maid of Emma Cabrera (Remedios Hitta), that he committed the crime together with his
townmate, Ronnie Liwanag, and that he used the same weapon given to him by Ronnie after
the latter had stabbed and killed the other helper (Nena Berjuega), details which are
consistent with the medico-legal findings that the wounds sustained by the two victims
were possibly caused by one and the same bladed weapon.

o It has been held that voluntariness of a confession may be inferred from its being replete
with details which could possibly be supplied only by the accused, reflecting spontaneity and
coherence which cannot be said of a mind on which violence and torture have been applied.

o When the details narrated in an extrajudicial confession are such that they could not have
been concocted by one who did not take part in the acts narrated, where the claim of
maltreatment in the extraction of the confession is unsubstantiated and where abundant
 evidence exists showing that the statement was voluntarily executed, the confession is
admissible against the declarant.

o There is greater reason for finding a confession to be voluntary where it is corroborated by

 But what renders the confession of accused-appellant inadmissible is the fact that accused-appellant
was not given the Miranda warnings effectively.

o Under the Constitution, an uncounseled statement, such as it is called in the United States
from which Art. III, §12(1) was derived, is presumed to be psychologically coerced.

o Swept into an unfamiliar environment and surrounded by intimidating figures typical of the
atmosphere of police interrogation, the suspect really needs the guiding hand of counsel.

 Under Art. III, §12(1), it is required that the suspect in custodial interrogation must be given the
following warnings: (1) he must be informed of his right to remain silent; (2) he must be warned that
anything he says can and will be used against him; and (3) he must be told that he has a right to
counsel, and that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.

 There was thus only a perfunctory reading of the Miranda rights to accused-appellant without any
effort to find out from him whether he wanted to have counsel and, if so, whether he had his own
counsel or he wanted the police to appoint one for him.

o This kind of giving of warnings, in several decisions of this Court, has been found to be
merely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect.
Especially in this case, care should have been scrupulously observed by the police
investigator that accused-appellant was specifically asked these questions considering that
he only finished the fourth grade of the elementary school.

 Art. III, §12(1) requires that counsel assisting suspects in custodial interrogations be competent and
independent.

o Here, accused- appellant was assisted by Atty. De los Reyes, who, though presumably
competent, cannot be considered an “independent counsel” as contemplated by the law for
the reason that he was station commander of the WPD at the time he assisted accused-
appellant.

 As observed in People v. Bandula, the independent counsel required by Art. III, §12(1) cannot be a
special counsel, public or private prosecutor, municipal attorney, or counsel of the police whose
interest is admittedly adverse to the accused.

o In this case, Atty. De los Reyes, as PC Captain and Station Commander of the WPD, was part
of the police force who could not be expected to have effectively and scrupulously assisted
accused-appellant in the investigation, his claim to the contrary notwithstanding. To allow
such a happenstance would render illusory the protection given to the suspect during
custodial investigation.
 And while there is evidence of homicide consisting of the corpus delicti, there is no evidence of the
robbery except the confession (Exh. O) of accused-appellant which, as already stated, is
inadmissible.

o It does not matter that accused-appellant failed to object to the introduction of these
constitutionally proscribed evidence. The lack of objection did not satisfy the heavy burden
of proof which rested on the prosecution.

o The Court cannot thus affirm the conviction of accused-appellant because of the procedural
irregularities committed during custodial investigation and the trial of the case. It may be
that by this decision a guilty person is set free because the prosecution stumbled, but we
are committed to the principle that it is far better to acquit several guilty persons than to
convict one single innocent person.

Disposition: WHEREFORE, the decision in Criminal Case No. 90-82187 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
12, Manila, convicting accused- appellant Jimmy Obrero y Corla of the crime of robbery with homicide is
REVERSED and accused-appellant is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.