Requirements of an independent counsel

People v. Bandula
Facts: The accused and 3 others were charged of robbery with homicide for killing an attorney. The
accused testified that they were arrested without a warrant, beaten up, and made to sign a paper
which purportedly a waiver. Appellant Bandula argues that the extrajudicial confessions he and
accused Dionanao executed suffer from constitutional infirmities, hence, inadmissible in evidence
considering that they were extracted under duress and intimidation, and were merely countersigned
later by the municipal attorney who, by the nature of his position, was not entirely an independent
counsel nor counsel of their choice. Consequently, without the extrajudicial confessions, the
prosecution is left without sufficient evidence to convict him of the crime charged.
Held: The Constitution also requires that counsel be independent. Obviously, he cannot be a special
counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is
admittedly adverse to the accused. Granting that Atty. Zerna assisted accused Dionanao and
Bandula when they executed their respective extrajudicial confessions, still their confessions are
inadmissible in evidence considering that Atty. Zerna does not qualify as an independent counsel. As
a legal officer of the municipality, he provides legal assistance and support to the mayor and the
municipality in carrying out the delivery of basic services to the people, including the maintenance of
peace and order. It is thus seriously doubted whether he can effectively undertake the defense of the
accused without running into conflict of interests. He is no better than a fiscal or prosecutor who
cannot represent the accused during custodial investigations.
People v. Tomaquin
Facts: Appellant was charged with roberry with homicide. After his arrest, the bgy. Tanods went to
the house of Bgy Capt . Fortunato Parawan, an attorney. Parawan told his tanods to take appellats
to the police station. In the morning of the next day appellant was investigated by SPO2 Mario
Monilar of the Homicide Section, Ramos Police Station in Cebu City. After being apprised of his
constitutional rights, appellant told SPO2 Monilar that he was willing to confess and asked for Atty.
Parawan, the barangay captain, to assist him. SPO2 Monilar called Atty. Parawan but the latter told
him that he will be available in the afternoon. When Atty. Parawan arrived at 2:00 in the afternoon,
he conferred with appellant for around fifteen minutes. Atty. Parawan then called SPO2 Monilar and
told him that appellant was ready to give his statement.
Appellant claims that Rico and Edgar Magdasal maltreated him in the presence of barangay captain
Atty. Fortunato Parawan when he was brought to the latters house. He was made to admit
committing the crime because Rico has a family while he is single. Appellant also repudiated his
extrajudicial confession, saying that Atty. Parawan merely asked him to sign a blank sheet of paper
and in exchange, Atty. Parawan promised to assist and help him with his expenses.
Issue: Whether a barangay captain who is a lawyer can be considered an independent counsel
within the purview of Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

Held: The words competent and independent counsel in the constitutional provision is not an empty
rhetoric. It stresses the need to accord the accused, under the uniquely stressful conditions of a
custodial investigation, an informed judgment on the choices explained to him by a diligent and
capable lawyer. X X X Considering that Atty. Parawans role as a barangay captain, was a
peacekeeping officer of his barangay and therefore in direct conflict with the role of providing
competent legal assistance to appellant who was accused of committing a crime in his jurisdiction,
Atty. Parawan could not be considered as an independent counsel of appellant, when the latter
executed his extrajudicial confession. What the Constitution requires is the presence of an
independent and competent counsel, one who will effectively undertake his clients defense without
any intervening conflict of interest.
X X X Neither does Atty. Parawan qualify as a competent counsel, i.e., an effective and vigilant
counsel. An effective and vigilant counsel necessarily and logically requires that the lawyer be
present and able to advise and assist his client from the time the confessant answers the first
question asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession.
Counsels presence during the entire investigation
People v. Morial
Facts: The three accused was allegedly committed robbery with homicide. The sole witness,
Gabriel Guilao, saw the three killed the deceased, and stayed to their house for ten minutes. When
the three had been apprehended, the suspects were interrogated. Edwin was advised to tell the truth
so he would not be killed. Nevertheless, he refused to admit his alleged participation in the killings.
Someone then struck his left hand with a pistol. His hand swelled. A policeman in uniform warned
him that if he did not tell the truth, he would be brought to the toilet.
Having prepared Leonardo's statement, the police then told Leonardo to come with them to Atty.
Aguilar's office, which was about 50 meters from the police station. There, he saw Atty. Aguilar for
the first time. The lawyer read to him the document and asked him whether its contents were true.
The police had instructed Leonardo to answer "yes" if he was asked that question, and Leonardo
heeded the instructions.
Leonardo denied that Atty. Aguilar examined his body for any injuries. Atty. Aguilar did ask Leonardo
if he was forced or intimidated to execute the extra-judicial confession. Leonardo, however, did not
tell his lawyer about his injuries since a police officer had warned him that he would be mauled again
should he do so. Leonardo then signed the extra-judicial confession, after which Atty. Aguilar affixed
his. The signing over, Leonardo was brought back to the police station. Later in court, Leonardo
claimed that he merely made up all the statements in the document because he was afraid.

Held: The Court has stressed that an accused under custodial interrogation must continuously have
a counsel assisting him from the very start thereof. X X X SPO4 Fernandez cannot justify Atty.
Aguilar's leaving by claiming that when the lawyer left, he knew very well that the suspect had
already admitted that he (Leonardo) and his companions committed the crime. Neither can Atty.
Aguilar rationalize his abandoning his client by saying that he left only after the latter had admitted
the "material points," referring to the three accused's respective participation in the crime.[52] For
even as the person under custodial investigation enjoys the right to counsel from its inception, so
does he enjoy such right until its termination -indeed, "in every phase of the investigation.[53] An
effective and vigilant counsel "necessarily and logically requires that the lawyer be present and able
to advise and assist his client from the time the confessant answers the first question asked by the
investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession."
If it were true that Atty. Tobias had to attend to matters so pressing that he had to abandon a client
undergoing custodial investigation, he could have terminated the same to be continued only until as
soon as his schedule permitted, advising the suspect in the meantime to remain silent. This he failed
to do. Apallingly, he even asked his client whether he was willing to answer questions during the
lawyer's absence.
People v. Ordono
Facts: A decomposing body of a young girl was found among the bushes. Unidentified sources
pointed to Pacito Ordoo and Apolonio Medina as the authors of the crime. Acting on this lead, the
police thereupon invited the two (2) suspects and brought them to the police station for questioning.
However, for lack of evidence then directly linking them to the crime, they were allowed to go home.
the accused Pacito Ordoo and Apolonio Medina returned to the police station one after another and
acknowledged that they had indeed committed the crime. Since there were not attorneys in the
barrio, the policemen invited the a parish priest, a mayor and the relatives of the accused. Be that
as it may, the statements of the two (2) accused where nevertheless taken.
News about the apprehension and detention of the culprits of the rape-slay of Shirley Victore soon
spread that Roland Almoite, leading radio announcer of radio station DZNL, visited and interviewed
them. In the interview which was duly tape-recorded both accused admitted again their complicity in
the crime and narrated individually the events surrounding their commission thereof.
On arraignment, in a complete turnabout, the two (2) accused pleaded not guilty.
Issue: Is the interview made by the radio commentator admissible as evidence?
Held: Yes. The interview was not in the nature of an investigation as the response of the accused
was made in answer to questions asked by the radio reporter, not by the police or any other
investigating officer. When the accused talked to the radio announcer, they did not talk to him as a
law enforcement officer, as in fact he was not, hence their uncounselled confession to him did not
violate their constitutional rights.
Ratio: Statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are
deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence.

People v. Guillermo
Facts: Apellant was cahrged with murder for killing his employer and mutilated his body, cutting it to
7 peices. He expressed no regret whatsoever about his actions. Keysers death shocked the nation.
Appellant Guillermo, who was then in police custody, was interviewed on separate occasions by two
TV reporters, namely: Augusto Gus Abelgas of ABS-CBN News and Kara David of GMA Channel 7.
Both interviews were subsequently broadcast nationwide. Appellant admitted to David that he
committed the crime and never gave it second thought.Both Abelgas and David said that Guillermo
expressed absolutely no remorse over his alleged misdeed during the course of their respective
interviews with him.
At the trial, appellant Guillermos defense consisted of outright denial. He alleged he was a victim of
police frame-up. Appellant contends that his conviction was based on inadmissible evidence. He
points out that there is no clear showing that he was informed of his constitutional rights nor was he
made to understand the same by the police investigators.
Issue: Is the interview made by Kara David and Gus Abelgas admissible as evidence?
Held: Yes, it is. The prosecution has amply proven the appellants guilt in the killing of Victor F.
Keyser. The bare denial raised by the appellant in open court pales in contrast to the spontaneous
and vivid out-of-court admissions he made to security guard Campos and the two media reporters,
Abelgas and David. The positive evidence, including the instruments of the crime, together with the
medical evidence as well as the testimonies of credible prosecution witnesses, leaves us no doubt
that appellant killed his employer, Victor Francisco Keyser, in the gruesome manner vividly described
before the trial court.
Ratio: The TV news reporters testimonies on record show that they were acting as media
professionals when they interviewed appellant. They were not under the direction and control
of the police. There was no coercion for appellant to face the TV cameras.
People v. Malngan
Issue:
Held: It should well be recalled that the constitutional safeguards during custodial investigations do
not apply to those not elicited through questioning by the police or their agents but given in an
ordinary manner whereby the accused verbally admits to having committed the offense as what
happened in the case at bar when accused-appellant admitted to Mercedita Mendoza, one of the
neighbors of Roberto Separa, Sr., to having started the fire in the Separas house. The testimony of
Mercedita Mendoza recounting said admission is, unfortunately for accused-appellant, admissible in
evidence against her and is not covered by the aforesaid constitutional guarantee.

Re-enactment
People vs. Luvendino
Facts: Appellant has been indicted of rape with homicide. Thereafter, the trial court covivcted him.
He argued that the "demonstration" or re-enactment and his extrajudicial confession were effected
and secured in the absence of a valid waiver by him of his constitutional rights and that the reenactment and the confession should be held inadmissible in evidence because they had been
involuntarily made.
Issue: Is the re-enactment inadmissible as evidence?
Held: Yes. It is not clear from the record that before the re-enactment was staged by Luvendino, he
had been informed of his constitutional rights including, specifically, his right to counsel and that he
had waived such right before proceeding with the demonstration. Under these circumstances, we
must decline to uphold the admissibility of evidence relating to that re-enactment.
Ratio: The re-enactment was apparently staged promptly upon apprehension of Luvendino
and even prior to his formal investigation at the police station.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
People vs. Alicano
Facts: Accused was charged with rape with homicide for killing a child, four years of age. When he
was arrested, the police did not inform him of his constitutional right to be silent, to have an attorney,
etc. Instead, the police proceeded to the place where the victim had found. The trial court convicted
him and sentenced him with death penalty. Accused, thereafter, elevated the case to SC.
Held: It is not only the uncounselled confession that is condemned as inadmissible, but also
evidence derived therefrom. The pillow and the T-shirt with the alleged bloodstains were evidence
derived from the uncounselled confession illegally extracted by the police from the appellant.
Ratio: According to this rule, once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully
obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the " fruit " ) derived from it is also inadmissible.
Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act, whereas
the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect result of the same illegal act. The "fruit of the
poisonous tree" is at least once removed from the illegally seized evidence, but it is equally
inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should
not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all
evidence subsequently obtained.

Ho Wai Pang vs. People

Facts: A plane from Hongkong arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. Among the
passengers were the accused who came to the Philippines as tourists. At the arrival area, the group
leader Wong Kwok Wah presented a Baggage Declaration Form to Customs Examiner Gilda L.
Cinco who was then manning Lane 8 of the Express Lane. Cinco examined the baggages of each of
the 13 passengers as their turn came up. From the first traveling bag, she saw few personal
belongings such as used clothing, shoes and chocolate boxes which she pressed. When the second
bag was examined, she noticed chocolate boxes which were almost of the same size as those in the
first bag. Becoming suspicious, she took out four of the chocolate boxes and opened one of them.
Instead of chocolates, what she saw inside was white crystalline substance contained in a white
transparent plastic. Cinco thus immediately called the attention of her immediate superiors Duty
Collector Alalo and Customs Appraiser Nora Sancho who advised her to call the Narcotics
Command (NARCOM) and the police. Thereupon, she guided the tourists to the Intensive Counting
Unit (ICU) while bringing with her the four chocolate boxes earlier discovered.
They brought the chocolate boxes thorough an examination, and found that the it contained shabi.
The trial court convicted the accused for violation of the Dangerous Drug Act. Likewise the CA
affirmed the lower courts decision.
Held: In the case at bench, petitioner did not make any confession or admission during his custodial
investigation. The prosecution did not present any extrajudicial confession extracted from him as
evidence of his guilt. Moreover, no statement was taken from petitioner during his detention and
subsequently used in evidence against him. Verily, in determining the guilt of the petitioner and his
co-accused, the trial court based its Decision on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and on
the existence of the confiscated shabu.
X X X On the other hand, petitioners conviction in the present case was on the strength of his having
been caught in flagrante delicto transporting shabu into the country and not on the basis of any
confession or admission. Moreover, the testimony of Cinco was found to be direct, positive and
credible by the trial court, hence it need not be corroborated. Cinco witnessed the entire incident
thus providing direct evidence as eyewitness to the very act of the commission of the crime.