People v Agustin 240 SCRA 541 (1995)

Facts: Quiaño, 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 Quiaño was assisted by Atty. Reynaldo Cajucom. Stenographic notes of the proceedings during the investigation as transcribed with the sworn statement of Quiaño 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 Quiaño. Agustin’s 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 Quiaño escaped. However the RTC convicted him, since conspiracy was established, hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant’s extrajudicial statements are admissible as evidence to warrant conviction.

Held: No. The statement of the accused is inadmissible as evidence in court. 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.