In the fight against criminality, government authorities use the law of force to arrest suspects. The suspects are brought to the police station for questioning. The police will investigate and compile the evidences.
In law, this is known as custodial investigation: The police will file the criminal complaint with the Office of the Prosecutor, who will investigate by giving all the parties [complainant, police and suspect] the opportunity to present their story and pieces of evidence.
On the other hand, still in law, this is known as preliminary investigation: If the Fiscal finds that the suspect may have possibly have committed the crime [this is known as finding of probable cause], he will file a criminal case in court. The court will hold a trial to hear the evidence of the parties and decide if the guilt of the accused has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecutor. If it convicts the accused, he may appeal to higher courts and lawyers will use the force of law to prove one’s innocence.
Some law enforcement agents could not find evidence to pin down a suspect who seems to be guilty, except to extract a confession. This is known as extra-judicial confession – one not made in court. The issue of its admissibility as evidence has reached the Supreme Court. One case is People v. Muleta, G.R. 130189 penned by Justice Panganiban on 25th June 1999.
A 19-year old ‘probinsyana’ went to Manila to find work. She landed a job as a mall saleslady.
On April 29, 1993, she moved to Valenzuela but went back to Manila to pick up her maleta. That was the last time she was seen alive.
The next day, her lifeless body was found naked in Malolos, tied to a post with the use of a pair of pants. Both her hands were tied with a bra. She bore five stabwounds.
The NBI investigated the case and the girl’s uncle – Domingo Muleta – became its suspect. During his custodial investigation at the NBI, he admitted raping and killing her niece by signing a confession, witnessed by a lawyer. The evidence of the prosecution at the trial are extra-judicial confession and statements of Muleta at the victim’s wake: “Patawarin mo ako Charito, ikaw kasi lumaban pa, nakakahiya, mabuti pa mamatay na”. As defense, accused said that he was just tortured.
The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide based on circumstantial proofs: his statements at victim’s wake and extra-judicial confession assisted by lawyer at NBI.
The case was appealed and the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 12, Article III of our Constitution: [1] Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel… [3] Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
Extrajudicial confessions must conform to constitutional requirements. A confession is not valid and not admissible in evidence if it is taken in violation of any of the constitutional rights of persons under custodial investigation.
Confession is not admissible unless the prosecution can prove compliance with the Constitution. If the extrajudicial confession satisfies these constitutional standards, it must be subsequently tested for voluntariness: if it was given freely – without coercion, intimidation, inducement or false promises; and credibility: if it was consistent with the normal human experience.
A confession that meets all these said requisites constitutes evidence of a high order because no person of normal mind will knowingly and deliberately confess to be the author of a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience. Otherwise, it is disregarded under the exclusionary rule – that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it is done in the presence of counsel. Any waiver of such rights must be made in the presence of a lawyer, who must be competent and independent, which is absent in this case as the lawyer assisted in making the confession but not on his waiver of rights.
The statements at the wake are not admission of crime. If these words merit anything, it is this— it places the appellant under suspicion. But suspicion or accusation is not synonymous with guilt. Due to the constitutional presumption of innocence, Muleta was acquitted.
***
(Comments and suggestions may be emailed to peoplestonightonline@gmail.com.)
