People Vs Crispin

People vs.
Crispin – 327 SCRA 167

FACTS:
Version of the prosecution:
Crispin Velarde was convicted of the crime of rape with homicide by the trial court and sentenced to
death. Prior thereto, it was alleged that On May 11, 1997 at around 10:00 o'clock in the morning, Brenda
Candelaria, an eight year old child, together with her friend Melanie Sangalang, seven years of age, was
on board a pedicab driven by appellant. Upon reaching the house of Melanie, said appellant told Melanie
to alight on the pretext that her mother might look for her. Melanie obeyed leaving Brenda inside the
pedicab with appellant continuing his driving.
"In the afternoon of the same day, appellant and Brenda were seen together by Flora Bonganay in front of
the latter's store located near the church in Tikay riding the same pedicab.
"Later on, Angelita Robles while waiting for a ride saw appellant already alone emerging from a place
near Doña Pilar Homes Subdivision. Angelita noticed something strange in appellant's actuation as he
was uneasy, haggard looking with his hair disheveled.
"The following day, May 12, 1997, the naked lifeless body of Brenda Candelaria was found in a grassy
vacant lot along the Cagayan Valley Highway in Sta. Rita, Guiguinto, Bulacan near the Doña Pilar Homes
Subdivision. Recovered beside her body were a rubber slipper, blood stained white sando, a blue and
white striped t-shirt and a shoe string.
Appellant, a resident of Barangay Tikay, Municipality of Malolos was brought to and detained in the
Malolos Police Station, where he was investigated by the Malolos police. During custodial investigation,
Malolos Bulacan Mayor Atty. Danilo Dominggo acted as the independent counsel of Crispin. While the
investigation was in progress, there were three other armed policemen present without anybody from
Crispin’s relative.
ISSUE:
Whether the right of the accused to have a competent and independent counsel during extrajudicial
confession was violated.
RULING:
YES, it was violated.
Article III Section 12 (1) of the Constitution provides:
"Any person under custodial 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."
The dead body of Brenda Candelaria was found in the Municipality of Guiguinto, Bulacan. But appellant, a
resident of Barangay Tikay, Municipality of Malolos was brought to and detained in the Malolos Police
Station, where he was investigated by the Malolos police.
Under the circumstances, Atty. Domingo cannot be considered as an independent counsel. He was the
mayor of Malolos at the time. As such, he exercised "operational supervision and control" 18 over the PNP
unit in that municipality. His powers included the utilization of the elements thereof for the maintenance of
peace and order, the prevention of crimes, the arrest of criminal offenders and the bringing of offenders to
justice.19
As mayor of Malolos, his duties were inconsistent with those of his responsibilities to appellant, who was
already incarcerated and tagged as the main suspect in the rape-slay case. Serving as counsel of
appellant placed him in direct conflict with his duty of "operational supervision and control" over the police.
"What the Constitution requires in Article III Section 12 (1) is the presence of competent and independent
counsel, one who will effectively undertake his client's defense without any intervening conflict of
interest."20 Evidently Atty. Domingo, being the mayor of the place where the investigation was taken,
could not act as counsel, independent or otherwise, of appellant.
In People v. Taliman,21 we ruled that a mayor cannot be considered the independent lawyer referred to by
the Constitution.
"Mayor Pardo cannot be considered as an independent counsel for accused during their custodial
investigation.
"In People vs. Culala, we held that the extrajudicial confession of the accused-appellant was inadmissible
as he was 'assisted' by the incumbent municipal attorney. In People vs. Bandula, we held that a municipal
attorney could not be an independent counsel as required by the Constitution. We reasoned that as 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 therefore seriously doubted whether he can effectively undertake the defense of the accused without
running into conflict of interests.
xxx-xxx-xxx
"If in the aforecited cases, we disregarded the extra-judicial statements of the accused, how much more
must we do so now, given that it was the mayor himself, and not just the provincial attorney, that assisted
accused-appellants?"22
Furthermore, the right to counsel is a fundamental right and contemplates not just the mere presence of a
lawyer beside the accused.23 The competent and independent lawyer so engaged should be present "at
all stages of the interview, counseling or advising caution reasonably at every turn of the investigation,
and stopping the interrogation once in a while either to give advice to the accused that he may either
continue, choose to remain silent or terminate the interview. The desired role of counsel in the process of
custodial investigation is rendered meaningless if the lawyer merely gives perfunctory advice as opposed
to a meaningful advocacy of the rights of the person undergoing questioning. If the advice given is so
cursory as to be useless, voluntariness is impaired."24
During the investigation, Atty. Domingo failed to act as the independent and competent counsel
envisioned by the Constitution. He failed to give any meaningful advice to protect the rights of appellant.
The former did not even bother to inform the latter of the consequences of an extrajudicial confession.

People Vs Crispin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Crispin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Crispin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs.

Crispin – 327 SCRA 167

Version of the prosecution:

YES, it was violated.

Article III Section 12 (1) of the Constitution provides:

You might also like