4. People v.

Bacamante, 248 SCRA 47

TITLE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

MOISES BACAMANTE y ORDANIZA, accused-appellant.

GR NUMBER G.R. No. 103627

DATE September 5, 1995

PONENTE Division PADILLA, J.

NATURE/ APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

KEYWORDS/ Manila, Br. 18/ exclusionary rule; violation of rights/ First
DIVISION Division

FACTS Accused-appellant, Moises Bacamante y Ordaniza was

charged with robbery with homicide. Bacamante worked
as an all-around serviceman at Chua Huat Enterprises, a
hardware store.

On December 19, 1985, smoke was seen by a woman-

vendor coming from the hardware store. She informed
Fernando Ngo, Huat's adopted son of the smoke. Ngo
immediately proceeded to the store and found his father
lying in a pool of his own blood and smelling of paint
thinner which had been poured on the dead body and
around the area of the store.

Ngo also discovered an axe with dried blood about 2

meters away from the victim’s body and 3 electric flat
irons connected to electric outlets and placed on top of
cans of paint thinner. The flat irons which caused the
smoke. Ngo also testified that P10,000.00 was missing
from the cash register and vault. Huat's death was
caused by stab wounds in the head, chest and other
parts of the body.

The next morning, all the employees of Chua Huat

Enterprises reported for work except for Bacamante. On
the basis of investigations conducted by members of the
Western Police District (WPD) particularly Pfc. Rodolfo
 Kalaquian, accused Bacamante became a suspect in the
crime.

A police team from the WPD was dispatched to the house

of the accused. Upon seeing the police team, Bacamante
ran to the back of his house, and when Pfc. Kalaquian
fired warning shots, he ran further to a grassy area
beyond his house. The police team convinced
Bacamante's parents to let their son surrender to them.
When accused voluntarily surrendered, the WPD team
took him to Manila, accompanied by his brother Teotimo.

On 25 January 1986, Bacamante executed a statement

admitting his guilt, which was signed by Pfc. Fradejas
and Teotimo Bacamante as witnesses.

But, Bacamante pleaded not guilty when arraigned on 4

April 1986 and after trial, the Regional Trial Court, Br.
18, Manila rendered a decision, dated 28 October 1991,
finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt with
the aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence,
night-time and evident pre-meditation and was
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

In this appeal, Bacamante claims that a certain Atty.

Gilbert Zulueta, who was merely visiting the police
station at the time and who, according to the
extrajudicial statement, assisted him as counsel, never in
fact effectively informed him of the consequences of the
extrajudicial confession. Accused also contends that he
was forced to sign the extrajudicial confession since the
police officers mauled him and even refused his request
that his brother Timoteo be allowed to find a lawyer for
him or contact their relatives.

ISSUE(S) 1. W/N the accused-appellant’s extrajudicial confession is

admissible?

RULING(S) 1. No. Patrolman Fradejas of the WPD, testified that he

was the one who was present when accused executed
his extrajudicial confession. Fradejas stated that Atty.
Zulueta was requested to act as counsel for accused
 during the custodial investigation. It is to be noted
however that Fradejas admitted that while accused
was undergoing investigation and answering the
questions propounded to him, Atty. Zulueta would
“come and go” and that Atty. Zulueta was not at all
times within hearing distance of accused but was
merely “within the premises.” Atty. Zulueta himself
admitted that he could not remember having informed
accused of the constitutional presumption of his
innocence. Given the above admissions by witnesses
for the prosecution, the inadmissibility of the
extrajudicial confession of accused Bacamante is
mandated under Sec. 12(1), Sec. 12(3) and Sec. 17,
Article III of the Constitution.
The term “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. Moreover, the lawyer should
ascertain that the confession is made voluntarily and
that the person under investigation fully understands
the nature and consequence of his extrajudicial
confession in relation to his constitutional rights. A
contrary rule would undoubtedly be antagonistic to
the constitutional rights to remain silent, to counsel
and to be presumed innocent.

CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing considerations and

premises, the appealed decision is hereby SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellant is ACQUITTED based on reasonable
doubt and ordered RELEASED unless he is also detained
for some other legal ground.