PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAMON BOLANOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is a review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 14, under Criminal Case No. 1831-M-90, for
“Murder”, wherein the accused-appellant, Ramon Bolanos was convicted,
as follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the Crime of Murder and the Court hereby imposed
upon the accused Ramon Bolanos the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua (life
imprisonment) and to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00. With Costs.

“SO ORDERED.” (Judgment, p. 6)

The antecedent facts and circumstances, follow:

The evidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimonies of
Patrolmen Marcelo J. Fidelino and Francisco Dayao of the Integrated National
Police (INP), Balagtas, Bulacan, Calixto Guinsaya, and Dr. Benito Caballero,
Medico-Legal Officer of Bocaue, Bulacan and documentary exhibits. The testimonial evidence were after the fact
narration of events based on the report regarding the death of the victim,
Oscar Pagdalian which was communicated to the Police Station where the two (2)
policemen who responded to the incident are assigned and subsequently became
witnesses for the prosecution. (Appellant’s Brief, p. 2)

Patrolmen Rolando Alcantara and Francisco Dayao testified that
they proceeded to the scene of the crime of Marble Supply, Balagtas, Bulacan
and upon arrival they saw the deceased Oscar Pagdalian lying on an improvised
bed full of blood with stab wounds. They then inquired about the circumstances of the incident and were
informed that the deceased was with two (2) companions, on the previous night,
one of whom was the accused who had a drinking spree with the deceased and
another companion (Claudio Magtibay) till the wee hours of the following
morning, June 23, 1990. (Ibid., p. 3)

The corroborating testimony of Patrolmen Francisco Dayao, further
indicated that when they apprehended the accused-appellant, they found the
firearm of the deceased on the chair where the accused was allegedly seated;
that they boarded Ramon Bolanos and Claudio Magtibay on the police vehicle and
brought them to the police station. In
the vehicle where the suspect was riding, “Ramon Bolanos accordingly
admitted that he killed the deceased Oscar Pagdalian because he was
abusive.” (Ibid., p. 4)

During the trial, it was clearly established that the alleged
oral admission of the appellant was given without the assistance of counsel as
it was made while on board the police vehicle on their way to the police
station. The specific portion of the
decision of the court a quo reads as follows:

“x x x the police boarded the two, the accused Ramon Bolanos
and Claudio Magtibay in their jeep and proceeded to the police station of
Balagtas, Bulacan to be investigated, on the way the accused told the police,
after he was asked by the police if he killed the victim, that he killed the
victim because the victim was abusive; this statement of the accused was
considered admissible in evidence against him by the Court because it was given
freely and before the investigation.

“The foregoing circumstances clearly lead to a fair and
reasonable conclusion that the accused Ramon Bolanos is guilty of having killed
the victim Oscar Pagdalian.” (Judgment, p. 6)

A Manifestation (in lieu of Appellee’s Brief), was filed by the
Solicitor General’s Office, dated April 2, 1992, with the position that the
lower court erred in admitting in evidence the extra-judicial confession of
appellant while on board the police patrol jeep. Said office even postulated that: “(A)ssuming that it was given, it was done in violation of
appellant’s Constitutional right to be informed, to remain silent and to have a
counsel of his choice, while already under police custody.”
(Manifestation, p. 4)

Being already under custodial investigation while on board the
police patrol jeep on the way to the Police Station where formal investigation
may have been conducted, appellant should have been informed of his
Constitutional rights under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution
which explicitly provides:

“(1)    Any person under investigation
for the commission of an offense shall
have the right to remain silent and
to have competent and independent preferably
of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
service of counsel, he must be provided
with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and
in the presence of counsel.

“(2)    No torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

“(3)    Any confession or admission
obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.

“(4)    The law shall provide for penal and civil
sanctions for violation of this section as well as compensation and
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices and their
families.” (Underscoring supplied).

Considering the clear requirements of the Constitution with
respect to the manner by which confession can be admissible in evidence, and
the glaring fact that the alleged confession obtained while on board the police
vehicle was the only reason for the conviction, besides appellant’s conviction
was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, this Court has no recourse but to
reverse the subject judgment under review.

WHEREFORE, finding that the Constitutional rights of the
accused-appellant have been violated, the appellant is ACQUITTED, with costs de
oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Nocon, JJ., concur.