JOSUE R. LADIANA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Ladiana versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Josue Ladiana against the People of the Philippines. Ladiana was a member of the Integrated National Police assigned to the police station of Lumban, Laguna. He was charged with murder for the shooting death of Francisco San Juan, the barangay captain of Barangay Salac. The Sandiganbayan convicted him of homicide. He went to the Supreme Court, insisting that his counter-affidavit, executed during the preliminary investigation without the assistance of counsel, should never have been used against him. The case matters because it draws the line between two constitutional territories: the custodial investigation, where the right to counsel is absolute, and the preliminary investigation, where it is not. It also teaches the difference between a confession and an admission.

Procedural History

Ladiana was originally charged with murder before the Sandiganbayan. The anti-graft court issued an order noting that, apart from the allegation that he took advantage of his official position, nothing in the Information showed that fact, so that nothing except a conclusion of fact existed to vest jurisdiction in the court. The government was given time to amend, and an Amended Information, still for murder, was filed. At his arraignment, assisted by counsel de parte, Ladiana pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Sandiganbayan rendered judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide, not murder, for lack of evidence of treachery. It sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of ten years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the total amount of 56,500 pesos, and to pay the costs. His Motion for Reconsideration was denied. He then filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.

Facts

On the twenty-ninth of December 1989, along Jacinto Street in Barangay Salac, Lumban, Laguna, Francisco San Juan was repairing the steel pipes or humps used to block the street for the safety of school children. Ladiana, a policeman armed with a firearm, confronted him and asked why he was removing the steel pipes. When San Juan told him he had no business stopping him, Ladiana shot him. The victim suffered gunshot wounds to the head and neck, and died. The municipal health officer, who performed the necropsy, testified that the assailant must have been behind the victim, and that both wounds were fatal.

Ladiana surrendered to the police and was placed inside the station jail. A responding policeman even noticed a stab wound on Ladiana's right bicep. The widow, Caridad San Juan, did not witness the killing; she learned of it from a woman who came to her house, and she rushed to the scene where she saw her husband's lifeless body.

During the preliminary investigation, Ladiana submitted a counter-affidavit sworn before Assistant Prosecutor Mario Cortez. In it, he admitted firing the fatal shots but claimed self-defense, saying the victim rushed at him and stabbed him, and that he fired only to free himself. At trial, the defense counsel made an admission as to the authorship, authenticity, and voluntariness of the execution of that counter-affidavit. The defense later waived the presentation of controverting evidence. The Sandiganbayan treated the counter-affidavit as an extrajudicial confession and convicted him of homicide.

Issues

• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan may convict the accused of homicide beyond reasonable doubt even without an eyewitness who personally saw the shooting, basing the conviction on the testimony of the prosecutor who administered the oath on the counter-affidavit.
• Whether or not the prosecution presented proof beyond reasonable doubt to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right against self-incrimination, on the basis of a counter-affidavit whose execution was admitted by counsel but not by the accused personally.
• Whether or not the counter-affidavit of the accused, considered by the Sandiganbayan as similar to an extrajudicial confession, may be admitted against him as evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt even if he was not assisted by counsel and while he was under custodial investigation.
• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan was correct in denying the Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence.
• Whether or not the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

Applicable Provisions

Section 12 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:

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. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

This is the provision Ladiana invoked, and the Court held that its formalities apply only to extrajudicial confessions or admissions obtained during custodial investigations, not to a counter-affidavit filed in a preliminary investigation.

Section 26 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:

Admissions of a party. The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.

This is the rule under which the counter-affidavit was received, because it is an admission rather than a confession.

Section 33 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:

Confession. The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him.

The Court used this definition to distinguish a confession, which acknowledges guilt, from an admission, which merely states a fact.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the conviction may rest on the counter-affidavit. The absence of an eyewitness does not matter where the accused himself admitted the fatal shooting in a sworn statement that he voluntarily submitted.

On the second issue, the Court held that the presumption of innocence was overcome. The defense counsel admitted the authorship, authenticity, and voluntariness of the counter-affidavit, and clients are bound by the actions of their counsel. Admissions made under oath are evidence of great weight against the declarant and throw on him the burden of showing a mistake, which Ladiana never did.

On the third issue, the Court held that the constitutional rights under Section 12 of Article III exist only in custodial interrogations. A person undergoing preliminary investigation before the public prosecutor is not under custodial investigation. The Court explained:

His interrogation by the police, if any there had been would already have been ended at the time of the filing of the criminal case in court or the public prosecutor's office. Hence, with respect to a defendant in a criminal case already pending in court or the public prosecutor's office, there is no occasion to speak of his right while under custodial interrogation laid down by the second and subsequent sentences of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution now Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, for the obvious reason that he is no longer under custodial interrogation.

The Court also corrected the Sandiganbayan's characterization. The counter-affidavit is not a confession but an admission, because Ladiana admitted the act while denying criminal intent and claiming self-defense. Either way, it is admissible against him.

On the fourth issue, the Court found no error in the denial of the demurrer, since the filing of a demurrer to evidence was no longer appropriate after the prosecution's exhibits had been admitted and the accused had received notice of that admission.

On the fifth issue, the Court did not sustain the claim to voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance in the way petitioner framed it; the conviction for homicide stood with the penalty fixed by the Sandiganbayan in the absence of any modifying circumstance.

Doctrine

First, the rights under Section 12 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution apply only to extrajudicial confessions or admissions obtained during custodial investigation, meaning questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. A person undergoing preliminary investigation before the public prosecutor is not under custodial investigation, so a counter-affidavit he voluntarily submits may be used against him even without the assistance of counsel.

Second, a confession acknowledges guilt of the offense charged or of any offense necessarily included therein, while an admission is merely a statement of fact not directly involving an acknowledgment of guilt or of criminal intent. A statement admitting the act but denying criminal intent, as in a claim of self-defense, is an admission, not a confession, and is admissible under Section 26 of Rule 130.

Third, admissions made under oath are evidence of great weight against the declarant and shift to him the burden of showing a mistake. And a client is bound by the admissions of his counsel, save when the lawyer's negligence is so gross, reckless, and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court.

Disposition

The Petition was denied and the Decision of the Sandiganbayan convicting Josue Ladiana of homicide was affirmed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the right to counsel under Section 12 of Article III belongs to custodial investigation, not to preliminary investigation, so a counter-affidavit filed with the prosecutor may be used against its author. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between custodial and preliminary investigation, and between a confession and an admission.