PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODOLFO OMILIG Y MANCIA, ANACLETO C. MATAS, JR., RAMIL PEÑAFLOR, AND OSCAR ONDO, ACCUSED. RAMIL PEÑAFLOR Y LAPUT, ACCUSED-APPE…

People versus Peñaflor

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Ramil Peñaflor, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The People prosecuted Peñaflor, together with Rodolfo Omilig, Anacleto Matas, Junior, and Oscar Ondo, for the killing of Eduardo Betonio, the Provincial Manager of the National Food Authority in Lanao del Norte. The trial court acquitted the three other accused and convicted Peñaflor on the strength of his two extrajudicial confessions. The case matters because it draws the line between a custodial investigation and a preliminary investigation, and it tells us exactly when the constitutional right to a competent and independent counsel, preferably of one's own choice, begins to operate.

Procedural History

An information for murder was filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, of Lanao del Norte in Iligan City, and it was amended twice to implead the other accused. All the accused pleaded not guilty and trial followed. The trial court acquitted Matas, Omilig, and Ondo for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but convicted Peñaflor of murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay the heirs of the victim moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

Peñaflor appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that his two extrajudicial confessions were inadmissible because the lawyers who assisted him were not of his own choice and were not competent and independent. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that he was not under custodial investigation when he confessed, and that in any event the presumption of competence and regularity stood. The case then reached the Supreme Court by appeal, and the Court affirmed the judgment under appeal with modifications as to the amount of damages.

Facts

In July 1993, a State Auditor of the Commission on Audit discovered rice stocks unaccounted for in the bodega of the National Food Authority, under the account of accused Matas. On the auditor's recommendation, Betonio, the Provincial Manager, suspended Matas.

On the evening of 21 August 1993, Betonio disembarked from the vehicle driven by his driver, Fajardo, in front of his rented apartment at Bertumen Compound in Palao, Iligan City. His wife, Vicenta, heard him shout that if they wanted to kill him, they should not include his wife, and then gunshots. When she came out, she saw her husband slumped on the ground, barely alive, with a knife still pierced through his chest. Before he was brought to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead on arrival, he whispered to her the names Delfin and Matas. The post-mortem examination showed that he died of cardio-respiratory arrest and hypovolemic shock due to a gunshot wound and a deep stab wound.

During the investigation, the police published a sketch of the knife found embedded in the victim's chest, and were thereafter informed that Peñaflor was the actual killer. On 12 November 1993, police officers invited Peñaflor from the house of Dioscora Praquilles to the police station for interrogation, where he admitted killing Betonio and said he had been hired by Ondo for 15,000 pesos. That same afternoon, the police brought him to the Office of the City Prosecutor, where Assistant City Prosecutor Albulario took his first extrajudicial confession, with Attorney Cristobal as counsel de officio. The next day, Praquilles engaged the Padilla Law Office for Peñaflor, and that office entered its appearance on 15 November 1993. On that same day, however, Peñaflor discharged the Padilla Law Office and gave a second extrajudicial confession before City Prosecutor Lagcao, assisted by Attorney Cavales as counsel de officio, in the presence of his parents and relatives, with the policemen sent outside.

Issues

• Whether or not the extrajudicial confessions of Peñaflor were obtained during a custodial investigation, such that the safeguards of the Constitution and of Republic Act Number 7438 apply to them.
• Whether or not the extrajudicial confessions are inadmissible for having been made without the assistance of a competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice.
• Whether or not the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty sustains the admissibility of the confessions.

Applicable Provisions

Section 12, paragraph 1, of Article III of the 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.

This is the right invoked by Peñaflor, and its application turns on whether he was "under investigation" in the constitutional sense.

Section 2 of Republic Act Number 7438 provides:

Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.

This fixes the duty of assistance by counsel for persons in custody, which the Court uses to test the confessions.

The same Section 2 provides:

As used in this Act, custodial investigation shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for any violation of law.

This is the provision that would have caught the police invitation of Peñaflor, and the Court's ruling on custodial investigation must be read against it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the confessions were executed not during custodial investigation but during a preliminary investigation. Custodial investigation is the 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 preliminary investigation, on the other hand, is an inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty and should be held for trial. A person undergoing preliminary investigation cannot be considered as being under custodial investigation, and the claim of inadmissibility on that ground is unavailing.

On the second issue, the Court held that even if the confessions had been obtained under custodial investigation, they would still be admissible. A confession must be voluntary, made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel, express, and in writing, and the prosecution presented no proof of the absence of any of these requirements. The Court quoted its earlier ruling on the word "preferably":

Ideally, the lawyer called to be present during such investigations should be as far as reasonably possible, the choice of the individual undergoing questioning, but the word "preferably" does not convey the message that the choice of a lawyer by a person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and independent attorneys from handling his defense. What is imperative is that the counsel should be competent and independent.

The appointments of Attorneys Cristobal and Cavales were with Peñaflor's conformity, and there was no evidence that either was absent at any stage of the proceedings. On the third issue, the Court held that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty prevails over mere allegations. The investigations were conducted in a neutral place, at the Prosecutor's Office, and in the presence of Peñaflor's relatives, and the defense offered no clear and convincing evidence of irregularity or of motive to falsify.

Doctrine

First, custodial investigation and preliminary investigation are distinct. The constitutional rights under Section 12 of Article III and the duties under Section 2 of Republic Act Number 7438 attach to the former, not to the latter, because it is the inherently coercive police interrogation that the safeguards guard against.

Second, the right to counsel means a counsel who is competent and independent. The word "preferably" does not make the accused's own choice exclusive; what is imperative is competence and independence, and counsel must be present and able to advise the confessant from the first question until the signing of the confession.

Third, a confession is presumed admissible until the accused proves that it was given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat, or promise of reward or leniency. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty prevails over bare allegations and may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence of irregularity and motive to falsify.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Peñaflor for murder and the penalty of reclusion perpetua, modifying only the amount of damages awarded to the heirs of Eduardo Betonio.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a person undergoing preliminary investigation is not a person under custodial investigation, so the confession taken before the prosecutor stands. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between the two investigations and the meaning of "preferably of his own choice" in the right to counsel.