THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CONSTANTINO PECARDAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Pecardal

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Constantino Pecardal, a criminal appeal from a conviction for robbery with homicide. The trial court found Pecardal guilty of killing a taxi driver and taking his earnings, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The case matters because the Supreme Court acquits him, and it does so on two enduring constitutional grounds: a court may not consider evidence that was never formally offered, and a confession taken without counsel and through force cannot stand. It is a compact lesson in the presumption of innocence and in the strict rules on offer of evidence.

Procedural History

An information for robbery with homicide was filed against Pecardal and an unidentified co-accused who remained at large and was not tried with him. The case was tried in the trial court, which rendered a decision convicting Pecardal and imposing life imprisonment. Pecardal appealed to the Supreme Court, asking that the decision be reversed because his constitutional rights had been violated. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted him.

Facts

In the morning of May 27, 1982, the body of Rogelio Florendo, a taxi driver, was found inside the luggage compartment of his own taxicab, which had been abandoned on Yakal Street in Project 3, Amihan, Quezon City, and discovered by a barangay tanod. He had been stabbed twenty three times with a balisong, later left on the dashboard. No money was found on his person or in the taxicab.

Two months later, the police picked up Pecardal and questioned him. The prosecution's theory was that Pecardal and a companion boarded the taxicab at about one o'clock in the morning of May 27, 1982, held up the driver, stabbed him when he resisted, took his money amounting to 200 pesos, placed the body in the luggage compartment, and abandoned the car. Two policemen, Pat. Teodoro Ybuan and Pat. Ernesto Daria, executed a joint affidavit stating that Pecardal had readily admitted his participation and named his partner. They said he later signed a statement confessing his guilt, which was marked as Exhibit H at the trial but was never formally offered in evidence by the prosecution.

Pecardal took the stand and denounced the confession. He testified that the investigators physically punished him, that he was undressed, boxed, kicked, hit in the back with a rattan chair, and electric shocked, and that he finally signed a prepared confession he was not allowed to read. This testimony was not rebutted. He was only seventeen years old when he was apprehended and interrogated.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in considering the confession, marked as Exhibit H, which the prosecution never formally offered in evidence.
• Whether or not the supposed confession is admissible, assuming it had been formally offered, given that it was obtained without the assistance of counsel and through force and maltreatment.
• Whether or not the oral admission allegedly made to the two policemen can sustain the conviction.
• Whether or not the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 132, Section 35 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 35. Offer of evidence. The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.

This is the provision the Court uses to hold that the unoffered confession should never have been considered at all.

Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution provides:

No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 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 provision the Court applies to reject the confession as void for lack of counsel and for force and threats.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the confession should never have been considered. The trial judge relied strongly, if not almost mainly, on a document the prosecution never formally offered. The Court quoted the rule that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered, and explained that the offer is necessary because it is the duty of the judge to rest findings of fact and judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. The Court also noted that Exhibit H was in fact not the confession but the police referral of the case to the City Fiscal.

On the second issue, the Court held that even assuming the confession had been offered, it would still be rejected. The undisputed evidence showed it was obtained without according Pecardal the right to counsel and after physical compulsion and maltreatment. The notification of his rights was perfunctory and pro forma, a recitation by rote of the sacramental advice. He was not told he could get counsel if he desired or that one could be provided at his request, and the waiver of counsel, if made at all, was not made with the assistance of counsel as required.

On the third issue, the Court held that the alleged oral admission could not sustain the conviction. There was no record that it was made in the presence of counsel or after a valid waiver. Even assuming Pecardal was not yet under custodial investigation, the credibility of the two policemen remained in question, and it was their word against his, which he disavowed.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence consisted only of the uncorroborated statement of the two policemen, which was flawed and suspect. The confession that could have corroborated them was not offered and was in any case void. The doubt, which the Court could not brush aside, had to operate against the inference of guilt, in light of the constitutional presumption of innocence.

Doctrine

• A court may consider no evidence which has not been formally offered, and the purpose for which it is offered must be specified. A confession never offered cannot be the basis of conviction.
• A confession obtained without the assistance of counsel, and through force and maltreatment, is void under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. The waiver of the right to counsel must be in writing and in the presence of counsel.
• A perfunctory recitation of constitutional rights is not compliance. The accused must be told he may have counsel, and one must be provided at his request.
• The constitutional presumption of innocence operates as a counterfoil to the awesome authority of the State, and reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the appealed decision, acquitted Constantino Pecardal, and imposed costs de oficio.

Remember This

Memorize the line that no evidence not formally offered may be considered, and that a confession without counsel and under force is void. Examiners use this case for the rules on offer of evidence and on the constitutional rights of a person under custodial investigation.