People vs Labtan Facts: Accused-Appellant Henry Feliciano, together with accused Orlando Labtan and Jonelto Labtan, were convicted convicted of highway highway robbery robbery and robbery robbery with hoicide! hoicide! Feliciano was convicted on the basis of a sworn stateent which he repudiated during the trial! "he prosecution#s case was ainly anchored on the three-page sworn stateent e$ecuted by Feliciano, originally in %isayan dialect, before the &agayan de Oro &ity Police 'tation! According to the prosecution, prior to the propounding of (uestions to the accused-appellant, he was infored of his constitutional rights and he even signed the confession in the presence of Atty! Pepito &have), Attorney de O*cio provided to the accused! +hen the defense presented its case, only accused Henry Feliciano testied for his behalf! His defense consisted of an alibi and a repudiation of his sworn stateent! He "estied that he was brought to the police station, was auled for two hours, and was forced to sign a docuent! He was also brought to the o*ce of Atty! &have) and saw the latter sign the docuents! He did not now what was happening!Atty! &have) did not even tal to hi before signing the docuent! "hen he was brought bac to Jail! He appealed to the higher court alleging that the court a (uo erred erred un aditting in evidence the tainted e$tra-.udicial e$tra-.udicial confession he e$ecuted in the absence of an e/ective and vigilant counsel! 0''12: 3! +hether or not the sworn-statee sworn-stateent nt e$ecuted e$ecuted by accused Feliciano Feliciano in the absence of a copetent counsel of his choice, is adissible in evidence! 4! 5id Atty! Atty! &have) provide provide the accused accused the ind of of counseling counseling re(uired re(uired by the &onstitution6 H2L5: "he appeal is eritorious! eritorious! 1nder Article 000, 'ection 34 of the 3789 &onstitution, the rights of persons under custodial investigation are provided! 0n People vs aboa 3;, the &ourt stated that: < =">he right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i!e! when the investigating o*cer starts to as (uestions to elicit inforation and?or confessions confessions or adissions fro the respondent?accused! At such point or stage, the person being interrogated ust be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice e$torting false or coerced adissions or confessions fro the lips of the person undergoing interrogation, for the coission of an o/ense! "he oent there is a ove or even urge of said investigators to elicit adissions or confessions confessions or even plain inforation which ay appear innocent or inocuous at the tie, fro said suspect, he should then and there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be ade in writing and in the presence of counsel!< cralaw virtua3aw library +e nd that accused-appellant Feliciano had been denied of his right to have a copetent and independent counsel when he was (uestioned in the &agayan de Oro &ity Police 'tation! 'PO3 Alfonso &uare) testied that he started (uestioning Feliciano at 8:@@ a!! of April 44, 377; regarding his involveent in the illing of .eepney driver Florenti Florentino no olasito, notwithstandi notwithstanding ng the fact that that he had not been been apprised of his right to counsel! 0n Bavallo v! 'andiganbayan, 3C we said that a person is deeed under custodial investigation investigatio n where the police investigation is no longer a general in(uiry into an unsolved crie but has began to focus on a particular suspect who had been taen
into custody by the police who carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriinating stateents! anrobles law library : red
4!"he right to counsel is a fundaental right and conteplates not a ere presence of the lawyer beside the accused! Atty! &have) did not provide the ind of counselling re(uired by the &onstitution! He did not e$plain to accused-appellant the conse(uences of his action D that the sworn stateent can be used against hi and that it is possible that he could be found guilty and sent to .ail!
<0deally, therefore, a lawyer engaged for an individual facing custodial investigation Eif the latter could not a/ord one Gshould be engaged by the accused Ehiself, or by the latter#s relative or person authori)ed by hi to engage an attorney or by the court, upon proper petition of the accused or person authori)ed by the accused to le such petition! Lawyers engaged by the police, whatever testionials are given as proof of their probity and supposed independence, are generally suspect, as in any areas, the relationship between lawyers and law enforceent authorities can be sybiotic!#<
