The three defendants were charged with robbery with homicide and simple robbery for robbing their victims of 500,000 pesos in cash, electronics, and jewelry while inflicting serious wounds that caused the death of one victim. The trial court found the defendants guilty based on their extrajudicial confessions. On appeal, the defendants argued that their extrajudicial confessions should not have been admitted against them. The Supreme Court held that the right to counsel requires the lawyer to be present from the start of questioning until the signing of any confession to advise and assist their client, and to ensure the confession is made voluntarily and the person understands the consequences in relation to their constitutional rights. While counsel need not dissuade a confession, their
The three defendants were charged with robbery with homicide and simple robbery for robbing their victims of 500,000 pesos in cash, electronics, and jewelry while inflicting serious wounds that caused the death of one victim. The trial court found the defendants guilty based on their extrajudicial confessions. On appeal, the defendants argued that their extrajudicial confessions should not have been admitted against them. The Supreme Court held that the right to counsel requires the lawyer to be present from the start of questioning until the signing of any confession to advise and assist their client, and to ensure the confession is made voluntarily and the person understands the consequences in relation to their constitutional rights. While counsel need not dissuade a confession, their
The three defendants were charged with robbery with homicide and simple robbery for robbing their victims of 500,000 pesos in cash, electronics, and jewelry while inflicting serious wounds that caused the death of one victim. The trial court found the defendants guilty based on their extrajudicial confessions. On appeal, the defendants argued that their extrajudicial confessions should not have been admitted against them. The Supreme Court held that the right to counsel requires the lawyer to be present from the start of questioning until the signing of any confession to advise and assist their client, and to ensure the confession is made voluntarily and the person understands the consequences in relation to their constitutional rights. While counsel need not dissuade a confession, their
People vs Nerio Suela, Edgar Suela and Edgardo Batocan
G.R. No. 133570-71, 15 January 2002
Facts Brothers Nerio and Edgar Suela, and an Edgardo Batoan, !ere harged !ith ro""ery !ith ho#iide and si#$le ro""ery. %r#ed !ith handguns and a &ni'e, the three !ere a"le to ro" their (iti#s o' )500,000 in ash, a olored *+, three ,3- digital a#eras and assorted .e!elries/ and in the $roess, in'lited serious and #ortal !ounds !hih !ere the diret and i##ediate ause o' the death o' Geroni#o Ga"ilo. 0n the "asis o' the e1tra .udiial on'essions o' the aused, the Regional *rial 2ourt o' 3ue4on 2ity ,Branh 55- 'ound the a$$ellants guilty "eyond reasona"le dou"t. 6n their res$eti(e "rie's, the a$$ellants asri"ed to the trial ourt error in onsidering the e1tra .udiial on'essions as ad#issi"le against the#. Issue: 7hat is the duty o' a ounsel in the $roess o' ustodial in(estigation8 Held: 6n People v. Labtan , the 2ourt e1$lained that 9:t;he right to ounsel is a 'unda#ental right and onte#$lates not a #ere $resene o' the la!yer "eside the aused.< =urther#ore, an e''eti(e and (igilant ounsel 9neessarily and logially :re>uires; that the la!yer "e $resent and a"le to ad(ise and assist his lient 'ro# the ti#e the on'essant ans!ers the 'irst >uestion as&ed "y the in(estigating o''ier until the signing o' the e1tra.udiial on'ession. ?oreo(er, the la!yer should asertain that the on'ession is #ade (oluntarily and that the $erson under in(estigation 'ully understands the nature and the onse>uene o' his e1tra.udiial on'ession in relation to his onstitutional rights. % ontrary rule !ould undou"tedly "e antagonisti to the onstitutional rights to re#ain silent, to ounsel and to "e $resu#ed innoent.< *rue, ounsel does not neessarily ha(e to dissuade the $erson under in(estigation 'ro# on'essing. But his "ounden duty is to $ro$erly and 'ully ad(ise his lients on the nature and onse>uenes o' an e1tra.udiial on'ession.