 Accused Sunga, Lansang and Pascua were arrested and charged as

principals, for the murder and rape of Jocelyn Tan, a high school student.
Her body was found mutilated at a coffee plantation in Puerto Princesa,
Palawan.
 Sunga was later arrested. He was brought to the precinct by Pantollano
and Bolos. Then they brought Sunga inside a room and asked him
questions pertaining to Jocelyn’s death and for about thirty
minutes. After, Sunga was presented before SPO2 Janoras for
investigation. Sunga replied that he knew something about the rape.
Also, he signified his desire to avail the services of a lawyer. He chose
Atty. Rocamora from a list given by SPO2 Janoras. Atty. Rocamora is
the city legal officer of Puerto Princesa.

Two extrajudicial confessions (in a custodial investigation) were made by

Sunga:

1. Exhibit A, executed before SPO2 Janoras in the precinct, and with the
assistance of Atty. Rocamora, stated that he rode to the forested area in a
jeep owned by a certain Octac. And that he did not participate in the rape of
Jocelyn. In subsequent queries, Sunga said that he merely held Jocelyn’s
hand during the rape, and that Octac participated in the rape.
2. Exhibit I, written in the presence on Special Investigator Abordo, revealed that
Sunga participated in the dumping of Jocelyn’s body. Sunga also mentioned in
this statement that he waived his right to counsel. Exhibit I was basically
made “in connection with his desire to apply as state witness”.

The prosecution also adduced documentary evidence consisting mainly of the two
supposed extrajudicial confessions made by Sunga (Exhibit A and Exhibit I).

Notwithstanding the alibis, the trial court convicted Sunga, Lansang and Pascua of rape
with homicide. The death penalty was imposed on Sunga and Lansang, while Pascua was
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Octac’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable
doubt, so he was acquitted.

ISSUES/HELD:

1. W/N the discharge of Locil as a state witness was valid – YES

2. W/N the guilt of the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt – NO
3. [Corollary issue to #2] W/N Section 12 of the Bill of Rights was violated – YES

RATIO:

INADMISSIBILITY OF EXHIBITS A AND I – VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL

HELD: A person under investigation for the commission of an offense is guaranteed the
following rights by the Constitution:

(1) the right to remain silent;

(2) the right to have competent and independent counsel of his own choice, and to be
provided with one if he cannot afford the services of counsel; and

(3) the right to be informed of these rights

The right to counsel was denied Sunga during his execution of Exhibit "A" - admission
before the police on the ground that the counsel who assisted him, Atty. Agustin Rocamora,
was the City Legal Officer of Puerto Princesa.

A. Exhibit A

1. Exhibit A is NOT admissible as evidence, because Sunga’s right to counsel was

violated
2. As was held in People v Bandula, the independent counsel for the accused in
custodial investigations cannot be:
1. a special counsel
2. public or private prosecutor
3. counsel of the police
4. a municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused.
3. A city legal officer of the city, like Atty. Rocamora, provides legal aid and
support to the mayor and the city in carrying out the delivery of basic services to
the people, which includes maintenance of peace and order and, as such, his office
is akin to that of a prosecutor who unquestionably cannot represent the
accused during custodial investigation due to conflict of interest. (in other
words, Rocamora’s interests are admittedly adverse to the accused)
4. Atty. Rocamora also did not extend help to safeguard the rights of Sunga
5. Also, what happened during the interrogation by Pantollano and Bolos in the
precinct was basically a custodial investigation

a. Custodial investigation is the stage “where the police investigation is no longer a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into
custody by the police who carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit
incriminating statements”

6. It is a requirement that in a custodial investigation, there must be a lawyer present.

There was no lawyer present in the precinct when Pantollano and Bolos interrogated
Sunga, so such interrogation is not admissible as evidence.

B. Exhibit I

1. Like Exhibit A, Exhibit I is inadmissible for having been executed without the
presence of a counsel when he executed such before the NBI
2. The waiver of right to counsel was invalid, because in the Constitution, the right to
counsel “cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of [a competent and
independent] counsel” (Sec. 12, Art. III)

3. “The right to counsel involves more than just the presence of a lawyer in the
courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and objections; rather, it means
an efficient and decisive legal assistance and not a simple perfunctory
representation”

DOCTRINE:

• Atty. Rocamora utterly did nothing in defense of Sunga’s cause. While Sunga
was being asked by the judge a barrage of questions calling for answers which could
and did incriminate him, Atty. Rocamora did not offer the slightest objection to shield
his client from the damning nature thereof. Sunga was thrust into the preliminary
investigation and while he did have a counsel, for the latter’s lack of vigilance
and commitment to Sunga’s rights, he was virtually denied his right to counsel.
• The right to counsel involves more than just the presence of a lawyer in the
courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and objections; rather it
means an efficient and decisive legal assistance and not a simple perfunctory
representation.

 Any information or admission given by a person while in custody which may appear
harmless or innocuous at the time without the competent assistance of an
independent counsel must be struck down as inadmissible. Even if the confession
contains a grain of truth or even if it had been voluntarily given, if it was made without
the assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible.

III. NOT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

1. Rule on testimonies of a co-accused

1. The rule in this jurisdiction is that the testimony of a self-confessed accomplice
or co-conspirator imputing the blame to or implicating his co-accused cannot,
by itself and without corroboration, be regarded as proof to a moral certainty
that the latter committed or participated in the commission of the crime.
2. The testimony must be substantially corroborated in its material points by
unimpeachable testimony and strong circumstances and must be to such an
extent that its trustworthiness becomes manifest
2. The evidence of the prosecution failed to corroborate Locil’s testimony
3. “The fatal injury on Jocelyn’s head is supportive only of the fact that the victim was hit
with something on her head which caused her death, but this by no means is
evidence that [accused-appellants] inflicted said fatal injury.”
4. While the general rule is that testimonies of an accomplice or co- conspirator must be
corroborated, an uncorroborated testimony is “sufficient as when it is shown to be
 sincere in itself because it is given unhesitatingly and in a straightforward manner
and full of details which, by their nature, could not have been the result of deliberate
after thought”
5. Locil’s manner of answering the questions were marked with tentativeness,
uncertainty, and indecisiveness
1. Her voice was not convincing enough, as it was very soft and sounded really
weak
2. Her identification of Pascua, one of the accused, was doubtful. She described
Pascua as “singkit,” but Pascua wasn’t.
6. Given this, the evidence presented by the prosecution was very weak and highly
unreliable