MURAO, JOSE PEPITO III

I. Article III Section 12, Right to Effective and Vigilant Counsel:

People v. Lucero G.R. No. 97936

Facts:
On May 6, 1988, according to herein private respondent Dr. Demetrio Madrid, he was staying in his
boarding house at Bago-Bantay Quezon City and he wanted to return to his home in Project 6, Quezon
City. However, his driver, Lorenzo Bernales, warned Dr. Madrid that the group of Echavez was plotting to
rob him. The next day, on his way to his Project 6 home, a gray-reddish car blocked Madrid’s Mercedez
Benz being driven by Bernales, and 3 men alighted the vehicle to enter Madrid’s car. The three men
declared a holdup and began to rough up Madrid and Bernales resulting to Madrid giving up his personal
effects such as a Rolex watch, a diamond ring, another ring, a necklace, and Madrid’s wallet amounting to
345,600 pesos. One of the robber then shot Bernales resulting to the latter’s death, before alighting
Madrid’s car.
After little activity of the Quezon City police concerning his case, Madrid then forwarded his complaint to
the Central Intelligence Service (CIS). The CIS were able to apprehend Balbino Echavez and Alejandro
Lucero and the investigation on them started. On the part of herein accused-appellant Lucero, he was
informed of his constitutional rights such as right to remain silent and right to counsel. Since Lucero did not
have a lawyer, the CIS Legal Department provided him one in the form of Atty. Peralta. However, when
Lucero was being asked preliminary investigations, Atty. Peralta had to attend the wake of his friend, and
he left his client noting that he can be called upon any time from his residence. The next day the CIS agents
with Lucero went to Atty. Peralta residence to inform him of the incriminating statement given and signed
by Lucero. Atty. Peralta just asked his client whether he gave his statement voluntarily and Lucero
supposedly replied in the affirmative. For Lucero’s defense, he claims that he was merely framed by police
as he was in Caloocan when the robbery was conducted and that he gave his inculpatory statement.
The trial court found Lucero guilty of the crime of Robbery with Homicide but Echavez was acquitted.
Hence, herein petition by Lucero assailing the decision.
Issue:
W/N the trial court erred in finding Lucero guilty based on his statement?
Held:
YES. Although there was substantial compliance on the part of the Central Intelligence Service and Atty.
Peralta, it is still a fact that Lucero made his statement uncounselled. Also, it is important to note that
Peralta was not Lucero’s choice of attorney. Hence, Lucero’s constitutional rights protected by Article III
Section 12 were not fully satisfied. In addition, the other most incriminating testimony relied upon by the
prosecution was Dr. Madird. The Court takes gives great weight to the fact that it took Dr. Demetrio
Madrid four times before finally identifying Lucero. Also, discrepancies to Dr. Madrid’s statement such as
telling the court that he can identify only one malefactor, then he posited that he can identified two, then 3,
is also telling of his certainty of the person of Lucero. Petition is GRANTED, trial court decision is hereby
SET ASIDE.