Lapse in due process
In myriad of cases, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the constitutional rights of an accused shall remain uncompromised even in the zealous pursuit of rightful conviction. In the spirit of due process, our present laws are crafted in such a way that it seeks to protect the rights of both the offended party and the offender. This is illustrated in this case of Mario, Tomas and Cardo.
Tomas, Cardo and Mario were employed by Lee in his sporting goods store. Before dawn, while Lee was asleep, they intruded the establishment and pilfered thousands of money from the steel vault of the store. Awakened by the noise, Lee went out of his room and saw his employees getting the cash earnings in the vault. Mario and Cardo thus hacked and punched Lee from behind and then Tomas delivered the fatal blow by stabbing him in the stomach which caused his death. After slaying Lee, the trio set the store ablaze and fled the scene. Later on, they divided the loot amongst themselves.
Eventually, Mario was apprehended and the authorities found his bloodstained pants and the money which was supposedly his share in the loot. Mario underwent interrogation without the assistance of a counsel wherein he pointed to Tomas and Cardo as the culprits although he admitted that he shared in the loot consisting of the money found in his home. After trial, Tomas and Cardo were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence but Mario was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide and Arson mainly because of his admissions during the custodial investigation.
On appeal, the Supreme Court however ruled that Mario’s admissions are inadmissible as evidence. As enshrined in Section 12 of the Constitution: “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 the counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.” Thus regardless of whether the admissions made by Mario during the interrogation are true, it cannot be admitted as evidence because they were obtained without the presence of a lawyer as required by the aforesaid provision of the Constitution. Furthermore, the circumstantial evidence adduced during the investigation is insufficient to prove Mario’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt (People of the Philippines v. Nicolas G.R. Nos. 88381-82 November 21, 1991).