Facts:
Appellant Elizalde Culala was charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide. With the accused pleading not guilty upon arraignment, trial ensued, The prosecution introduced in evidence the extra-judicial confession of the accused-appellant admitting the commission of the crime, alleged to have been obtained in the presence and with the assistance of the municipal attorney, who testified that he apprised the accused of his constitutional rights. Accused-appellant placed reliance on the defense of denial and alibi. He pointed out that the extra-judicial confession executed by him suffered from constitutional infirmities and consequently, inadmissible as evidence because it was extracted under duress, force and intimidation and was only countersigned later by the Municipal Attorney. After trial, the court a quo came out with a judgment of conviction sentencing him to the penalty of death.
Decision:
Decision:
On the admissibility of subject extra-judicial confession of accused-appellant, it is worthy to note that during the custodial investigation he was assisted by Atty. Celso E. Santamaria, Municipal Attorney of Valenzuela, Metro Manila. In People vs. Bandula, it was held that a Municipal Attorney cannot be an independent counsel as required by the Constitution. As a legal officer of the municipality, he provides legal assistance and support to the mayor and the municipality in carrying out the delivery of basic services to the people, including the maintenance of peace and order. It is therefore seriously doubted whether he can effectively undertake the defense of the accused without running into conflict of interests. He is no better than a fiscal or a prosecutor who cannot represent the accused during custodial investigations. Consequently, for being violative of the Constitution, the extrajudicial confession of accused-appellant is inadmissible.
Citation: People of the Philippines vs Elizalde Culala y Bognot, G.R. No. 83466, October 13, 1999
0 comments:
Post a Comment