People V Binamira
People V Binamira
People V Binamira
THIRD DIVISION
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Contrary to law.”
Arraigned on October 25, 1985, the accused, assisted by
Counsel de Oficio Elpidio R. Calis, pleaded not guilty to the
charge.[6] Trial ensued in due course.
SO ORDERED.”[7]
Aggrieved, appellant interposed this appeal.
The Issues
“I
The trial court gravely erred in giving full credence to thhe [sic]
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite of [sic] its
improbabilities.
II
(III)
The trial court gravely erred in totally disregarding the defense
interposed by the accused-appellant.
IV
The evidence shows that said counsel was present only during
the signing of the extrajudicial confession. The record is bereft
of any indication that said counsel explained anything to or
advised the appellant of the consequences of his confession.
Although it is clear that appellant had been “investigated” by
the police as early as October 2, 1985, the counsel’s presence
was established by the prosecution only during the actual
signing on October 3, and not during the investigation itself.
Prosecution Witness Rosales testified that the Magallanes
Village security guards turned over the appellant -- as a suspect
in and not as a witness to the killing -- to the Makati Police on
the night of October 2. Pfc.[35] Wilfredo Cruz also testified that
he investigated appellant on October 2. Appellant himself
confirmed that the “investigation” started as soon as he arrived
at the police station. The extrajudicial confession, however, was
signed only on the following day. In spite of appellant’s
allegations of irregularities committed in the course of the
investigation, i.e., before and during the actual signing of the
confession, the prosecution miserably failed to present rebuttal
evidence. To clarify all these, Atty. Romeo P. Parcon should have
been presented on the stand. Such failure or lapse denigrates
the prosecution’s cause.
As this Court held in People vs. Deniega, “[I]f the lawyer’s role
is reduced to being that of a mere witness to the signing of a
pre-prepared document albeit indicating therein compliance
with the accused’s constitutional rights, the constitutional
standard x x x is not met.”[36] Under the circumstances of this
case, appellant’s extrajudicial confession does not merit our
imprimatur.
[5] Records, p. 1.
Ibid; citing People vs. Olvis, 154 SCRA 513, September 30,
[26]
1987.
[27] People vs. Luvendino, 211 SCRA 36, 49-50, July 3, 1992.
734.
[33] People vs. Newman, 163 SCRA 496, July 26, 1988.
[34] TSN, pp. 3-4, February 28, 1987.
per Regalado, J.
People vs. Agustin, 246 SCRA 673, 681, July 18, 1995, per
[40]
Regalado, J.