Extrajudicial confessions of two accused in Davantes murder
I just read a report in the local broadsheets that two suspects in the killing of advertising executive Kristelle “Kae” Davantes were indicted by prosecutors of the Department of Justice for the special complex crime of robbery and homicide before the Las Piñas Regional Trial Court.
As former state prosecutor and retired judge of the RTC, what concerns me is that the alleged basis thereof was “the extrajudicial confessions made by the two during the probe.” In this connection, may I give my simple comment on the nature of the alleged evidence adduced against them. The reason being that if that is really so, there is risk that the people’s proof of the commission of the crime, if only anchored thereon, could yield to an acquittal in the prosecution of the crime.
In the first place, nothing has been stated whether or not the suspects, while undergoing investigation, were assisted by “independent and competent counsel,” as required, pursuant to Section 12 (1), Article IV of the 1987 Constitution. It is also stated in paragraph (3) thereof that: “Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.”
Likewise in the Constitution, an accused can invoke the right to be “exempted from being compelled to be a witness against himself.” This is known as the “right against self-incrimination.” It is incorporated under Section 1 (e), Rule 115, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure among the Rights of the Accused.” These provisions of law are the main sources of what is known in legal circles as the “exclusionary rule.”
Further, there could have been noncompliance with the requirements of Republic Act. No. 7438 titled “An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation, etc.” While the law requires certain formalities to be done in the conduct of the custodial investigation, it additionally provides that:
“Section 2 (d.) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel, or in the latter’s absence, upon a valid waiver and in the presence of the parents, older brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judges, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him, otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.”
Lastly, in the recent case of Lumanog vs. People (630 SCRA 42), the Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, ruled that “A confession is not valid and not admissible in evidence when it is obtained in violation of any of the rights of persons under custodial investigation.”
—CESAR M. SOLIS,
retired judge,
Millora Solis & Partners
Law Offices, Quezon City
