People vs. Peñaflor

Extrajudicial confessions made during a preliminary investigation—not during custodial interrogation—are not covered by the constitutional and statutory requirements for custodial investigations, because custodial investigation involves questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom of action in any significant way, while preliminary investigation is a proceeding to determine probable cause; the right to a competent and independent counsel preferably of one’s own choice under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution and Section 2 of R.A. No. 7438 operates only during custodial investigation, not during preliminary investigation.

Eduardo Betonio, Provincial Manager of the National Food Authority (NFA) in Lanao del Norte, suspended Anacleto Matas, Jr. after a Commission on Audit (COA) examination discovered unaccounted rice stocks under Matas’s account. Shortly thereafter, Betonio was stabbed and shot in front of his apartment in Iligan City. An investigation initially identified several suspects, but a sketch of the knife embedded in Betonio’s chest led investigators to Ramil Peñaflor. Peñaflor was invited to the police station, where he admitted killing Betonio, claiming he was hired by Oscar Ondo, Matas’s brother-in-law, for P15,000.00. Peñaflor executed two extrajudicial confessions, both before prosecutors and with the assistance of counsel de officio. The principal legal contest concerned the admissibility of those confessions.

• The Underlying Crime: On 21 August 1993, at about 8:00 p.m., Eduardo Betonio, Provincial Manager of the NFA, arrived at his rented apartment in Bertumen Compound, Palao, Iligan City, in a Ford Fiera driven by his driver Basilio Fajardo. Upon alighting, Betonio was stabbed and shot. His wife Vicenta heard him shout, “If you want to kill me, don’t include my wife,” followed by two gunshots. Moments later, she found Betonio slumped on the ground with a knife still embedded in his chest. Before he was taken to Dr. Uy Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival, Betonio whispered the names “Delfin and Matas” to Vicenta.
• Cause of Death: The necropsy conducted by Dr. Livey Villarin determined that Betonio died of cardio-respiratory arrest and hypovolemic shock due to a gunshot wound and deep stab wounds.
• Motive and Circumstantial Background: State Auditor Danilo Estur of COA had discovered unaccounted rice stocks under the account of Anacleto Matas, Jr. at the NFA bodega. Upon Estur’s recommendation, Betonio suspended Matas.
• Investigation and Identification of the Accused: SPO4 Antonio Lubang initially identified suspects Edgar Matas, Anacleto Matas, Jr., and Oscar Ondo. After publishing a sketch of the knife recovered from Betonio’s chest, the police received information that Ramil Peñaflor was the actual killer. On 12 November 1993, SPO4 Lubang and SPO3 Badelles went to the residence of Dioscora Praquilles, found Peñaflor, and invited him to the police station for interrogation.
• The Extrajudicial Confessions:
  • First Confession: On 12 November 1993, after admitting to the police that he killed Betonio for P15,000.00 as hired by Ondo, Peñaflor was brought to the Office of the City Prosecutor. Assistant City Prosecutor Roberto Albulario conducted the confession with Atty. Neferteri Salise-Cristobal as counsel de officio.
  • Attempted Engagement of Chosen Counsel: On 13 November 1993, Praquilles and Peñaflor’s father engaged the Padilla Law Office; Atty. Gerardo Padilla entered his appearance as counsel, received by the City Prosecutor’s Office on 15 November 1993.
  • Second Confession: On 15 November 1993, Peñaflor discharged the Padilla Law Office and executed a second extrajudicial confession before City Prosecutor Ulysses Lagcao, assisted by Atty. Floro Cavales as counsel de officio, in the presence of his parents and relatives, with all policemen directed to leave.
  • Trial and Defense Arguments: Peñaflor’s defense challenged the admissibility of the confessions, asserting that his right to competent and independent counsel of his own choice was violated because the assisting lawyers were not chosen by him and their assistance was merely ceremonial and perfunctory. The prosecution relied on the confessions, the knife identified as owned by Peñaflor, and corroborating testimony from Vicenta Betonio and Fajardo.

• Inadmissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions – Violation of Right to Counsel: Accused-appellant Peñaflor maintained that his two extrajudicial confessions were inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of his constitutional right to a competent and independent counsel of his own choice under Section 12(1), Article III. He alleged that Atty. Cristobal’s assistance was ceremonial and perfunctory because she had not been engaged in criminal litigation, and that Atty. Cavales did not confer with him about the case and participated merely to satisfy a legal form.
• Counsel Not of Accused’s Own Choice: Peñaflor argued that the lawyers who assisted him were appointed as counsel de officio and were not the counsel of his preference, contrary to the guarantee that counsel should be “preferably of his own choice.”

• Confessions Executed During Preliminary Investigation: The prosecution countered that the extrajudicial confessions were taken during a preliminary investigation before city prosecutors, not during a custodial investigation, and therefore the right to a competent and independent counsel of one’s own choice under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution and R.A. No. 7438 did not apply.
• Substantial Compliance with Constitutional Safeguards: Even assuming custodial investigation applies, the prosecution argued that the confessions complied with all requirements: they were voluntary, express, in writing, and made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties was not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence of irregularity or coercion.
• Corpus Delicti Independently Established: The prosecution emphasized that corpus delicti was proved through physical evidence (death certificate, post-mortem examination report, the knife) and testimonial evidence, independent of the confessions.

• Custodial Investigation vs. Preliminary Investigation: Whether the extrajudicial confessions of accused-appellant, having been taken during a preliminary investigation before city prosecutors, are governed by the constitutional and statutory safeguards applicable to custodial investigations, particularly the right to competent and independent counsel under Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution and Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7438.
• Competence and Independence of Counsel: Whether the assistance rendered by the counsel de officio during the execution of the extrajudicial confessions satisfied the standard of competent and independent counsel, and whether the fact that they were not of the accused’s own choice rendered the confessions inadmissible.
• Sufficiency of Corpus Delicti: Whether the prosecution established the corpus delicti of murder independently of the extrajudicial confessions.

• Custodial Investigation vs. Preliminary Investigation: The extrajudicial confessions were executed not during custodial investigation but during preliminary investigation. Custodial investigation refers to questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom of action in a significant way, a setting inherently coercive that necessitates constitutional safeguards. Preliminary investigation, conversely, is an inquiry to determine probable cause and is conducted by a public prosecutor. The distinction was drawn squarely in Ladiana v. People, where the Supreme Court declared that a person undergoing preliminary investigation cannot be considered under custodial investigation. Thus, the claim that the confessions were inadmissible for lack of custodial-investigation safeguards was unavailing.
• Competence and Independence of Counsel: Even if the confessions were deemed taken during custodial investigation, they were admissible because the prosecution established voluntariness and the assistance of competent and independent counsel. The requirements for a valid confession are: (a) voluntary; (b) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel; (c) express; and (d) in writing. There was no evidence that counsel were absent at any stage or that their assistance was deficient. Moreover, the phrase “preferably of his own choice” does not make the choice of counsel exclusive; other equally competent and independent attorneys may validly assist. The appointments of Atty. Cristobal and Atty. Cavales were with Peñaflor’s conformity, and he discharged his previously retained counsel, Atty. Padilla. The presumption of regularity in the prosecutors’ performance of duties was not overcome by clear and convincing evidence of irregularity.
• Sufficiency of Corpus Delicti: The corpus delicti of murder was independently established through the death certificate, the post-mortem examination report, the knife identified as Peñaflor’s, and testimonies of Vicenta Betonio and Basilio Fajardo, all confirming the fact and circumstances of Betonio’s killing.

• Custodial Investigation vs. Preliminary Investigation — Custodial investigation is the questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. Preliminary investigation is an inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient ground to believe that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof. A person undergoing preliminary investigation is not considered under custodial investigation; consequently, the constitutional rights appurtenant to custodial investigation—including the right to competent and independent counsel under Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution and Section 2 of R.A. No. 7438—do not attach during preliminary investigation.
• Requisites for Admissibility of an Extrajudicial Confession — To be admissible, a confession must be: (a) voluntary; (b) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel; (c) express; and (d) in writing.
• “Preferably of His Own Choice” in the Right to Counsel — The word “preferably” in Section 12(1), Article III signifies that the choice of counsel by the person under investigation is not exclusive; other equally competent and independent attorneys may handle the defense. The imperative is that the counsel be competent and independent.
• Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duties — Government officials are presumed to have regularly performed their duties. This presumption prevails over unsubstantiated allegations and can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence of irregularity or improper motive.

• “Custodial Interrogation/Investigation ‘is the questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way’; on the other hand, Preliminary Investigation ‘is an inquiry or a proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.’” — This passage anchors the distinction that determines the inapplicability of custodial-investigation rights to inquiries before prosecutors.
• “Ideally, the lawyer called to be present during such investigations should be as far as reasonably possible, the choice of the individual undergoing questioning, but the word ‘preferably’ does not convey the message that the choice of a lawyer by a person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and independent attorneys from handling his defense. What is imperative is that the counsel should be competent and independent.” — This clarifies that the right to counsel of one’s own choice is not absolute; competence and independence are the controlling criteria.

• Ladiana v. People, 441 Phil. 733 (2002) — Followed as controlling authority for the distinction between custodial investigation and preliminary investigation, and for the rule that a person undergoing preliminary investigation is not under custodial investigation.
• People v. Tomaquin, 478 Phil. 885 (2004) — Relied upon for the standard of competent and independent counsel and for the meaning of “preferably” in the right to counsel of one’s choice.
• People v. Tuniaco, et al., 624 Phil. 345 (2010) — Cited for the definition of corpus delicti and the elements necessary to establish it.
• Bustillo v. People, G.R. No. 160718, May 12, 2010 — Used to support the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and the quantum of evidence required to rebut it.

• Article III, Section 12(1), 1987 Constitution — Guarantees any person under investigation for the commission of an offense the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. The Court held this provision applies only during custodial investigation, not during a preliminary investigation before a prosecutor.
• Section 2, Republic Act No. 7438 — Enumerates the rights of persons arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation, including the right to be assisted by counsel at all times, and defines “custodial investigation” to include the practice of issuing an “invitation.” The Court clarified that the provision’s protective mantle extends only to custodial investigation and does not govern confessions taken in the course of a preliminary investigation.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — The provision under which Peñaflor was convicted for murder.

Sereno, C.J. (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concurred. No separate concurring opinions were noted.

• None at the Supreme Court level. At the Court of Appeals, Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion dissented; no further detail regarding the basis of the dissent is provided in the decision.