PEOPLE v.

OBRERO
J. Mendoza
May 17, 2000
Appeal from a decision of the RTC of Manila

RATIO: Perfunctory reading of the Miranda rights to the accused without any effort
to find out from him whether he wanted to have counsel and, if so, whether he had
his own counsel or he wanted the police to appoint one for him is merely ceremonial
and inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect.

QUICK FACTS: Accused is charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. He
was apprehended and brought to the police station where he was provided with a
lawyer who is a station commander of another police station, and interrogated.

FACTS:
Accused: Jimmy Obrero
Victim: Emma Cabrera robbery victim. Nena Berjuega and Remedios Hitta (the two
maids of Emma) murder victims

Jimmy Obrero is a delivery boy employed by Angie Cabosas whose business

was selling chickens to customers. Jimmy was asked to deliver chickens to Emma
Cabrera, a regular customer.
In Jimmys extrajudicial confession, he stated that the day before the robbery,
his fellow employee, Ronnie Liwanag, proposed that they rob Emma in order to be
able to go to La Union to visit his family. On the day of the robbery, they learned
that only two helpers were then at the residence of Emma Cabrera, thus they
decided to pull the heist.
Ronnie covered the mouth of one Nena Berjuega to prevent her from
shouting but, as she tried to run away, Ronnie stabbed and killed her. Ronnie then
gave the knife to Jimmy who stabbed the younger maid, Remedios Hitta from which
she died. Thereafter, they divided the money.
This extrajudicial confession is in Tagalog and signed by Jimmy in the
presence of Atty. De los Reyes. Atty. De los Reyes is a PC Captain of the WPD
Headquarters in UN Avenue. He was at Station 7 of the WPD because he was
representing a client accused of illegal recruitment. He was asked by Lt. Javier of
the WPD Homicide Section to assist Jimmy Obrero in executing an extrajudicial
confession.
At the trial, Jimmy Obrero pleaded not guilty of the crime charged. He said
that he came back from his errand and remitted the amount of P2000 which had
been paid to him. He also claimed that after being informed of the charges against
him, he was beaten up and detained for a week and made to execute an
extrajudicial confession. He denied having known or seen Atty. De los Reyes before
and stated that he did not understand the contents of the extrajudicial confession
which he signed because he did not know how to read.
Trial court found Jimmy Obrero guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court held
that the accused consented to giving his extrajudicial confession and that absent
any showing that the assisting lawyer, though a station commander but of another
police station, was remiss in his duty as a lawyer, the Court will hold that the
proceedings were regularly conducted.

ISSUE: WON Jimmy Obreros extrajudicial confession is valid and admissible in

evidence
NO. Jimmy Obrero won.

HELD:
There was no proof that his confession was obtained by force and threat. He
did not seek medical treatment nor even a physical examination.
The confession contains details that only the perpetrator of the crime could
have given, details which are consistent with the medico-legal findings.
Extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary, and, in the absence of
conclusive evidence showing the declarants consent in the executing the same has
been vitiated, such confession will be sustained.
What renders the confession of Jimmy inadmissible is the fact that he was not
given the Miranda warnings effectively. There was only a perfunctory reading of the
Miranda rights to Jimmy without any effort to find out from him whether he wanted
to have counsel and, if so, whether he had his own counsel or he wanted the police
to appoint one for him. This kind of giving of warnings has been found to be merely
ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect.
Especially in this case, care should have been scrupulously observed by the police
investigator that Jimmy was specifically asked these questions considering he only
finished the fourth grade of the elementary school.
Moreover, the Constitution requires that counsel assisting suspects in
custodial interrogations be competent and independent. In the case at bar, he
cannot be considered an independent counsel as contemplated by the law
because he was station commander of the WPD at the time he assisted Jimmy. As
PC Captain and Station Commander of the WPD, Atty. De los Reyes was part of the
police force who could not be expected to have effectively and scrupulously
assisted accused in the investigation.