Custodial Investigation in the Philippines: Rights and the Admissibility of Confessions

A confession is the most powerful piece of evidence the State can present in a criminal case — and the most dangerous. In People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Paule y Donato (G.R. Nos. 118168-70, September 11, 1996), the Supreme Court threw out the accused's extrajudicial confession for lack of proof that he had effective counsel, yet still affirmed his conviction for murder. The case is a useful reminder of two things at once: how strictly the Constitution guards a person under custodial investigation, and how a conviction can stand on evidence that has nothing to do with a confession.

The killing in Olongapo City

On October 18, 1990, Carlos Tubongbanua was walking along Brill Street in Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City, when three men who had been following him positioned themselves around him. One of them, identified by eyewitness Amos Manalo as Reynaldo Paule, drew a.38 caliber revolver and shot Tubongbanua at the back of the head. As the victim turned, Paule shot him a second time near the right temple. The victim fell; Paule took his gold necklace and fled.

Paule was arrested later that morning at a police checkpoint, where a fragmentation hand grenade was found on him. At the police station, a gold necklace was recovered from his clothing. He later executed an extrajudicial confession admitting complicity, signed in the presence of a lawyer, Atty. Norberto Dela Cruz. The trial court convicted him of murder and imposed reclusion perpetua. He was acquitted in the separate cases for illegal possession of a firearm and of explosives.

The constitutional rule on custodial investigation

Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that any person under investigation for an offense has the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his