394. People v. IslaG.R. No. 96176August 21, 1997Sec. 12, Art. 3 – Right to counsel, when presence of counsel is required

Facts: Zenaida Isla was charged with the crime of kidnapping, after having been accused of kidnapping Maritess, a six-year-old child, for the purpose of selling said child to another person. She was found guilty of said crime and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. Appealing the decision, Isla contends that the extrajudicial statement in which she admitted having kidnapped said child was not legitimate as she signed it under the promise of the police that she would be released after signing it. Further, her counsel was not there to assist her when her signature was affixed.

Issue/s: W/N the statement can be admitted as evidence

Held: No.

The law does not distinguish between preliminary questions and questions during custodial investigation, as any question asked of a person while under detention, is considered as a question asked while under custodial investigation.

In Gamboa v. Cruz, the Court ruled that the moment there is a move of the investigator to elicit admissions or even plain information from the suspect which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, the suspect should be assisted by counsel, unless he waives his right, but the waiver should be made in writing and in the presence of counsel.

So, in the case at bar, when the police started his investigation without providing appellant with counsel of her choice, the former violated her rights as enshrined in the Constitution.

The decision was reversed and accused Isla was acquitted.

Prepared by Joben Odulio 1C