ROLANDO SANTOS y RAMIREZ, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents; G.R. No. 71523-25, December 8, 2000

G.R. No. 71523-25               December 8, 2000 

ROLANDO SANTOS y RAMIREZ, petitioner,

vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. 

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 

G.R. No. 72420-22               December 8, 2000 

JESUS E. ESTACIO, petitioner,

vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent. 

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 

G.R. No. 72384-86               December 8, 2000 

ALFREDO R. FAJARDO, JR., petitioner,

vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. 

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 

G.R. No. 72387-89               December 8, 2000 

MARCELO S. DESIDERIO, petitioner,

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents. 

D E C I S I O N 

BUENA, J.: 

FACTS:

1. CRIME: Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents

- Manuel Valentino is a bookkeeper at the Clearing Office, Central Bank Philippines. In accordance to their plan, Valentino took advantage of his position and crossed out the entry in duplicate copies of the clearing statement prepared by the Central Clearing office of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) as well as the Manifest prepared by the Central Bank Clearing Office.

- Bustamante issued the 6 checks against his BPI Laoag checking account which only has an outstanding balance of P1,000.00.

- Rolando San Pedro deposited the checks in the current account of Magna Management Consultant with the Citibank Greenhills Branch and as a result, it appeared as if BPI didn't submit any check to the Central Bank of the Philippines for clearing, and BPI has not issued any notice of dishonor to stop payment to the Citibank Greenhills Branch.

-Rolando San Pedro was able to withdraw from the Citibank the full amount of the two checks amounting to (₱1,000,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 5949, ₱3,000,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 5950, and ₱5,000,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 5951) and thereafter all the accused appropriated among themselves the proceeds thereof to their own personal use and benefit and to the damage and prejudice of the Central Bank of the Philippines or the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Laoag City Branch.

2. Petitioners filed 4 separate petitions for certiorari for 19 July 1985 Decision finding accused Alfredo Fajardo, Jr., Marcelo Desiderio, Jesus Estacio, and Rolando Santos GUILTY as co-principals in the three (3) separate complex crimes of Estafa Thru Falsification of Public Documents.

3. They were detained at NBI and later on bonded and released. Accordingly, they will be granted preventive measures.

4. Petitioners assert that there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the crimes charged principally because the extrajudicial confessions of Petitioner Estacio and Valentino are inadmissible in evidence as their right to counsel was violated when said confessions were executed. 

ISSUE:

W/N the petitioners' uncounselled waiver of right to counsel during the custodial investigation are valid and admissible.

RULING:

YES, the petitioners' uncounselled waivers of right to counsel during the custodial investigation are valid and admissible. At the time of the custodial investigation, the 1973 Constitution was still adopted. Article IV, Section 20 of the 1973 Constitution provides the accused's right during the investigation, which, at that time, does not include the right against uncounselled waiver of the right to counsel, which was just added in Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, as held in Filoteo, Jr. Vs. Sandiganbayan, "the specific provision of the 1987 Constitution requiring that a waiver by an accused of his right to counsel during custodial investigation must be made with the assistance of counsel may not be applied retroactively or in cases where the extrajudicial confession was made prior to the effectivity of said Constitution." Thus, waivers of right during custodial investigation without counsel during the 1973 Constitution are admissible. While the Morales-Galit doctrine that states that an uncounselled waiver of the right to counsel is not to be given legal effect was first made on 26 April 1983 and eventually became part of Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution, said doctrine shall have no retroactive effect and shall not be applied to waivers made before the promulgation of said doctrine on 26 April 1983.

REFERENCES:

Article IV, Section 20 of the 1973 Constitution 

"No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person under investigation

for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be

informed of such rights. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which

vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this

section shall be inadmissible in evidence." 

Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution

(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be

informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel

preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be

provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of

counsel.