Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People v. Lucero

    Uploaded by

    Ailyn Añano
    75 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines reversed the conviction of Alejandro Lucero for robbery with homicide. The Court found that Lucero's constitutional right to counsel was violated when he gave an extrajudicial confession without effective counsel present. Specifically, the public attorney assigned to Lucero left during his interrogation by investigators and was not present when Lucero confessed. The Court also had doubts about the credibility of the sole eyewitness who failed to identify Lucero until the fourth police lineup. Therefore, the evidence used to convict Lucero was deemed insufficient and his constitutional rights were violated.

    Original Description:

    Human Rights Law Cases

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines reversed the conviction of Alejandro Lucero for robbery with homicide. The Court found that Lucero's constitutional right to counsel was violated when he gave an extrajudicial confession without effective counsel present. Specifically, the public attorney assigned to Lucero left during his interrogation by investigators and was not present when Lucero confessed. The Court also had doubts about the credibility of the sole eyewitness who failed to identify Lucero until the fourth police lineup. Therefore, the evidence used to convict Lucero was deemed insufficient and his constitutional rights were violated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    75 views2 pages

    People v. Lucero

    Uploaded by

    Ailyn Añano
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines reversed the conviction of Alejandro Lucero for robbery with homicide. The Court found that Lucero's constitutional right to counsel was violated when he gave an extrajudicial confession without effective counsel present. Specifically, the public attorney assigned to Lucero left during his interrogation by investigators and was not present when Lucero confessed. The Court also had doubts about the credibility of the sole eyewitness who failed to identify Lucero until the fourth police lineup. Therefore, the evidence used to convict Lucero was deemed insufficient and his constitutional rights were violated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    97936 May 29, 1995


    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
    vs.
    ALEJANDRO LUCERO y CORTEL, accused-appellant.

    FACTS.
     Alejandro Lucero, Bienvenido Echavez, Balbino Echavez, Peter Doe, Richard Doe and John
    Doe were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide.
     That on or about the 7th day of May, 1988, in Quezon City, Philippines, conspiring
    together, rob one DR. DEMETRIO Z. MADRID.
     Armed with handgun, blocked the way of Madrid who was on board a Mercedez Benz
    cruising along Mindanao Avenue, Pag-asa, took, rob and carry away his cash money and
    jewelries and shot LORENZO BERNALES, the driver of Madrid, who died afterwards.
     Only the accused Echavez brothers and Alejandro Lucero were apprehended. The others
    remained at large. Trial proceeded only as against the three.
     Pfc. Alberto Pursal from the CIS was assigned to conduct the investigation of the suspects.
    He declared that even before the investigation started, Lucero verbally admitted his
    participation in the crime and that he was the one who shot Bernales, the driver of Dr.
    Madrid. He went thru the motions of investigation and informed Lucero of his
    Constitutional rights. When Lucero told him that he had no lawyer, Pursal informed that
    CIS Legal Department about Lucero's need for a lawyer and Atty. Diosdado Peralta was
    assigned to him.
     Atty. Peralta conferred with Lucero but left afterwards.The next morning, Lucero was
    accompanied by two (2) CIS agents to Atty. Peralta's house. The extrajudicial statement of
    Lucero (Exhibit "C"), was presented to Atty. Peralta. It was already signed by Lucero. In
    the presence of the two (2) CIS agents, Atty. Peralta examined Exhibit "C" and explained
    to Lucero its Legal implications. He asked Lucero whether he gave the statements
    voluntarily. Lucero replied in the affirmative. Atty. Peralta then signed Exhibit "C".
     RTC: Acquitted the Echavez brothers for insufficient evidence and Lucero was found
    guilty.
     Hence this appeal by Lucero.
    ISSUE. Whether the trial court erred in convicting him despite the violations of his constitutional right.
    RULING. YES.
    The conviction of appellant rests on two (2) facts: (a) his positive identification by the complainant,
    and (b) his extra-judicial confession admitting his participation in the crime. We find that the
    evidence proving these facts cannot stand scrutiny.
    Firstly, the credibility of the main prosecution eyewitness, Dr. Demetrio Madrid who identified
    appellant, is seriously open to doubt. It stands unrebutted on the record that appellant had to
    participate at the police line-up four (4) times before he was finally identified by Dr. Madrid.
    There is no reason for the ambivalence. The robbery took place in broad daylight and the three
    malefactors wore no mask. They drove them around for three (3) hours. Considering these
    circumstances, there is no reason for Dr. Madrid's failure to immediately identify appellant.
    Secondly, appellant's conviction cannot be based on his extra-judicial confession.
    The 1987 Constitution 18 requires that a person under investigation for the commission of a crime
    should be provided with counsel. We have constitutionalized the right to counsel because of our
    hostility against the use of duress and other undue influence in extracting confessions from a
    suspect. Force and fraud tarnish confessions and render them inadmissible. 19 We take pride in
    constitutionalizing this right to counsel even while other countries have desisted from elevating this
    right to a higher pedestal. We have sustained the inviolability of this precious right with vigor and
    without any apology.
    Atty. Peralta was not his chosen counsel, when he apprised Lucero of his rights, he received
    no reaction from appellant although his impression was that appellant understood him. Worse,
    Atty. Peralta left appellant in the custody of the CIS agents when his real interrogation started.
    He said he had to attend the wake of a friend. His attitude did not speak well of the importance
    he gave to his role as counsel to a person under custodial interrogation for the commission of a
    very serious offense. It was during his absence that appellant gave an uncounselled confession.
    They tried to cure his uncounselled confession for the next day, appellant was brought by two (2)
    CIS agents to Atty. Peralta's house. In the presence of these agents, Atty. Peralta asked appellant
    if he understood the statements he gave and if he signed it voluntarily. Appellant, of course,
    affirmed the voluntariness of the execution of the confession. Atty. Peralta was satisfied and the
    trial court ruled that appellant's right to counsel was not infringed. We disagree.
    We hold that when the Constitution requires the right to counsel, it did not mean any kind of
    counsel but effective and vigilant counsel. The circumstances in the case at bench clearly
    demonstrate that appellant received no effective counseling from Atty. Peralta. In People v. De
    Guzman, 21 we held that in custodial investigation, the right to counsel attaches from the moment
    the investigation starts, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit
    information and confessions or admissions from the accused. In this case, at the crucial point when
    the interrogation was just starting, Atty. Peralta left appellant to attend the wake of a friend . At
    that critical stage, appellant gave his uncounselled extra-judicial a confession. Surely, such a
    confession where appellant was unprotected from mischief cannot convict.
    DISPOSITIVE PORTION: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision in Criminal Case No. Q-88-201 of the Regional
    Trial Court of Quezon City , Branch CIII, convicting appellant Alejandro Lucero y Cortel of robbery with
    homicide is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.

    You might also like