People v.

Sunga
GR 126029 March 27, 2003
Ponente: Carpio-Morales

Facts:
· On July 12, 1994, the mutilated body of Jocelyn Tan, a minor and a high school student of Palawan Integrated National
School, (PINS), was found at a coffee plantation in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan.
· One of the accused Locil submitted a sworn statement which detailed how her co-accused carried out the crime so that
she can become a state witness.
· The rule is that the testimony of a self-confessed accomplice or co-conspirator imputing the blame to or implicating
his co-accused cannot, by itself and without corroboration, be regarded as proof to a moral certainty that the latter
committed or participated in the commission of the crime.
o The testimony must be substantially corroborated in its material points by unimpeachable testimony
and strong circumstances and must be to such an extent that its trustworthiness becomes manifest
· Another accused Sunga made 2 extrajudicial admissions which could have been used to corroborate Locil’s testimony
but SC finds Sunga’s admissions to be inadmissible in evidence against him and his co-accused.
o Admissions: statements of fact that does not directly involve acknowledgment of guilt
o Confession: with acknowledgment of guilt
· First extrajudicial admission
o Sunga was brought by SPO4 Pantollano and patrolman Bolos to the Puerto Princesa City police
precinct. They asked him questions about Jocelyn’s death in a room for about 30 minutes. He was
presented to SPO2 Janoras for investigation. He initially asked Sunga whether he knew anything
about Jocelyns death and Sunga replied affirmatively, prompting SPO2 to inform him of his rights
under custodial interrogation.
o After Sunga signified his desire to avail of the services of a lawyer, Sunga chose Atty. Rocamora to
be his counsel from the choices of lawyers that SPO2 mentioned to him. Atty. Rocamora briefly
conferred with Sunga, asking him if he wanted to give a confession and informing him of the
consequences thereof.
o Thereafter, the investigation proceeded with Sunga voluntarily giving his answers to questions SPO2
propounded at the end of which investigation Sunga and Atty. Rocamora affixed their respective
signatures on the recorded statement.
· Second extrajudicial admission (Exhibit I)
o This sworn statement was made by Sunga before Special Investigator Reynaldo O. Abordo in the
NBI Puerto Princesa office. Exhibit I had some differences in admission from Exhibit A. Exhibit I
also embodied a waiver by Sunga of his right to counsel.

Issue:
WON Sunga’s admission can be admitted as evidence which would corroborate Locil’s story (NO)

Ruling:
· A person under investigation for the commission of an offense is guaranteed the following rights by the Constitution
o The right to remain silent
o The right to have competent and independent counsel of his own choice, and to be provided with one
if he cannot afford the services of counsel
o The right to be informed of these rights
· Lack of competent counsel
o The right to counsel was denied Sunga during his execution of Exhibit A – the counsel who assisted
him, Atty. Agustin Rocamora, was the City Legal Officer of Puerto Princesa.This Court made it
sufficiently clear that the independent counsel for the accused in custodial investigations cannot be
a special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose
interest is admittedly adverse to the accused.
o A legal officer of the city, like Atty. Rocamora, provides legal aid and support to the mayor and the
city in carrying out the delivery of basic services to the people. This includes maintenance of peace
and order and, as such, his office is akin to that of a prosecutor who unquestionably cannot represent
the accused during custodial investigation due to conflict of interest
 o Sunga chose him to be his counsel, even if true, did not render his admission admissible. Being of a
very low educational attainment, Sunga could not have possibly known the ramifications of his
choice of a city legal officer to be his counsel.
§ The duty of law enforcers to inform him of his Constitutional rights during custodial
interrogations to their full, proper and precise extent does not appear to have been
discharged
o Nothing in the records shows that Atty. Rocamora exerted efforts to safeguard Sungas rights and
interests, especially that of his right not to be a witness against himself
o SPO2 Janoras which described how Atty. Rocamora assisted Sunga
§ Stated that Atty. Rocamora only conversed for a very short while with Sunga prior to the
investigation
§ The only thing Atty. Rocamora did during the questioning was telling Sunga to just answer
the questions
o Evidently, Atty. Rocamora only acted to facilitate the admission of Sunga
· Lack of counsel per se
o Before SPO2 offered Sunga’s options of lawyers, Sunga was already questioned by SPO4 and
Patrolman
§ At the time that the first two policemen started asking him questions about Jocelyns death,
Sunga could be considered as already being custodial investigation without the assistance
of a counsel
o Custodial investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into
an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police
who carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements
o Even though Sunga declared in open court that he gave the admission so that he can also become a
state witness, it doesn’t make Exhibit I admissible
§ Sunga was at the time still under detention at the NBI office and had been languishing in jail
since his arrest in mid-July 1994
§ His desire to regain his freedom is not difficult to understand, he having lost it once due to
his conviction for another crime
§ His admission which was done without the benefit of counsel consisted of answers to
questions propounded by the investigating agent of the NBI and not of a unilateral
declaration of his participation in the crime
o To this Court, these conditions are constitutive of an atmosphere pervading that of a custodial
investigation and necessitating the assistance of a competent and independent counsel of Sunga’s
choice as a matter of right but which he had none
· Even if the confession contains a grain of truth or even if it had been voluntarily given, if it was made without the
assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible
o Exhibit I: the waiver by Sunga of his right to counsel as contained in his sworn statement-Exhibit I
was not a valid waiver for, on its face, it was executed not in the presence of counsel, contrary to
the express requirement of the Constitution
o Exhibit A: the testimony of Sunga during the preliminary investigation before the Municipal Trial
Court whereby he expressly acknowledged having executed Exhibit A and affirmed the contents
thereof did not render his extrajudicial admission into a judicial one which could be used against
him and his co-appellants.
§ The right to counsel involves more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the
mere propounding of standard questions and objections; rather it means an efficient and
decisive legal assistance and not a simple perfunctory representation
· The right to counsel applies in certain pretrial proceedings that can be deemed critical stages in the criminal process.
The preliminary investigation can be no different from the in-custody interrogations by the police, for a suspect who
takes part in a preliminary investigation will be subjected to no less than the States processes, oftentimes intimidating
and relentless
· This Court will not admit Sungas. This makes it unnecessary to discuss and emphasize the conflict on material points
of Sungas and Locils accounts of the incident. Only Locil’s testimony can be used as evidence
o The aforementioned observations pertaining to both the weak, incomprehensible voice with which
Locil gave her testimony, the improbability with which she was precisely made by appellants to be
a witness to their crime, and the failure of her description of Pascuas eyes to match the latters actual
physical feature cannot but engender serious doubts as to the reliability of her testimony against all
appellants.