PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RAMON BOLANOS, accused-appellant.

PARAS, J.:

This is a review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 14, under Criminal Case No. 1831-M-90, for "Murder", wherein the accused-appellant, Ramon Bolanos was convicted, as follows:

The antecedent facts and circumstances, follow:

The evidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimonies of Patrolmen Marcelo J. Fidelino and Francisco Dayao of the Integrated National Police (INP), Balagtas, Bulacan, Calixto Guinsaya, and Dr. Benito Caballero, Medico-Legal Officer of Bocaue, Bulacan and documentary exhibits. The testimonial evidence were after the fact narration of events based on the report regarding the death of the victim, Oscar Pagdalian which was communicated to the Police Station where the two (2) policemen who responded to the incident are assigned and subsequently became witnesses for the prosecution. (Appellant's Brief, p. 2)

Patrolmen Rolando Alcantara and Francisco Dayao testified that they proceeded to the scene of the crime of the Marble Supply, Balagtas, Bulacan and upon arrival they saw the deceased Oscar Pagdalian lying on an improvised bed full of blood with stab wounds. They then inquired about the circumstances of the incident and were informed that the deceased was with two (2) companions, on the previous night, one of whom was the accused who had a drinking spree with the deceased and another companion (Claudio Magtibay) till the wee hours of the following morning, June 23, 1990. (Ibid., p. 3)

The corroborating testimony of Patrolmen Francisco Dayao, further indicated that when they apprehend the accused-appellant, they found the firearm of the deceased on the chair where the accused was allegedly seated; that they boarded Ramon Bolanos and Claudio Magtibay on the police vehicle and brought them to the police station. In the vehicle where the suspect was riding, "Ramon Bolanos accordingly admitted that he killed the deceased Oscar Pagdalian because he was abusive." (Ibid., p. 4)

During the trial, it was clearly established that the alleged oral admission of the appellant was given without the assistance of counsel as it was made while on board the police vehicle on their way to the police station. The specific portion of the decision of the court a quo reads as follows:

A Manifestation (in lieu of Appellee's Brief), was filed by the Solicitor General's Office, dated April 2, 1992, with the position that the lower court erred in admitting in evidence the extra-judicial confession of appellant while on board the police patrol jeep. Said office even postulated that: "(A)ssuming that it was given, it was done in violation of appellant's Constitutional right to be informed, to remain silent and to have a counsel of his choice, while already under police custody." (Manifestation, p. 4)

Being already under custodial investigation while on board the police patrol jeep on the way to the Police Station where formal investigation may have been conducted, appellant should have been informed of his Constitutional rights under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution which explicitly provides:

Considering the clear requirements of the Constitution with respect to the manner by which confession can be admissible in evidence, and the glaring fact that the alleged confession obtained while on board the police vehicle was the only reason for the conviction, besides appellant's conviction was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, this Court has no recourse but to reverse the subject judgment under review.

WHEREFORE, finding that the Constitutional rights of the accused-appellant have been violated, the appellant is ACQUITTED, with costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, and Nocon, JJ., concur.