Title
People vs. Bandula y Lopez
Case
G.R. No. 89223
Decision Date
May 27, 1994
Six armed men raided a plantation, killing the manager. Accused claimed torture-forced confessions. SC acquitted Bandula, citing rights violations and insufficient evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 89223)

Petitioner, Respondent and Procedural Posture

Petitioner: People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee). Respondent/Appellant: Aurelio Bandula (accused-appellant). Trial court (Regional Trial Court, Dumaguete City, Branch 42) convicted Bandula of robbery with homicide; his three co-accused were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. Bandula appealed from his conviction to the Supreme Court.

Key Dates

Incident: 27 January 1986 (evening). Arrests/initial investigations: 28–29 January 1986 (custodial handling and statements). Transfer to provincial rehabilitation center: 6 June 1986. Trial testimony and hearings occurred in 1987–1988; trial court judgment convicting Bandula rendered 5 May 1989. Supreme Court decision reversing and acquitting Bandula rendered 27 May 1994. Applicable constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post-1990 mandates use of the 1987 Constitution).

Applicable Law and Precedents Cited

Constitutional provision relied upon: Section 12, Article III, 1987 Constitution (rights during custodial investigation: right to be informed of right to remain silent, right to counsel preferably of choice; prohibition of torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation; inadmissibility of confessions obtained in violation; duty to provide counsel if the accused cannot afford one). Statutory and penal provisions invoked: Article 235, Revised Penal Code (prohibits maltreatment of prisoners); R.A. No. 7438 (rights of persons arrested, detained or under custodial investigation and duties/penalties for violating officers). Precedents and authorities referenced in the decision: Morales, Jr. v. Enrile; Moncupa, Jr. v. Enrile; People v. Galit; Gamboa v. Judge Cruz; People v. De Jesus; People v. Matos-Viduya; Miranda v. Arizona (U.S. precedent referenced); People v. Malakas; People v. Ambih. These authorities set forth standards for custodial interrogation, the right to counsel at the inception of custodial interrogation, and the inadmissibility of coerced confessions.

Material Facts as Found by the Trial Court

On 27 January 1986, six armed men entered the Polo Coconut Plantation compound. They were identified by Security Guard Salva (among others) as including Aurelio Bandula, Teofilo Dionanao, Victoriano Ejan and Pantaleon Sedigo; two others were masked and referred to as "Boy Tall" and "Boy Short." The armed men disarmed and hog-tied Salva and later hog-tied Pastrano, taking personal items. The group proceeded to Atty. Garay’s house; Bandula and the two masked men went upstairs, ransacked the house and left with money and valuables. Atty. Garay was later found dead outside the gate from three gunshot wounds. Following investigations, several firearms and items allegedly associated with the robbery were recovered from third parties (e.g., three handguns from Jovito Marimat, Jr.; items found in the possession of relative Emilio Rendora; money recovered thought to be part of the loot). The trial court also admitted extrajudicial confessions and admissions allegedly made by Bandula and Dionanao.

Trial Court Findings and Basis for Conviction

The trial court found (1) positive identification by Salva that Bandula was among the raiders who entered Garay’s house; (2) extrajudicial confessions by Bandula and Dionanao (reduced to writing and countersigned by municipal attorney Atty. Ruben Zerna) admitting participation and identifying the shooting sequence; and (3) recovery of weapons and alleged proceeds linked to the perpetrators. The trial court deemed the three co-accused (Dionanao, Ejan, Sedigo) as present but merely bystanders, acquitting them for insufficiency as the court found lack of proof of participation or conspiracy. Based on the above, the trial court convicted Bandula of robbery with homicide.

Defenses Raised and Allegations of Coercion and Ill‑Treatment

All four accused presented defenses alleging illegal arrest, custodial mistreatment, and coerced statements: Dionanao claimed arrest without warrant, severe mauling by multiple officers at the police station, denial of prompt medical attention, and being forced to sign a paper without counsel; Bandula alleged being taken from his sickbed and subjected to beatings, forced to sign a blank paper purportedly for release, lack of access to relatives, severe pain from an injured rib (later diagnosed as an old healed fracture with callous formation), and lack of knowledge of Atty. Zerna as counsel; Ejan claimed arrest at gunpoint the following day after the incident, beating, inability to see relatives, and that he was not investigated while detained; Sedigo alleged a warrantless house entry, seizure of belongings, and physical blows leading to a black eye. The record includes medical examination results for Bandula and a prosecution witness’s admission that Sedigo had a "black eye."

Legal Standards Governing Custodial Investigation, Right to Counsel and Admissibility of Confessions

Under the 1987 Constitution (Sec. 12, Art. III) and the line of cases cited, custodial interrogation triggers strict protections: the arrestee must be informed of the reason for arrest, his rights to remain silent and to counsel (preferably of his own choice), and any custodial interrogation must be conducted in the presence of counsel engaged by the arrestee or appointed when the arrestee cannot afford one. The right to counsel attaches at the start of custodial interrogation; any waiver must be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. Custodial statements obtained in violation of these rules or by means of torture, force, threat or intimidation are inadmissible. The Constitution also mandates prohibitions against secret or incommunicado detention and requires penalties and remedies for violations. Precedent uniformly rejects the post hoc mitigation that a later presence of counsel cures earlier coercion—statements elicited in the absence of counsel at the start of custodial questioning remain tainted even if later reduced to writing in counsel’s presence.

Analysis of the Extrajudicial Confessions and Counsel’s Status

The Supreme Court analyzed the circumstances of the extrajudicial confessions and found multiple constitutional infirmities. Both Bandula and Dionanao were initially interrogated without counsel present—Dionanao had counsel only a day later and Bandula only two weeks later; their written statements were later signed in the presence of Atty. Ruben Zerna, the municipal attorney. The Court emphasized that the municipal attorney, by virtue of his official duties to the municipality (including maintenance of peace and order), cannot be considered an independent counsel whose interests are free from conflict; the municipal attorney is not equivalent to counsel of the accused’s choice nor to an independent public defender for purposes of custodial interrogation. Combined with credible allegations of physical maltreatment and the failure of investigators to inform the accused of their constitutional rights, the presence of Atty. Zerna at the time of the written statements did not cure the constitutional defects. The Court drew on precedents (including De Jesus and Gamboa) to hold that custodial admissions obtained without counsel at the time of interrogation are inadmissible even if later documented in the presence of counsel.

Findings Regarding Use of Force and Voluntariness

The Court found strong indicia that violence and coercion attended the interrogations: contemporaneous allegations of beatings

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms