Title
People vs. Januario y Roldan
Case
G.R. No. 98252
Decision Date
Feb 7, 1997
Two men acquitted of carnapping and murder after SC ruled their confessions inadmissible due to lack of independent counsel during custodial investigation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 246328)

Petitioner and Respondent

• Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
• Accused-Appellants: Rene Januario and Efren Canape

Key Dates

• September 4, 1987 – Date of alleged carnapping and double homicide in Silang, Cavite
• March 27–28, 1988 – Oral and written custodial investigations conducted by the NBI
• November 7, 1988 – Information filed in Regional Trial Court of Cavite (Branch XVIII)
• February 7, 1997 – Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 12 (1)–(3) – Rights during custodial investigation to remain silent and to counsel who is competent, independent, and preferably of one’s choice; inadmissibility of uncounseled confessions
• Republic Act No. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Law), Sec. 14 – Penalty provisions for carnapping with and without violence; imposes reclusion perpetua when killing occurs

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Cavite convicted Januaryario and Canape of violating § 14 of R.A. No. 6539, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering civil indemnities to heirs of the slain victims. They appealed, contending irregular trial procedure and violation of constitutional right to counsel in extracting their extrajudicial confessions.

Facts

Investigators traced the stolen Isuzu jeepney from Barangay Bulihan, Silang, Cavite, where the driver and conductor were killed, to buyers in Libmanan, Camarines Sur. A series of transactions involved Vicente Pons and Myrna Temporas. NBI agents arrested the appellants and co-accused Cid in Camarines Sur, then brought them to Manila. On March 28, 1988, under NBI custody, Januario and Canape executed sworn statements purportedly with Atty. Saunar as counsel. Saunar, however, was an NBI applicant, not retained by the accused, and his presence was solicited by agents. Both oral admissions in Naga City and signed confessions in Manila formed the prosecution’s primary evidence against the appellants.

Issue I – Trial Procedure and Presentation of Witness

Rule 119, Sec. 3(c) allows courts, “in the furtherance of justice,” to admit additional evidence even after a party has rested. The Supreme Court held that the trial court retained jurisdiction when it permitted Atty. Saunar’s testimony before promulgation, classifying him as an additional prosecution witness as to Januario and Canape (and rebuttal as to Cid). No reversible error arose from admitting Saunar’s testimony under the court’s discretionary power to receive further evidence.

Issue II – Violation of Right to Counsel

Under the 1987 Constitution, a person in custodial investigation must have a “competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice.” Agents may not supply counsel whose loyalty is compromised. Atty. Saunar was applying for NBI employment and could not be deemed independent. Testimony established that he was procured by investigators rather than by the accused. Moreover, both oral admissio

...continue reading

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