09 People v. Suela

,-*./+/ 01-.2 ./*1.2, 3441232/5 617-+/ #%#

!"!#"$%& ()#! *+

 VOL. 373, JANUARY JANUARY 15, 2002

163

 People vs. Suela

G.R. Nos. 133570-71. January 15, 2002.

*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.  NERIO SUELA  y  HEMBRA, EDGAR SUELA  y  HEMBRA and EDGARDO BATOCAN, appellants. Custodial Investigation; Miranda Rights; Extrajudicial Confessions;  Right to Counsel; While counsel need not necessarily have to dissuade the person under investigation from confessing, his bounden duty is to properly and fully advise his client on the nature and consequences of an extrajudicial confession. ·True, counsel does

not necessarily have to dissuade the person under investigation from confessing. But his bounden duty is to properly and fully advise his client on the nature and consequences of an extrajudicial confession. In  People v. Deniega,  the Court explained: „The desired role of counsel in the process of custodial investigation is rendered meaningless if the lawyer merely gives perfunctory advice as opposed to a meaningful advocacy of the rights of the person undergoing questioning. If the advice given is so cursory as to be useless, voluntariness is impaired. If the lawyerÊs role is reduced to being that of a mere witness to the signing of a pre-prepared document albeit indicating therein compliance with the accusedÊs constitutional rights, the constitutional standard guaranteed by  Article III, Section 12(1) is not met. The process above-described fulfills the prophylactic purpose of the constitutional provision by avoiding the Âpernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing  interrogation for the commission of the offenseÊ and ensuring that the accusedÊs waiver of his right to self incrimination during the investigation is an informed one in all aspects.‰ Same; Same; Same; Same; The modifier „competent and

>??@A""BBBCD:E?F8GCD;HC@>"I