Accused-appellant was not informed of his rights, nor was there a waiver of said rights. Thus, the information elicited is inadmissible, and the evidence garnered as the result of that interrogation is also inadmissible. This parallels Aballe v. People, wherein the accused in that case was questioned without the presence of counsel, and later produced the weapon used in killing the victim, also making an extrajudicial confession admitting his guilt. In that particular case, it was held, “Together with the extrajudicial confession, the fatal weapon is but a fruit of a constitutionally infirmed interrogation and must consequently be disallowed.”
It is clear that the questioning of accused-appellant was made in violation of Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which reads:
Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
Thus, the trial court erred in considering the knife and bloodied t-shirt when they are inadmissible, which is what the CA correctly concluded.