G.R. No. 205412 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ADRIAN GUTING Y TOMAS, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, accused Adrian Guting y Tomas is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Parricide punishable under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and hereby sentences him to a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua . Accused is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, another amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, and still another amount of P30,000.00 as temperate damages. [10] Accused-appellant appealed his conviction before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04596. The appellate court promulgated its Decision on May 23, 2012, decreeing thus: WHEREFORE , the appeal is DENIED . The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Camiling, Tarlac, Branch 68 convicting herein accused-appellant Adrian Guting y Tomas for the crime of Parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code is AFFIRMED . [11] Hence, accused-appellant comes before us via the instant appeal with the same assignment of errors he raised before the Court of Appeals, to wit: I THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF HIS EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION. II THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF INSUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. III THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN HIS FAVOR. [12] We find no merit in accused-appellant's appeal. Accused-appellant argues that his oral confession to PO1 Torre and PO1 Macusi, without the assistance of counsel, is inadmissible in evidence for having been made in blatant violation of his constitutional right under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution. Section 12, paragraphs 1 and 3, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution mandate that: SEC. 12. (1) 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. x x x x (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. [13] The "investigation" in Section 12, paragraph 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution pertains to "custodial investigation." Custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime under investigation and the police officers begin to ask questions on the suspect's participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission. [14] As we expounded in People v. Marra [15] : Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a