FACTS:
Appellant was arrested in a buy bust operation. Upon arrival at the NarCom headquarters, he conferred with an agent, then was later interrogated as to the identities of the persons who escaped the agents during the buy bust operation.
ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the appellant was properly informed of his constitutional rights.
HELD:
NO. There is no showing that accused-appellant was properly informed of his constitutional rights. Not only did Sgt. Atienza not inform him of his rights, he also failed to explain said rights to him. He simply made the accused read the same. Making the accused-appellant read his constitutional rights is not enough. The prosecution must show that accused-appellant understood what he read, and that he understood the consequences of his waiver.
Decision appealed from is REVERSED and accused-appellant is ACQUITTED.
(Nachura, 228) – Making the accused read his constitutional rights is simply not enough. The prosecution must show that the accused understood what he read, and that he understood the consequences of his waiver.
