Claudine - page 20

FACTS: Accused-appellant was apprehended in connection with a murder case. When asked by the policemen while in the vehicle on the way to the police station, he admitted to killing the deceased. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the extrajudicial admission is admissible in evidence. HELD: NO. Being already under custodial investigation while on board the police patrol jeep on the way to the Police Station where formal investigation may have been conducted, appellant should have been informed of his Constitutional rights. Accused-appellant is ACQUITTED.

Keep Reading

FACTS: Appellant was among those charged with murder, frustrated murder and attempted murder. Despite asking for his uncle who is a lawyer to assist him, he was given a different counsel who interviewed him in English and Tagalog but not in Ilocano, the only language he understands. Moreover, the counsel provided him was an associate of the private prosecutor. He later signed his sworn statement ISSUE(S): Whether or not accused-appellant was properly informed of his constitutional rights. HELD: NO. The right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel contemplates “the transmission of meaningful information rather…

Keep Reading

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…

Keep Reading

FACTS: After the complaints and reports involving the illegal sale of prohibited drugs were verified, an entrapment operation was organized which yielded to the arrest of accused-appellant. Upon being investigated and after having been duly apprised of her constitutional rights, appellant orally admitted having sold the four (4) sticks of marijuana cigarettes and the ownership of the marijuana flowering tops taken from her pocket, but refused to reduce her confession to writing. ISSUE(S): Whether or not accused-appellant was sufficiently informed of her constitutional rights. HELD: NO. When the Constitution requires a person under investigation “to be informed” of his right…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Appellants were identified in a police lineup as suspects in an investigation. Appellant Paquingan manifested his intention to confess after the information for rape with homicide was filed. Not having a counsel of his own choice, he was provided with the services of Atty. Leo Cahanap, a city legal officer, and Atty. Susan Echavez. Appellant Paquingan confessed but refused to sign the stenographic notes. His sworn statement was transcribed but only the two lawyers signed. ISSUE(S): Whether or not appellant was entitled to the right to counsel after an information for rape with homicide had already been filed. HELD:…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Prior to the filing of an information, accused-appellant had already executed two statements – one ante-mortem – admitting his involvement in the same kidnapping case. After the information was filed, he executed a supplementary statement, despite having been apprised of his constitutional rights, relating in more detail his participation in the crime. ISSUE(S): Whether or not accused-appellant’s right to counsel was violated. HELD: NO. It is already beyond dispute that he was actively assisted by a lawyer in the person of Atty. Jocom. The latter’s presence adequately fulfilled the constitutional requirement. It must be reiterated at this point that…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Appellant was among those charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. Atty. Diosdado Peralta, acting as his counsel during the investigation, conferred with the appellant and apprised the latter of his constitutional rights. When the investigator started asking the preliminary questions, Atty. Peralta left to attend the wake of his friend, Capt. Emilio Dacanay, at Fort Bonifacio. He gave word that in case of need, he could be reached at his residence. The resulting extrajudicial statement, already signed by the appellant, was later presented to Atty. Peralta who examined the same and explained to Lucero its legal implications.…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Accused-appellants were arrested in connection with a robbery with homicide incident at a subdivision. They were presented unassisted by a counsel to the private complainant and her witnesses in a police line-up. ISSUE(S): Whether or not accused-appelants’ right to counsel was violated during the confrontation. HELD: NO. When the appellants were identified by the complainants at the police line-up, the former had not yet been held to answer for the criminal offense for which they have been charged and convicted. The police could not have, therefore, violated their right to counsel as the confrontation between the state and them…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Appellant was charged with murder. Having stated his desire to have a lawyer before giving his statement, Atty. Abelardo Torres was fetched to act as counsel of the accused during the investigation. Said counsel was present when appellant made and signed his written statement. ISSUE(S): Whether or not appellant’s statement may not be admitted in evidence for having been made without the presence of a counsel of his own choice. HELD: NO. Art. III, Sec. 12[1] of the 1987 Constitution does not convey the message that the choice of a lawyer by a person under investigation is exclusive as…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner was arrested without warrant, booked and detained for vagrancy and was later arraigned for robbery. After prosecution offered its evidence and rested its case, petitioner filed a Motion to Acquit instead of presenting his defense. The motion was denied. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioner was denied his rights to counsel and to due process. HELD: NO. The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from the respondent/accused. At such point or stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted…

Keep Reading