Legal Chyme - page 20

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

FACTS: Accused-appellant, an illiterate 15-year-old pushcart cargador, was accused of murder. During the investigation of the case, the investigating officer brought Hassan to the sole eyewitness for identification. Accused-appellant was later convicted of murder based on the testimony of said eyewitness. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the rights of the accused was violated. HELD: YES. The accused-appellant was presented alone – not in a police lineup – and unaccompanied by a counsel to the eyewitness, in the funeral parlor, and in the presence of the grieving relatives of the victim. Such procedure is as tainted as an uncounselled confession and thus…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Felipe Ramos, a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines (PAL), was charged with estafa for irregularities in the sale of plane tickets. Respondent judge admitted all evidentiary and testamentary evidence offered against Ramos except for the latter’s handwritten note expressing his willingness to settle the irregularities alleged against him as well as his statement during an administrative investigation where he admitted to the offense. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent judge is correct in not admitting the note and statement in evidence. HELD: NO. Felipe Ramos was not in any sense under custodial interrogation prior to and during the…

Keep Reading

FACTS: The Supreme Court of the United consolidated four separate cases with issues regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant, while in police custody, was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. None of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all four cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions, and, in three of them, signed statements as well, which were admitted at their…

Keep Reading