Constitutional Law 2 - page 8

FACTS: Accused-appellant and two other suspects were rounded up in connection with a rape with homicide case. In the presence of the mayor, the police, representatives of the media and appellant’s own wife and son, appellant confessed his guilt, disclosed how he killed Marianne and volunteered to show them the place where he hid her bags. The confession was captured on videotape. ISSUE(S): Whether or not accused-appellant’s extrajudicial oral confession unassisted by a counsel is admissible in evidence. HELD: YES. The constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities,…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Accused-appellants and several others were charged with unlawfully transporting shabu into the country after thirty (30) boxes containing the prohibited drug were found among their baggage upon their arrival from Hongkong. They were ordered to sign on the masking tape placed on the said boxes. There were brought to Camp Crame where they were made to identify the signatures on the boxes and affix their signatures again. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the signatures of accused on the boxes, as well as on the plastic bags containing shabu are admissible in evidence. HELD: NO. By affixing their signatures on the…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Appellant was charged with the crime of rape with homicide of a four-year old girl. He was arrested and during the interrogation, he verbally confessed his guilt without the assistance of a counsel. On the basis of his uncounseled verbal confession, the police came to know where to find the evidence to support a case against him. He pleaded guilty during the arraignment and was tried, convicted then sentenced to death. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the evidence obtained through appellant’s uncounseled verbal confession may be admitted in evidence. HELD: NO. These are inadmissible evidence for they were gathered as…

Keep Reading

FACTS: In an information, accused-appellant and four other suspects were charged with murder. After being interrogated and grilled for two hours, he was requested to sign a document which turned out to be is extrajudicial confession/admission. ISSUE(S): Whether or not accused-appellant’s confession is inadmissible in evidence for being violative of the Constitution. HELD: NO. There was sufficient showing that accused-appellant was apprised of his constitutional rights to be silent and to counsel during the interrogation but he waived the same in the presence of his counsel. With such waiver, accused-appellant’s extrajudicial confession is deemed to have been made freely and…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Accused-appellant was arrested in connection with an information for robbery with homicide. He was interrogated until he verbally admitted his participation in the crime. ISSUE(S): Whether or not appellant’s extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence. HELD: NO. When the accused is not assisted by counsel, his statement, in contemplation of the law, becomes “involuntary” even if it were otherwise voluntary, in a technical sense. A waiver of the constitutional right to counsel shall not be valid when the waiver is made without the presence and assistance of counsel. It is not material that appellant’s confession came in verbal form.…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Accused-appellant was apprehended on the strength of information given by his father of appellant having confessed to killing and burying his common-law wife. At the police station, appellant volunteered the information and led the police authorities to the said place where they dug the ground in the presence of residents thereat and recovered eight bones. ISSUE(S): Whether or not accused-appellant’s declarations were inadmissible for having been taken without the assistance of counsel. HELD: YES. The accused’s so-called admission, given after his arrest and during his custodial investigation, was obtained in total disregard of his rights as guaranteed by the…

Keep Reading

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