The accuseds right to counsel attaches only from the time that adversary

The accuseds right to counsel attaches only from the

This preview shows page 13 - 14 out of 46 pages.

The accused's right to counsel attaches only from the time that adversary judicial proceedings are taken against him. People v. Lamsing 38. British Horace William Barker was slain inside his house in Tuba, Benguet on the occasion of a robbery. Two household helpers of the victims identified Salvamante (a former houseboy of the victims) and Maqueda as the robbers. Mike Tabayan and his friend also saw the two accused a kilometer away from the house of the victims that same morning, when the two accused asked them for directions. Maqueda was then arrested in Guinyangan, Quezon. He was taken to Calauag, Quezon where he signed a Sinumpaang Salaysay wherein he narrated his participation in the crime. According to SPO3 Molleno, he informed Maqueda of his constitutional rights before he signed such document. Afterwards he was brought to the Benguet Provincial Jail. While he was under detention, Maqueda filed a Motion to Grant Bail. He stated therein that "he is willing and volunteering to be a State witness in the above entitled case, it appearing that he is the least guilty among the accused in this case." I s the Sinumpaan Salaysay admissible as evidence ? Answer: No. The Sinumpaang Salaysay is inadmissible because it was in clear violation of the constitutional rights of the accused. First, he was not informed of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Second, he cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. At the time of the confession, the accused was already facing charges in court. He no longer had the right to remain silent and to counsel but he had the right to refuse to be a witness and not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal. And yet, despite his knowing fully well that a case had already been filed in court, he still confessed when he did not have to do so. People v. Maqueda 39. In an information Tupaz and De jesus was charged of crime of Robbery with Homicide. Cpl. Arnaldo Limpoco and Pfc. Reynaldo Zapata were dispatched to a particular stall along San Agustin St., Public Market. Pasig to look for a certain "Eddie" and another surnamed Tupaz in connection with the death of Leonardo. Upon finding the two, the police officers asked them whether they had knowledge of the stabbing incident, to which they allegedly answered in the affirmative. "Eddie," accused Edgardo de Jesus, then surrendered to the officers two bladed weapons: one ten-inch dagger and one eleven- inch stainless knife. "Eddie," and Tupaz, herein appellant Carlos Tupaz, were brought by the officers to police headquarters, where they were turned over to Pat. Lorbes. The two were then interrogated by Pat. Lorbes without the assistance of counsel. Pat. Lorbes fetched a lawyer from CLAO, Atty. Oscar Saldivar, and in the latter’s presence, reduced the statements of the two accused to writing. Both accused signed their respective statements. Whether or not there was a violation of Accused constitutional right to counsel?
Image of page 13
Image of page 14

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 46 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture