The accuseds right to counsel attaches only from the

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?