Answer Yes The investigating officer Pfc Rogelio Lorbes admitted that the two

Answer yes the investigating officer pfc rogelio

This preview shows page 13 - 15 out of 46 pages.

Answer: Yes. The investigating officer Pfc. Rogelio Lorbes admitted that the two accused, Tupaz and de Jesus were turned over to him for investigation on September 9, 1987 by the CID, interviewed them and solicited from them facts and information surrounding the robbery hold-up with homicide without the assistance of a lawyer. The facts and information were later reduced to writing on September 10, 1987 in the presence of a CLAO lawyer, a certain Atty. Saldivar.
Image of page 13
Considering such circumstances, there was an apparent violation of the accused right to counsel. The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information or confession or admission from the accused. People v. De jesus 40. This was an Appeal from the RTC finding danila dimaano and company guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide and multiple frustrated homicide. Sgt. Norberto Susara, officer-in-charge of the Homicide Section of the Caloocan City Police Station, testified that he conducted the investigation of appellant Danilo Dimaano at the office of the Investigation Division of the Caloocan City Police Station. He admitted, however, that Dimaano was not assisted by counsel when the said investigation was conducted. the allegation of the appellants that their identification by the private complainants at the police headquarters in the absence of their counsel violated their constitutional right to counsel, At such point or state, the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation for the commission of an offense. Whether or not the Latter being presented to the former for the purpose of Identification violates the constitutional right of appellant to be presented by counsel Answer: No. Court ruled 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 had not yet begun. People v. Dimaano 41. The accused-appellant David S. Loveria was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch CLIX (159) with the crime of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. the appellant assails the manner in which he was identified by Manzanero at the headquarters of the 225th Philippine Constabulary (PC) in Cogeo, Antipolo, Rizal, claiming violation of his constitutional right to counsel. Whether or not Loverias constitutional right to counsel was violated. Answer: No. Court held that during a police line- up where the accused was identified by the victim, the accused's right to counsel was not violated because he was not, at that moment, under custodial investigation. The court must emphasize that the so-called Miranda rights
Image of page 14
Image of page 15

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture