100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
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 forinvestigation on September 9, 1987 by the CID,interviewed them and solicited from them factsand information surrounding the robbery hold-upwith homicide without the assistance of a lawyer.The facts and information were later reduced towriting on September 10, 1987 in the presenceof a CLAO lawyer, a certain Atty. Saldivar.
Considering such circumstances, there was anapparent violation of the accused right tocounsel. The right to counsel attaches upon thestart of an investigation, i.e., when theinvestigating officer starts to ask questions toelicit information or confession or admissionfrom the accused. People v. De jesus40.This was an Appeal from the RTC finding daniladimaano and company guilty beyond reasonabledoubt of the crime of robbery with homicide andmultiple frustrated homicide. Sgt. NorbertoSusara, officer-in-charge of the HomicideSection of the Caloocan City Police Station,testified that he conducted the investigation ofappellant Danilo Dimaano at the office of theInvestigation Division of the Caloocan CityPolice Station. He admitted, however, thatDimaano was not assisted by counsel when thesaid investigation was conducted. the allegationof the appellants that their identification by theprivate complainants at the police headquartersin the absence of their counsel violated theirconstitutional right to counsel, At such point orstate, the person being interrogated must beassisted by counsel to avoid the perniciouspractice of extorting false or coerced admissionsor confessions from the lips of the personundergoing interrogation for the commission ofan offense.Whether or not the Latter beingpresented to the former for the purpose ofIdentification violates the constitutional right ofappellant to be presented by counselAnswer:No. Court ruled when the appellantswere identified by the complainants at the policeline-up, the former had not yet been held toanswer for the criminal offense for which theyhave been charged and convicted. The policecould not have, therefore, violated their right tocounsel as the confrontation between the Stateand them had not yet begun. People v.Dimaano41.The accused-appellant David S. Loveria wascharged before the Regional Trial Court, BranchCLIX (159) with the crime of Robbery withHomicide and Frustrated Homicide. theappellant assails the manner in which he wasidentified by Manzanero at the headquarters ofthe 225th Philippine Constabulary (PC) inCogeo, Antipolo, Rizal, claiming violation of hisconstitutional right to counsel. Whether or notLoverias constitutional right to counsel wasviolated.Answer:No. Court held that during a police line-up where the accused was identified by thevictim, the accused's right to counsel was notviolated because he was not, at that moment,under custodial investigation. The court mustemphasize that the so-called Miranda rights