100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 12 - 13 out of 46 pages.
claims against her but when she was asked towrite her statement down, She was thenconfronted and confessed her guilt.theRegional Trial Court in Pasay City (RTC)rendered its judgment,finding the petitionerguilty as charged. On appeal, the petitionercontended in the CA that: (1) her convictionshould be set aside because the evidencepresented against her had been obtained inviolation of her constitutional right against self-incrimination; (2) her rights to due process andto counsel had been infringed; and (3) theevidence against her should be inadmissible forbeing obtained by illegal or unconstitutionalmeans rendering the evidence asthe fruit of thepoisonous tree.Whether or not herConstitutional Rights to remain silent wasviolated.Answer:No. the CA stressed that the rightsagainst self-incrimination and to counselguaranteed under the Constitution applied onlyduring the custodial interrogation of a suspect. Inher case, she was not subjected to anyinvestigation by the police or other lawenforcement agents. Instead, she underwent anadministrative investigation as an employee ofthe BPI Family Savings Bank, the investigationbeing conducted by her superiors. She was notcoerced to give evidence against herself, or toadmit to any crime, but she simply broke downbank when depositors Matuguina and Cornejoconfronted her about her crimes. The guilt of thepetitioner for four counts ofestafathroughfalsification of a commercial document wasestablished beyond reasonable doubt. People v.De CastroRight to CounselWhen to Invoke35.Upon the discovery of the mutilated body of ahigh-school girl at a coffee plantation, anInformation was filed before the Regional TrialCourt (RTC) for Rape with Homicideagainstseveral suspects including Rey Sunga, RamilLansang, Inocencio Pascua, Jr., and Lito Octacas principals, and Locil Cui alias Ginalyn Cuyosas accomplice. Rey Sunga et al. filed with theRTC a petition for bail underscoring theweakness of the prosecution‘s evidence, therebeingnodirect evidence againstthemcontending that evidences of admission duringthe custodial investigation was inadmissiblebecause at that time he did not have any lawyerby his side at the time the policemen startedasking him questions about Jocelyns death. Atthat point, Sunga was without the assistance ofa counsel. Is the right of Sunga to counselviolated?Answer: Yes. Sunga having had no counselwhen he made his admission before the NBI andhis waiver of the right to have one being invalidcontrary to the express requirement of theConstitution. His statement- Exhibit isinadmissible. The right to counsel involves morethan just the presence of a lawyer in thecourtroom or the mere propounding of standardquestions and objections; rather it means anefficient and decisive legal assistance and not asimple perfunctory representation. People v.