claims against her but when she was asked to write her statement down She was

Claims against her but when she was asked to write

This preview shows page 12 - 13 out of 46 pages.

claims against her but when she was asked to write her statement down, She was then confronted and confessed her guilt. the Regional Trial Court in Pasay City (RTC) rendered its judgment, finding the petitioner guilty as charged. On appeal, the petitioner contended in the CA that: (1) her conviction should be set aside because the evidence presented against her had been obtained in violation of her constitutional right against self- incrimination; (2) her rights to due process and to counsel had been infringed; and (3) the evidence against her should be inadmissible for being obtained by illegal or unconstitutional means rendering the evidence as the fruit of the poisonous tree . Whether or not her Constitutional Rights to remain silent was violated. Answer: No. the CA stressed that the rights against self-incrimination and to counsel guaranteed under the Constitution applied only during the custodial interrogation of a suspect. In her case, she was not subjected to any investigation by the police or other law enforcement agents. Instead, she underwent an administrative investigation as an employee of the BPI Family Savings Bank, the investigation being conducted by her superiors. She was not coerced to give evidence against herself, or to admit to any crime, but she simply broke down bank when depositors Matuguina and Cornejo confronted her about her crimes. The guilt of the petitioner for four counts of estafa through falsification of a commercial document was established beyond reasonable doubt. People v. De Castro Right to Counsel When to Invoke 35. Upon the discovery of the mutilated body of a high-school girl at a coffee plantation, an Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for Rape with Homicideagainst several suspects including Rey Sunga, Ramil Lansang, Inocencio Pascua, Jr., and Lito Octac as principals, and Locil Cui alias Ginalyn Cuyos as accomplice. Rey Sunga et al. filed with the RTC a petition for bail underscoring the weakness of the prosecution‘s evidence, there being no direct evidence against them contending that evidences of admission during the custodial investigation was inadmissible because at that time he did not have any lawyer by his side at the time the policemen started asking him questions about Jocelyns death. At that point, Sunga was without the assistance of a counsel. Is the right of Sunga to counsel violated? Answer: Yes. Sunga having had no counsel when he made his admission before the NBI and his waiver of the right to have one being invalid contrary to the express requirement of the Constitution. His statement- Exhibit is inadmissible. The right to counsel involves more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and objections; rather it means an efficient and decisive legal assistance and not a simple perfunctory representation. People v.
Image of page 12
Image of page 13

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture