Answer no accused orlando labtan was denied of his

Answer: NO, Accused Orlando Labtan was
denied of his right to a competent and
independent counsel when questioned in the
Cagayan de Oro Police Station. The questioning
was regarding his involvement in the killing of
the jeepney driver, thus, he was already
subjected to custodial investigation without
counsel. People v. Labtan, G.R. No. 127493,
December 8, 1999
10. In June 1995, the security guards of N.C.
Construction Supply caught an employee
stealing from the company premises. The said
employee then admitted that the incident was
part of a series of theft involving four other
employees. The four were then invited to the
police station for questioning. The owner of N.C.
Construction sent his lawyer, Atty. Ramon Reyes
to interrogate the four employees. Manuel et al
admitted the crime imputed against them before
Atty. Reyes. They agreed that in exchange for
N.C. Construction not filing a case, they will
resign as employees instead. But after resigning,
the four former employees sued N.C.
Construction for illegal dismissal. They now
claim that their admission made in the police
station before Atty. Reyes was coerced by the
lawyer and that they were without the assistance
of counsel which is violate of their constitutional
rights. Is Manuel under custodial investigation
when they were interrogated by Atty Reyes?
Answer: NO. The right to counsel accorded by
the Constitution only applies to criminal cases
and only on custodial investigations. In this case,
this is not a criminal case and Manuel is not
under custodial investigation when they were
interrogated by Atty. Reyes. It is also of no
moment that Atty. Reyes’s interrogation
happened in a police station. What Atty. Reyes
did was a private administrative investigation for
the interest of his employer, the N.C.
Construction. Manuel v. NC Construction –
282 SCRA 326
11. The victim Marikit 16 years of age was allegedly
raped by her Father Delfin dela Cruz , accused-
appellant was charged of simple rape but was

convicted of death penalty, the accused
contends that such offense is not punishable
with the death penalty; besides, the qualifying
circumstances of minority and relationship were
not alleged in the complaint filed. Is the accused-
appellant has been informed properly of the
accusations when the lower court decided to
convict him of death penalty?
Answer : NO, the court ruled that the penalty
was reduced to reclusion Perpetua for the crime
of simple rape, It is a matter of settled
jurisprudence that qualifying circumstances must
be properly pleaded in the indictment. It would
certainly be a denial of the right of the accused
to be informed of the charges against him and,
consequently, a denial of due process if he is
charged with simple rape, but is later convicted
of qualified rape punishable with death. People
v. de la Cruz, GR 137405, Sept. 27, 2002