100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 5 - 7 out of 46 pages.
Answer:NO, Accused Orlando Labtan wasdenied of his right to a competent andindependent counsel when questioned in theCagayan de Oro Police Station. The questioningwas regarding his involvement in the killing ofthe jeepney driver, thus, he was alreadysubjected to custodial investigation withoutcounsel. People v. Labtan, G.R. No. 127493,December 8, 199910. In June 1995, the security guards of N.C.Construction Supply caught an employeestealing from the company premises. The saidemployee then admitted that the incident waspart of a series of theft involving four otheremployees. The four were then invited to thepolice station for questioning. The owner of N.C.Construction sent his lawyer, Atty. Ramon Reyesto interrogate the four employees. Manuel et aladmitted the crime imputed against them beforeAtty. Reyes. They agreed that in exchange forN.C. Construction not filing a case, they willresign as employees instead. But after resigning,the four former employees sued N.C.Construction for illegal dismissal. They nowclaim that their admission made in the policestation before Atty. Reyes was coerced by thelawyer and that they were without the assistanceof counsel which is violate of their constitutionalrights. Is Manuel under custodial investigationwhen they were interrogated by Atty Reyes?Answer: NO. The right to counsel accorded bythe Constitution only applies to criminal casesand only on custodial investigations. In this case,this is not a criminal case and Manuel is notunder custodial investigation when they wereinterrogated by Atty. Reyes. It is also of nomoment that Atty. Reyes’s interrogationhappened in a police station. What Atty. Reyesdid was a private administrative investigation forthe interest of his employer, the N.C.Construction. Manuel v. NC Construction –282 SCRA 32611.The victim Marikit 16 years of age was allegedlyraped by her Father Delfin dela Cruz , accused-appellant was charged of simple rape but was
convicted of death penalty, the accusedcontends that such offense is not punishablewith the death penalty; besides, the qualifyingcircumstances of minority and relationship werenot alleged in the complaint filed. Is the accused-appellant has been informed properly of theaccusations when the lower court decided toconvict him of death penalty? Answer: NO, the court ruled that the penaltywas reduced to reclusion Perpetua for the crimeof simple rape, It is a matter of settledjurisprudence that qualifying circumstances mustbe properly pleaded in the indictment. It wouldcertainly be a denial of the right of the accusedto be informed of the charges against him and,consequently, a denial of due process if he ischarged with simplerape, but is later convictedof qualified rape punishable with death. Peoplev. de la Cruz, GR 137405, Sept. 27, 2002