Answer NO Accused Orlando Labtan was denied of his right to a competent and

Answer no accused orlando labtan was denied of his

This preview shows page 5 - 7 out of 46 pages.

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
Image of page 5
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
Image of page 6
Image of page 7

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 46 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture