prohibited drug in violation of the aforecited provision of law PO2 Dorotheo

Prohibited drug in violation of the aforecited

This preview shows page 8 - 10 out of 46 pages.

prohibited drug, in violation of the aforecited provision of law. PO2 Dorotheo Supa, Alma Margarita D. Villasenor, and PO2 Juan Piggangay, Jr. admitted to have forgotten the affixing of their initials upon receipt of the marijuana, thereby deviating from narcotics field test standard operating procedure. PO2 Supa testified that he no longer gave the marked money to accused-appellant because he placed the latter under arrest. He recited to him his rights but failed to include a crucial part of the Miranda Rights, if accused-appellant could not afford counsel, one would be assigned to him. The officers also admitted to have made the accused affix his signature on the receipt of property seized without the assistance of a counsel, as well as whether or not he was waiving his rights to remain silent at all. Is there a violation of the constitutional rights of the accused, when he was not assisted by a counsel? Answer: YES , in signing the receipt without a lawyer, accused-appellant acted willingly, intelligently, and freely. What is more, the police investigators did not pause long enough and wait for accused-appellant to say whether he was willing to answer their questions even without the assistance of counsel or whether he was waiving his right to remain silent at all. People v. Casimiro, GR 146277, June 20, 2002 22. Accused-appellant Victoriano Castro was charged for selling to a NARCOM Agent who acted as poseur buyer, approximately One Thousand (1,000) grams of marijuana dried leaves, a prohibited drug, without corresponding permit or authority issued by proper authorities. He was further investigated and allegedly forced to sign a "Receipt for Property Seized" without the assistance of counsel. Is the Accused- appellant’s signature on the “Receipt of Property” inadmissible as evidence as there is no showing that he was assisted by counsel when he signed the same? Answer: YES, The court ruled that Castro's contention that his signature on the "Receipt of Property Seized" is inadmissible in evidence as there is no showing that he was assisted by counsel when he signed the same. Since this is a document tacitly admitting the offense charged, the constitutional safeguard must be observed. People v. Castro – 274 SCRA 115
Image of page 8
23. Police authorities arrested the accused formurder. Together with the accused the policeboarded a jeep to take him to their station. Whileon board the jeep the accused started admittingkillingthedeceased.This extrajudicial confession was used asevidence in court and the accused wasconvicted. Was the accused-appellant deprivedof his constitutional right to counsel? 24. This is an appeal from a decision of the Regional
Image of page 9
Image of page 10

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