100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 8 - 10 out of 46 pages.
prohibited drug, in violation of the aforecitedprovision of law.PO2 Dorotheo Supa, AlmaMargarita D. Villasenor, and PO2 JuanPiggangay, Jr. admitted to have forgotten theaffixing of their initials upon receipt of themarijuana, thereby deviating from narcotics fieldtest standard operating procedure. PO2 Supatestified that he no longer gave the markedmoney to accused-appellant because he placedthe latter under arrest. He recited to him hisrights but failed to include a crucial part of theMiranda Rights, if accused-appellant could notafford counsel, one would be assigned to him.The officers also admitted to have made theaccused affix his signature on the receipt ofproperty seized without the assistance of acounsel, as well as whether or not he waswaiving his rights to remain silent at all.Is therea violation of the constitutional rights of theaccused, when he was not assisted by acounsel?Answer: YES, in signing the receipt without alawyer, accused-appellant acted willingly,intelligently, and freely. What is more, the policeinvestigators did not pause long enough andwait for accused-appellant to say whether hewas willing to answer their questions evenwithout the assistance of counsel or whether hewas waiving his right to remain silent at all.People v. Casimiro, GR 146277, June 20, 200222. Accused-appellant Victoriano Castro wascharged for selling to a NARCOM Agent whoacted as poseur buyer, approximately OneThousand (1,000) grams of marijuana driedleaves, a prohibited drug, without correspondingpermit or authority issued by proper authorities.He was further investigated and allegedly forcedto sign a "Receipt for Property Seized"withoutthe assistance of counsel. Is the Accused-appellant’s signature on the “Receipt ofProperty” inadmissible as evidence as there isno showing that he was assisted by counselwhen he signed the same?Answer:YES, The court ruled thatCastro's contention that his signature on the"Receipt of Property Seized" is inadmissible inevidence as there is no showing that he wasassisted by counsel when he signed thesame. Since this is a document tacitly admittingthe offense charged, the constitutional safeguardmust be observed.People v. Castro – 274SCRA 115
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