Prohibited drug in violation of the aforecited

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

23. Police authorities arrested the accused for
murder. Together with the accused the police
boarded a jeep to take him to their station. While
on board the jeep the accused started admitting
killing the deceased.
This extrajudicial confession was used as
evidence in court and the accused was
convicted. Was the accused-appellant deprived
of his constitutional right to counsel?
24. This is an appeal from a decision of the Regional