SAGOT: Opo.2. T: Ikaw ba ay mayroon abogado sa oras na ito, upang makatulong mo saimbestigasyon na ito?S: Mayroon po, si Atty. Emiliano Benito, na siyang aking nagustuhan abogado,upang makatulong ko sa pagsisiyasat sa akin.3. T: Sa harap ng iyong abogado, nauunawaan mo bang lahat ang iyong mgakarapatan na aking ipinaliwanag sa iyo?S: Opo, kaya po ako kumuha o pumili ng aking abogado.4. T: Mailalagda mo ba ang iyong pangalan, bilang patunay na nauunawaanmo ang mga karapatan mo at bilang patotoo na ikaw ay may katulong na abogado saoras ng pagsisiyasat sa iyo?S: Opo.Assisted by: (SGD.)RAMIL SAMOLDE(Sgd.) Atty. Emiliano Benito NagsasalaysayClearly, accused-appellant was not properly apprised of his constitutionalrights. Under Art. III, §12(1) of the Constitution, a suspect in custodial investigationmust be given the following warnings: “(1) He must be informed of his right to remainsilent; (2) he must be warned that anything he says can and will be used against him;and (3) he must be told that he has a right to counsel, and that if he is indigent, alawyer will be appointed to represent him.”As the abovequoted portion of theextrajudicial confession shows, accused-appellant was given no more than aperfunctory recitation of his rights, signifying nothing more than a feigned compliancewith the constitutional requirements. This manner of giving warnings has been held tobe “merely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the
suspect.”For this reason, we hold accused-appellant’s extrajudicial confession isinvalid.However, apart from the testimony of Ricardo Nepomuceno and the extrajudicialconfession of accused-appellant, there is sufficient evidence in the records showingaccused-appellant’s guilt. Accused-appellant confessed in open court that he hadkilled Feliciano Nepomuceno. It is this admission of accused-appellant which shouldbe considered.Now accused-appellant testified that on the day in question, he met the deceasedand, as he had done in the past, the latter poked a gun at him at the same time calledhim a thief. Angered by what had been done to him, accused-appellant said hepushed Nepomuceno’s hand away and stabbed him with a carver. Then, whenNepomuceno dropped his gun to the ground, accused-appellant picked it up and shotNepomuceno. Accused-appellant claimed that he merely implicated Armando Andresbecause he had a grudge against Andres.The trial court dismissed this attempt to exculpate Andres and convicted the latter. Wethink the trial court correctly did so. Indeed, accused-appellant now claims that hewas givenP10,000.00 by Andres to make the admission in court in order to exoneratethe latter.But the fact that Armando Andres chose not to appeal is proof of the falsityof this claim. This flipflop makes accused-appellant’s explanation as to why headmitted slaying Feliciano Nepomuceno very doubtful.We have held that a judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order. The
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 177 pages?
- Summer '15
- Supreme Court of the United States, Habeas corpus, Betty, OBET