SAGOT Opo 2 T Ikaw ba ay mayroon abogado sa oras na ito upang makatulong mo sa

Sagot opo 2 t ikaw ba ay mayroon abogado sa oras na

This preview shows page 52 - 54 out of 177 pages.

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 Nagsasalaysay[38]Clearly, 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.”[39]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
Background image
suspect.”[40]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.[41]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.[42]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.[43]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
Background image
Image of page 54

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

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture