100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 36 - 37 out of 46 pages.
plea, given the death sentence. While there might havebeen, in the first instance, some doubts regarding theappellants' appreciation of the nature and consequenceof a plea of guilty, We are convinced that when theyentered the same plea for the third time, they did sowholly aware of the large probability of a verdict of death.The lesson learned from their past arraignments wasthen fresh and recent. It was ignored. We do not see thisas a continuing misapprehension of the situation thatthey were in. Rather, we take it as a carefully consideredacceptance of guilt. People v. Deang, GR 128045,August 24, 200055. That on or about the 29th day of July, 1997 at nighttime (sic) in Purok Bagong Silang, Barangay Aguas,Municipality of Rizal, Province of Occidental Mindoro,Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this HonorableCourt, the accused being then armed with a jungle knife,with intent to kill, with treachery, did then and therewillfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault andstab with the said weapon Remedios Castillo and MelvinCastillo inflicting upon the victims serious wounds whichcaused their untimely death. The accused questioned hisarrest and the verbal admission of SPO2 Dimalaluan.Whether the verbal confession is validAnswer:No, With regard to the legality of the arrest andconfinement of appellant, it was shown that uponarraignment, appellant voluntarily entered a plea of “notguilty” without first questioning the legality of his arrest.By so pleading, he has submitted to the jurisdiction ofthe trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest.Such act amounted to a waiver of the right to questionany irregularity in his arrest. It was error on the part ofthe trial court, however, to give probative value to thealleged verbal admission made by appellant to SPO2Dimalaluan. The alleged admission was not reducedinto writing. It was obtained in violation of appellant’sright under custodial investigation. People v. Avendano,GR 137407, Jan. 28, 200356. Christopher Espanola, along with the other accused-appellants, Jeoffrey Abello and Jimmy Paquingan werecharged for the murder of Jessette Tarroza. During thetrial, defense contests raising the issue that amongothers, that the lower court erred in not considering theconstitutional right of accused-appellant Paquingan tocounsel of his own choice, premised from (sic) the takingof the affidavit of confession by Prosecutor Lagcao,against his penal interest. In fact he testified that saidlawyers, Attys. Leo Cahanap, the city legal officer ofIligan, and Susan Echavez, were not the counsels of hisown choice and were merely supplied by theprosecution. Whether or not the trial court erred whenit ruled that the sworn statement of JimmyPaquingan was voluntarily given by him though herefused to sign the sameAnswer:Yes. Under the Constitution and existing lawand jurisprudence, a confession to be admissible mustsatisfy the following requirements: 1) the confessionmust be voluntary; 2) the confession must be made withthe assistance of competent and independent counsel;