Page 17 of 81 police officer is permitted to carry out a warrantless arrest is

Page 17 of 81 police officer is permitted to carry

This preview shows page 17 - 18 out of 81 pages.

Page 17 of 81 police officer is permitted to carry out a warrantless arrest is when the person to be arrested is caught committing a crime in flagrante delicto, thus: "Section 5. Arrest without Warrant; when lawful . - A peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person: (a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing , or is attempting to commit an offense ; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. x x x." 21 (emphasis supplied) Appellant also takes issue of the fact that she was not assisted by a lawyer when police officers interrogated her. She claimed that she was not duly informed of her right to remain silent and to have competent counsel of her choice. Hence, she argues that the confession or admission obtained therein should be considered inadmissible in evidence against her. These contentions deserve scant attention. Appellant did not make any confession during her custodial investigation. In determining the guilt of the appellant and her co- accused, the trial court based its decision on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and on the existence of the confiscated marijuana. We quote the relevant portion of its decision: "Earlier in the course of the proceedings, the court then presided by Judge Angel Parazo, granted bail to accused Agpanga Libnao, ruling that the confiscation receipt signed by both accused (Exhibit "C") is inadmissible because they were not assisted by a counsel. Confronted with this same issue, this court finds the postulate to rest on good authority and will therefore reiterate its inadmissibility. Since the prosecution had not presented any extrajudicial confession extracted from both accused as evidence of their guilt, the court finds it needless to discuss any answer given by both accused as a result of the police interrogation while in their custody. By force of necessity, therefore, the only issue to be resolved by the court is whether or not, based on the prosecution’s evidence, both accused can be convicted ." 22 (emphasis supplied) Appellant then faults the trial court for appreciating and taking into account the object and documentary evidence of the prosecution despite the latter’s failure to formally offer them. Absent any formal offer, she argues that they again must be deemed inadmissible. The contention is untenable. Evidence not formally offered can be considered by the court as long as they have been properly identified by testimony duly recorded and they have themselves been incorporated in the records of the case. 23 All the documentary and
Image of page 17
Image of page 18

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 81 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • loisa dela cruz
  • Appellate court, Trial court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture