investigation does not apply to a spontaneous statement not elicited through

Investigation does not apply to a spontaneous

This preview shows page 3 - 4 out of 20 pages.

investigation does not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities but given in an ordinary manner whereby the suspect orally admits having committed the crime. Neither can it apply to admissions or confessions made by a suspect in the commission of a crime before he is placed under investigation. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. In the instant case, Juanito voluntarily narrated to Ceniza that he raped GENELYN and thereafter threw her body into the ravine. This narration was a spontaneous answer, freely and voluntarily given in an ordinary manner. It was given before he was arrested or placed under custody for investigation in connection with the commission of the offense. Moreover, Juanito did not offer any evidence of improper or ulterior motive on the part of Ceniza, which could have compelled her to testify falsely against him. (2) NO. However, there is merit in Juanito’s claim that his constitutional rights during custodial investigation were violated by Judge Dicon when the latter propounded to him incriminating questions without informing him of his constitutional rights. It is settled that at the moment the accused voluntarily surrenders to, or is arrested by, the police officers, the custodial investigation is deemed to have started. So, he could not thenceforth be asked about his complicity in the offense without the assistance of counsel. Judge Dicon's claim that no complaint has yet been filed and that neither was he conducting a preliminary investigation deserves scant consideration. The fact remains that at that time Juanito was already under the custody of the police authorities, who had already taken the statement of the witnesses who were then before Judge Dicon for the administration of their oaths on their statements. 5. Luz vs. People Facts: PO3 Alteza flagged down Luz for violating a municipal ordinance which requires all motorcycle drivers to wear helmets while driving their motorcyles. Alteza invited Luz to come inside their sub-station since the place where he flagged down Luz is almost in front of the said sub-station. While issuing a citation ticket for violation of municipal ordinance, Alteza noticed that Luz was uneasy and kept on getting something from his jacket. Alerted and so, he told Luz to take out the contents of the pocket of his jacket as the latter may have a weapon inside it. Luzo obliged and slowly put out the contents which was a nickel-like tin or metal container about 2 to 3 inches in size, including 2 cellphones, 1 pair of scissors and 1 Swiss knife. Upon seeing the said container, he asked Luz to open it. After Luz opened the container, PO3 Alteza noticed a cartoon cover and something beneath it, and that upon his instruction, the former spilled out the contents of the container on the table which turned out to be 4 plastic sachets, the 2 of which were empty while the other two (2) contained suspected shabu. Luz was later charged for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Luz claims that
Image of page 3
Image of page 4

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 20 pages?

  • Fall '14
  • Law, criminal law, Arrest, warrantless arrest

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes