This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-08-15 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "And legal jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) [when] a valid plea [has] been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused."[26] It has been the unwavering position of this Court that substantial rights cannot be trifled with or cast aside on the basis of mere suppositions and conjectures. The relinquishment of a constitutional right has to be laid out convincingly. Such waiver must be clear, categorical, knowing and intelligent.[27] | |||||
|
2000-08-25 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| that do not evince a clear and sufficient effort to inform and explain to the appellant his constitutional rights.[36] We emphasized that when the constitution requires a person under investigation "to be informed" of his rights to remain silent and to have an independent and competent counsel preferably of his own choice, it must be presumed to contemplate the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.[37] In other words, the right of a person under investigation "to be informed" implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain, and contemplates an effective communication that results in understanding of what is conveyed. Short of this, there is a denial of the right.[38] In the case of People vs. Jara,[39] we declared that: "This stereotyped "advice" appearing in practically all extrajudicial confessions which are later repudiated has assumed the nature of a "legal form" or model. Police investigators either automatically type it together with the curt "Opo" as the answer or ask the accused to | |||||