This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-01-15 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| The right to be informed requires "the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle."[27] It should allow the suspect to consider the effects and consequences of any waiver he might make of these rights. More so when the suspect is one like Sayaboc, who has an educational attainment of Grade IV, was a stranger in Nueva Vizcaya, and had already been under the control of the police officers for two days previous to the investigation, albeit for another offense. | |||||
|
2002-08-22 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| i.e., that he is willing to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused, as distinguished from one who would be merely be giving a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional rights. In People vs. Basay,[21] this Court stressed that an accused's right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel 'contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.' Ideally therefore, a lawyer engaged for an individual facing custodial investigation (if the latter could not afford one) 'should be engaged by the accused (himself), or by the latter's relative or person authorized by him to engage an attorney or by the court, upon proper | |||||
|
2000-06-29 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The advice proffered by the investigating officer to Ordoño starkly resembles that given to Medina, thus leading us to conclude that the advice was given perfunctorily and belonged to the stereotyped class - a long question by the investigator informing the appellant of his right followed by a monosyllabic answer - which this Court has condemned for being unsatisfactory.[12] The desired role of counsel in the process of custodial investigation is rendered meaningless if the lawyer gives an advice in a cursory manner as opposed to a meaningful advocacy of the rights of the person undergoing questioning. If advice is given casually and tritely as to be useless, understanding on the part of the accused is sacrificed and the unconstrained giving up of a right becomes impaired. | |||||