This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-06-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Third, petitioner never raised any objection against Atty. Gordon Uy's appointment during the time she was in the NBI and thereafter, when she signed the amicable settlement. As this Court aptly held in People v. Jerez, when "the accused never raised any objection against the lawyer's appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer"[14] the accused is deemed to have engaged such lawyer. Verily, in the instant case, petitioner is deemed to have engaged Atty. Uy when she conferred with him and thereafter signed the amicable settlement with waiver of right to counsel in his presence. We do not see how the answer of NBI agent Atty. Tolentino upon cross-examination about the petitioner's counsel in the NBI, could be evasive when the NBI agent merely stated the fact that an independent counsel, Atty. Uy, was provided petitioner. | |||||
|
2007-04-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It must be pointed out that appellant's denial of guilt is insufficiently supported by any credible witnesses other than his own testimony and that of his brothers, which are but self-serving declarations directed to secure innocence. Evaluated against the positive identification of witness Michael Lauchangco, these self-serving testimonies cannot succeed. As declared in People v. Jerez:[14] | |||||