This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-07-28 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As it is well-established that an appeal in criminal proceedings throws the whole case open for review of all aspects, including those not raised by the parties,[18] the Court, after combing through the documentary evidence for the prosecution, finds that a modification of the decision respecting the civil aspect of the case is in order. | |||||
|
2007-09-13 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In fact, the Court has at various times applied the foregoing provision without regard to the filing or non-filing of an appeal by a co-accused, so long as the judgment was favorable to him. In such cases, the co-accused already withdrew his appeal,[59] failed to file an appellant's brief,[60] or filed a notice of appeal with the trial court but eventually withdrew the same.[61] Even more, in these cases, all the accused appealed from the judgment of conviction but for one reason or another, their conviction had already become final and executory. Nevertheless, the Court still applied to them the favorable judgment in favor of their co-accused.[62] Therefore, we cannot find a reason to treat Lindong differently, especially so in this case where the public officer accused of violating the anti-graft law has been acquitted, and the appeal by Lindong was dismissed on a technicality. | |||||
|
2001-01-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Third, we cannot consider the admission or extra-judicial confession of Nestor to Pat. Alabastro. Such was given without the assistance of counsel and is inadmissible in evidence.[31] No less than the Constitution provides that "any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice." Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this right shall be inadmissible in evidence.[32] | |||||