This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-01-16 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Our minds cannot sit easy with regard to the charge of violation of the accuseds' right to counsel. A PAO lawyer is considered as independent counsel within the contemplation of the Constitution considering that he is not a special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to that of the accused. In People vs. Bacor,[55] we ruled that the assistance of a PAO lawyer satisfies the constitutional requirement of a competent and independent counsel for the accused. | |||||
|
2000-01-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| PAALALA: Bago tayo magsimula, nais kong ipagbigay alam sa iyo na sa Ilalim ng ating Saligang Batas, ikaw Edwin ay may mga KARAPATAN ng mga sumusunod: (1) KARAPATAN mong manahimik, magbigay o huwag magbigay ng ano man salaysay. Ihinto ng ano mang oras ang imbistigasyon ito; (2) KARAPATAN mong kumuha ng abogado na tutulong sa iyo at kung hindi mo kaya, magbibigay kami at ito ay walang bayad; (3) Ang sasabihin mo ay maaaring gamitin ng PANIG o LABAN sa iyo sa alin mang hukuman dito sa Pilipinas; TANONG : Ngayon masabi namin sa iyo ang LAYUNIN pati na ang iyong mga KARAPATAN, ito ba ay iyong nauunawan o naiintindihan? SAGOT: Opo. TANONG: Nais mo pa rin bang ipagpatuloy natin ito? SAGOT: Opo. Authoritative interpretations of the Miranda rule[23] as embodied in Art. III, ยง12(1) require, however, that the suspect in custodial interrogations be warned: (1) that he has a right to remain silent; (2) that he has a right to the assistance of counsel; (3) that if he cannot afford counsel one will be provided to him; and (4) that anything he will say can and will be used against him.[24] While accused-appellant was told what his rights were and answered in the affirmative when asked whether he understood what he had been told, the crucial question is whether he effectively waived the effectuation of these rights. We find that he did not and, therefore, his confession (Exh. O) is inadmissible in evidence. Accused-appellant was not asked whether he was willing to testify even without the assistance of counsel. If he was willing to testify only with the assistance of counsel, he should have been asked if he had one. If he said he wanted to have counsel but could not afford one, he should have been asked if he wanted one to be appointed for him.[25] As a result of the investigator's failure to ask these questions before taking down accused-appellant's statement, there was no effective waiver of his rights to remain silent and to counsel. | |||||