This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2001-09-21 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In rape cases, conviction hinges solely on the testimony of the complainant, and evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit.[27] Proof beyond reasonable doubt acquires more relevance since rape charges are easy to concoct and difficult to defend.[28] When there are material improbabilities in complainant's testimony,[29] an accused's constitutional presumption of innocence is not overcome.[30] | |||||
|
2000-04-05 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Section 12 (1) Art III of the Commission states that "Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel." Thus the prohibition for custodial investigation conducted without the assistance of counsel. Any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional mandate is inadmissible in evidence.[10] The prohibition however, does not extend to a person in a police line-up because that stage of an investigation is not yet a part of custodial investigation.[11] It has been repeatedly held that custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of the crime under investigation and the police officers begin to ask questions on the suspect's participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission.[12] The stage of an investigation wherein a person is asked to stand in a police line-up has been held to be outside the mantle of protection of the right to counsel because it involves a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and is purely investigatory in nature.[13] It has also been held that an uncounseled identification at the police line-up does not preclude the admissibility of an in-court identification.[14] The identification made by the private complainant in the police line-up pointing to Pavillare as one of his abductors is admissible in evidence although the accused-appellant was not assisted by counsel. In court, the private complainant positively identified Paviallare as one of his captors and testified as follows: "Q: Were you able to recognize the faces of the men and woman who abducted you on the afternoon of February 12, 1996? A: Yes, sir I can recognize if I see them again. Q: If you see them in court will you be able to identify them? A: Yes, sir. Q: Please point to them if the accused are inside the court room? A: That man, sir. INTERPRETER: Witness pointing at a man seated inside the court room and when asked to identify himself he gave his name as Eduardo Pavillare. ATTY. CRUZ: Q: Other than the accused Pavillare, do you recognize anybody else in this court room if among those who abducted you in the afternoon of February 12, 1996? A: None, sir. Q: Tell us how were you abducted by the accused Pavillare and his companions in that particular date in the afternoon of February 12, 1996? A: While I was returning to my motorcycle, they blocked my way and asked for my name, sir. ATTY. CRUZ: Q: Who blocked your way and asked for your name? A: He was infront of his companions, sir. INTERPRETER: Witness referring to accused earlier identified as Eduardo Pavillare. x x x x x x x x x ATTY. CRUZ: Q: If you know, Mr. Singh, where were you taken by the accused after they abducted you at the corner of Roces Avenue and Scout Reyes St., Quezon City? A: It was a deserted street somewhere in St. Joseph College, Quezon City, sir. Q: After you reached that deserted place, what happened next, if any? A: They asked me for P100,000.00 and I told them that I have only P5,000,00 and they told me that if I give P 100,000.00 they will let me go, sir. Q: Who demanded the amount of P100,000.00 from you? WITNESS: A: He is the one, sir. INTERPRETER: Again, witness pointing to the accused earlier , identified as Pavillare. x x x x x x x x x ATTY. CRUZ: Q: Could you tell us what did your abductors tell to Lakhvir while they are talking over the telephone? A: They told him that they should pay the amount of money for my release, sir. Q: Incidentally, can you tell us who among your abductors who actually talked to Lakvir over the telephone? A: He is the one, sir. INTERPRETER: Again, witness is referring to accused earlier identified as Pavillare. ATTY. CRUZ: Q: Why do you know that it was the accused Pavillare who was talking to Lakhvir over the telephone? A: Because I was near him and I saw him talking to Lakhvir, sir. x x x x x x x x x ATTY. CRUZ: Q: Where did the two of you go? A: Inside the mini-grocery, sir. Q: After you went inside this mini-grocery, what happened next, if any? A: I saw my cousin Lakhvir. He asked me if I am okey and I told him that they bit me up but I am still fine, sir. Q: After you told your cousin that you are okey except for the beating that you got but you are fine, what transpired next, if any? A: Lakhvir gave the P20,000.00, sir. ATTY. CRUZ: Q: To whom did Lakhvir handed the P20,000.00? A: To him sir. INTERPRETER: Witness pointed to the accused Pavillare earlier identified. ATTY. CRUZ: Q: Why do you know that only P20,000.00 was handed over by accused Pavillare? A: Because they counted the money and they complained about it, sir. Q: Who counted the money? A: He was the one who counted the money, sir. INTERPRETER: Witness pointing to accused Pavillare earlier identified. ATTY. CRUZ: Q: Were you present when Pavillare counted the money? A: Yes, sir. Q: After Pavillare got the P20,000.00, what happened next, if any? A: They left immediately and they left me too, and we went to get my Motorcycle, sir."[15] | |||||
|
2000-03-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| However, the rule is not intended as a deterrent to the accused from confessing guilt if he voluntarily and intelligently so desires but to protect the accused from admitting what he is coerced to admit although untrue.[33] It must be remembered in this regard that while the right to counsel is immutable, the option to secure the services of counsel de parte is not absolute.[34] Indeed - | |||||