This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-07-31 |
|||||
| The Court of Appeals correctly held that despite the inadmissibility of his extrajudicial confession, Maliao is not entitled to an acquittal. Citing People v. Culala,[19] the Court of Appeals rightfully noted that the extrajudicial confession of an accused who was assisted by a Municipal Attorney during the custodial investigation is not admissible in evidence because the latter cannot be considered an independent attorney.[20] | |||||
|
2000-10-11 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Culala,[40] we held that the extra-judicial confession of the accused-appellant was inadmissible as he was "assisted" by the incumbent municipal attorney. In People vs. Bandula,[41] we held that a municipal attorney could not be an independent counsel as required by the Constitution. We reasoned that as legal officer of the municipality, he provides legal assistance and support to the mayor and the municipality in carrying out the delivery of basic services to the people, including the maintenance of peace and order. It is therefore seriously doubted whether he can effectively undertake the defense of the accused without running into conflict of interests. | |||||