This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-02-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Also without firm basis is appellant's claim that his rights under Article III, Section 12[60] of the Constitution were violated when he was made to join the police line-up. In Gamboa v. Cruz,[61] we held that a police line-up was not part of the custodial inquest, inasmuch as the accused therein was not yet being investigated and hence, the right to counsel had not yet attached. This ruling was affirmed in People v. Loveria,[62] and People v. De Guzman.[63] Both held that where the accused was not being investigated by the police, when the witness was in the process of identifying him, his right to counsel was not violated. The reason is that at this stage, he was not entitled to the constitutional guarantee invoked. Under the circumstances of this case, we see no reason to depart from these cited precedents. | |||||