This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Applying the totality-of-circumstances test, we find Edward's out-of-court identification to be reliable and thus admissible. To recall, when the three individuals entered Edward's office, they initially pretended -to be customers,[32] and even asked about the products that were for sale.[33] The three had told Edward that they were going to pay, but Pepino "pulled out a gun" instead.[34] After Pepino's companion had taken the money from the cashier's box, the malefactors handcuffed Edward and forced him to go down to the parked car. From this sequence of events, there was thus ample opportunity for Edward - before and after the gun had been pointed at him -to view the faces of the three persons who entered his office. In addition, Edward stated that Pepino had talked to him "[a]t least once a day"[35] during the four days that he was detained. | |||||
|
2003-12-02 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| While it cannot be denied that accused-appellant was deprived of his right to be informed of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, he has not shown that, as a result of his custodial interrogation, the police obtained any statement from him whether inculpatory or exculpatory which was used in evidence against him. The records do not show that he had given one or that, in finding him guilty, the trial court relied on such statement x x x x In other words, no uncounseled statement was obtained from accused-appellant which should have been excluded as evidence against him.[17] It bears noting that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is circumstantial. | |||||
|
2002-02-20 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We agree with the accused-appellant's contention, considering that the arrest was not one of the instances enumerated in Rule 113, §5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure when an arrest without a warrant may be made not only by a police officer but even by a citizen. However, for this objection to prosper, accused-appellant should have interposed it before entering his plea.[24] As he did not do so, he is now estopped from questioning any defect in the manner his arrest was effected as in fact he not only pleaded to the charge but also participated in the trial.[25] The fact that his arrest was illegal does not render the subsequent proceeding void and deprive the State of its right to convict him when all the facts point to his culpability.[26] His contention that he was arbitrarily detained for four days must fail. This contention stems from the fact that he was arrested without warrant. | |||||