This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-04-04 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Thus, the Court has consistently held that an extrajudicial confession, to be admissible, must conform to the following requisites: 1) the confession must be voluntary; 2) the confession must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel, preferably of the confessant's choice; 3) the confession must be express; and 4) the confession must be in writing.[34] | |||||
|
2007-02-27 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Appellant challenges the testimonies of the witnesses Magallano and Arañas on what appellant had confessed to or told them for being hearsay. The challenge fails. The testimonies, it should be conceded, cannot serve as a proof of extrajudicial confession for an extrajudicial confession has to be in writing, among others, to be admissible in evidence.[42] That is why the testimonies are of use in the case as corroborative evidence only. Such utility, however, cannot be defeated by the hearsay rule. The testimonies covered are independently relevant statements which are not barred by the hearsay rule. | |||||
|
2004-05-20 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| "….willing to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused, as distinguished from one who would merely be giving a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional rights. In People v. Basay (219 SCRA 404, 418) this Court stressed that an accused's right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle."[23] | |||||