This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-04-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In view of the lapses in the prosecution's case, the quantum of evidence needed to convict Aliong and Balag-ey -- proof beyond reasonable doubt -- has not been adequately established by the prosecution. Our minds cannot rest easy on their supposed guilt. We reiterate the conventional wisdom that it is better to free ten guilty persons than to convict an innocent one.[42] | |||||
|
2000-10-13 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary, and, in the absence of conclusive evidence showing that declarant's consent in executing the same has been vitiated, such confession will be sustained.[15] | |||||
|
2000-07-31 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| (Sgd.) Atty. Emiliano Benito Nagsasalaysay[38] Clearly, accused-appellant was not properly apprised of his constitutional rights. Under Art. III, §12(1) of the Constitution, a suspect in custodial investigation must be given the following warnings: "(1) He must be informed of his right to remain silent; (2) he must be warned that anything he says can and will be used against him; and (3) he must be told that he has a right to counsel, and that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him."[39] As the abovequoted portion of the extrajudicial confession shows, accused-appellant was given no more than a perfunctory recitation of his rights, signifying nothing more than a feigned compliance with the constitutional requirements. This manner of giving warnings has been held to be "merely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect."[40] For this reason, we hold accused-appellant's extrajudicial confession is invalid. | |||||