![]() ![]() In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel. ![]() 1083 enacted in l954, which reads as follows: têñ.£îhqw⣠The argument that the second paragraph of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, which was added by Republic Act No. L-37201-02, 3749 were taken before the effectivity of the New Constitution in accordance with the rules then in force, no right had been violated as to render them inadmissible in evidence although they were not informed of "their right to remain silent and to counsel," "and to be informed of such right," because, We repeat, no such right existed at the time. Consequently, because the confessions of the accused in G.R. And the last sentence thereof which, in effect, means that any confession obtained in violation of this right shall be inadmissible in evidence, can and should be given effect only when the right already existed and had been violated. Section 20, Article IV of the New Constitution granted, for the first time, to a person under investigation for the commission of an offense, the right to counsel and to be informed of such right. ![]() The reasons for these rulings are as follows: L-38929 4 which declared inadmissible the confessions of the accused in said case, although they have not been informed of their right to remain silent and to counsel before they gave the confessions, because they were given before the effectivity of the New Constitution. L-37424 3 declaring admissible the confessions of the accused in said cases, and We hereby set aside the order of the respondent Judge challenged in G.R. Conversely, such confession is admissible in evidence against the accused, if the same had been obtained before the effectivity of the New Constitution, even if presented after January 17, 1973, and even if he had not been informed of his right to counsel, since no law gave the accused the right to be so informed before that date.Īccordingly, We hereby sustain the orders of the respondent Judges in G.R. Consequently, a confession obtained from a person under investigation for the commission of an offense, who has not been informed of his right (to silence and) to counsel, is inadmissible in evidence if the same had been obtained after the effectivity of the New Constitution on January 17, 1973. We hold that this specific portion of this constitutional mandate has and should be given a prospective and not a retrospective effect. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence,Īnd specifically, the portion thereof which declares inadmissible a confession obtained from a person under investigation for the commission of an offense who has not been informed of his right (to remain silent and) to counsel. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The present cases involve an interpretation of Section 20, Article IV of the New Constitution, which reads: têñ.£îhqw⣠Mendoza for respondent and petitioner People of the Philippines. Mendoza and Assistant Solicitor General Vicente V. Office of the Solicitor General Estelito P. Organo Law Office for respondent Vicente Longakit, et al. Roxas for respondents Ignacio Calara, Jr., et al. Misa for petitioners Maximo Simeon, et al.Īlan L. ISNANI, District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur, Branch II, VICENTE LONGAKIT, and JAIME DALION, respondents.įelipe S. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, VILLALUZ, in his capacity as Judge of the Criminal Circuit Court of Pasig, Rizal, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. MAXIMO SIMEON, LOUIS MEDNATT, INOCENTES DE LUNA, RUBEN MIRANDA, ALFONSO BALLESTEROS, RUDOLFO SUAREZ, MANUEL MANALO, ALBERTO GABION, and RAFAEL BRILL, petitioners, MANGUERA, Judge of the Court of First Instance (Branch II) of Occidental Mindoro, The PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, IGNACIO CALARA, JR., and LOURDES CALARA, respondents. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |