Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 reasonably at every turn of the investigation, and stopping the interrogation once in a while either to give advice to the accused that he may either continue, choose to remain silent or terminate the interview.” (People vs. Deniega, 251 SCRA 627, 638) The prosecution tried to show the court that the assisting counsel was present all throughout the investigation until the confessant signed the document transcribing the latter’s alleged confession. Yet a very glaring proof tells the court that this was not so. The investigation ended at 5:55 p.m. as appearing in the document itself (Exhibit E-6) and as confirmed by SPO2 Garcia twice on cross-examination (TSN, September 25, 1996, p. 76, October 1, 1996, pp. 33-34) but the signature of Joel de Jesus was affixed at 5:00 p.m., (Exh. E-6-5 and E-6-6) a physical impossibility since the document could not have been signed before the taking of the statement was even finished. That the document was signed even before it was finished does not only point to an impossibility, but indicates a serious irregularity in the taking of the statement. It means that the affiant was not given any chance to read the statement before he signed it. It also means that the affiant was not given proper advice by counsel before he was made to sign the document. The length of time that Joel and Atty. Sansano conferred prior to the alleged taking of the confession and the discrepancy between the time that the investigation allegedly ended and the time it was signed point out that the assisting counsel, if indeed he assisted the suspect at the time the confession was purportedly taken, rendered a meaningless assistance in the light of what this Court has ruled in People vs. Deniega as follows: The desired role of counsel in the process of custodial investigation is rendered meaningless if the lawyer merely gives perfunctory advice as opposed to a meaningful advocacy of the rights of the person undergoing questioning. If the advice given is so cursory as to be useless, voluntariness is impaired. If the lawyer’s role is reduced to being that of a mere witness to the signing of a pre-prepared document albeit indicating therein compliance with the accused’s constitutional rights, the constitutional standard guaranteed by Article III, Section 12(1) is not met. The process above-described fulfills the prophylactic purpose of the constitutional provision by avoiding “the Page 70 of 127 70
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confession from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation for the commission of the offense” and ensuring that the accused’s waiver of his right to self-incrimination during the investigation is an informed one in all aspects. (People vs. Deniega, 251 SCRA 627, 638-639) b. The additional salaysay of Joel de Jesus allegedly given before SPO2 Edilberto Nicanor at the CID, PNP, Camp Karingal, on June 21, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. (Exhibit N) This additional statement allegedly taken from Joel de Jesus on June 21, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. at the CID Office, CPDC, Camp Karingal, Quezon City, was taken totally without the assistance of a lawyer. While it states in a note that “Affiant was duly apprised of his Constitutional rights,” such note does not meet the requirements of a meaningful understanding that should be afforded an accused before any statement is taken from him. c. The alleged additional salaysay of Joel de Jesus before SPO1 Edilberto G. Nicanor at the IBP Office, on June 21, 1996 at 5:00 p.m. in front of Atty. Florimond C. Rous The alleged additional confession of Joel de Jesus purportedly taken by DPO1 Edilberto S. Nicanor at the IBP Office of Quezon City on June 21, 1996 merely stated “(AFFIANT WAS DULY APPRISED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS).” This cursory and summary apprisal cannot suffice and does not meet the strict requirements in informing an individual of his Constitutional rights before any statement is taken from him. In fact, the document itself does not show that all the rights of the accused were sufficiently explained to the accused and he was made to think about the repercussions of giving a voluntary confession. While Atty. Florimond C. Rous might have been present when this alleged statement was taken, this counsel failed to competently assist the accused to ensure that the latter’s rights are amply protected and that his decision to give a confession before the police officers is an informed and intelligent one. Page 71 of 127 71
Page 1 and 2:
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME
Page 3 and 4:
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 69: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127:
show all

Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?