Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Confession - Tanenggee Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Audrey
    The petitioner challenged the admissibility of his written statement given during a meeting with his employer's internal affairs unit regarding an audit investigation into anomalies. The Supreme Court ruled the statement was admissible, as it was given voluntarily during an administrative inquiry, not a criminal investigation. While the petitioner claimed duress and lack of rights notification, the court found no evidence supporting this, and the statement contained details only the perpetrator would know. As such, the petitioner did not overcome the presumption that his confession was voluntary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Confession - Tanenggee Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Audrey
    1K views2 pages
    The petitioner challenged the admissibility of his written statement given during a meeting with his employer's internal affairs unit regarding an audit investigation into anomalies. The Supreme Court ruled the statement was admissible, as it was given voluntarily during an administrative inquiry, not a criminal investigation. While the petitioner claimed duress and lack of rights notification, the court found no evidence supporting this, and the statement contained details only the perpetrator would know. As such, the petitioner did not overcome the presumption that his confession was voluntary.

    Original Description:

    Tanenggee vs People

    Original Title

    Confession_Tanenggee vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner challenged the admissibility of his written statement given during a meeting with his employer's internal affairs unit regarding an audit investigation into anomalies. The Supreme Court ruled the statement was admissible, as it was given voluntarily during an administrative inquiry, not a criminal investigation. While the petitioner claimed duress and lack of rights notification, the court found no evidence supporting this, and the statement contained details only the perpetrator would know. As such, the petitioner did not overcome the presumption that his confession was voluntary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Confession - Tanenggee Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Audrey
    The petitioner challenged the admissibility of his written statement given during a meeting with his employer's internal affairs unit regarding an audit investigation into anomalies. The Supreme Court ruled the statement was admissible, as it was given voluntarily during an administrative inquiry, not a criminal investigation. While the petitioner claimed duress and lack of rights notification, the court found no evidence supporting this, and the statement contained details only the perpetrator would know. As such, the petitioner did not overcome the presumption that his confession was voluntary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Carlos L.

    Tanenggee vs People of the Philippines


    GR No. 179448
    June 26, 2013

    Facts:

    There were five separate information for estafa through falsification of commercial documents
    were filed against petitioner. The said information portray the same mode of commission of the
    crime as in Criminal case No. 98-163806 but differ with respect to the numbers of the checks
    and promissory notes involved and the dates and amounts.
    In January 1998, two Metrobank auditors conducted an audit of the Commercio Branch for
    more than a week. Therefore, an appellant was asked by Elvira Ong-Chan, senior vice president
    of Metrobank, to report to the Head Office on the following day.
    In his surprise, there were seven other people present in the said office: two senior branch
    officers, two bank lawyers, two policemen, and a representative of the internal affairs unit of
    the bank, Valentino Elevado.
    Appellant claimed that Elevado asked him to sign a paper in connection with the audit
    investigation; that he inquired what he was made to sign but was not offered any explanation;
    that he was intimidated to sign and was threatened by the police that he will be brought to the
    precinct if he will not sign; that he was not able to consult a lawyer since he was not apprised of
    the purpose of the meeting; and that just to get it over with he signed the paper which turned
    out to be a confession.
    After the said meeting, appellant wanted to see Tan but was unable to find the latter and he
    cannot even contact him. He asserts that the said written statement was taken in violation of his
    rights under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, particularly of his right to remain silent,
    right to counsel, and the right to be informed of the first two rights.
    Hence, the same should not have been admitted in evidence against him.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the written statement executed by the appellant is admissible in evidence?

    Held:

    Yes. Petitioners written statement is admissible as evidence. Here, petitioners written


    statement was given during an administrative inquiry conducted by his employer in connection
    with an anomaly or irregularity he allegedly committed in the course of his employment. No
    error can therefore be attributed to the courts below in admitting in evidence and in giving due
    consideration to petitioners written statement as there is no constitutional impediment to its
    admissibility.
    Petitioners written statement was given voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. His attempts to
    convince us that he signed, under duress and intimidation, an already prepared typewritten
    statement. However, his claims lacks sustainable basis and his supposition is just an
    afterthought for there is nothing in the records that would support his claim of duress and
    intimidation.

    Ratio:

    It is settled that a confession or admission is presumed voluntarily until the contrary is


    proved and the confessant bears the burden of proving the contrary.
    Petitioners failed to overcome this presumption. His written statement was found to have
    been executed freely and consciously. The pertinent details he narrated in his statement
    were of such nature and quality that only a perpetrator of the crime could finish.

    You might also like