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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    People Vs Morial

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    The Supreme Court ruled that Leonardo Morial was deprived of his right to counsel during a custodial investigation into a robbery and double homicide. During questioning by police, Morial's lawyer left the interrogation after key details were discussed but before the investigation concluded. Questioning continued in the lawyer's absence. The Court found this violated Morial's right to continuous legal assistance during custodial investigation as outlined in Philippine law. His confession obtained during the lawyer's absence was deemed inadmissible.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Morial

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    65 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Leonardo Morial was deprived of his right to counsel during a custodial investigation into a robbery and double homicide. During questioning by police, Morial's lawyer left the interrogation after key details were discussed but before the investigation concluded. Questioning continued in the lawyer's absence. The Court found this violated Morial's right to continuous legal assistance during custodial investigation as outlined in Philippine law. His confession obtained during the lawyer's absence was deemed inadmissible.

    Original Title

    People vs Morial

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Leonardo Morial was deprived of his right to counsel during a custodial investigation into a robbery and double homicide. During questioning by police, Morial's lawyer left the interrogation after key details were discussed but before the investigation concluded. Questioning continued in the lawyer's absence. The Court found this violated Morial's right to continuous legal assistance during custodial investigation as outlined in Philippine law. His confession obtained during the lawyer's absence was deemed inadmissible.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    65 views2 pages

    People Vs Morial

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    The Supreme Court ruled that Leonardo Morial was deprived of his right to counsel during a custodial investigation into a robbery and double homicide. During questioning by police, Morial's lawyer left the interrogation after key details were discussed but before the investigation concluded. Questioning continued in the lawyer's absence. The Court found this violated Morial's right to continuous legal assistance during custodial investigation as outlined in Philippine law. His confession obtained during the lawyer's absence was deemed inadmissible.

    Copyright:

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

    People v.

    Morial
    G.R. 129295, August 15, 2001

    Facts:

    On January 6, 1996, Paula and Albert Bandibas were killed and robbed. As a part of the
    investigation and as a result of a witness’ testimony, Edwin and Leandro Morial were asked
    several questions by the policemen and were invited to the police station for continuing
    investigation. They were turned over to SPO4 Andres Fernandez and later interrogated again
    after they woke up at past 6 in the morning. That investigation conducted by SPO4 Fernandez
    resulted into the admission by Leandro that he was one of those who participated in the robbery
    with homicide. With the latter’s consent, his statements were reduced into writing. SPO4
    Fernandez then advised him of his right to remain silent and to have a counsel, whatever will be
    his answer will be used as evidence in court. SPO4 Fernandez volunteered to obtain a lawyer for
    the suspect, to which Leandro consented. Atty. Aguilar was contacted by the former and he first
    met the latter at January 9, 1996 at about 8:00 in the morning. After Leandro agreed to answer
    voluntarily knowing that the same can be used against him as evidence in court, the investigation
    was conducted by SPO4 Fernandez with the presence of the counsel. After “all the material
    points” were asked, Atty. Aguilar asked the investigator if he can leave due to very important
    engagement. The latter agreed to the lawyer’s request. But before leaving, Atty. Aguilar asked
    Leonardo if he was willing to answer questions in his absence, the latter agreed. During and
    despite Atty. Aguilar’s absence, SPO4 Fernandez continued with the investigation and
    propounded several more questions to Leonardo, which the latter answered.

    Issue:

    Whether or not Leonardo Morial was deprived of his to right to counsel during the investigation.

    Ruling:

    Yes. Leonardo was effectively deprived of his right to counsel during the custodial investigation;
    therefore his quasi-judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence against him and his other co-
    accused.

    The Court stressed out that an accused under custodial interrogation must continuously have a
    counsel assisting him from the very start thereof. SPO4 Fernandez cannot justify that Atty.
    Aguilar only left after Leonardo had admitted that he and his companions committed the crime.
    Neither can Atty. Aguilar rationalize that he only left after Leonardo had admitted the “material
    points”, referring to the participation of the three accused to the crime. Both are invalid since
    Section 2 of R.A. No. 7438 requires that “any person arrested, detained or under custodial
    investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.” Furthermore, the last paragraph of
    Section 3 states that “in the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be
    conducted.”

    Even granted that Leonardo consented Atty. Aguilar’s departure during the investigation and to
    answer questions during the lawyer’s absence, such consent was an invalid waiver of his right to
    counsel and his right to remain silent. Under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, these
    rights cannot be waived unless the same is made in writing and in the presence of the counsel. In
    the case at bar, no such written and counseled waiver of these rights was presented as evidence

    You might also like