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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    Emman Case Digest 1

    Uploaded by

    Emman Fernandez
    1) The appellant was charged with murder for crimes committed in Baguio City that resulted in deaths and injuries. 2) During the investigation, the appellant claimed he was not properly informed of his right to remain silent and right to counsel. He stated he was threatened and promised release if he cooperated. 3) The Supreme Court held that the right to be informed requires meaningful explanation in a way the subject can understand based on their abilities and circumstances. Since this did not occur, the appellant's rights were violated and his conviction was reversed.

    Copyright:

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

    Emman Case Digest 1

    Uploaded by

    Emman Fernandez
    39 views2 pages
    1) The appellant was charged with murder for crimes committed in Baguio City that resulted in deaths and injuries. 2) During the investigation, the appellant claimed he was not properly informed of his right to remain silent and right to counsel. He stated he was threatened and promised release if he cooperated. 3) The Supreme Court held that the right to be informed requires meaningful explanation in a way the subject can understand based on their abilities and circumstances. Since this did not occur, the appellant's rights were violated and his conviction was reversed.

    Original Title

    EMMAN CASE DIGEST 1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The appellant was charged with murder for crimes committed in Baguio City that resulted in deaths and injuries. 2) During the investigation, the appellant claimed he was not properly informed of his right to remain silent and right to counsel. He stated he was threatened and promised release if he cooperated. 3) The Supreme Court held that the right to be informed requires meaningful explanation in a way the subject can understand based on their abilities and circumstances. Since this did not occur, the appellant's rights were violated and his conviction was reversed.

    Copyright:

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

    Emman Case Digest 1

    Uploaded by

    Emman Fernandez
    1) The appellant was charged with murder for crimes committed in Baguio City that resulted in deaths and injuries. 2) During the investigation, the appellant claimed he was not properly informed of his right to remain silent and right to counsel. He stated he was threatened and promised release if he cooperated. 3) The Supreme Court held that the right to be informed requires meaningful explanation in a way the subject can understand based on their abilities and circumstances. Since this did not occur, the appellant's rights were violated and his conviction was reversed.

    Copyright:

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

    EMMANUEL FERNANDEZ

    CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED; THE


    RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT; THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,


    vs.
    JAIME "JIMMY" AGUSTIN, WILFREDO "SONNY QUIAÑO, MANUEL
    "JUN" ABENOJA, JR., and FREDDIE "BOY" CARTEL
    , accused. JAIME "JIMMY" AGUSTIN, accused-appellant.
    G.R. No. 110290 January 25, 1995

    DAVIDE, JR., J.:

    DOCTRINE:
    "the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial
    and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle."

    FACTS:
    In five separate informations filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), of
    Baguio City, charging the accused with murder, with frustrated murder, and
    with attempted murder. The crimes were allegedly committed in Baguio City
    and resulted in the deaths of Dr. Napoleon Bayquen and Anna Theresa
    Francisco and the wounding of Anthony Bayquen, Dominic Bayquen, and
    Danny Ancheta.

    Only the appellant and Wilfredo Quiaño were arrested. However, before
    Quiaño could be arraigned, After the appellant pleaded not guilty at his
    arraignment, trial on the merits was held on various dates. During the trial
    it was found out that While the appellant was giving his statement at the
    fical's office, the armed men stayed with him and their presence deterred
    him from telling the investigating fiscal that he was being threatened. He
    further declared that although he was given a lawyer, Atty. Reynaldo
    Cajucom, to assist him, he, nevertheless, asked for his uncle who is a
    lawyer, Atty. Oliver Tabin, and that Atty. Cajucom interviewed him from
    only two minutes in English and Tagalog but not in Ilocano, the dialect he
    understands. Then later, at Camp Dangwa to where he was taken, he told
    his wife to get in touch and talk with Atty. Tabin. Finally, he asserted that
    he was promised by his captors that he would be discharged as a state
    witness if he cooperates, but the plan did not push through because his co-
    accused, Quiaño, escaped.
    On 30 May 1990, the trial court promulgated its decision, acquitting the
    appellant in of frustrated murder and attempted murder for insufficiency of
    evidence but convicting him in the two murder cases,

    ISSUE:
    Whether the accused was properly informed of his constitutional rights to
    be informed, the right to remain silent, and the right to counsel.

    HELD:
    NO. The Supreme Court upheld that, the right to be informed of the right
    to remain silent and to counsel contemplates “the transmission of
    meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory
    recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.” It is not enough for the
    investigator to merely repeat to the person under investigation his rights,
    the former must also explain the effects of such provision in practical terms.
    The right to be informed carries with it a correlative obligation on the part
    of the investigator to explain, and contemplates effective communication
    which results in the subject understanding what is conveyed. Since it is
    comprehension that is sought to be attained, the degree of explanation
    required will necessarily vary and depend on the education, intelligence,
    and other relevant personal circumstances of the person undergoing the
    investigation.”

    Hence the decision of the RTC was reversed and the accused was acquitted

    You might also like