Human Rights FINALS Cases
2
Human Rights FINALS Page | 1 Human Rights Cases (Bill Of Rights) 1. People Vs. Ochate Gr No. 127154 July 30, 2002 388 Scra 353 2. People Vs. Bolanos Gr No. 101808 July 3, 1992 211 Scra 262 Facts: Oscar Pagdalian was murdered in Marble Supply, Balagtas Bulacan. According to Pat. Rolando Alcantara and Francisco Dayao, deceased was with two companions on the previous night, one of whom the accused who had a drinking spree with the deceased. When they apprehended the accused they found the firearm of the deceased on the chair where the accused was allegedly seated. They boarded accused along with Magtibay, other accused on the police vehicle and brought them to the police station. While in the vehicle Bolanos admitted that he killed the deceased. RTC convicted him hence the appeal. Issue: Whether or Not accused-appellant deprived of his constitutional right to counsel. Held: Yes. Being already under custodial investigation while on board the police patrol jeep on the way to the Police Station where formal investigation may have been conducted, appellant should have been informed of his Constitutional rights under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, more particularly par. 1 and par. 3. 3. People Vs. Tawat Gr No. L-62871 May 25, 1984 129 Scra 431 4. People Vs Valdez Gr No. 129296 Sept. 25, 2000 341 Scra 25 Accused was found guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972., An extrajudicial confession was made as to the ownership of marijuana plants. HELD: The marijuana plants seized were product of an illegal search because of the absence of search warrant and are therefore inadmissible in evidence. The voluntary confession of ownership of marijuana was in violation of the custodial rights because of the absence of competent and independent counsel, and thus, inadmissible too. In sum, both the object evidence and the testimonial evidence as to the appellant’s voluntary confession of ownership of the prohibited plants relied upon to prove appellant’s guilt failed to meet the test of constitutional competence. Without these, the prosecution’s remaining evidence did not even approximate the quantum of evidence necessary to warrant appellant’s conviction. Hence, the presumption of innocence on his favor stands. 5. People Vs Rodriguez Gr No. 129211 October 2, 2000 341 Scra 645 Facts: Oscar Pagdalian was murdered in Marble Supply, Balagtas Bulacan. According to Pat. RolandoAlcantara and Francisco Dayao, deceased was with two companions on the previous night, one of whomthe accused who had a drinking spree with the deceased. When they apprehended the accused theyfound the firearm of the deceased on the chair where the 1
-
Upload
ethan-zachary -
Category
Documents
-
view
33 -
download
0
description
Human Rights FINALS Cases
Transcript of Human Rights FINALS Cases
Human Rights FINALS Cases
Page | 1
Human Rights Cases (Bill Of Rights)
1. People Vs. Ochate Gr No. 127154 July 30, 2002 388 Scra 353
2. People Vs. Bolanos Gr No. 101808 July 3, 1992 211 Scra 262
Facts: Oscar Pagdalian was murdered in Marble Supply, Balagtas Bulacan. According to Pat. Rolando Alcantara and Francisco Dayao, deceased was with two companions on the previous night, one of whom the accused who had a drinking spree with the deceased. When they apprehended the accused they found the firearm of the deceased on the chair where the accused was allegedly seated. They boarded accused along with Magtibay, other accused on the police vehicle and brought them to the police station. While in the vehicle Bolanos admitted that he killed the deceased. RTC convicted him hence the appeal.
Issue: Whether or Not accused-appellant deprived of his constitutional right to counsel.
Held: Yes. Being already under custodial investigation while on board the police patrol jeep on the way to the Police Station where formal investigation may have been conducted, appellant should have been informed of his Constitutional rights under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, more particularly par. 1 and par. 3.
3. People Vs. Tawat Gr No. L-62871 May 25, 1984 129 Scra 431
4. People Vs Valdez Gr No. 129296 Sept. 25, 2000 341 Scra 25
Accused was found guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972., An extrajudicial confession was made as to the ownership of marijuana plants.
HELD:
The marijuana plants seized were product of an illegal search because of the absence of search warrant and are therefore inadmissible in evidence. The voluntary confession of ownership of marijuana was in violation of the custodial rights because of the absence of competent and independent counsel, and thus, inadmissible too. In sum, both the object evidence and the testimonial evidence as to the appellant’s voluntary confession of ownership of the prohibited plants relied upon to prove appellant’s guilt failed to meet the test of constitutional competence. Without these, the prosecution’s remaining evidence did not even approximate the quantum of evidence necessary to warrant appellant’s conviction. Hence, the presumption of innocence on his favor stands.
5. People Vs Rodriguez Gr No. 129211 October 2, 2000 341 Scra 645
Facts: Oscar Pagdalian was murdered in Marble Supply, Balagtas Bulacan. According to Pat. RolandoAlcantara and Francisco Dayao, deceased was with two companions on the previous night, one of whomthe accused who had a drinking spree with the deceased. When they apprehended the accused theyfound the firearm of the deceased on the chair where the accused was allegedly seated. They boardedaccused along with Magtibay, other accused on the police vehicle and brought them to the policestation. While in the vehicle Bolanos admitted that he killed the deceased. RTC convicted him hencetheappeal.
Issue: Whether or Not accused-appellant deprived of his constitutional right to counsel.
Held: Yes. Being already under custodial investigation while on board the police patrol jeep on the wayto the Police Station where formal investigation may have been conducted, appellant should have beeninformed of his Constitutional rights under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, moreparticularly par. 1 and par. 3.Doctrine: From the moment the accused is in a way significantly deprivedof liberty, he cannot be asked questions unless he is assisted by counsel and was informed of his rights.Otherwise, any confession or admission made by him is inadmissible.
1
