Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
00 Compiled Crimpro Digests (Arrest Part II)

00 Compiled Crimpro Digests (Arrest Part II)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,465|Likes:
Published by Janz Serrano
compiled crimpro digests, arrest part ii, under prof sanidad
credits go to cited persons in the document. :)
compiled crimpro digests, arrest part ii, under prof sanidad
credits go to cited persons in the document. :)

More info:

Published by: Janz Serrano on Nov 04, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





CrimPro (Arrest)
 AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio | Vien 
PEOPLE VS. PASUDAGMay 30, 2001Pardo, J.
Alberto Pasudag was charged with violation of RA6425, Sec. 9 and was found by the RTC guilty beyondreasonable doubt of illegal cultivation of marijuana.
Here’s what happened:
 -SPO2 Calip went to conduct anti-jueteng operations. Heurinated at a bushy bamboo fence behind the public schooland saw a garden with marijuana plants in between cornplants and camote tops. He found out from a nearbystoreowner that the garden was owned by the accused.-SPO2 Calip reported this the Chief of Police whodispatched a team to conduct an investigation. This teamwent to the house of the accused and asked him to bringthem to the garden.-Upon seeing the marijuana plants, the policemen asked aphotographer to take pictures of the accused with theplants. They uprooted 7 marijuana plants and brought theaccused and the said plants to the police station.-
 At the police station, the accused admitted that heowned the marijuana plants. He did this in front of theChief of Police. SPO3 Fajarito, a member of theinvestigation team, prepared a confiscation report which the accused signed.
He then brought one of theuprooted plants to the laboratory for examination. Theforensic chemist found the leaves positive for marijuana.-Accused was found guilty.-Accused-appellant contended that the trial court erred infinding that the marijuana plant submitted for laboratoryexamination was one of the seven (7) marijuana plantsconfiscated from his garden;
that the trial court erred inconcluding that the confiscation report was not anextrajudicial admission which required theintervention of his counsel
; and in convicting him on thebasis of inference that he planted, cultivated and culturedthe seven (7) plants, owned the same or that he permittedothers to cultivate the sameISSUES and HELD: 1. WON the marijuana plant may beadmitted as evidence.
WON the confiscation report was anextrajudicial confession which required theintervention of counsel.
-The procurement of a search warrant is requiredbefore a law enforcer may validly search or seize theperson, house, papers or effects of any individual.
 The Constitution provides that "the right of the peopleto be secure in their persons, houses, papers andeffects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall beinviolable, x x x."
Any evidence obtained in violationof this provision is inadmissible.
 -The police authorities had ample opportunity tosecure from the court a search warrant. SPO2 PepitoCalip inquired as to who owned the house.
He wasacquainted with marijuana plants and immediatelyrecognized that some plants in the backyard of thehouse were marijuana plants.
Time was not of theessence to uproot and confiscate the plants. They werethree months old
and there was no sufficient reasonto believe that they would be uprooted on that sameday."The Court is not unmindful of the difficulties of law enforcement agencies in suppressing the illegaltraffic of dangerous drugs. However, quick solutions of crimes and apprehension of malefactors do not justifya callous disregard of the Bill of Rights."
We need not underscore that the protection against illegal searchand seizure is constitutionally mandated and onlyunder specific instances are searches allowed without warrants."
"The mantle of protection extended bythe Bill of Rights covers both innocent and guilty alikeagainst any form of high handedness of law enforcers,regardless of the praise worthiness of theirintentions."
-The arrest of accused-appellant was tainted withconstitutional infirmity. The testimony of SPO3Jovencio Fajarito
reveals that appellant was not dulyinformed of his constitutional rights.
He admittedthat he did not inform the accused of hisconstitutional rights before asking him questionswhen he went to the house of the accused. He alsosaid that the Chief of Police did not inform theaccused of his constitutional rights as a personunder custodial investigation before theinterrogation.
No counsel assisted the accused-appellant in boththe interrogation and the signing of theconfiscation report. The accused was undercustodial investigation when he signed theconfiscation receipt.
Custodial investigation commenceswhen a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect in thecommission of a crime under investigation and the police officersbegin to ask questions on the suspect's participation therein and which tend toelicit an admission.
The accused-appellant was a suspect from the moment the police team went to his house and ordered theuprooting of the marijuana plants.
CrimPro (Arrest)
 AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio | Vien 
-The implied acquiescence to the search, if there was any,could not have been more that mere passive conformitygiven under intimidating or coercive circumstances and isthus considered no consent at all within the purview of theconstitutional guarantee."
Even if the confession oradmission were "gospel truth", if it was made without assistance of counsel and without a valid waiver of suchassistance, the confession is inadmissible in evidence.
, the decision of the trial court is hereby
. Accused-appellant 
of the crime chargedfor lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Director of Corrections is hereby directed to forthwith releaseaccused-appellant unless he is held for another case, andto inform the Court of the action taken hereon within ten(10) days from notice.
CrimPro (Arrest)
 AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio | Vien 
PEOPLE VS. ZUELAJanuary 28, 2000Pardo, J.
Facts: Tito Zuela, Maximo Velarde and Nelson Garcia were
charged with “robbery with triple homicide”. They were
arrested June, 1985.On March 26, 1987, all three accused were arraigned withthe assistance of counsel and pleaded not guilty.
Here’s what happened:
 The three accused allegedly robbed Maria Abendano andkilled her, her son and her driver during a delivery of the
palay she buys and sells. Romualda, Maria’s sister whosestore was beside Maria’s, was the witness in this case.
 Romualda stated that she saw the three accused board thejeepney of Maria during a delivery. Gerardo, to whom thepalay was going to be delivered, saw Maximo inside thejeepney during the delivery of the palay to his ricemill.The ff morning, the bodies of Maria, her son and her driverwere found.According to Romualda, the 3 accused conceived the planto hold-
up Maria while drinking in front of Romualda’s
store because Maximo needed money to go to Manila.Maximo was supposed to board the jeep while the twoothers would wait somewhere else to board the jeepneyand hold-up Maria.
The crime happened. (I think it’s no longer important how
it happened)Junw 1, 1985
Lt. Idian, assisted by 2 other policemen,arrested Maximo and brought him to the station with
. He was investigated and was asked to give awritten statement 
in front of Atty. Ocampo.
June 4 and 9, 1985
Tito and Nelson were taken intopolice custody without a warrant. They underwent suctodial investigation without the assistance of counsel because no lawyer could be found in theirtown.They stated in their confession, in their ownhandwriting, that they voluntarily gave theirstatements and that no one coerced them or promisedthem anything to admit responsibility for the crime.
The three signed their individual statements in front of Judge Valencia Bagalacsa. She followed the sameprocedure and line of questioning, using the local dialect,in ascertaining the voluntariness of the confessions. Sheordered Lt. Idian and his companions to leave her and theaccused inside the chamber.
Satisfied that they wereproperly apprised of their rights and that they voluntarilyexecuted their statements, she had them sign theirindividual extrajudicial statements.The three accused interposed common defenses: denialand they were tortured and forced to make a confession.Tito and Nelson also claimed that they were not assistedby counsel when their confessions were taken.Maximo claimed that he went with Lt. Idian because hewas told that his parents wanted to see him because hisbrother died. He was shown a picture of the cadaver. Alongthe way, he felt a hard object hit his head and he passedout. When he regained consciousness, he was alreadyhandcuffed. Pointing a gun, Lt. Idian told him that he couldchoose either to die or to sign the statement they preoaredbecause his brother had wronged them. He was warnednot to tell anyone that he was mauled.Two days later, in front of Lt. Idian, Atty. Ocampo and Pat.Refe, Atty Ocampo read a prepared statement. He refusedto sign. He overheard that he was going to be made to signin front of Atty. Ocampo.
 According to Maximo, he was kicked in the stomachand a gun was poked at him. He signed the statement out of fear. He was also made to sign anotherstatement in front of Judge Valencia Bagalacsa. Fromthe time he was arrested, he was never released.
Nelson Garcia denied knowledge of the crime and claimedthat he was mauled by Lt. Idian when his group went to
Garcia’s house it invite him to the station. He
was mauledagain at the station and to prevent injury, he just signedthe prepared statement.
He also claimed that he wasneither informed of the contents nor assisted bycounsel.
He was asked to copy in his own handwriting theprepared statement. He was never released from custodyfrom the time he was arrested.Tito also claimed that he was arrested and was mauled inorder to make him sign the prepared statement.
He alsoclaimed that he was neither informed of the contentsnor assisted by counsel.ISSUE: WON the extra-judicial confession of the threeaccused may be admitted as evidence. - No. (
but Maximo relayed it to Romualda who became a witness. So
nagamit pa rin as romualda’s statement. Kk? Nasa medyo
last part ng ratio.)RATIO:
The right to counsel attaches the moment aninvestigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information on the crime from the suspected offender.
It is at this point that the law requires the assistance of counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting forcedor coerced admissions or confessions from the person

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->