Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

People v. Bolanos 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 theappeal. 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.Doctrine: From the moment the accused is in a way significantly deprived of 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. People v. Lucero While Lucero was under custodial investigation he was provided with a lawyer from CIS Legal Dept (Peralta). Peralta explained all his rights under custodial investigation and stated that even had he made certain statements therein, he could still refuse to sign the same. Atty. Peralta gathered the impression that Peralta understood. When the investigation started Peralta then left to attend the wake of his friend and gave a word that should be he needed, he could be reached at his residence. The next day, Lucero with CIS agents arrived at Peraltas residence carrying a signed statement by Lucero. Peralta explained the possible implications of the statement but Lucero consented thereto. Later, Lucero claimed that he signed the statement under duress and in the absence of his lawyer. Held: Appellant's conviction cannot be based on his extrajudicial confession. Constitution requires that a person under investigation for the commission of a crime should be provided with counsel. The Court have constitutionalized the right to counsel because of hostility against the use of duress and other undue influence in extracting confessions from a suspect. Force and fraud tarnish confessions can render them inadmissible. The records show that Atty. Peralta, who was not the counsel of choice of appellant. Atty. Peralta himself admitted he received no reaction from appellant although his impression was that appellant understood him. More so, it was during his absence that appellant gave an uncounselled confession. Constitution requires the right to counsel, it did not mean any kind of counsel but effective and vigilant counsel. The circumstances clearly demonstrate that appellant received no effective counseling from Atty. Peralta. Whereof, Decision convicting appellant Alejandro Lucero y Cortel is hereby reversed. People v. Pajorinog

Pajorinog who was arrested for triple murder claims that the lawyer assigned to him, atty. Fuentes, was not of his choice and was only forced upon him. The evidence however reveals that Atty. Fuentes was nevertheless with him throughout the investigation; he complained on the matter only during trial. While the initial choice of lawyers is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the accused has the final choice and may reject the same and ask for a new lawyer. However in this case all throughout the proceedings the accused never voiced any objection as to the choice of his counsel. He thus acquiesced to the choice of the investigators and raising the matter only during trial is deemed to be too late. Any person has the right to refuse and change counsel if he distrusts the counsel provided, however, if he acquiesces or does not object and the counsel performs his duties properly no violation of the right to choose counsel was violated.