Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 328 views

    PEOPLE Vs LUGNASIN

    Uploaded by

    Daf Mariano
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no violation of the constitutional rights of the accused during custodial investigation. The accused, Devincio, did not execute an extrajudicial confession or admission. According to precedent, any allegation of rights violation during custodial investigation is only relevant if an extrajudicial admission or confession becomes the basis for conviction. Additionally, the illegality of the warrantless arrest was deemed waived since it was not raised before arraignment. Both accused participated fully in trial proceedings.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE Vs LUGNASIN

    Uploaded by

    Daf Mariano
    328 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no violation of the constitutional rights of the accused during custodial investigation. The accused, Devincio, did not execute an extrajudicial confession or admission. According to precedent, any allegation of rights violation during custodial investigation is only relevant if an extrajudicial admission or confession becomes the basis for conviction. Additionally, the illegality of the warrantless arrest was deemed waived since it was not raised before arraignment. Both accused participated fully in trial proceedings.

    Original Title

    PEOPLE vs LUGNASIN

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no violation of the constitutional rights of the accused during custodial investigation. The accused, Devincio, did not execute an extrajudicial confession or admission. According to precedent, any allegation of rights violation during custodial investigation is only relevant if an extrajudicial admission or confession becomes the basis for conviction. Additionally, the illegality of the warrantless arrest was deemed waived since it was not raised before arraignment. Both accused participated fully in trial proceedings.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE Vs LUGNASIN

    Uploaded by

    Daf Mariano
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no violation of the constitutional rights of the accused during custodial investigation. The accused, Devincio, did not execute an extrajudicial confession or admission. According to precedent, any allegation of rights violation during custodial investigation is only relevant if an extrajudicial admission or confession becomes the basis for conviction. Additionally, the illegality of the warrantless arrest was deemed waived since it was not raised before arraignment. Both accused participated fully in trial proceedings.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE vs LUGNASIN

    G.R. No. 208404, 24 February 2016


    Leonardo-De Castro, J.

    FACTS:
    In the evening of April 20, 1999, while opening the garage door of his residence, three
    armed men who were later made known to him as Devincio Guerrero, Tito Lugnasin and Elmer
    Madrid, abducted Nicassius Cordero and made him board a car. Thereafter another cohort, Celso
    Lugnasin, rode with them. Fifteen minutes after traversing the Superhighway, they switched the
    car with a jeepney. Cordero was kept in a small house for 4 days while they negotiated with
    Saleena, his sister-in-law, for the ransom money. Unable to give any money, Cordero was
    eventually released without ransom money being paid. Cordero filed a case for kidnapping for
    ransom under Art. 267 of the RPC.
    The accused denied Cordero’s allegation arguing that they had only met Cordero for the
    first time during trial. Elmer also alleged that, on May 14, 1999, while preparing for the town
    fiesta celebration, policemen came to his residence and arrested him and his brother Tito and
    cousin Excelsio for their alleged involvement in a robbery case. They were tortured, and then put
    on display for media men to feast on and for alleged victims to identify. Devincio, on his part,
    recalled that nearing Holy Week in 2002, five uniformed policemen arrested him without a
    warrant in Lucena City, where he used to buy smoked fish to sell.
    The RTC found all four guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping for ransom. The
    CA affirmed the decision. Devincio and Vicente filed an appeal raising the following issues: 1)
    the illegality of the warrantless arrest, and 2) the violation of his Constitutional rights at the time
    of his arrest and rights under Sections 2 and 3 of Republic Act No. 7438 during custodial
    investigation.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not there was a violation of the constitutional rights of the accused during
    custodial investigation

    RULING:
    No. The SC did not give credit to Devincio’s bare-faced claim that his rights under RA
    7438 were violated while he was under custodial investigation. Devincio did not execute an
    extrajudicial confession or admission. In the case of People vs Buluran and Valenzuela, it was
    held that: “There is no violation of the constitutional rights of the accused during custodial
    investigation since neither one executed an extrajudicial confession or admission. In fact, the
    records show that appellant Cielito Buluran opted to remain silent during custodial investigation.
    Any allegation of violation of rights during custodial investigation is relevant and material only
    to cases in which an extrajudicial admission or confession extracted from the accused becomes
    the basis of their conviction.”
    NOTE: As for the illegality of the warrantless arrest, the same rule under People vs Bringcula
    applies. The illegality was first raised on appeal, which is deemed a waiver of the illegality since
    any question of illegality must be raised before arraignment. Both also participated in the
    proceedings by entering a plea and participating in the trial.

    You might also like