Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5K views

    People vs. Del Rosario Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Caitlin Kintanar
    The accused was convicted of robbery with homicide based on testimony identifying him as the driver of the getaway vehicle. When questioned by police, he identified the suspects' hideout, where a shootout occurred. The accused's statement was taken while handcuffed and not informed of his Miranda rights. The court held that the accused's rights were violated as he was considered a suspect from the time of his invitation to the police station for questioning. The court also found the warrantless arrest unlawful as it did not fall under any exceptions and was not immediately after the crime. However, jurisdiction was not affected as the accused submitted to arraignment despite the illegal arrest.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Del Rosario Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Caitlin Kintanar
    5K views1 page
    The accused was convicted of robbery with homicide based on testimony identifying him as the driver of the getaway vehicle. When questioned by police, he identified the suspects' hideout, where a shootout occurred. The accused's statement was taken while handcuffed and not informed of his Miranda rights. The court held that the accused's rights were violated as he was considered a suspect from the time of his invitation to the police station for questioning. The court also found the warrantless arrest unlawful as it did not fall under any exceptions and was not immediately after the crime. However, jurisdiction was not affected as the accused submitted to arraignment despite the illegal arrest.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The accused was convicted of robbery with homicide based on testimony identifying him as the driver of the getaway vehicle. When questioned by police, he identified the suspects' hideout, where a shootout occurred. The accused's statement was taken while handcuffed and not informed of his Miranda rights. The court held that the accused's rights were violated as he was considered a suspect from the time of his invitation to the police station for questioning. The court also found the warrantless arrest unlawful as it did not fall under any exceptions and was not immediately after the crime. However, jurisdiction was not affected as the accused submitted to arraignment despite the illegal arrest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    5K views1 page

    People vs. Del Rosario Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Caitlin Kintanar
    The accused was convicted of robbery with homicide based on testimony identifying him as the driver of the getaway vehicle. When questioned by police, he identified the suspects' hideout, where a shootout occurred. The accused's statement was taken while handcuffed and not informed of his Miranda rights. The court held that the accused's rights were violated as he was considered a suspect from the time of his invitation to the police station for questioning. The court also found the warrantless arrest unlawful as it did not fall under any exceptions and was not immediately after the crime. However, jurisdiction was not affected as the accused submitted to arraignment despite the illegal arrest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    People vs.

    Joselito del Rosario GR 127755, April 14, 1999


    FACTS
    The accused-appellant was convicted of the robbery with homicide and sentenced to death. The
    conviction of the accused was based on the testimony of a tricycle driver who claimed that the accused
    was the one who drove the tricycle, which the suspects used as their get-away vehicle. The accused was
    then invited by the police for questioning and he pointed to the location where he dropped off the
    suspects. When the police arrived at the supposed hide-out, a shooting incident ensued, resulting to the
    death of some of the suspects.
    After the incident, the accused was taken back to the precint where his statement was taken on May 14,
    1996. However, this was only subscribed on May 22, 1996 and the accused was made to execute a
    waiver of detention in the presence of Ex-Judge Talavera. It was noted that the accused was handcuffed
    through all this time upon orders of the fiscal and based on the authorities' belief that the accused might
    attempt to escape otherwise.
    ISSUES
    (1) Whether the Miranda rights of the accused-appellant were violated.
    (2) Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused-appellant was lawful.
    HELD
    (1) YES. It was established that the accused was not apprised of his rights to remain silent and to
    have competent and independent counsel in the course of the investigation. The Court held that
    the accused should always be apprised of his Miranda rights from the moment he is arrested by
    the authorities as this is deemed the start of custodial investigation. In fact, the Court included
    invitations by police officers in the scope of custodial investigations.
    It is evident in this case that when the police invited the accused-appellant to the station, he was already
    considered as the suspect in the case. Therefore, the questions asked of him were no longer general
    inquiries into an unsolved crime, but were intended to elicit information about his participation in the
    crime.
    However, the Miranda rights may be waived, provided that the waiver is voluntary, express, in writing and
    made in the presence of counsel. Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused made
    such a waiver.
    (2) NO. There are certain situations when authorities may conduct a lawful warrantless arrest: (a)
    when the accused is caught in flagrante delicto; (b) when the arrest is made immediately after the
    crime was committed; and when the one to be arrested is an escaped convict. The arrest of the
    accused in this case did not fall in any of these exceptions. The arrest was not conducted
    immediately after the consummation of the crime; rather, it was done a day after. The authorities
    also did not have personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be arrested had
    committed the offense because they were not there when the crime was committed. They merely
    relied on the account of one eyewitness.
    Unfortunately, athough the warrantless arrest was not lawful, this did not affect the jurisdiction of the Court
    in this case because the accused still submitted to arraignment despite the illegality of his arrest. In effect,
    he waived his right to contest the legality of the warrantless arrest.

    You might also like