Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 182 views

    People-V-Caguioa (Rule 113)

    Uploaded by

    Tiff Dizon
    The Supreme Court ruled Yupo's judicial confession inadmissible. While a right to counsel can be waived, the prosecution did not demonstrate Yupo's waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary as required by Miranda v. Arizona. Yupo was interrogated extensively in Tagalog without showing he understood, was illiterate, and more familiar with his native Visayan. The alleged waiver form was also deficient and did not meet the clear standard to show Yupo waived his constitutional rights.

    Copyright:

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

    People-V-Caguioa (Rule 113)

    Uploaded by

    Tiff Dizon
    182 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled Yupo's judicial confession inadmissible. While a right to counsel can be waived, the prosecution did not demonstrate Yupo's waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary as required by Miranda v. Arizona. Yupo was interrogated extensively in Tagalog without showing he understood, was illiterate, and more familiar with his native Visayan. The alleged waiver form was also deficient and did not meet the clear standard to show Yupo waived his constitutional rights.

    Original Description:

    h

    Original Title

    4. People-V-Caguioa (Rule 113)

    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 Yupo's judicial confession inadmissible. While a right to counsel can be waived, the prosecution did not demonstrate Yupo's waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary as required by Miranda v. Arizona. Yupo was interrogated extensively in Tagalog without showing he understood, was illiterate, and more familiar with his native Visayan. The alleged waiver form was also deficient and did not meet the clear standard to show Yupo waived his constitutional rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    182 views3 pages

    People-V-Caguioa (Rule 113)

    Uploaded by

    Tiff Dizon
    The Supreme Court ruled Yupo's judicial confession inadmissible. While a right to counsel can be waived, the prosecution did not demonstrate Yupo's waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary as required by Miranda v. Arizona. Yupo was interrogated extensively in Tagalog without showing he understood, was illiterate, and more familiar with his native Visayan. The alleged waiver form was also deficient and did not meet the clear standard to show Yupo waived his constitutional rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. EDUARDO P.

    CAGUIOA Judge, Court of First


    Instance of Bulacan, Branch VII, and PAQUITO YUPO, respondents.

    G.R. No.L-38975, January 17, 1980, EN BANC, (Fernando, C.J.)

    FACTS:

    The Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed on September 14, 1973, in the CFI of Bulacan, an information for murder against
    Paquito Yupo y Gonzales, with the case, being assigned to Branch VIII, presided by respondent Judge.
    Upon arraignment on October 5, 1973, the accused pleaded not guilty. The trial of the case then proceeded; the
    prosecution having presented six witnesses, including the father of the deceased, Miguel Tribol, and his common-law
    wife, Lydia Begnotia who allegedly received the ante mortem statement of the victim, Rodolfo Tribol.
    Then, at the hearing on June 3, 1974, the prosecution presented Corporal Conrado Roca of the Meycauayan Police
    Department, before whom a written statement of the accused PaquitoYupo and his alleged waiver of his right to remain
    silent and to be assisted by a counsel of his own choice was taken.
    After this witness had Identified the statement of the accused and the waiver, he was questioned on the incriminating
    answers in such statement to the police, but there was an objection on the part of the defense counsel based on the
    ground of such statement being inadmissible in evidence, as the statement was taken by the police without any counsel
    assisting the accused in the investigation.
    Respondent Judge sustained the objection of the defense on the view that such judicial confession of the accused is
    inadmissible in evidence for being unconstitutional, it appearing that the accused was not assisted by a counsel when it
    was given. He likewise stated that such right could not be waived. Upon his refuse to reconsider such ruling, this
    petition was filed.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Yupos judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence for being unconstitutional.

    RULING:

    The Court ruled in the affirmative.


    It was not shown that the alleged waiver was given freely and voluntarily. The questioning was rather perfunctory.
    Private respondent, a native of Samar, then nineteen years old, was interrogated extensively in Tagalog, no showing
    having been made that his acquaintance with the language was such that he could fully understand the import of what
    was asked him.
    On the specific question of whether or not the right to counsel during custodial interrogation interrogation may be
    waived, the Court rules that there is no bar to such a waiver if made intelligently and voluntarily, with full
    understanding of its consequences.
    While there could be a waiver of the rights of an accused, it must be intelligently waived; otherwise a court's jurisdiction
    starting at the banning of the trial may be lost in the course of the proceeding.
    Statements made during the period of custodial interrogation to be admissible require a clear intelligent waiver of
    constitutional rights, the suspect being warned prior to questioning that he has a right to remain silent, that any
    utterance may be used against him and that he has the right to the presence of a counsel, either retained or appointed.
    (Miranda v. Arizona)
    The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of
    the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-
    incrimination.
    Custodial interrogation - questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or
    otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
    As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused
    persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are
    required:
    Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he
    does not make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney,
    either retained or appointed.
    The defendant may waive effectuation of those rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and
    intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult
    with an attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning.
    If the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may
    not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on
    his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted
    with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned. (Miranda v. Arizona)
    Tested by such a clear and unequivocal standard, the alleged waiver falls far short. Even the very annex submitted to
    the petition merely stated that there were signatures of private respondent Yupo, Roca, Roberto Sales. The day when it
    was subscribed and sworn to, allegedly before Municipal Judge Mariano Mendieta was not even specified. Again, there
    was a statement that it was a certified true copy by a certain Teresita M. Tecson, whose connection with the case or
    with the court was not even shown. There was no signature.
    It was stressed in the brief filed on behalf of the accused that he is an ignorant and illiterate person, a neophyte in the
    national penitentiary, and one fully conversant [only] with his native Visayan. We cannot expect the accused to have
    fully understood the legal signification of these qualifying circumstances.

    You might also like