Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    PEOPLE V BASAY

    Uploaded by

    Lance Bernadette Basa
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in finding Jaime Ramirez guilty based on his extra-judicial confession, which was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights to counsel and to remain silent during custodial investigation. Specifically, Ramirez was not informed of his rights, was interrogated in a language he did not understand without translation, and was not provided legal counsel during the investigation or waiver of rights.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE V BASAY

    Uploaded by

    Lance Bernadette Basa
    24 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in finding Jaime Ramirez guilty based on his extra-judicial confession, which was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights to counsel and to remain silent during custodial investigation. Specifically, Ramirez was not informed of his rights, was interrogated in a language he did not understand without translation, and was not provided legal counsel during the investigation or waiver of rights.

    Original Title

    PEOPLE v BASAY

    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 the trial court erred in finding Jaime Ramirez guilty based on his extra-judicial confession, which was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights to counsel and to remain silent during custodial investigation. Specifically, Ramirez was not informed of his rights, was interrogated in a language he did not understand without translation, and was not provided legal counsel during the investigation or waiver of rights.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE V BASAY

    Uploaded by

    Lance Bernadette Basa
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in finding Jaime Ramirez guilty based on his extra-judicial confession, which was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights to counsel and to remain silent during custodial investigation. Specifically, Ramirez was not informed of his rights, was interrogated in a language he did not understand without translation, and was not provided legal counsel during the investigation or waiver of rights.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE

    OF THE PHILIPPINES v TEODORO BASAY "DORO" and JAIME RAMIREZ "NEBOY", accused. JAIME RAMIREZ
    "NEBOY", accused-appellant.

    G.R. No. 86941. March 3, 1993
    DAVIDE, JR., J:

    FACTS:

    Teodoro Basay and Jaime Ramirez were charged with Multiple Murder with Arson for having allegedly killed the
    spouses Zosimo and Beatrice Toting and their six-year old daughter, Bombie, and for having burned the said spouses' house to
    conceal the crime; as a consequence of such fire, the spouses' other daughter, Manolita, was burned to death. The MCTC issued
    a warrant for the arrest of the accused; no bail was recommended. However, it appears that the accused had earlier been
    apprehended by elements of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) and Civilian Home Defense Forces (CHDF) and were detained at
    the Pamplona municipal jail. The Trial court acquitted Basay for failing to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt but convicted
    Ramirez. Accused Jaime Ramirez testified that he was cooking food for the pig when the armed uniformed men arrested him
    and was brought (sic) to the Nabalabag PC Detachment where he was maltreated. Later, he was brought to Municipal (sic) Jail
    where he stayed for one month and 23 days.

    Jaime Ramirez is a farmer. The prosecution did not rebut his claim that he had only finished Grade II and that he does
    not know how to read. He understands the Cebuano dialect. The Joint Waiver mentioned the testimony of Jaime Ramirez is in
    the Cebuano dialect and was signed by accused Basay and Ramirez. Both accused state therein that for their safety and security,
    they voluntarily decided to be detained and that they killed the spouses Zosimo Toting and Betty Toting and thereafter burned
    the spouses' house; this fire resulted in the death of one and the hospitalization of two Toting children. When he signed a sworn
    statement in English, Catacutan was in front of him. They did not converse with each other. He did not engage Catacutan to assist
    him, nor solicit his services. He does know anyone who solicited Catacutan's services for him. He did not ask the Judge
    (Calumpang) that a lawyer be designated to help him in connection with the affidavit. The Pamplona Judge did not offer to give
    him a lawyer to assist him in the execution of the affidavit.

    The trial court disregarded this Joint Waiver insofar as it tended to incriminate the accused "because when they signed
    said Joint Waiver, they were not represented by counsel”. It is in violation of "Section 12, Article 3 of the Bill of Rights of the 1987
    Constitution." There being no other evidence against Basay, the trial court acquitted him. However, it admitted in evidence the
    so-called extra-judicial confession of Jaime Ramirez. It was also stated Ramirez signed the extra-judicial confession voluntarily
    and in the presence of Elpedio Catacutan, the COMELEC registrar of Pamplona — "a barister who appeared as counsel for
    accused Jaime Ramirez;" hence it is admissible against the latter.

    Contention of the appellant: His so-called extra-judicial confession was executed in blatant disregard of his constitutional right
    to counsel and to remain silent during custodial investigation. It is therefore inadmissible in evidence.

    Contention of the People: In the Appellee's Brief submitted by the Office of the Solicitor General, that the appellant executed
    the extra-judicial confession voluntarily and without duress; in signing such confession, he was accompanied by a certain Mr.
    Catacutan, a non-lawyer, inside the chambers of Judge Calumpan.

    ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE APPELLANT GUILTY AS CHARGED ON THE BASIS OF
    THE AFFIDAVIT WHICH WAS EXECUTED IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ON THE BASIS OF
    HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND ON THE PRESUMPTION OF GUILT. (Whether or not Appellant was deprived of a competent
    counsel)

    HELD: YES.

    The extra-judicial confession belonging to appellant Jaime Ramirez and obtained during custodial interrogation was
    taken in blatant disregard of his right to counsel, to remain silent and to be informed of such rights, guaranteed by Section 12,
    Article IV of the 1987 Constitution.

    At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and
    he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel,
    and that any statement he might make could be used against him. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with
    his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means, by telephone or by letter or messenger. It shall be the
    responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be conducted
    unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the reason arrested, by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the
    court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. The right to counsel may be waived but
    the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the
    procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
    The right "to be informed" carries with it a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain, and
    contemplates effective communication which results in the subject's understanding of what is conveyed. Since it is
    comprehension that is sought to be attained, the degree of explanation required will necessarily vary and depend on the
    education, intelligence and other relevant personal circumstances of the person undergoing investigation. The interrogation
    was the conducted and the confession was written in English a language the appellant, a farmer in a remote barangay of
    Pamplona, cannot speak and does not understand; he only finished Grade II. There is no evidence to show that the interrogator,
    who was not even presented as a witness and remains unidentified, translated the questions and the answers into a dialect
    known and fairly understood by the appellant.

    Moreover, Appellant was not told that he could retain a counsel of choice and that if he cannot afford to do so, he could
    be provided with one. He did not sign any waiver of his right to remain silent and to counsel. He was not assisted by any
    counsel during the investigation. Instead, a certain Elpedio Catacutan, who claimed to have appeared for him as a
    "friend- counsel," was present only at the time that appellant was brought to the office of Judge Catacutan for the
    preparation of the jurat.

    NOTES:

    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

    *The defendant may waive effectuation of those rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently

    *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.

    You might also like