Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

People v. Caguioa Digest

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a waiver of the right to counsel presented by the prosecution was not admissible as evidence in the case of People v. Caguioa. The waiver was presented after the accused, Paquito Yupo, was interrogated by police in Tagalog instead of his native language of Waray. Additionally, there was no signature on the waiver by the accused, only illegible initials, indicating he did not fully understand the legal implications. The Court held that for a waiver to be valid, it must be given voluntarily and intelligently with understanding of its consequences, which was not demonstrated in this case.

Uploaded by

Francis Guinoo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

People v. Caguioa Digest

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a waiver of the right to counsel presented by the prosecution was not admissible as evidence in the case of People v. Caguioa. The waiver was presented after the accused, Paquito Yupo, was interrogated by police in Tagalog instead of his native language of Waray. Additionally, there was no signature on the waiver by the accused, only illegible initials, indicating he did not fully understand the legal implications. The Court held that for a waiver to be valid, it must be given voluntarily and intelligently with understanding of its consequences, which was not demonstrated in this case.

Uploaded by

Francis Guinoo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

c.

Specific requirements in case law


1. Waiver of right to counsel

in Tagalog instead of the language he was most comfortable which


was Waray.

En Banc
People v. Caguioa
GR No. L-38975
January 17, 1980

Maybe to impress the Court, the opening statements by the police in


the waiver were in Tagalog followed by a monosyllabic answer Opo.
However, there was no signature by the accused. There were only
illegible letters, perhaps indicating that they were his initials. This
only shows that the accused was not literate enough to fully
understand the legal implication and effects of the waiver.

Fernando, C.J.:
Facts: Accused Paquito Yupo was arrested and tried for murder. He
pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented Corporal Conrado
Roca of Meycauayan Police Department as witness, before whom a
written statement of the accused and his alleged waiver of his rights
to remain silent and to be assisted by a counsel of his own choice
was taken. After the witness had identified the statement of the
accused and the waiver, the prosecution started asking him on the
part of the incriminating answers in the statement of the accused.
The defense counsel objected based on the ground of such
statements being inadmissible in evidence, as the statement was
taken by the police without any counsel assisting the accused in the
investigation.
Issue: Whether or not the waiver presented was admissible as evidence.
Held:

No, the presented waiver was not admissible as evidence.

Ratio: The right to counsel may be waived as long as such waiver is made
intelligently and voluntarily, with full understanding of its
consequence. However, it was not shown that the waiver was given
voluntarily and freely. An even more disturbing factor is that the
accused, a 19-year old native of Samar, was interrogated extensively

Additional:
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.
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. Likewise, 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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy