Case Digest: So v. Republic (G.R. No. 170603)

So v. Republic | G.R. No. 170603 | 29 Jan 2007 | Callejo, Sr. J. | Art IV (Section 1, Par 4) | Petitioners: Edison So Respondents: Republic of the Philippines Recit Ready Summary Herein Petitioner So filed for a Petition for Naturalization under CA No. 473 aka the Revised Naturalization Law.He presented 2 witnesses à fam business lawyer Atty. Adasa & UST classmate Mark Salcedo. RTC granted So’s petition. Respondent Republic of the Phil through OSG said not so fast! Coz SolGen claims na the 2 witnesses So presented did not know him (So) well enough and that they only gave general statements upon being asked about the character and moral conduct of So. CA set aside RTC’s decision. Hence, this present petition. The issue is W/N So qualifies for Philippines Citizenship and the Court said NO. It was wrong for So to claim that that RA 9139 should apply to his case instead of CA No. 473. This is because the latter applied to ALL ALIENS regardless of class while the former applies to nati...
Post a Comment

Case Digest: People v. Sunga (G.R. No. 126029)

People v. Sunga | G.R. No. 126029 | March 27, 2003 | J. Carpio-Morales | Article III - Section 12 |

Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: REY SUNGA, RAMIL LANSANG, INOCENCIO PASCUA, LITO OCTAC and LOCIL CUI @ GINALYN CUYOS, accused, REY SUNGA, RAMIL LANSANG and INOCENCIO PASCUA,
appellants.

Recit Ready Summary
Respondent Sunga was charged for the crime of Rape of Jocelyn Tan, a minor and a high school student. He was afforded the services of Atty. Rocamora, who was the City Legal Officer of Puerto Princesa. With the assistance of Atty. Rocamora, Sunga made testimonies and an extra-judicial confession. Later on, he was convicted of Rape with Homicide and was sentenced to death.

The issue in this case is W/N Sunga was afforded the right to counsel. The SC held that he was not.

A person under investigation is guaranteed to have a have competent and independent counsel of his own choice, and to be provided with one if he can’t afford the services of counsel. In this case, though he was given a lawyer, the requirement set by the Constitution is not complied with. The independent counsel for the accused in custodial investigations cannot be a special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused. A legal officer of the city, like Atty. Rocamora, provides legal aid and support to the mayor and the city in carrying out the delivery of basic services to the people, which includes maintenance of peace and order and, as such, his office is akin to that of a prosecutor who unquestionably cannot represent the accused during custodial investigation due to conflict of interest.

FACTS:
Respondent Sunga was charged for the crime of rape of Jocelyn Tan, a minor and a high school student. According to the testimony of state witness 14 year old Locil, Sunga participated in the rape of Jocelyn, which happened in a forested area in Barangay Irawan, Puerto Princesa City.

Locil was riding a tricycle together with Jocelyn and the other accused, Pascua and a lesbian. Sunga, who was later on replaced by a certain Inocencio Pascua, according to Locil, was driving the tricycle. Upon reaching the forested area, they dragged her to a nearby “buho” clumps and raped her. After satisfying their lust, they killed her.

In the investigation, Sunga was allowed to avail of the services of a lawyer. Sunga chose Atty. Rocamora to be his counsel from among the names of lawyers mentioned by him by a certain police officer. Thereafter, the investigation proceeded with Sunga voluntarily giving his answers to questions he was asked. Later on, Sunga was convicted of the crime of Rape with Homicide and was sentenced to suffer penalty of Death. Hence, the automatic review of the case by the SC.

ISSUE: Whether or not Sunga was afforded the right to counsel? NO.

HELD: A person under investigation for the commission of an offense is guaranteed the following rights by the Constitution: (1) the right to remain silent; (2) the right to have competent and independent counsel of his own choice, and to be provided with one if he can’t afford the services of counsel; and (3) the right to be informed of these rights. 

The right to counsel was denied. Sunga in his admission before the police on the ground that the counsel who assisted him, Atty. Agustin Rocamora, was the City Legal Officer of Puerto Princesa. 

The Court mentioned the case of People v. Bandula, wherein it said that the independent counsel for the accused in custodial investigations can’t be a special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused. 

A legal officer of the city, like Atty. Rocamora, provides legal aid and support to the mayor and the city in carrying out the delivery of basic services to the people, which includes maintenance of peace and order and, as such, his office is akin to that of a prosecutor who unquestionably cannot represent the accused during custodial investigation due to conflict of interest. That Sunga chose him to be his counsel, even if true, did not render his admission admissible. Being of a very low educational attainment, Sunga could not have possibly known the ramifications of his choice of a city legal officer to be his counsel. The duty of law enforcers to inform him of his Constitutional rights during custodial interrogations to their full, proper and precise extent does not appear to have been discharged. The Court also pointed out that Atty. Rocamora didn’t exert efforts to safeguard Sunga’s rights and interests. Because of the foregoing, the Court held that testimonies and extrajudicial admissions made my Sunga couldn’t be admitted. 

The Court added that the right to counsel applies in certain pretrial proceedings that can be deemed “critical stages” in the criminal process. This includes preliminary investigation. The right to counsel involves more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and objections; rather it means an efficient and decisive legal assistance and not a simple perfunctory representation. 

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellants Rey Sunga, Ramil Lansang and Inocencio Pascua in Criminal Case No. 11984 the decision therein is hereby SET ASIDE and REVERSED and said appellants are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No 237428) w/ Summary of Separate Opinions

Republic v. Sereno (including Summary of Separate Opinions) | G.R. No. 237428 | May 11, 2018 | Tijam, J. |  Topic: Art. VIII, Sec 5 (other topics included in the full digest) | SUMMARY:   A petition for quo warranto was filed by the OSG assailing the appointment of CJ Sereno as Chief Justice on the ground that she failed to prove her integrity during the nomination process as she failed to comply with the SALN requirements of the JBC. Several groups and individuals filed Motions for Leave to Intervene, among them Senators De Lima and Trillanes. CJ Sereno filed a Motion to Inhibit against six Justices. The Republic argues that (1) quo warranto is the proper remedy, as the Constitution does not make impeachment the exclusive mode of unseating an impeachable officer; (2) the petition is not time barred as prescription cannot run against the States; and, (3) that, at the time of her appointment, CJ Sereno was not of “proven integrity” she not having filed the required SALNs a...
Read more

Case Digest: Gloria Dy v. People (G.R. No 189081)

Gloria Dy v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 189081 | August 10, 2016 | Topic: Liability ex delicto / ex contractu FACTS: Dy, as the General Manager of Mandy Commodities Company, Inc. (MCCI) proposed to William Mandy (President of MCCI) to purchase a property for the company. To facilitate the purchase, the president obtained a loan from International China Bank of Commerce (bank), which was granted to the company in the amount of P20 million.   As security, MCCI executed a chattel mortgage over their warehouses. The president entrusted Dy to manage the payment of the loan. Later on, MCCI received a notice of foreclosure over the mortgaged property due to its default in paying.   In order to prevent the foreclosure, the president delivered to Dy, P21,706,281 worth of checks issued by MCCI, with the instruction that Dy shall use the checks to pay the loan. However, the president later discovered that the checks weren’t paid to the bank when the bank foreclosed the mortg...
Read more

Case Digest: Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906)

Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo |  G.R. No. 180906 | October 7, 2008 |  Puno. C.J. Doctrine and Concepts: The Writ of Amparo offers a better remedy to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats thereof due to the nature of swiftness required to resolve these cases The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence or administrative responsibility requiring full and exhaustive proceedings. Facts The case at bar is an appeal via Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo , seeking to reverse and set aside , the Decision promulgated by Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. AMPARO No. 00001. The original case was filed by ...
Read more