Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JUDGE RUBEN AYSON

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 187752 2010-11-23	IRENE K. NACU v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION NACHURA, J.
Petitioners also posit that Nacu was denied her right against self-incrimination when she was made to give samples of her signature. We do not agree. The right against self-incrimination is not self-executing or automatically operational. It must be claimed; otherwise, the protection does not come into play. Moreover, the right must be claimed at the appropriate time, or else, it may be deemed waived.[20] In the present case, it does not appear that Nacu invoked her right against self-incrimination at the appropriate time, that is, at the time she was asked to provide samples of her signature. She is therefore deemed to have waived her right against self-incrimination.
	GR NO. 169431 2007-04-04	PEOPLE v. JERRY RAPEZA Y FRANCISCO TINGA, J.
A person under custodial investigation essentially has the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice and the Constitution requires that he be informed of such rights. The raison d' etre for this requirement was amply explained in People v. Ayson[37] where this Court held, to wit:x x x x
	GR NO. 159734 2006-11-30	ROSARIO V. ASTUDILLO v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
It bears noting, however, that when the prosecution formally offered its evidence, petitioners failed to file any objection thereto including their extra-judicial admissions.[28] At any rate, this Court answers the issue in the affirmative. People v. Ayson[29] is instructive:In Miranda, Chief Justice Warren summarized the procedural safeguards laid down for a person in police custody, "in-custody interrogation" being regarded as the commencement of an adversary proceeding against the suspect.
	GR No. 157399 2005-11-17	PEOPLE v. JOSE TING LAN UY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Clearly, therefore, the rights enumerated by the constitutional provision invoked by accused-appellant are not available before government investigators enter the picture.[20] Thus we held in one case[21] that admissions made during the course of an administrative investigation by Philippine Airlines do not come within the purview of Section 12. The protective mantle of the constitutional provision also does not extend to admissions or confessions made to a private individual,[22] or to a verbal admission made to a radio announcer who was not part of the investigation,[23] or even to a mayor approached as a personal confidante and not in his official capacity.[24]