This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-06-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, "[i]t is settled that a confession [or admission] is presumed voluntary until the contrary is proved and the confessant bears the burden of proving the contrary."[23] Petitioner failed to overcome this presumption. On the contrary, his written statement was found to have been executed freely and consciously. The pertinent details he narrated in his statement were of such nature and quality that only a perpetrator of the crime could furnish. The details contained therein attest to its voluntariness. As correctly pointed out by the CA: As the trial court noted, the written statement (Exhibit N) of appellant is replete with details which could only be supplied by appellant. The statement reflects spontaneity and coherence which cannot be associated with a mind to which intimidation has been applied. Appellant's answers to questions 14 and 24 were even initialed by him to indicate his conformity to the corrections made therein. The response to every question was fully informative, even beyond the required answers, which only indicates the mind to be free from extraneous restraints.[24] | |||||
|
2013-06-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In People v. Rapeza,[21] we explained that the lawyer called to be present during custodial investigations should, as far as reasonably possible, be the choice of the individual undergoing questioning. If the lawyer is furnished by the police for the accused, it is important that the lawyer should be competent, independent and prepared to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused, as distinguished from one who would merely be giving a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional rights. | |||||