Facts: The accused was charged of robbery with homicide. During investigation he was investigated and made an extrajudicial confession during the interrogation in the absence of a counsel. It was 2 weeks later that he was provided with one in the person of Atty. Zena, a municipality attorney where he was made to sign a sworn statement admitting the shooting of the victim.
Held: No, the right of the accused for due process was clearly violated since the authorities failed to provide him counsel during the interrogation and he was not informed of his right to remain silent and right to a counsel. Furthermore, the counsel to be provided to the accused should be one who is impartial, independent and of his own choice. If the accused cannot afford to have his own counsel then he will be provided by the authorities with one. Providing the accused with municipality attorney as counsel would be prejudicial because of conflict of interest involved in the performance of duty of said counsel. The court held the evidence inadmissible to court for failure to meet the requisites of due process for conducting custodial investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment