Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 385 views

    4 Sebastian V Garchitorena

    Uploaded by

    Joyce
    1) An information was filed against Salvador Sebastian and others for misuse and embezzlement of public funds from missing postage stamps. Sworn statements from the accused were admitted as evidence by the Sandiganbayan. 2) Sebastian objected and filed motions for reconsideration that were denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari to annul the resolutions. 3) The Court dismissed the petition, finding that the sworn statements were admissible and not hearsay. It also found that Sebastian's rights under Section 12 were not violated because the investigation was administrative in nature, not custodial, so he was not entitled to counsel.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    4 Sebastian V Garchitorena

    Uploaded by

    Joyce
    385 views1 page
    1) An information was filed against Salvador Sebastian and others for misuse and embezzlement of public funds from missing postage stamps. Sworn statements from the accused were admitted as evidence by the Sandiganbayan. 2) Sebastian objected and filed motions for reconsideration that were denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari to annul the resolutions. 3) The Court dismissed the petition, finding that the sworn statements were admissible and not hearsay. It also found that Sebastian's rights under Section 12 were not violated because the investigation was administrative in nature, not custodial, so he was not entitled to counsel.

    Original Description:

    Sebastian v Garchitorena Sec 12 Art 3

    Original Title

    4 Sebastian v Garchitorena

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) An information was filed against Salvador Sebastian and others for misuse and embezzlement of public funds from missing postage stamps. Sworn statements from the accused were admitted as evidence by the Sandiganbayan. 2) Sebastian objected and filed motions for reconsideration that were denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari to annul the resolutions. 3) The Court dismissed the petition, finding that the sworn statements were admissible and not hearsay. It also found that Sebastian's rights under Section 12 were not violated because the investigation was administrative in nature, not custodial, so he was not entitled to counsel.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    385 views1 page

    4 Sebastian V Garchitorena

    Uploaded by

    Joyce
    1) An information was filed against Salvador Sebastian and others for misuse and embezzlement of public funds from missing postage stamps. Sworn statements from the accused were admitted as evidence by the Sandiganbayan. 2) Sebastian objected and filed motions for reconsideration that were denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari to annul the resolutions. 3) The Court dismissed the petition, finding that the sworn statements were admissible and not hearsay. It also found that Sebastian's rights under Section 12 were not violated because the investigation was administrative in nature, not custodial, so he was not entitled to counsel.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    SEBASTIAN v GARCHITORENA

    G.R. No. 114028


    October 18, 2000
    Art III Sec 12 (Custodial investigation, in general - definition)
    FACTS:
    An information for the crime of Malversation of Public Funds was filed against Salvador
    Sebastian Sr. (a letter carrier), Rosita Pada (Regional stamps custodian) and other public officers in the
    Postal Services Officer in Zamboanga City. This was in relation to the misuse and embezzlement of funds
    (P649,290.05) from the misuse/disappearance of postage stamps in custody of Pada.
    Sworn statements by the accused were offered as evidence, which was all admitted by the
    Sandiganbayan through a Resolution. Appellant objected to this and filed a motion for reconsideration
    which was also denied by a 2nd resolution by the Sandiganbayan.
    Hence, this petition for certiorari seeking to annul said Resolutions.
    ISSUE/S:
    1. WON sworn statements of Salvador Sebastian and co-accused are admissible in evidence as part
    of the testimony of the prosecution witnesss
    2. WON his rights under Section12 were violated
    HELD:
    1. Yes, statements are admissible
    Sworn statements are not hearsay evidence as contended by Sebastian. It is otherwise as its
    purpose was to merely establish the fact that such written statements were actually made.
    2. No, his rights under Sec 12 were not violated.
    Petitioner claims to have been deprived of his Constitutional rights under Section 12 and 17, Art
    III of the Constitution.
    For Section 12:
    The court held that the rights provided in Section 12, Article III of the Constitution may
    be invoked only when a person is under "custodial investigation" or is "in custody
    investigation." Custodial investigation has been defined as any questioning initiated by
    law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise
    deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
    In the present case, the fact-finding investigation was an administrative investigation,
    hence accused may or may not be assisted by counsel. It has been held in the case of
    Lumiqued v. Exevea that the right to counsel is not imperative in administrative
    investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there
    are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees,
    with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.
    ** Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
    **Additionally, a Petition for Certiorari is the wrong choice of action in the instant case. Resolutions are
    interlocutory in nature and from which no appeal lies.

    Prepared by: Kristine Joyce Alegre

    You might also like