Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 95 views

    People Vs Cabintoy

    Uploaded by

    Cheza Biliran
    This document summarizes a court case between the People of the Philippines vs Raul Cabintoy and Celso Fernando. It discusses that (1) Cabintoy and Fernando were accused of robbery and homicide of a taxi driver and questioned by police without a lawyer present, (2) they signed confessions implicating themselves and others but claim they did so before being informed of their rights, and (3) the court ultimately ruled the confessions inadmissible because valid waivers of their constitutional rights were not signed ahead of the confessions. As a result, the court acquitted Cabintoy and Fernando.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Cabintoy

    Uploaded by

    Cheza Biliran
    95 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case between the People of the Philippines vs Raul Cabintoy and Celso Fernando. It discusses that (1) Cabintoy and Fernando were accused of robbery and homicide of a taxi driver and questioned by police without a lawyer present, (2) they signed confessions implicating themselves and others but claim they did so before being informed of their rights, and (3) the court ultimately ruled the confessions inadmissible because valid waivers of their constitutional rights were not signed ahead of the confessions. As a result, the court acquitted Cabintoy and Fernando.

    Original Title

    People vs Cabintoy

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case between the People of the Philippines vs Raul Cabintoy and Celso Fernando. It discusses that (1) Cabintoy and Fernando were accused of robbery and homicide of a taxi driver and questioned by police without a lawyer present, (2) they signed confessions implicating themselves and others but claim they did so before being informed of their rights, and (3) the court ultimately ruled the confessions inadmissible because valid waivers of their constitutional rights were not signed ahead of the confessions. As a result, the court acquitted Cabintoy and Fernando.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    95 views2 pages

    People Vs Cabintoy

    Uploaded by

    Cheza Biliran
    This document summarizes a court case between the People of the Philippines vs Raul Cabintoy and Celso Fernando. It discusses that (1) Cabintoy and Fernando were accused of robbery and homicide of a taxi driver and questioned by police without a lawyer present, (2) they signed confessions implicating themselves and others but claim they did so before being informed of their rights, and (3) the court ultimately ruled the confessions inadmissible because valid waivers of their constitutional rights were not signed ahead of the confessions. As a result, the court acquitted Cabintoy and Fernando.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    1128

    People vs Cabintoy
    G.R. No. 107534 | August 21, 1995
    Petitioner: People of the Philippines
    Respondent: Raul Cabintoy and Celso Fernando

    FACTS:
    On 24 May 1991 at around 11 in the evening, P/Pfc. Richard P. Salvador, Chief of the
    Investigation Section of the San Mateo Police, received information that robbery with homicide
    had happened in General Luna Street, San Mateo, Rizal. He was also informed that the victim
    was Wilfredo Diaz, a taxi driver who was brought to the nearest hospital but was declared dead
    on arrival.
    They recovered a knife, presumably used during the commission of the crime, and a pair
    of slippers inside the taxi. The knife recovered is a kind of knife commonly used by butchers.
    They also found a trail of blood from the scene of the crime up to Resurrection St. going
    towards Daang-Bakal. On the morning of 26 May 1991, Salvador went to the San Mateo, Rizal
    slaughter house near the public market to inquire about the knife found inside the taxi. Pfc.
    Salvador questioned the butchers therein and showed them the knife. Three butchers identified
    the knife as one used frequently by a person named "Amang" or Celso Fernando, who also
    worked as a butcher in the same slaughter house.
    Pfc. Salvador testified in court that accused-appellants were informed of their
    constitutional rights in the presence of counsel, Atty. Benjamin Pozon of the Public Attorney's
    Office, on 26 May 1991. On the same day, each appellant executed a waiver of the right to
    counsel signed in the presence of Atty. Pozon. Thereafter, appellant Raul Cabintoy executed a
    sworn statement admitting his participation in the crime and implicating Celso Fernando and
    one Fernando Garcia, When this written confession was executed, Atty. Pozon was present.
    When Celso Fernando made his confession he was not represented by a lawyer, but Atty. Pozon
    was still there because he was curious about the case.
    Even before the two (2) appellants were formally investigated, they verbally admitted
    their participation in the crime. Celso Fernando acknowledged ownership of the knife recovered
    at the scene of the crime. These admissions were, however, made before appellants were
    informed of their rights.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the two admissions made by the defendants during their custodial
    investigation are admissible in evidence

    RULING:
    After carefully examining the record of this case, the Court finds that the waivers were
    signed by Atty. Pozon on the 27th of May, 1991 as indicated by the date written by Atty. Pozon
    himself beside his signature.On the other hand, it is disputable that the confessions of appellants
    were executed in the evening of the 26th of May, 1991. These facts tend to confirm the

    Prepared by: Cheza Marie D. Biliran !1


    1128

    testimonies of accused-appellants that they were brought before Atty. Pozon after they had
    already signed the extrajudicial confessions, and belie the assertion of the prosecution that the
    waivers were signed ahead of the confessions on the same evening of the 26th of May, 1991.
    The purported waivers, are set out in the same documents setting out the respective confessions
    of the two appellants.
    From the foregoing, it could be concluded that at the time the questioned confessions
    were executed, there were no prior valid waivers of their constitutional rights by Cabintoy and
    Fernando. This defect alone is sufficient to make the confessions inadmissible in evidence.
    Moreover, the confessions do not indicate that both accused were represented by counsel during
    the investigation. The settled rule is that an uncounselled extrajudicial confession without a
    valid waiver of the right to counsel, in writing and in the presence of counsel, is inadmissible in
    evidence.
    Therefore, the appellants are hereby ACQUITTED.

    Prepared by: Cheza Marie D. Biliran !2

    You might also like