Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 187 SCRA 47 - July 2, 1990 C, J.: Doctrine: People of The Philippines v. Loveria

    Uploaded by

    Kenneth Taguiba
    147 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the conviction of accused David Loveria for robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide. The Court held that Loveria's right to counsel was not violated when the victim identified him at the police station. Under the Constitution, Miranda rights to counsel only apply during custodial investigation, which refers to questioning by law enforcement after being deprived of freedom. Since Loveria was not being interrogated when identified, but was already a defendant in a pending case, he could no longer claim violation of his right to counsel. The Court emphasized that Miranda rights do not apply once criminal proceedings have begun against a defendant.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    26. People v Loveria

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the conviction of accused David Loveria for robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide. The Court held that Loveria's right to counsel was not violated when the victim identified him at the police station. Under the Constitution, Miranda rights to counsel only apply during custodial investigation, which refers to questioning by law enforcement after being deprived of freedom. Since Loveria was not being interrogated when identified, but was already a defendant in a pending case, he could no longer claim violation of his right to counsel. The Court emphasized that Miranda rights do not apply once criminal proceedings have begun against a defendant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    147 views2 pages

    187 SCRA 47 - July 2, 1990 C, J.: Doctrine: People of The Philippines v. Loveria

    Uploaded by

    Kenneth Taguiba
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the conviction of accused David Loveria for robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide. The Court held that Loveria's right to counsel was not violated when the victim identified him at the police station. Under the Constitution, Miranda rights to counsel only apply during custodial investigation, which refers to questioning by law enforcement after being deprived of freedom. Since Loveria was not being interrogated when identified, but was already a defendant in a pending case, he could no longer claim violation of his right to counsel. The Court emphasized that Miranda rights do not apply once criminal proceedings have begun against a defendant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    People of the Philippines v.

    Loveria
    187 SCRA 47 | July 2, 1990
    CORTES, J.:
    Doctrine
    The so-called Miranda rights contained in the constitutional provisions may be invoked by a
    person only while he is under custodial investigation which has been defined as the "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. Hence, for instance, these constitutional
    rights may no longer be claimed by a defendant in a criminal case already pending in because he
    is no longer under custodial investigation.

    FACTS
     Accused Loveria was charged before the RTC with the crime of Robbery with Homicide
    and Frustrated Homicide
     Accused, conspiring and confederating together with three (3) John Does held-up a
    passenger jeepney with one of the passengers, Richard Bales Andres of his Seiko Wrist
    Watch worth P300.00 and a colored brown wallet containing P50.00, in the
    aforementioned amount of P350.00; that on the occasion of said robbery, said accused,
    with intent to kill, attacked, assaulted and stabbed with the said knife one Ricardo
    Yamson y Malanon, thereby inflicting upon him stab wounds which directly caused his
    death, and one Cerilo Manzanero y Nacion the driver of the said passenger jeepney
     Accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment Upon being arraigned on July 3, 1985, the
    appellant entered a plea of not guilty (Record, p. 18.)
     The defense offered by the appellant is summarized as follows: The accused David
    Loveria declared that on February 18, 1985, he was attending a live-in seminar at the
    Communication for Asia in Old Sta. Mesa, Manila. Upon permission from their training
    officer, he went to the Farmers Market in Cubao to ask money from his mother for
    transportation fare for the following day. When he failed to meet his mother, he decided
    to go back to the Communication Foundation for Asia. Fortunately, at the loading zone
    for passenger vehicles bound for Sta. Mesa, he met his father who gave him money. After
    that, he went back to the Communication Foundation for Asia and stayed there the whole
    evening.
     After trial, the trial court found the appellant guilty as charged.
     Prosecution presented the following witnesses: Cirilo Manzanero, the driver of the
    jeepney: Richard Bales, the companion/conductor of Manzanero; Betty Apolinario, a
    passenger of the jeepney; Dr. Antonio Ligot, the physician who examined Manzanero;
    Pat. Bill Ayun and Pat. Jaime Ganueda, of the Marikina Police Station who conducted an
    investigation of the incident. The appellant specifically assails the credibility of Cerilo
    Manzanero, Betty Apolinario and Richard Bales, all of whom positively identified the
    appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime.
     Appellant assails the manner in which he was identified by Manzanero at the
    headquarters of the 225th Philippine Constabulary (PC) in Cogeo, Antipolo, Rizal,
    claiming violation of his constitutional right to counsel.

    ISSUE AND HOLDING

    Whether or not appellant’s right to counsel was violated? NO

     Sec. 20, Art. IV of the 1973 Constitution and Sec. 12(1), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution
    are applicable
     The court must emphasize that the so-called Miranda rights contained in the
    constitutional provisions may be invoked by a person only while he is under custodial
    investigation which has been defined as the "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. Hence, for instance, these constitutional rights may no
    longer be claimed by a defendant in a criminal case already pending in because he is no
    longer under custodial investigation.
     The appellant was not investigated when Manzanero was in the process of identifying
    him, he cannot claim that his right to counsel was violated because at that stage, he was
    not entitled to the constitutional guarantee invoked.

    DISPOSITION:

    The appealed decision is affirmed.

    You might also like