Magtoto
vs. Manguer G.R. No. L-37201-02, March 3, 1975
Case
Digest
By:
G-one T. Paisones
Facts:
Petitioner Clemente Magtoto contended that the confession obtained from a person under investigation for the commission
of an offense, who has not been informed of his right (to silence and) to
counsel, is inadmissible in evidence in accordance with Article 6, section 20
of 1973 Philippine Constitution. Petitioner Magtoto stressed that since Article
6, section 20 of 1973 Philippine Constitution favor the accused it should be
given retroactive effect.
Issue:
Whether or not Article 6, section 20
of 1973 Philippine Constitution should be given retrospective effect
Held:
Supreme Court holds that Article 6, section 20 of 1973 Philippine Constitution should
be given a prospective and not a retrospective effect. Consequently, a
confession obtained from a person under investigation for the commission of an
offense, who has not been informed of his right (to silence and) to counsel, is
inadmissible in evidence if the same had been obtained after the effectivity of
the New Constitution on January 17, 1973. Conversely, such confession is admissible in
evidence against the accused, if the same had been obtained before the
effectivity of the New Constitution, even if presented after January 17, 1973,
and even if he had not been informed of his right to counsel, since no law gave
the accused the right to be so informed before that date.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento