People vs. Uy - Crim PDF

Title People vs. Uy - Crim
Author Joy Reihannah PMagno
Course Constitutional Law 1
Institution Philippine Law School
Pages 1
File Size 49.3 KB
File Type PDF
Total Downloads 99
Total Views 321

Summary

People of the Philippines vs Uy G. No. 157399 November 17, 2005Facts: The accused, Uy, Gamus and Ochoa, public officers being employed by the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR), was charged for allegedly diverting and collecting funds of the National Power Corporation (NPC) intended for the purcha...


Description

People of the Philippines vs Uy G.R. No. 157399 November 17, 2005 Facts: The accused, Uy, Gamus and Ochoa, public officers being employed by the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR), was charged for allegedly diverting and collecting funds of the National Power Corporation (NPC) intended for the purchase of US Dollars from the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) for the amount of P183, 805, 291.25 was indicted before the Sandiganbayan for the complex crime of Malversation through Falsification of Commercial Documents for conspiring, confederating with the private co-accused where they falsify or cause to be falsified the NPC’s application for the managers check with the Philippine National Bank (PNB). Sandigan Bayan rendered a decision acquitting Uy, and Ochoa being found guilty for the said crime and is ordered to pay the equal amount malversed solidarily with Uy. Ochoa then appealed, He claims that his conviction was based on the alleged sworn statement and the transcript of stenographic notes of a supposed interview with appellant NPC personnel and the report of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Appellant maintains that he signed the sworn statement while confined at the Heart Center and upon assurance it would not be used against him. He was not assisted by counsel nor was he apprised of his constitutional rights when he executed the affidavit. Issue: Whether or not the constitutional rights of the accused were violated? Held: No. The decision of the Sandiganbayan is affirmed. Considering that his statement was taken during the administrative investigation of NPC’s audit team and before he was taken into custody. As such inquest was still a general inquiry into an unsolved offense. Appellant cannot claim that he is in police custody because he was confined at the time at Heart Center and he gave this statement to NPC personnel, not to police authorities. The interview where the sworn statement is based was conducted by NPC personnel for NPC’s administrative investigation. Any investigation conducted by the NBI is a separate proceeding, distinct and independent from the NPC inquiry and should not be confused or lumped together with the latter.

NOTES: Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states that — Section 12. (1). Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel....


Similar Free PDFs