Scribd
Upload
124 views1 page

Q18 - People Vs Barasina

Barasina was charged with murder and requested a lawyer during his investigation. Atty. Abelardo Torres was provided as counsel and was present when Barasina made and signed his written statement. Barasina claimed his statement should not be admitted as evidence because Torres was not the lawyer of his choice. However, the court held that the Constitution does not guarantee the exclusive choice of lawyer and allowing the accused to select only certain lawyers could obstruct the investigation process. Barasina's statement with Torres present was therefore admissible.

Uploaded by

Ralph Manuel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
124 views1 page

Q18 - People Vs Barasina

Barasina was charged with murder and requested a lawyer during his investigation. Atty. Abelardo Torres was provided as counsel and was present when Barasina made and signed his written statement. Barasina claimed his statement should not be admitted as evidence because Torres was not the lawyer of his choice. However, the court held that the Constitution does not guarantee the exclusive choice of lawyer and allowing the accused to select only certain lawyers could obstruct the investigation process. Barasina's statement with Torres present was therefore admissible.

Uploaded by

Ralph Manuel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Q18 – People vs Barasina

Facts:

Barasina was charged with murder. Having stated his desire to have a lawyer before
giving his statement, Atty. Abelardo Torres was fetched to act as counsel of the
accused during the investigation. Said counsel was present when appellant made and
signed his written statement.

Issue:

Whether or not Barasina’s statement may not be admitted in evidence for having been
made without the presence of a counsel of his own choice?

Held:

No. Article 3, Sec 12. Par 1 of the 1987 Constitution does not convey the message that
the choice of a lawyer by a person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other
equally competent and independent attorneys from handling his defense.

If the rule were otherwise, then, the tempo of a custodial investigation will be solely in
the hands of the accused who can impede, nay, obstruct the progress of the
interrogation by simply selecting a lawyer who for one reasons or another, is not
available to protect his interest.

You might also like