Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    Consti-2 - Digest - 251 - People VS Judge Ayson

    Uploaded by

    Alice
    Felipe Ramos, a Philippine Airlines employee, was charged with estafa for ticket irregularities and the judge refused to admit a note Ramos voluntarily wrote offering to settle the issues and his statements from an administrative investigation into evidence. The Supreme Court ruled the judge was incorrect because Ramos was not under custodial interrogation during the investigation and his statements were made voluntarily, so they should have been admitted as evidence against him.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Consti-2 - Digest - 251 - People VS Judge Ayson

    Uploaded by

    Alice
    43 views1 page
    Felipe Ramos, a Philippine Airlines employee, was charged with estafa for ticket irregularities and the judge refused to admit a note Ramos voluntarily wrote offering to settle the issues and his statements from an administrative investigation into evidence. The Supreme Court ruled the judge was incorrect because Ramos was not under custodial interrogation during the investigation and his statements were made voluntarily, so they should have been admitted as evidence against him.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    CONSTI-2_DIGEST_251_PEOPLE VS JUDGE AYSON

    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
    Felipe Ramos, a Philippine Airlines employee, was charged with estafa for ticket irregularities and the judge refused to admit a note Ramos voluntarily wrote offering to settle the issues and his statements from an administrative investigation into evidence. The Supreme Court ruled the judge was incorrect because Ramos was not under custodial interrogation during the investigation and his statements were made voluntarily, so they should have been admitted as evidence against him.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    43 views1 page

    Consti-2 - Digest - 251 - People VS Judge Ayson

    Uploaded by

    Alice
    Felipe Ramos, a Philippine Airlines employee, was charged with estafa for ticket irregularities and the judge refused to admit a note Ramos voluntarily wrote offering to settle the issues and his statements from an administrative investigation into evidence. The Supreme Court ruled the judge was incorrect because Ramos was not under custodial interrogation during the investigation and his statements were made voluntarily, so they should have been admitted as evidence against him.

    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 1

    CONSTI-2 SLC-LAW

    DIGEST 251: PEOPLE VS JUDGE AYSON


    TOPIC: Right under Custodial Investigation

    G.R. No. 85215 July 7, 1989

    PETITIONER: The People Of The Philippines


    RESPONDENTS: Hon. Judge Ruben Ayson, Presiding Over Branch 6, Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region,
    Baguio City, And Felipe Ramos

    FACTS:

    Private respondent Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines (PAL) who was charged with
    estafa for irregularities in the sales of plane tickets.

    Respondent judge admitted all evidentiary and testamentary evidence offered against Ramos except for the
    latter’s handwritten note expressing his willingness to settle the irregularities alleged against him as well as his
    statement during an administrative investigation wherein he admitted to the offense.

    ISSUE:

     Whether or not the Respondent Judge is correct in not admitting the note and the statement in evidence.

    HELD:

    No, the Respondent Judge is not correct in not admitting the note and the statement in evidence.

    The right in custodial interrogations is meant "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.

    It is clear from the undisputed facts of this case that Felipe Ramos was not in any sense under custodial
    interrogation, as the term should be properly understood, prior to and during the administrative inquiry into the
    discovered irregularities in ticket sales in which he appeared to have had a hand. It is also clear, too, that Ramos had
    voluntarily answered questions posed to him and agreed that the proceedings should be recorded. The note that he sent
    to his superiors on the day before the investigation, offering to compromise his liability in the alleged irregularities, was
    a free and even spontaneous act on his part.

    Not every statement made to the police by a person involved in some crime is within the scope of the
    constitutional protection. If not made "under custodial interrogation," or "under investigation for the commission of an
    offense," the statement is not protected.

    Respondent Judge ordered to admit in evidence the note and statement.

    Page 1 of 1 © ALICE O. LEDAMA

    You might also like