Warrantless Arrest Legalities Explained

Summary

Ramons warrantless arrest was valid under Rule 113, as he was caught in the act of committing a crime (in flagrante delicto). The doctrine of in flagrante delicto allows such arrests without a warrant. However, his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible because he was not provided with counsel, violating his constitutional rights. Additionally, the confession lacked an independent witness, which is required under RA 7438. This constitutes a violation of Ramons custodial rights, rendering the confession involuntary and inadmissible as evidence.

Full Conversation

Was there a violation of Ramon's custodial rights under RA *? Explain. Yes, there was a clear violation of Ramon's custodial rights under RA *. The law states that a person under custodial investigation must be assisted by competent and independent counsel, preferably of their own choice. Ramon was not provided with counsel. Furthermore, the confession he made, which was recorded in writing, was done without any independent witness, which is a mandatory requirement under the same law. The failure to provide counsel and the absence of a required independent witness during the signing of the confession are direct violations of Ramon's rights. As a result, the confession is considered involuntary and inadmissible as evidence. IS IT CORRECT
Yes, your explanation is correct. Under RA *, a person under custodial investigation must have access to competent and independent counsel, and any confession must be made with the presence of an independent witness. Failure to meet these requirements results in the confession being deemed involuntary and inadmissible as evidence.