You are on page 1of 4

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION 1.

The person in custody must be informed at the outset in clear and


unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent
Sec. 12. Art. III: (I T I P) 2. After being so informed, he must be told that anything he says can and
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall will be used against him in court.
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have 3. He must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during the interrogation he
person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with does not have to ask for a lawyer. The investigator should tell him that
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence he has the right to counsel at that point.
of counsel. 4. He should be warned that not only he has the right to consult with a
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means lawyer but also that if he is indigent; a lawyer will be appointed to
which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention represent him.
places, solitary, incomunicado, or other similar forms of detention are 5. Even if the person consents to answer questions without the assistance
prohibited. – T F V T I of counsel, the moment he asks for a lawyer at any point in the
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 investigation, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.
hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. 6. If the foregoing protections and warnings are not demonstrated during
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this the trial to have been observed by the prosecution, no evidence
section, as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture obtained as a result of the interrogation can be used against him.
or similar practices, and their families. ”
 Reason for the rule
Rights under Section 12 ( I S I P – T S I ) o it recognized the fact that the psychological if not physical
1. Right to be informed of rights (#2 and #3 below) atmosphere of custodial investigations, in the absence of
2. Right to remain silent proper safeguards, is inherently coercive
3. Right to have competent and independent counsel o The purpose of providing counsel to a person under custodial
4. Right to proper treatment of those under investigation investigation is to curb the police‐state practice of extracting a
5. Right against torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other confession that leads appellant to make self‐incriminating
means which vitiate the free will statements.
6. Right against secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
similar forms of detention What is Custodial Investigation?
7. Right to have confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these Any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been
rights considered inadmissible in evidence taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way.
Miranda rights procedure (Miranda v. Arizona)
These are the rights to which a person under custodial investigation is entitled. When do these rights become available?
During custodial investigation or as soon as the investigation ceases to be a
general inquiry unto an unsolved crime and direction is aimed upon a particular
1
suspect, as when the suspect who has been taken into police custody and to  Spontaneous statements, or those not elicited through questioning
whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit by law enforcement officers, but given in an ordinary manner
incriminating statements. where the appellant verbally admits to having committed the
offense, are admissible
 In People v. Bolanos, where, while being conducted to the police
Rights during custodial investigation apply only against testimonial compulsion station on board the police jeep, the accused made an extrajudicial
and not when the body of the accused is proposed to be examined (i.e. urine confession that he had killed the victim. Inasmuch as the
sample; photographs; measurements; garments; shoes) which is a purely uncounselled confession was the sole basis of the judgment of
mechanical act. conviction, it was held that the trial court committed a reversible
error. While on board the police jeep, the accused was deemed to
In the case of Galman v. Pamaran, it was held that the constitutional have been already under custodial investigation, and should have
safeguard is applied notwithstanding that the person is not yet arrested or been informed of his rights.
under detention at the time. However, Fr. Bernas has qualified this statement by 5. Statements made to a private person
saying that jurisprudence under the 1987 Constitution has consistently held, 6. When rights ends
following the stricter view, that the rights begin to be available only when the  Section 12 (1) applies only to the investigation prior to the filing of
person is already in custody. (People v. Ting Lan Uy, G.R. No. 157399, Nov.17, charges, after which Sections 14 and 17 comes in to protect the
2005) accused.

Note: Sec. 2 of R.A. 7438 provides that custodial investigation shall include the What are the rights that may be waived?
practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is under investigation in 1. Right to remain silent
connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed  If the suspect refuses to give a statement, no adverse inference
- There is therefore a statutory guarantee broader that the shall be made from his refusal to answer questions.
constitutional. 2. Right to counsel

When are the Miranda rights unavailable? Note: However, the right to be informed of these rights cannot be waived.
1. During a police line‐up, unless admissions or confessions are being
elicited from the suspect Right to be informed
 In Gamboa Vs. Cruz,  This contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather
 Exception when the person is already under custodial than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract
investigation. constitutional principle.
2. Paraffin-tested or merely photographed.  The Supreme Court, reiterating the foregoing, said that making the
3. During administrative investigations accused read his constitutional rights is simply not enough. The
4. Confessions made by an accused at the time he voluntarily surrendered prosecution must show that the accused understood.
to the police or outside the context of a formal investigation;  The right to be informed carries with it the correlative obligation on the
part of the investigator to explain, and contemplates effective
2
communication which results in the subject understanding what is c. Counsel of the police
conveyed. Since it is comprehension sought to be attained, the degree d. Municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to the
of explanation required will necessarily vary and depend on the accused
education, intelligence and other relevant personal circumstances of e. A mayor unless the accused approaches him as counselor or
the person under investigation. adviser
f. A barangay captain
Right to Counsel g. Any other whose interest may be adverse to that of the accused
 The right to counsel is intended to preclude the slightest coercion
as would lead the accused to admit something false. “Preferably his own choice”
 In Gamboa v.Cruz, the Supreme Court held that the right to  It does not convey the message that the choice of a lawyer by a person
counsel attaches upon the start of the investigation, i.e., when the under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent
investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and independent attorneys from handling the defense; otherwise, the
and/or confessions or admissions from the respondent. At that tempo of custodial investigation will be solely in the hands of the
point, the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to accused who can impede, nay, obstruct the progress of the
avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced interrogation by simply selecting a lawyer who, for one reason or
admissions from the lips of the person undergoing investigation. another, is not available to protect his interest.2
 The right to counsel is not required in a police line-up, inasmuch as  Thus, it was held that the right to counsel does not mean that the
police line-up is not part of the custodial inquest accused must personally hire his own counsel. The constitutional
requirement is satisfied when a counsel is engaged by anyone acting on
What are the requisites for a valid waiver of these rights? behalf of the person under investigation, or appointed by the court
1. Made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently upon petition by said person or by someone on his behalf.3
2. Waiver should be made in writing  While the choice of a lawyer in cases where the person under custodial
3. Made with the presence of counsel interrogation cannot afford the services of counsel — or where the
preferred lawyer is not available — is naturally lodged in the police
“Competent and Independent Counsel” investigators, the suspect has the final choice as he may reject the
 To be competent and independent, it is only required for the lawyer to counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. A lawyer provided by
be “willing to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused, as the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused when he does not
distinguished from one who would merely be giving a routine, raise any objection against the counsel’s appointment during the course
peremptory and meaningless recital of the individual’s constitutional of the investigation, and the accused thereafter subscribes to the
rights” veracity of the statement before the swearing officer4
 Not independent counsel1 ( SPC MM BO)
a. Special counsel Confessions obtained after charges had already been filed
b. Public/ private prosecutor
2 People v. Barasina
3 People v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 128287
1 4
People vs Bardula People v. Jerez, G.R. No. 114385
3
 The Supreme Court said that the right to counsel still applies in certain Exclusionary Rule
pre-trial proceedings that are considered “critical stages” in the  Confession or admission obtained in violation of Sec. 12 and Sec. 17,
criminal process. Custodial interrogation before or after charges have Art. Ill, shall be inadmissible in evidence
been filed and non-custodial interrogation after the accused has been  A confession is a declaration made voluntarily and without compulsion
formally charged, is considered “critical pre-trial stages” in the criminal or inducement by a person acknowledging that he has committed or
process.5 participated in the commission of a crime.
 It is immaterial where the confession was obtained. Thus, where the
No torture, force, etc., which vitiates the free will shall be used confession was given by the accused to NBI agents who visited him in a
Where the appellants did not present evidence of compulsion orduress or Hongkong prison, the confession was still declared inadmissible in
violence on their persons; where they failed to complain to the officers who evidence
administered the oaths; where they did not institute any criminal or  On the other hand, any allegation of force, duress, undue influence or
administrative action against the alleged intimidators for maltreatment; where other forms of involuntariness in exacting such confession must be
there appeared to be no marks of violence on their bodies and where they did proved by clear, convincing and competent evidence by the defense.
not have themselves examined by a reputable physician to buttress their claim: Otherwise, the confession’s full probative value may be used to
all these should be considered factors indicating voluntariness of confessions. demonstrate the guilt of the accused.

Two kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions treated in this section What is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?
1. Coerced confessions, the product of third degree methods, such as This doctrine states that once the primary source (the tree) is shown to have
torture, force, violence, threat and intimidation, which are dealt with in been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the fruit)
paragraph 2; derived from it is also inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that
2. Uncounselled statements given without the benefit of the Miranda evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other
warning, which are the subject of paragraph 1 evidence, because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence
subsequently obtained.
Is a confession given to a mayor admissible in court?
Yes, if such confession was given to the mayor as a confidant and not as a law
enforcement officer. In such case, the uncounselled confession did not violate
the suspect’s constitutional rights.

In People v. Andan, what the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of


the incriminating facts or confessions. The rights under Sec. 12 are guarantees
to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the State, and not to prevent the
suspect from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.

5
People v. Espanola,
4