CASE DOCTRINES

JESALVA VS PEOPLE.

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION refers to any 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 begins to operate at once as soon as the investigation ceases to be general inquiry into an
unsolved crime and direction is aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into
custody and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit
incriminating statements.

The assailed statements herein were spontaneously made by Jesalva and were NOT at all
elicited through questioning. It was established that Jesalva and his cousin Fiscal Jayona,
personally went to the police and voluntarily made the statement that Leticia jumped out the
vehicle. Thus, custodial investigation is NOT applicable in this case.

PEOPLE VS BALOLOY.

Issue : WON the court erred in admitting the alleged confession of the accused to Ceniza(Brgy
Captain) and Judge Dicon.

Held : It has been held that the constitutional provision on custodial investigation does NOT
apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities but given
in an ordinary manner whereby the suspect orally admits having committed the crime. Neither
can it apply to admissions or confessions made by a suspect in the commission of a crime before
he is placed under investigation.

The rights under Sec 12 of Consti are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the
state as would lead the accused to admit something false, not to prevent him from freely and
voluntarily telling the truth.

In this case, after he admitted ownership of the rope and was asked by Ceniza, the captain to
tell her everything, juanito voluntarily narrated to Ceniza that he raped Genelyn. Thus, the
narration was a spontaneous answer, given in an ordinary manner. It was given before he was
arrested under custody for investigation in connection with the offense.

Moreover, no evidence of ill motive of Ceniza to testify. Where there is no evidence to show a
doubtful reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness should testify against the
accused, the testimony is trustworthy.

However, Judge Dicon violated consti rights of Juanito. It is settled that the moment the accused
voluntarily surrenders, arrested by the police officers, the custodial investigation is deemed to
have started. Thus, he cannot be asked without a counsel.

JIMENEZ, ANGELI PAULINE INCIONG. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1

PEOPLE VS AYSON

Pal ticketing officer, allegedly misappropriated funds of PAL were asked to make statement in
the investigation of PAL.

Issue : WON the statement made by PAL officer is admissible as evidence and not violative of his
rights under custodial investigation guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution? YES.

Ruling : Sec 20 of 1987 Constitution states that whenever any person is “under investigation for
the commission of an offense”

1. He shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed of such right
2.Nor force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiates the free will shall
be used against him.
3.Any confession obtained in violation shall be inadmissible as evidence

*He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that
anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence
of an atty and that if he cannot afford an atty, one will be appointed for him prior to any
questioning if he so desires.

After such warning, the individual may waive his rights. But unless and until such warnings and
waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial, no evidence obtained as a result of
interrogation can be used against him.

It is clear from the facts that Ramos,PAL officer was not in any sense of custodial investigation
prior to and during the administrative inquiry into the discovered irregularities in ticket sales.
The constitutional rights of a person under custodial interrogation under Art 14, Sec 20 of 1987
Constitution did not come into play. Moreover, Ramos voluntarily answered questions posed to
him on the 1st day of administrative investigation.

Of course, the possibility cannot be discounted that in certain instances that violence,
intimidation, undue pressure or influence be brought to bear on an employee under
investigation.. In such event, any confession would be inadmissible on proof of vice or defect
vitiating consent not because of violation of Art 14, Sec 20 but simply on general proposition
that coerced statements may not in justice be received against the makers thereof.

PEOPLE VS ESCORDIAL

Michelle Darunday was allegedly raped by Anthony Escordial who was illegaly arrested.
However, he did not object about the legality of his arrest. Hence, waived. On the other hand,
accused invokes Art 3, Sec 12 of 1987 Constitution stating that any person under investigation
for the commission of the offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent
and to have competent and independent counsel. These rights cannot be waived EXCEPT in
WRITING and in the presence of COUNSEL. He contends that he was subjected to custodial
interrogation without being informed of his right to remain silent and to have an atty. Hence, he
contends that the trial court erred in not excluding evidence obtained from him.

JIMENEZ, ANGELI PAULINE INCIONG. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 2

 Ruling : While it cannot be denied that accused was deprived of his right to be informed of his
rights to remain silent, he has not shown that the police obtained any statement from him.
Altho accused appellant made no statement during this time, this fact remains important in so
far as it affects the admissibility of the out of court identification of accused by prosecution
witness.

As a rule, an accused is not entitled to the assistance of counsel in police line up considering that
such is not part of custodia inquest. However, the cases at bar are different since accused,
having been the focus of attention by the police after he had been pointed to by a certain Ramie
as the possible perpetrator of the crime, was already under custodial investigation when these
out of court identification were conducted by the police.

An out of court identification of an accused can be made in various ways. In a show up, the
accused alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. While in a police line
up, the suspect is identified by a witness from a group of persons gathered for that purpose.

During custodial investigation, these types of identification have been recognized as “critical
confrontations of the accused by the prosecution” which needs presence of counsel.

Here, accused appellant was identified by Michelle in a show up without a counsel for the
accused. Hence, these out of court identifications are inadmissible evidence against him.
Consequently, the testimonies of these witnesses regarding these identifications should have
been held inadmissible for being direct result of illegal line up.

PEOPLE VS TEVES.

Teresita Teves was found dead in Sta Rosa Laguna. Hilarion Teves, husband and accused, was
identified by Milagros Tayawa(Brgy Tanod). Hilario was invited in the police station upon being
informed that case would be investigated. Supt Castillo asked Milagros to identify the appellant.
However, none of them was able to recognize him. But Castillo urged Milagros and others to
refresh their memories and said. Di niyo pa ba nakikilala yan?? Milagros then said, parang
kahawig niya. Thereafter he was arrested.

After review, there is sufficient basis to warrant reversal of the assailed judgement of conviction.
The trial court relied on the identification made by Milagros during the trial of this case in
finding that the accused was the person driving the passenger jeep that was allegedly met by
the 4 bgry tanods.

The irregular manner by which the pre trial identification of the appellant and his passenger
jeep during the custodial investigation was made by Milagros. At that time, Teves, the accused
was alone inside the investigation room and without a counsel. He was also ordered by Castillo
to board his passenger jeep to do some re-enactment.

The court agrees with the the SolGen that the pre trial identification in which the prosecution
witness was made to identify the suspect in a one on one confrontation, was pointedly
suggestive. However, this method of identification of the appellant by the witnesss is tainted as
an uncounseled confession falls within the same ambit of the constitutionally entrenched
protection.

JIMENEZ, ANGELI PAULINE INCIONG. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 3

JIMENEZ, ANGELI PAULINE INCIONG. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 4