Article 3, SECTION 12, Philippines Constitution (RIGHTS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION)
----- Rights under Section 12: origins and rationale -----
1. Magtoto v. Manguera
– murder; admissibility of confession – A confession obtained from a person under investigation for the commission of an offense, who has not been informed of his right to silence and right to counsel is INADMISSIBLE as evidence; Miranda and Escobedo
----- When the rights become available -----
2. People v. Taylaran
– “accidental killing”
– Right to silence and to counsel NOT applicable where no written confession was to be presented in evidence as a result of a formal custodial investigation
3. Galman v. Pamaran
– assassination of Ninoy; Agrava Commission – The fact that the framers of the Constitution did not use the word “custodial investigation” shows that it did not entirely adopt the Miranda Doctrine; The accused are also entitled to be admonished of their constitutional right to remain silent, to counsel and be informed that any or all statements given by them may be used against them; This also applies in other cases, not just those criminal in nature
4. People v. Ayson
– irregularity in the sale of plane tickets – Right against self incrimination is accorded to every person
who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena in any proceeding. The right is NOT to be compelled to be a witness against himself and NOT a prohibition of inquiry; The right can only be claimed when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness; It does not give the right to refuse a subpoena. This right must be claimed, it is not automatically operational | Miranda rights | Custodial investigation – questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken away into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
way; A defendant on a trial or preliminary investigation is NOT under custodial investigation; “Accused”
RIGHTS: BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT
(or with public prosecutor for preliminary investigation; taken into custody)
a. right to remain silent
b. right to counsel
c. right to be informed
d. right to have evidence obtained in violation of those above rejected
RIGHTS: AFTER THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT
a. right to refuse to be a witness
b. not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him because of such refusal
c. right to testify in his own behalf , subject to cross examination by the prosecution
d. while testifying: to refuse to answer an specific question which tends to incriminate him for some crime other that which he is being prosecuted
----- Police line-ups; paraffin test; signature -----
5. Gamboa v. Cruz
– vagrancy – The right to counsel attaches at the start of the investigation (when investigating officers elicit information/ admission/ confession. Police line-up not part of the inquest.
6. People v. Dimaano
– robbery with homicide – A police line-up is not part of the custodial inquest so at this stage, they have no right to counsel yet. They are not being held to answer for criminal offense for which they are being charged or convicted.
----- Right to counsel -----
7. Estacio v. Sandiganbayan
- estafa thru falsification – When the waiver of the right to remain silent and assistance by counsel was not made in the presence of counsel, the defect was cured when the lawyer arrived at the closing stage of the interrogation, read the statement and talked to the accused before the latter signed it.
8. People v. De Jesus
– robbery with homicide – Right to counsel attaches upon the start of the investigation; Custodial investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has began to focus on the particular suspect who had been taken into custody; questions initiated when a person is taken into custody and deprived of his freedom of action
9. People v. Lucero
– extrajudicial confession; lawyer was away when accused gave his uncounselled confession - doctrine same as above
----- Right to be informed -----
10. People v. Pinlac
– robbery – The constitutional right of the accused to be informed of his rights to remain silent and to counsel contemplates the transmission of meaningful information and not just a mere ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. Police officer is duty bound not just to recite
the rights; he must explain it as well; Waiver MUST BE MADE in the presence of counsel
----- Waiver -----
11. People v. Rous
– robbery with homicide
– A confession is admissible until the accused successfully proves that it was given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat or promise of reward of leniency; Presumption that a confession was made
deliberately and knowingly.
