People Vs.

Judge Ayson
175 SCRA 216
G.R. No. 85215
July 7, 1989
Facts:

Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines, assigned at itsBaguio City station. It
was alleged that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets, the PAL management
notified him of an investigation to be conducted. That investigation was scheduled in accordance with
PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the
Philippine Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. A letter was sent by
Ramos stating his willingness to settle the amount of P76,000. The findings of the Audit team were
given to him, and he refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets also stating that he was prevented
from settling said amounts. He proffered a compromise however this did not ensue. Two months after a
crime of estafa was charged against Ramos. Ramos pleaded not guilty. Evidence by the prosecution
contained Ramos written admission and statement, to which defendants argued that the confession
was taken without the accused being represented by a lawyer. Respondent Judge did not admit those
stating that accused was not reminded of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel.
A motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecutors was denied. Hence this appeal.

Issue:
Whether or Not the respondent Judge correct in making inadmissible as evidence the admission and
statement of accused.
Held:
No. Section 20 of the 1987 constitution provides that the right against self-incrimination (only to
witnesses other than accused, unless what is asked is relating to a different crime charged- not present
in case at bar).
This is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under compulsion of
subpoena, in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. The right is not to "be compelled to be a
witness against himself. It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a
prohibition of inquiry." the right can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in
character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time. It does not give a
witness the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before the court at the time appointed,
or to refuse to testify altogether. It is a right that a witness knows or should know. He must claim it and
could be waived.
Rights in custodial interrogation as laid down in miranda v. Arizona: the rights of the accused include:
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 of these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence.
The individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a
statement. But unless and until such rights and waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the
trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.