1) People v Logronio 214 SCRA 519.

defined “custodial investigation” to refer to “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.”
2) Pp vs Agustin, 240 Scra 541
Right to be Informed;  The right to be informed carries with it the correlative obligation on the part
of the investigator to explain, and contemplates effective communication which results in the
subject understanding what is conveyed.—
3) Pp vs Patungan 354 SCRA 413
Custodial Investigations; Extra-judicial Confessions;  Right to Counsel;  An extra-judicial confession
to be admissible in evidence must be express and voluntarily executed in writing with the
assistance of an independent and competent counsel and a person under custodial investigation
must be continuously assisted by counsel from the very start thereof.
The mere presence of a lawyer is not sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement of
assistance of counsel—assistance of counsel must be effective, vigilant and independent; A
counsel who could just hear the investigation going on while working on another case hardly
satisfies the minimum requirements of effective assistance of counsel.
4) Pp vs Liwanag, 263 Scra 62
“the right to be heard by counsel” presupposes “the right to an intelligent counsel”
5) Miranda vs CA, GR No 33002, June 18, 1976
A court, on the other hand, can adjudicate a controversy between litigants only in accordance with the law
and the facts as presented by the parties pursuant to well established rules of procedures and evidence.
6) Moslares vs CA, 291 Scra 440
The rights of an accused during trial are given paramount importance in our laws and rules on criminal
procedure, and among the fundamental rights of the accused is the right to be heard by himself and counsel;
The constitutional right of the accused to be heard in his defense is inviolate.—
7) Pp vs dela Pena, 199 SCRA 28
Right to counsel; Evidence obtained in violation of rights of person under custodial investigation.—
inadmissible as it is in violation to right to counsel.
8) Pp vs Nicolas 204 SCRA 191
Rights of the accused; Extrajudicial admissions illegally obtained.—Regardless of whether or not the extra
judicial confession of an accused is true, as long as it is given without the assistance of counsel, it becomes
inadmissible in evidence although it was a product of free will and violation.
9) Pp vs Santos, 283 Scra 443
In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation must be conducted.
10)Pp va Januario, 267 SCRA 608
In custodial investigation before the NBI, the counsel chosen by the NBI Investigators for the accused was
an applicant for a position in the NBI and was in fact hired thereafter. The court held that he was not
competent and independent counsel, so that statements taken by the NBI Investigators with the counsel’s
assistance were held not admissible in evidence.
11) Pp vs Aquilizan 133 SCRA 150
A judge may not hold a trial of a criminal case in the absence of counsel for accused.
The accused’s right to counsel had been violated and the trial court did not exhibit the cold neutrality of
an impartial judge, as to render the proceedings and the decision of conviction null and void, warranting a
remand and trial de novo.

*Trial de NOVO_ In law, the expression trial de novo means a "new trial" by a different tribunal. A trial de
novo is usually ordered by an appellate court when the original trial failed to make a determination in a
manner dictated by law.
12) Pp vs Tan 286 Scra 207
Right to Counsel; Even if the confession contains a grain of truth, if it was made without the
assistance of counsel, it becomes inadmissible in evidence, regardless of the absence of coercion
or even if it had been voluntarily given.
13) Pp vs Ortiz Miyake 279 Scra 180
The right of confrontation has two purposes: first, to secure the opportunity of cross-examination; and,
second, to allow the judge to observe the deportment and appearance of the witness while testifying.—

Hearsay Rule; The right of confrontation is not absolute as it is recognized that it is sometimes impossible
to recall or produce a witness who has already testified in a previous proceeding, in which event his
previous testimony is made admissible as a distinct piece of evidence, by way of exception to the hearsay
rule
14) Pp vs tranca, 235 Scra 455
Self-Incrimination; There is no violation of the right against self-incrimination where the accused was made
to undergo an ultraviolet ray examination.

Right to Counsel; The conduct of an ultraviolet ray examination to determine the presence of ultraviolet
powder is not considered as custodial investigation warranting the presence of counsel
15) Fulgado vs CA 182 Scra 81
Right to Cross-Examine; Right to cross-examine is a personal one, it may be forfeited by failure of a party to
avail of the ample opportunity given him
Thus, where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he
necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness
will be received or allowed to remain in the record.