CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

Once a person is placed under arrest the person is there upon placed also under what is known as
custodial investigation. The rights of a person under custodial investigation are enshrined under sec 12
Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution which provides that;

Sec. 12 (1) any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent
and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford
the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means

which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

These rights are commonly known as Miranda rights. Miranda rights considering that these rights saw
the light of day as they are enunciated in the case of Miranda v. Arizona , 384 US 436. If we have to
dichotomize the provisions of sec 12, Article 3, we can deduce that among others the person under
custodial investigation has the right to remain silent, he has the right to have a competent and
independent counsel and he has the right also to be informed that he has these rights to remain silent
and the right to have a counsel.

When we speak about this right to remain silent that refers to the right of a person not to say anything,
because anything he says may be used in evidence against him. Because if he says something and that is
incriminating to him then it can be used against him. Then this other equally important right is the right
to have a competent and independent counsel, such that if he cannot afford to have a counsel then he
should be provided with a counsel for free. Meaning it is incumbent upon the authorities to provide a
person with a counsel and that should be for free. Among other things, it should be emphasized that the
counsel that will be provided for that person must be a competent counsel.

Unlike the counsel provided for in the case of PP v. Lucero, where the accused was interrogated by the
defunct CIS and then the person could not afford to hire the services of a counsel such that he was
provided with one. Yet the counsel in the course of the interrogation left the office and he only returned
to that office, the CIS office, a day after and that was when the admission of the person was already
reduced in writing. According to the SC that was not the services contemplated under sec 12, Article 3. It
is not enough that the person under custodial investigation is just provided by a counsel, but the counsel
provided to him must be a competent counsel.

Among other things, the counsel provided to that person must be an independent person. Example a
person is placed under custodial investigation yet it happens that the Chief of Police is a lawyer also by
profession. Can the Chief of Police act also as a counsel? NO, because no doubt he cannot be considered
as an independent counsel. Supposed that what was provided to the accused is the mayor because he is
also a lawyer. Will that satisfy the requirement under sec 12, Article 3? NO. Supposed that what was
provided to the person under custodial investigation was a city attorney who works at the city hall. Does
that satisfy the requirement under sec 12, Article 3? NO, because you cannot expect that the city
attorney to be an impartial or an independent counsel. So while a person is given a counsel, it is also
imperative that the counsel provided in must be competent and independent counsel. But of course, if
he has his own counsel then his counsel of choice should be given preference. It is only when he cannot
afford the services of counsel that he may be provided one.

You take note further that the 3 major rights accorded to a person under custodial investigation as
provided for under sec 12, Article 3, the right to remain silent and the right to a counsel may be waived
by the accused, provided however that any such waiver should be done in writing and in the presence of
a lawyer. When you say in the presence of a lawyer, the waiver of right must be attested to or signed by
the lawyer. Again, the right to remain silent and the right to a counsel may be waived, but any such
waiver to be valid should be put in writing and it should be signed by the accused and it should be done
in the presence of a lawyer, meaning to say that it should be attested to and signed by a lawyer.
Why do you think that the presence of a lawyer is required in the waiver of the right to remain silent
and/or the right to a counsel? To prevent a person wherein he is merely coerced or intimidated into
waiving his right. Precisely, the lawyer is there if only to upraise the person concerned of these rights
and to assure that there is no coercion, intimidation or compulsion for that person into waiving his right
to remain silent and to have a counsel.

Take note however that while the right to remain silent and the right to have a counsel may be waived
provided that the same may be done in writing and in the presence of a lawyer, the right to be
informed of these rights, however can never be waived. The reason is plainly evident, how can you
something if you do not know that you have these rights? So there has a need to inform him that he has
these rights to remain silent and the right to have a counsel for him to be able to intelligently and
voluntarily waive any of these rights if he wants to. So the right to be informed of his Miranda rights can
never be waived.

He needs to know that as worded under sec 12, Article 3, he needs to know that the employment of
torture, force, violence, threat or intimidation is prohibited. Likewise, the employment of secret
detention places, solitary confinement and incommunicado among others are also prohibited.

Among the other rights accorded to a person under custodial investigation are those provided for under
RA 7438, because there it is provided for among others particularly under sec 2 (f), that the person
under custodial investigation has the right to confer with his immediate family or his clinical doctor or
priest or religious minister of his own choice or chosen by a member of his family or his counsel or
chosen by a national NGO accredited by the Commission of Human Rights or a minister chosen by an
international NGO accredited by the Office of the President. Simply put that among the rights provide
for a person under custodial investigation is right to confer, again, with any member of his family, other
that his lawyer, his doctor, or priest or minister of his own choice. The person of his immediate family
would include his or her spouse, fiancé, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild,
aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, and guardian or ward.

Among this salient right/s granted under RA 7438, is that for an extrajudicial confession of a person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation to be valid, it is required that such extrajudicial
confession must be put in writing, signed by the person himself in the presence of a counsel, meaning
attested to or signed by his counsel and in the absence of a lawyer, upon a valid waiver in any such
written extrajudicial confession must also be signed by any of his parents, any elder brother or sister, his
spouse, municipal mayor, municipal judge, or a municipal district supervisor or a religious priest or
minister of his own choice. In other words, an extrajudicial confession is required to be in writing signed
by the person, his lawyer or in the absence of his lawyer upon a valid waiver then that written
extrajudicial confession to be valid it should be attested to and signed by any if the following; any of his
parents, any of his elder brother or sister, spouse, municipal mayor, municipal judge, municipal district
school supervisor or priest or religious minister of his own choice. It does not matter if he is not a
resident of the place for as long as these persons are made to attest in any written extrajudicial
confession. So if a person is interrogated and he confesses to the crime that confession among others
should be reduced in writing and it should be signed by that person and signed also by his lawyer.

If he is to give testimony the persons who are to sign should also be present during the time that he is
giving his testimony, because any such admission would be rendered nugatory if they are not around at
the time of the admission.

SITUATION:

Suppose a person is place under then under investigation he confessed to his guilt and he execute the
same in writing and in the presence of a lawyer or attested to by his lawyer and no doubt his
extrajudicial confession is valid. Otherwise, if that is not reduced in writing then it is not valid.

Another situation, the person is under custodial investigation confessed to committing a crime but at
the time he did that his lawyer is not around, as there is no available lawyer in the place. Yet his written
extrajudicial confession is attested to by his parents, the mayor, and the priest and among others. Is that
written extrajudicial confession valid? NO, because these persons attestation would only validate the
written extrajudicial confession if there is a lawyer and if there is a valid waiver of a lawyer. Any
attestation made by a parent, elder brother or sister, municipal mayor, or priest among others will not
validate a written extrajudicial confession if the same is not executed without the lawyer and in the
absence of a valid waiver of a lawyer. Under RA 7438, the attestation made by the persons previously
mentioned would only validate the extrajudicial confession if there is no lawyer and if it is upon a valid
waiver of a lawyer. So if there is no lawyer, you cannot conduct a custodial investigation, but it does not
mean that you have no hold of that person if there are other witnesses that would attest to his
commission of the crime then you can file a case. Disabuse your mind from thinking that the accused
will own up to his guilt, you cannot file a case against him, because you can build a case even without his
confession.

A case in point is a case of PP v. Ordonio, GR No. 132154, June 29, 2000, what happened in this case is
that Ordonio is an accused for rape with homicide. While the body of the victim was discovered 3 days
after the offense and then initial investigation was pointed to Ordonio as the possible culprit. He was
then invited by the police authorities to shed light, but they were released because they cannot
establish the participation of the two. This happened in the municipality of La Union. They were released
from custody, but couple of days after that the two of them returned to the police station because they
would want to own up to the crime. They were then interrogated by the police. The police wanted to
provide them with a lawyer but there was no available lawyer in that case. But the police was eager to
have their confession such that the police officer required the presence of their relatives, the mayor and
even the mayor of the municipality. With the presence of everyone, the police officers conducted the
interrogation, they reduced the confession of Ordonio and Medina in writing and after that they signed
the written extrajudicial confession and the mayor, priest and relatives likewise signed such confession.
Around 5 or 8 days after that, the accused were brought to another town where there was a PAO lawyer
and the affidavit of confession was presented to the lawyer and the lawyer advised them of the possible
consequences of them signing the confession. The lawyer after appraising them, asked them if they
would want to sign the same and they said yes but the lawyer gave them time to think over their second
confession. 2 weeks later the accused went back to the PAO lawyer and they manifested their intention
to really sign the affidavit of confession. So the PAO lawyer brought them to the judge and the judge
also fairly advised them of their rights and the accused manifested to the judge that they will signed for
the second time around their affidavit of confession. In the presence of the PAO lawyer and the judge
they signed for the second time around their affidavit of confession. But before they were brought to
the PAO lawyer, when they were detained in the municipal jail of Santol, they were interviewed by a
radio reporter. In the ensuing trial or even during arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty of the
offense. They recanted their affidavits. In the course of the trial, the RTC convicted Ordonio and Medina
on the basis of their affidavit of confession and in a much as it was a heinous crime, it was automatically
reviewed by the SC and SC said that the written extrajudicial confession as thus executed before the
police station of Santol was invalid, even if it was attested to by the mayor, priest and relatives.
According to SC and citing RA 7438, the attestation of the mayor, priest and relatives may only invalidate
an extrajudicial confession in the absence of a lawyer was upon a valid waiver of right. Their signing of
the written extrajudicial confession before the PAO lawyer and the judge would not afford any comfort.
Why, because that was already executed beforehand. At the time of the execution of the confession the
PAO lawyer was not around, as like the judge. SC then said that the written extrajudicial confession was
then invalid. The cure would have been that the PAO lawyer should have been invited at the time of the
execution of the confession. But what saved the case of the prosecution was the testimony of the radio
reporter, because according to the SC, confession of the accused as thus made in the presence of the
media people would become admissible. According to SC, the provisions under the Bill of Rights
practically govern only the relationship between private individuals and of the State. The provisions
therein do not particularly govern the relationship therein between a private person and another private
person. If not for the testimony of the radio reporter the accused would have been acquitted. Bottom
line is that the written extrajudicial confession even if attested to by the mayor, priest and relatives
were decreed to be invalid or inadmissible

You need to know that the Miranda rights would be available to a person if he is already under custodial
investigation and when we speak of custodial investigation that normally refers to the questioning that
is initiated by the law enforcement officer after a person has been taken into custody or is otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant matter.
What about this practice of the police to send invitation letter to a person for him to go to the police
station and to shed light on the incident? This is now considered to be part of custodial investigation.
Under sec 2 of RA 7438, this is already considered to be part of custodial investigation; the person
concerned is already entitled to his Miranda rights, the moment that he goes to the police station in
obedience to the invitation. Also, you have an option to not go to the police station because you cannot
be forced to do so unless they are to issue a sub poena, especially if you are guilty.

Does this right attach to a person who is an employee and who is being investigated by an employer?
Can he invoke his Miranda rights? NO, because this right is only applicable if such is with the
intervention of the State or any of its agents.

Miranda rights is available only during custodial investigation. If there is a formal investigation then
there would be no problem in determining if the Miranda rights were already attach to the person. The
person only arises, if no formal investigation is conducted. If there really is a formal questioning, then it
would be easy to say that at that moment the Miranda rights would already be attached to that person.

A case in point is the case of PP v. Bulanos, 211 SCRA 262, where Bulanos was arrested for murder
because he killed his own drinking buddy and then he was arrested. While he was already conducted to
the police station on board the patrol car, one of the police officers casually asked him why he killed the
victim and he said that he killed the victim because he was very abusive. In the ensuing trial, the police
officer testified in court and he presented that Bulanos made such confession owning up to the crime.
SC threw out the testimony of the police officer as inadmissible. According to SC, while there was no
formal investigation that was conducted to Bulanos, yet he was already arrested when he was already
casually asked with the question. In other words, SC said that the Miranda rights would already attach to
Bulanos because he was already deprived of his freedom of action. Again to recall, that such questioning
was done when Bulanos was already being conducted on the way to the police station. Again, your right
to be informed of your Miranda rights cannot be waived.

Another case in point is the case of PP v. Dela Cruz, 224 SCRA 506, where dela Cruz was arrested for
parricide. He killed his wife and once he was arrested, he was asked where he disposed the body of his
wife and it was dela Cruz who pointed to the police officers the place where he buried the remains of his
wife. Indeed they found the body of the wife. According to SC, such confession of dela Cruz was
inadmissible because at the time that he did that he was already under arrest, such that Miranda rights
would already attach to him and that there was no showing that he was fairly informed of his Miranda
rights.

This is important. Take note that in these cases there was no formal interrogation that was conducted,
yet the SC said that Miranda rights were already available to the persons charged. Again, you take note
also of the case of Ordonio. Take note that after they were interrogated, Ordonio and Medina were
released because the police officers cannot establish their guilt, but a couple of days after they
voluntarily went back to the police station if only to confess to the crime. Then they were interrogated,
yet SC said that at that time Ordonio and Medina should have been informed of their Miranda Rights,
notwithstanding the fact that it was their voluntary volition to go back to the police station to
supposedly give their confession. Any confession of the accused as done before that would be
inadmissible.

But the case of Ordonio should be differentiated from PP v. Dy, because in the case of Dy, he was the
owner of a British bar in Boracay and he killed a Swiss national and after killing the Swiss national he
voluntarily surrendered to the police authority and he voluntarily confessed to killing the Swiss national.,
but he made his confession without the police officer interrogating him. In the ensuing trial, Mr. Dy
through his lawyer interposed an objection to the testimony of the police officer, contending that he
was not afforded with his Miranda rights and that his extrajudicial confession was no reduced in writing.
SC disagreed. According to SC, this case is different from Ordonio, because in the case of Dy, when he
went to the police station he voluntarily narrated the incident without the police officer asking
questions.

While in the case of Ordonio and Medina, when they came back to the police station supposedly to
confess, they were however interrogated. That is the difference between them. In the case of Dy, the
police officer only listened to his confession without asking questions. In the ensuing trial, the police
testified and it was considered to be admissible. In the case of Ordonio and Medina, when they went
back to supposedly confess, they were however interrogated. In the case of Dy, SC said that there was
no need to read them their Miranda rights because he was not being interrogated. He was not under
custodial investigation. He was not arrested when he gave such testimony. He voluntarily gave such
testimony without him being arrested first and without the police officers asking him questions.

Take note that normally, when you speak of custodial investigation there would be a formal
investigation, but pursuant to the case of Bulanos, dela Cruz and Ordonio that the moment a person is
placed under arrest there are already placed under custodial investigation. The moment that a person is
deprived of his freedom of action then he is already considered to be under custodial investigation.
Once you go to the police station to shed a light in the incident, you should already be informed of your
Miranda rights, but if you go their pursuant to a letter of invitation, your are already considered to be in
custodial investigation, you still need to be informed of your Miranda rights. It would be different if you
there on your own volition without you being sent an invitation letter, just like in the case of Dy.

Take note that the information of the killing was already relayed, if the police officer would throw follow
up questions after the person already owned up to killing the victim it can be considered to be an
interrogation. After all, he already confessed to the crime.

Another case worthy of consideration is the case of PP v. Baloloy, G.R. No. 140040, April 12, 2002, what
happened in this case was that an 11 year old girl was raped and also killed. This happened in Agusan
Del Sur. This little girl was summoned by his father to go to their neighbour’s house to borrow rice, then
the girl failed to return so the father searched for her but he could not find the girl. In fact some of their
neighbours tired to look for the girl but they were unable to find her. Afterwards, Baloloy went to the
house of the victim and told the father that he saw a foot near the ravine. They went to the place and to
his horror; he saw the body of the child. Obviously, the child was raped and killed. During the wake, one
of the residents handed to the barangay chairman a rope that was found near the crime scene. The
barangay chairman announced to the public that there was a rope that was found at the crime scene
and asked who the owner of the rope was and Baloloy said that it was his rope. The barangay chairman
invited Baloloy to go a place away from the crowd and there the barangay chairman encouraged Baloloy
to tell all and without the barangay chairman actually interrogating Baloloy, Baloloy confessed to the
crime. He said that his intention really was just to frighten the girl but then according to him medyo
nayawaan ra gyud kuno sya (exact words of Atty. G). So when the people knew about this they tried to
harm Baloloy, such that the barangay chairman turned him over to the police authorities. At the police
station, Baloloy was interrogated by the police officers and his affidavit of confession was prepared and
the following day he was brought to the municipal judge for the notarization of his affidavit of
confession. The judge also asked questions on Baloloy and he answered the questions, admitting that it
was really him who committed the crime, then the confession of Baloloy as thus made to the judge was
overheard by a court personnel among which was a court process server. In the ensuing trial, or when
the case was decided by the SC were Baloloy was convicted, SC threw out as inadmissible the affidavit of
confession of Baloloy. According to the SC, it was prepared by the police officers without Baloloy having
been assisted by a lawyer and there was also no valid waiver of a lawyer and the fact that it was
notarized by the judge would not cure the defect because the judge also was a person in authority and
he too conducted a questioning on Baloloy, which was violative of his right because he was not assisted
of a counsel at that time. Yet according to SC, the confession of Baloloy as thus given to the barangay
chairman is admissible, because it was rather a spontaneous statement. Baloloy was not interrogated by
the barangay chairman. He was just encouraged to tell all. He narrated the incident without the
chairman asking probing or searching questions n Baloloy. Similarly, according to SC, the testimony of
the process server who heard the confession of Baloloy to the judge would be admitted to evidence
because he was not the one who conducted the interrogation on Baloloy.

Another case worthy of consideration is the case of PP v. Andan, G.R. No 116227, March 3, 1997, this is
also a rape with homicide case involving a nursing student. What Andan did was he lured the girl to go
inside the house because according to him, his mother had hypertension, he asked her to get her BP.
The girl wanting probably to be of service, she went inside the house not knowing what would befall on
her. There inside, she was raped and killed by Andan. Hot pursuit operation was conducted, Andan was
arrested and he was interrogated by the police authority without him being assisted by a lawyer, so no
doubt it was inadmissible. But what happened was that while Andan was put behind bars, the mayor of
the place went to see him because he wanted to see who the accused was. When Andan knew that the
mayor was around he sought an audience with the mayor. According to him, “Mayor, can we talk in
private?” but the mayor already anticipated that possibly that Andan would confess to the crime. So the
mayor brought Andan to the chief of police, he opened the door and invited those people around to go
inside the office to hear what Andan would say to him, including TV and radio reporters. In the presence
of the other people around, confessed to the mayor that it was him who really did the crime, without
the mayor asking question to Andan. In the ensuing trial, the SC ruled that the confession of Andan
should be thrown out in evidence because it has been secured without him being assisted by a lawyer,
but the testimony of the mayor is admissible, because just like in the case of Dy and Baloloy, such
confession of Andan was voluntarily and spontaneously given to the mayor without the mayor having
conducted an interrogation on Andan, as regards the testimony of the TV and radio reporters, that the
same would be admissible because they are not part of the chain of command, they are not part of the
police force, just like in the case of Ordonio.

In the case also of Maingan, SC ruled that confessions given to private persons are admissible in
evidence. In this case, he burned the house of his employer. She was a house helper and according to
her, she was not paid her salaries and she wanted to go home but the employer prohibited her from
going home. So what she did, her employers were sleeping and the children, she then burned the house
down. The employer and children died. Maingan was arrested by the barangay chairman. She was
interrogated by the barangay chairman, after that she was brought to the Bureau of Fire Protection.
There in the BFP, another neighbour whose house was also damaged came to visit Maingan. She
interviewed Maingan. Maingan confessed that her employer was abusive. In the ensuing trial, SC ruled
that the confession of Maingan to the barangay chairman was inadmissible, because there was an
interrogation. But in so far as her confession to Gonzales, the neighbour, the same is admissible
according to SC.

The question is, is the Miranda right available during a police line up, where people would be made to
face the complainant or witnesses for them to pin point the culprit? Will the Miranda rights attach
during that stage of the proceeding, especially the right to have a counsel? IT DEPENDS.

In the case of PP v. Escordial (?), G.R. No. 138934, January 16, 2002, this is still a rape case. This
happened in Bacolod city, where 3 ladies were sharing a room in a boarding house and one person
barged in and this person covered his face with a t-shirt to prevent identification. What the person did
was robbed the ladies with their money, but he was not contented with what he did. He took fancy with
one of the ladies, Michelle. The person asked Michelle to blindfold the 2 ladies. The accused raped
Michelle. After doing that, there was a follow up investigation then it pointed to Escordial as the
possible culprit. Escordial immediately after the occurrence of the incident hurriedly went home to his
place at Puntavedra, Negros. 2 children supposedly said they could identify the accused once they would
be given a chance to see him because according to the investigation, the accused stayed inside a
jeepney prior the commission of the crime, then the boys were playing in the premises where the
jeepney was parked. The police officers went to Puntavedra and there they invited Escordial to go the
the Puntavedra police station where complainant was given the opportunity to confront Escordial. There
the complainant went silent because according to her nalisang kuno sya. Escordial was then brought to
the Bacolod police station, and there his confession was taken. In the Bacolod police station, the 2
children were invited to supposedly identify Escordial. There was a police line up and there the 2
children pointed to Escordial whom they saw who was inside the jeepney at the time that they were
playing in the vicinity, because the jeepney was parked right in front of the boarding house. With that,
Escordial was convicted by the RTC, but when that case was elevated to the SC, Escordial was acquitted.
The SC threw out the confession of Escordial, because the defense was able to prove that it was secured
through torture because he was able to present medical certificate that he indeed he suffered
contusions or lacerations and that was supposedly done by the police officers. As regards the
identification made by the children, SC said that it was indeed a line up but at that point in time,
Escordial should have been assisted by a lawyer, because at that point there was already a shift in the
proceedings, from investigatory to accusatory, accusatory because the police authorities had already a
particular suspect in mind.
SC ruled that generally Miranda rights are not available during custodial investigation. But where the
proceedings had already shifted from being investigatory to accusatory as there had already been a
particular suspect that is being identified by the police authorities then the person concerned should
already be assisted by a lawyer. Especially when during the police line up, the police officers had already
zeroed in a specific person, so during a police line up a lawyer should be around. But if a police line up is
done during the exploratory stage, meaning the police officers had no particular suspect in mind then
the Miranda rights are not yet available during that stage of the proceedings.

How about during re-enactment of crimes? Where the accused is asked to re-enact as to how he
supposedly committed the crime. Where they will go back to the crime and he be asked to re-enact as to
how he committed the crime. At this stage is the person already entitled to his Miranda rights? YES,
because that would amount to a confession. If he re-enacts the crime he is in effect admitting that he is
the one who committed the crime. This is the ruling in the case of PP v. Novindino, 211 SCRA 36, during
police re-enactment Miranda rights are already available to the accused.

What is the effect if there is a violation of the Miranda rights, but a confession is obtained from the
accused, yet accused signs an extrajudicial judicial confession? Is that admissible or inadmissible? Under
sec 12 (3), Article 3, the same is inadmissible. It is provided therein that any confession or admission in
violation of the sec 12, Article 3 should be inadmissible. Recall also the provision under sec 2 (d), RA
7438 in which it was provided that for an extrajudicial confession to be admissible in court it should be
in writing, signed by the accused in the presence of a lawyer and in the absence of a lawyer upon a valid
waiver, then it should be attested to by any of his parents, elder brother or sister, spouse, municipal
mayor, municipal judge, district school supervisor, priest of minister among others. So if these
requirements are not met, then any extrajudicial confession would be decreed as inadmissible.

You take note however that this exclusionary rule should be invoked by the defense, meaning to say
that the right to have that evidence excluded by the court should be expressly invoked by the accused.
Otherwise, if the accused does not object to the presentation of the evidence of his written extrajudicial
confession which is exhibited in violation of his Miranda rights, then the rule on mirisi applies. You
interpose your objection once the evidence has already been offered and the prosecution will now
formally offer its object or documentary exhibits.

We mentioned earlier that if the accused happens to write an extrajudicial confession and then he signs
the same but the same is done without the presence of a lawyer that is inadmissible. Of course he has to
object in the admissibility of such in the course of trial. But supposed that the accused did not really
execute an affidavit of confession, yet the accused signed a confiscation receipt.

Assume that the house was raided by the police authorities pursuant to a warrant of arrest. In the
course of the search, the police officers confiscated incriminating evidence, shabu, weed, then normally
the police officers would prepare a confiscation receipt listing down there in the items that were taken
from the custody of the accused. Almost always, the police officer would require the accused to sign
such confiscation receipt. If that confiscation receipt would be offered in evidence may that be objected
to as inadmissible by the defense? Can the accused say that it was signed by him without the assistance
of a lawyer? Is that admissible in evidence if the accused signed the same without the assistance of a
lawyer? In the case of PP v. De Guzman, 194 SCRA 601, our SC said that confiscation receipt that is
signed by the accused without the assistance of a lawyer is inadmissible, because although there is no
formal investigation by signing the same, accused therefore admitted that this incriminating evidence
were taken from his possession. It amounts to a confession. If they were to ask the accused to sign the
confiscation receipt they cannot do that without the accused being assisted by a lawyer. If at all the
police officers prepare for a confiscation receipt they will just have it signed by the 2 witnesses or
elected barangay officials who were present at the time the search was conducted. A confiscation
receipt does not need to be signed by the accused and such if signed by the accused without a lawyer, is
no doubt in admissible.

Supposed that the accused was not made to sign a confiscation receipt but the accused was brought to
the police station and there the accused was made to sign the logbook, showing that he was brought to
the police station, for booking report and arrest report. The accused signed the same, the booking
report and the arrest report without the assistance of a lawyer. Are such reports admissible in evidence
even if the same is signed by the accused even without the assistance of a lawyer? YES, because that is
for proof of arrest that is a proof that you are brought to the police station that you were arrested in
that particular date and time. This is the ruling in the case of PP v. Manzano, G.R. No. 86555, November
16, 1993, because it is nothing but an evidence that he was brought to the police station and booked for
the commission of the crime.

After signing the booking report which we already discussed to be admissible, the accused is made to
undergo a paraffin test because he was accused of committing a crime of murder through the use of a
firearm. Is the result of the paraffin test admissible even if it is done without the assistance of a lawyer?
In the case of PP v. De Guzman 224 SCRA 93, it has already been settled that the same is admissible.
Paraffin test and mug shots are considered to be admissible. According to SC that it is nothing but a
technicality it does not involve the activity of the mind. Unlike requiring a person to sign it usually
involves mental activity. (QUESTION: Is it not a violation of your right to self incrimination?) -- Purely
mechanical activity is not violative of the right against self incrimination because the __ of that crime is
testimonial compulsion or evidence that is a result of a mental activity. No matter if the evidence can
incriminate you as long as it is but a mechanical act, you cannot object by invoking your right against self
incrimination.

Any mechanical act will be held admissible in court, while any use of your mental faculty will be
inadmissible if it is done without the presence of a lawyer.