Title Page

Constitutional Law 2
Atty. Paisal D. Tanjili, LL.M

Rights of Persons Under Custodial Investigation

By:

Cascolan, Lei Mariz

Fado, Jarris

1
 Table of Contents
Rights of Persons Under Custodial Investigation .......................................................................... 3
Article III, Section 12, 1987 Philippine Constitution .............................................................................. 3
Miranda Rights Under Section 12(1)................................................................................................... 3
Custodial Investigation .......................................................................................................................... 4
Human Security Act of 2007 ................................................................................................................. 6
Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 .................................................................................................................... 7
When Rights Attach ................................................................................................................................ 8
When Rights End ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Administrative Inquiry............................................................................................................................ 9
Inquiries in Aid of Legislation ............................................................................................................ 10
Pre-Galit Rule ......................................................................................................................................... 10
The Galit Rule ......................................................................................................................................... 11
Rule Under The 1987 Philippine Constitution ................................................................................ 11
Competent And Independent Counsel ............................................................................................. 11
Extrajudicial Confession ..................................................................................................................... 12
Counsel of Choice ................................................................................................................................. 13
Counsel’s Presence .............................................................................................................................. 14
Memorandum Receipt and Customs Declaration Form .............................................................. 16
Confession To Newsmen..................................................................................................................... 17
Other Confession .................................................................................................................................. 18
Re-enactment ......................................................................................................................................... 19
Waiver of Rights .................................................................................................................................... 20
Exclusionary Rule ................................................................................................................................. 21
Challenges .............................................................................................................................................. 21
Data Gathered ........................................................................................................................................ 22

2
 Rights of Persons Under Custodial Investigation

Article III, Section 12, 1987 Philippine Constitution1

(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.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this, or Section 17 hereof shall
be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this Section as
well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar , and their
families.

Miranda Rights Under Section 12(1)

(1) The right to remain silent.

(2) The right to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his
own choice.
(3) The right to be informed of such rights.

The procedural safeguard of what is now called as “Miranda Rights” was initially
conceived in the case of Miranda v Arizona.2
The warning or the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation
that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. This warning is
needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences
that there can be any assurance of forgoing it. It is only through an awareness of these
consequences that there can be any assurance of real understanding and intelligent
exercise of the privilege.3

1
1987 Philippine Constitution
2
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, June 13, 1966
3
Ibid.

3
 The presence of counsel at the interrogation may serve several significant
subsidiary functions. If the accused decides to talk to his interrogators, the assistance of
counsel can mitigate the dangers of untrustworthiness. The presence of a lawyer can also
help to guarantee that the accused gives a fully accurate statement to the police and that
the statement is rightly reported by the prosecution at trial. His failure to ask for a lawyer
does not constitute a waiver.4
In the Philippines, Miranda Rights was not considered right under the 1935
Constitution. In Article IV, Section 20 of the 1973 Constitution, the Miranda Rights was
appended as a new provision together with the right against self-incrimination as
discussed in the case of Clemente Magtoto vs. Hon. Miguel M. Manguera et. Al.5,
confession is admissible in evidence against the accused if the same had been obtained
before the effectivity of the new constitution, even if presented after January 17, 1973,
and even if he had not been informed of his right to counsel, since no law gave the
accused the right to be so informed before that date.
In section 12 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution6, it embodies the mandatory
protection afforded a person under investigation for the commission of a crime and the
correlative duty of the State and its agencies to enforce such rights.

Custodial Investigation

Custodial Investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement

authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of
action in any significant manner. And the rule begins to operate at once as soon as the
investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and direction is then
aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police
would then direct interrogatory question which tend to elicit incriminating statements.7
Custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is
singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime under investigation and the police
officers begin to ask questions on the suspect’s participation therein and which tend to
elicit an admission.8
Republic Act No. 74389 reinforced the constitutional mandate and expanded the
definition of custodial investigation. This means that those who voluntarily surrendered

4
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, June 13, 1966
5
Magtoto v. Manguera, G.R. Nos. L-37201-02, March 3, 1975
6
1987 Philippine Constitution
7
People v. Uy, G.R. No. 158157, September 30, 2005
8
People v. Cabanada, G.R. No. 221424, July 19, 2017
9
Republic Act No. 7438, April 27, 1992

4
before a police officer must be apprised of their Miranda rights, highlighted in the case of
People of the Philippines vs. Robelyn Cabanada y Rosauro.10
Republic Act No. 743811 enlarged the rights of persons under investigation. Section
2 provides for the rights of persons under custodial investigation. It shall include the
following:
• Right to counsel;
• Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel; and,
• Right to be allowed visits.
Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation:
a. Shall be in writing; and
b. Signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter’s
absence:
• Parents
• Elder brothers and sisters
• Spouse
• Municipal Mayor
• Municipal Judge
• District School Supervisor
• Priest or Minister of the Gospel
Custodial Investigation shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a
person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have
committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.12
This is in contrary to the statement of the Chief of the City Investigation Detective and
Management Unit of General Santos City, Rexor Jake Carillo Canoy, that they do not use
the term “invite” for it is also tantamount to “arrest”.
And in the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be conducted.
And the detainee shall be detained in accordance with the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code.13
Section 7, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure14, when a person is lawfully
arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary investigation,
the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such

10
People v. Cabanada, G.R. No. 221424, July 19, 2017
11
Republic Act No. 7438, April 27, 1992
12
Republic Act No. 7438, April 27, 1992
13
Ibid.
14
Section 7, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure

5
investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance with existing rules.
In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by
the offended party or a peace office directly with the proper court on the basis of the
affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.
Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a
preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his
counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must be
terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.15
After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary
investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the time he learns of its filing,
ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense
as provided in this Rule.16

Human Security Act of 2007

Republic Act No. 9372 or the Human Security Act of 200717 provides for certain
rights of a person accused of having committed crime of terrorism. Acts prohibited in this
statute are Terrorism and Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism which are provided in Sections
3 and 4, respectively. Section 21 of the said statute enumerated the rights of persons
under custodial detention.
(a) to be informed of the nature and cause of his arrest, to remain silent and
to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his choice. If
the person cannot afford the services of counsel of his or her choice, the
police or law enforcement officers concerned shall immediately contact
the free legal assistance unit of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) or the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) .
(b) informed of the cause or causes of his detention in the presence of his
legal counsel;
(c) allowed to communicate freely with his legal counsel and to confer with
them at any time without restriction;
(d) allowed to communicate freely and privately without restrictions with the
members of his family or with his nearest relatives and to be visited by
them; and,

15
Ibid.
16
Section 7, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure
17
Republic Act No. 9372, “Human Security Act of 2007”, March 6, 2007

6
 (e) allowed freely to avail of the service of a physician or physicians of
choice.

Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

Republic Act No. 9372 or Human Security Act of 2007 was repealed by the
Republic Act No. 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.18 This repealed statute added
prohibited acts as a violation. Herein provided are the following prohibited acts such as:
Terrorism, Threat to Commit Terrorism, Planning, Training, Preparing, and Facilitating the
Commission of Terrorism, Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism, Proposal to Commit
Terrorism, Inciting to Commit Terrorism, Recruitment to and Membership in a Terrorist
Organization, Foreign Terrorist, and Providing Material Support to Terrorist.
With its prohibitory acts, come its provision of the rights as well of a person under
custodial detention which is provided in the Section 30 of the said act wherein, it provides
that the moment a person charged with or suspected or committing any of the acts defined
and penalized mentioned in the preceding paragraph, he/she shall:
(a) be informed of the nature and cause of his/her arrest, to remain silent and
to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his/her choice. If
the person cannot afford the services of counsel of his/her choice, the law
enforcement agent or military personnel concerned shall immediately
contact the free legal assistance unit of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) or the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). It shall be the duty of the free
legal assistance unit of the IBP or the PAO thus contacted to immediately
visit the person/s detained and provide him/her with legal assistance. These
rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of his/her
counsel of choice;
(b) informed of the cause or causes of his/her detention in the presence of his
legal counsel;
(c) allowed to communicate freely with his/her legal counsel and to confer with
them at any time without restriction;
(d) allowed to communicate freely and privately without restrictions with the
members of his/her family or with his/her nearest relatives and to be visited
by them; and,
(e) allowed freely to avail of the service of a physician or physicians of choice.

18
Republic Act No. 11479, “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020”, July 03, 2020

7
When Rights Attach

It is emphasized in the case of Bernardo U. Mesina vs. People of the Philippines19,

the rights of a person under custodial investigation only attaches when the person is in
the custody of the police or other law enforcement office.
As defined in Section 2(h) of Republic Act No. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 200620, law enforcement officer refers to the person in authority or his/her
agent x x x including a barangay tanod.
Elucidated in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Lauga Y Pina Alias
21
Terio , wherein the court is convinced that barangay-based volunteer organizations in
the nature of watch groups, as in the case of “bantay bayan”, are recognized by the local
government unit to perform functions relating to the preservation of peace and order at
the barangay level. Thus, without ruling on the legality of the actions taken by Moises Boy
Banting, and the specific scope of duties and responsibilities delegated to a “bantay
bayan”, particularly on the authority to conduct a custodial investigation, any inquiry he
makes has the color of a state-related function and objective insofar as the entitlement of
a suspect to his constitutional rights provided for under Article III, Section 12 of the
Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is concerned.
However, inasmuch as the jurisdiction of General Santos City and Koronadal City,
interviews conducted in certain barangays elicited responses contradictory to the
prevailing jurisprudence.
In Barangay Lagao, General Santos City, Mark Christopher Fainog, Peace and
Order Secretary, mentioned that they do not have the right to hold persons. He further his
statement by saying that it is only the Philippine National Police who can affect custodial
investigation. What they do is to report circumstances that will need to have the presence
of the Philippine National Police.
In Barangay Zone III, Koronadal City, Allan Trespeces, Committee on Peace and
Order on Public Safety Welfare, mentioned that custodial investigation happens with the
help of the Philippine National Police. Barangay Police Action Team (BPAT) is considered
to be the first respondent. However, it is only the Philippine National Police who can arrest.
In another case of People of the Philippines vs. Robelyn Cabanada y Rosauro22,
wherein the Court explained that despite the claim that she was not considered as a
suspect at that time, the fact remains that she confessed to having committed the crime
as was able to produce the money that she was covering for someone. The subsequent
confession of Cabanada at the CIU office can be considered as having been done in a

19
Mesina v. People, G.R. No. 162489, June 17, 2015
20
Republic Act No. 9344, “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006”, April 28, 2006
21
People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010
22
People v. Cabanada, G.R. No. 221424, July 19, 2017

8
custodial setting because (1) after admitting the crime, Cabanada was brought to the
police station for further investigation; (2) the alleged confession happened in the office
of the chief; (3) PO2 Cotoner was present during Cabanada’s apology and admission to
Catherine. The compelling pressures of custodial setting were present when the accused
was brought to the police station along with Catherine. Hence, the rights of a person under
custodial investigation also attaches.
In police line-up as discussed in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Arturo
Lara y Orbista23, the process has not yet shifted from investigatory to the accusatory and
it is usually the witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a statement.
Hence, rights cannot be attached.

When Rights End

The Criminal Process is provided in Section 12(1) which involves the investigation
prior to the filing of charges or when the inquiry is under the control of police officers. It is
in this situation that the psychological if not physical atmosphere of custodial
investigations, in the absence of proper safeguards, is inherently coercive. Thereafter,
Section 14 or the commencement of preliminary examination and investigation after
charges are filed, and Section 17 discusses the period of trial appear.24

Administrative Inquiry

There are investigations that are focused on individual but is not considered to be
custodial investigation, but rather an administrative inquiry, hence, the rights of a person
under custodial investigation have not commenced yet, as ruled in the case of Bernardo
U. Mesina vs. People of the Philippines.25
In People of the Philippines vs. Louel Uy et. al.,26 constitutional provision does not
extend to admissions or confessions made to a private individual, or to a verbal admission
made to a radio announcer who was not part of the investigation, or even to a mayor
approached as a personal confidante and not in his official capacity. Neither to a
spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in
an ordinary manner whereby the accused orally admits having committed the crime, nor
to a person undergoing an audit examination because an audit examiner is not a law
enforcement officer.

23
People v. Lara, G.R. No. 199877, August 13, 2012
24
Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009
25
Mesina v. People, G.R. No. 162489, June 17, 2015
26
People v. Uy, G.R. No. 158157, September 30, 2005

9
 In another case of Carlos L. Tanenggee vs. People of the Philippines27, there is no
constitutional impediment wherein a written statement is given during an administrative
inquiry conducted by employer in connection with an anomaly/irregularity allegedly
committed in the course of employment.

Inquiries in Aid of Legislation

Inquiries in aid of legislation is conducted by the Senate or the House of

Representatives or any of its respective committees in accordance with its duly published
rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall
be respected. (Philcomsat v. Senate, G.R. No. 180308, June 19, 2012.)28

Pre-Galit Rule

A confession obtained from a person under investigation for the commission of an

offense who has not been informed of his right to counsel, is inadmissible in evidence if
the same had been obtained after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. (Magtoto v.
Manguera, G.R. Nos. L-37201-02, March 3, 1975)29
Conversely, such confession is admissible in evidence against the accused if the
same had been obtained before the effectivity of the new constitution, even if presented
after January 17, 1973, and even if he had not been informed of his right to counsel, since
no law gave the accused the right to be so informed before that date. (Magtoto v.
Manguera, G.R. Nos. L-37201-02, March 3, 1975)30
Additionally, in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Sayaboc y
Seguba et. al., 31 the right to be informed requires “the transmission of meaningful
information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract
constitutional principle.” It should allow the suspect to consider the effects and
consequences of any waiver he might make of these rights. More so when the suspect is
one like Sayaboc, who has an educational attainment of Grade IV, was a stranger in
Nueva Vizcaya, and had already under the control of the police officers for two days
previous to the investigation, albeit for another offense.
Hence, in Pre-Galit Rule, confession is admissible for as long as the accused was
apprised of the Miranda Rights, there was no force, torture, or threat, confession was
voluntary with full knowledge and free will and even if not assisted by counsel.

27
Tanenggee v. People, G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013
28
Philcomsat v. Senate, G.R. No. 180308, June 19, 2012
29
Magtoto v. Manguera, G.R. Nos. L-37201-02, March 3, 1975
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.

10
The Galit Rule

A long question followed by a monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the

requirements of the law that the accused be informed of his rights under the Constitution
and our laws. Instead, there should be several short and clear questions and every right
explained in simple words in a dialect or language known to the person under
investigation.32
At any time, the person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to
inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any.
He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that
any statement he might make could be used against him. The person arrested shall have
the right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most
expedient means – by telephone if possible – or by letter or messenger. It shall be the
responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. No custodial
investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the
person arrested, by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition
either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. The right to counsel may be
waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any
statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or
inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.33

Rule Under The 1987 Philippine Constitution

Competent And Independent Counsel

In Lumanog v People, an effective and vigilant counsel necessarily and logically

requires that the lawyer be present and able to advise and assist his client from the time
the confessant answers the first question asked by the investigating officer until the
signing of the extrajudicial confession.34
The constitutional requirement of a counsel to be effective and vigilant was not
complied with because, first, there is no valid waiver of his right to counsel, second, the
counsel was not present in the entire custodial investigation. The Constitution means
“entire custodial investigation” is from the point of answering the first question until the
signing of the extrajudicial confession at the same time assuring that the given confession

32
People v. Galit, G.R. No. L-51770, March 20, 1985
33
People v. Galit, G.R. No. L-51770, March 20, 1985
34
Lumanog v People, G.R. No. 182555, September 7, 2010

11
was voluntarily made by the accused. The counsel also has the duty to assure the
accused that he or she fully understands the nature and consequences of his or her
confession.
In this case, Lumanog was only presented by Atty. Sansano at the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) Office, Quezon City. Before the appearance of his counsel, he
had to stay overnight at the Police Station. In this sense, there was a constitutional
violation in his rights as an accused.
The Constitution is explicitly clear that before the police officer will extract answers
or confession from the accused, he must be with the assistance of a competent and
independent counsel.
A counsel of choice is a competent and independent counsel by the reason that
the accused personally approached the counsel, as ruled in People v Constancio.35
The Court discussed that the confession is admissible because it was voluntarily
executed by the accused with the presence and assistance of his counsel of choice from
the beginning of the custodial investigation. In this case, Atty. Suarez thoroughly
explained to Berry his constitutional rights, the nature, and the consequences of his
statements.

Extrajudicial Confession

A valid extrajudicial confession must be:

(1) to remain silent
(2) to have an independent and competent counsel preferably of his choice
(3) to be provided with such counsel, if unable to secure one
(4) to be assisted by one in case of waiver, which should be in writing, of
the foregoing.36|
(5) to be informed of all such rights and of the fact that anything he says can
and will be used against him.
The Constitution mandates that when the law enforcers inform the accused of their
rights there must be a meaningful communication and understanding of rights, not just
only a mere perfunctory, superficial, and ceremonial reading of rights. The degree of
explanation should be made by the law enforcers must be highly dependent on the
education, intelligence, and other relevant circumstances of the person undergoing
extrajudicial confession. In this case, the police officer only read the rights of Agustin, as
a native Ilocano accused, in a manner of ceremonial reading only without any
consideration of the literacy and whether there was a full understanding of his rights.

35
People v Constancio, G.R. No. 206226, April 4, 2016
36
People v Agustin, G.R. No. 247718, March 3, 2021

12
 In an interview with a detainee in General Santos City, he stated that he was forced
to confess after being tortured. They have this term “scenario” wherein the Police would
entrap them and make them admit their guilt. And this “scenario” is being done to almost
all of the detainees in Barangay Bula Detention Center in General Santos City. Same
person has showed us his bruises.

Counsel of Choice

The right to counsel of choice is a fundamental right entitled to the accused for the
main purpose to forbid the occurrence of slightest coercion that will lead the accused to
admit something that is false and that will be used against him.
The counsel of choice of the accused must be competent and independent who is
willing to utmost safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused under custodial
investigation. A competent and independent lawyer of choice must be present upon the
start of the custodial investigation wherein the lawyer will have interventions and advice
his client from the moment the client will answer the first question up to the signing of the
extrajudicial confession with the knowledge and understanding of the nature and
consequences of his statements.
A competent and independent counsel is logically required to:
(1) be present and able to advise and assist his client from the time the latter
answers the first question asked by the investigator until the signing of the
confession.
(2) the lawyer should ascertain that the confession was made voluntarily,
(3) the person under investigation fully understood the nature and the
consequence of his extra-judicial confession vis-a-vis his constitutional
rights. 37
The Court discussed that the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force
(PAOCTF) rightfully assisted and assured Arnaldo and Flores of their constitutional rights,
especially their right to remain silent and right to have a competent and independent
counsel of their own choice during the conduct of custodial investigation. The Court
elaborated that upon the communication of their Miranda Rights, the PAOCTF use the
tagalog dialect, which dialect is best understood by them, to convey their rights and the
law enforcers assured that they are well-represented by a competent and independent
counsel of their own choice, in the name of Atty. Uminga and Atty. Rous.

37
People v Reyes, G.R. No. 178300, March 17, 2009

13
 Miranda Rights can only be invoked during Custodial Investigation. Police Line-up
is not part of the Custodial Investigation. (People v Pepino, G.R. No. 174471, January 12,
2016)38
Police Line-up is not a part of the custodial investigation for the reason that the
nature of police line-up is only for investigation in which it does not aim to question
someone for a criminal offense. Police Line-up only requires a person to point a hand or
to identify someone from the group of persons, presented by the law enforcers, who can
be a suspect of a crime. If the manner of questioning by the law enforcers will change
from investigatory to type of questioning or specific questions that are directly attributed
to the crime, that will extract confession from the person, it is already considered as
custodial investigation and the person, or the accused is already entitled of his
constitutional rights.

Counsel’s Presence

Counsel’s presence is required in the entire proceeding. Effective and vigilant

counsel was not proven.39
Extrajudicial confession not during custodial investigation, but during the
preliminary investigation.40
A competent and independent counsel in a custodial investigation should:
(1) Be present at all stages of the interview, counseling or advising
caution reasonably at every turn of the investigation.
(2) Stop the interrogation once in a while either to give advice to the
accused that he may either continue, choose to remain silent or
terminate the interview.
(3) Ascertain that the confession is made voluntarily and that the person
under investigation fully understands the nature and the
consequence of his extrajudicial confession in relation to his
constitutional rights.
In this case, the is whether or not the extrajudicial confession of Omilig was
executed at the time of the custodial investigation. The Court, first, defines Custodial
Investigation or Interrogation and Preliminary Investigation. Custodial
Interrogation/Investigation is the questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a
person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any

38
People v Pepino, G.R. No. 174471, January 12, 2016
39
Lumanog v People, G.R. No. 182555, September 7, 2010
40
People v Omilig, G.R. No. 206296, August 12, 2015

14
significant way. Preliminary Investigation41 is an inquiry or a proceeding to determine
whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.
Herein, the extrajudicial confession was executed during preliminary investigation.
The Court further discussed that, even if the extrajudicial confession was made
during custodial investigation, the confession made by Omilig was still inadmissible in
evidence because he was not assisted by a competent and independent counsel. In fact,
his counsel was the last person to arrive at the police station.
Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution42 provides, (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; and (3) Any confession or admission
obtained in violation of this, or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against
him. Section 17, Article III43 provides that no person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.
Republic Act No. 743844, Section 2 provides the rights of persons arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation. Duties of public officers include a.) Any person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by
counsel, and b.) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his
place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense
shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own
choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his
own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel x x x.
(People v Canatoy,|G.R. No. 227195, July 29, 2019)45
In this case, the extrajudicial confessions executed by Mabalato and Cartuciano
were admissible in evidence and were credible because the constitutional rights as an
accused were complied with. The Court emphasizes that failure to reject the counsel
presented by the police officers is deemed as an acceptance on the part of the accused.

41
Section 1, Rule 112, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
42
The 1987 Philippine Constitution
43
The 1987 Philippine Constitution
44
Republic Act No. 7438, April 27, 1992
45
People v Canatoy,|G.R. No. 227195, July 29, 2019

15
 Herein, the accused has a right to reject the counsel offered by the policemen as
long as the manner on how they communicate their refusal is in an expressed manner.
Instead, the counsels were present in the entire proceeding of the custodial investigation
and subscribed to the confessions made.
The indispensability of the counsel’s presence was also reiterated by Police
Human Rights Chief Officer, PLT. Francis M. Blancada, that they always make sure that
the rights of persons under custodial investigation are not violated more so in providing
them counsel.

Memorandum Receipt and Customs Declaration Form

In People v Macabalang, the signature of the accused in the "Receipt of Property

Seized" is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of counsel.46
Receipt of the Property Seized is made if there are things recovered from a person
or from a certain place which are subjects of the search warrants. The Receipt of the
Property Seized and Chain of Custody are necessary and will be presented in court for
the filing of the complaint.
In this case, Macabalang contended that the objects taken from him shall be
inadmissible in evidence for the reason that he signed the “Receipt of Property Seized”
without the assistance or presence of a counsel that will safeguard his constitutional rights
assuring that he fully understands the nature and consequences of his actions and
statements. The Court explained that the signature of the accused on the receipt of the
property seized is one way declaration against his interest and also an express admission
of the crime charged.
Customs Declaration Form, highlighted in Evangelista v People47, is a requirement
for all arriving passengers in an international flight and compliance of constitutional rights
and procedure are not applicable.
In this case, the Court discussed that the Customs Declaration Form is different
from the Memorandum Receipt and Receipt of the Property Seized. When an individual
will sign a receipt of the property seized, it corresponds to an admission to the crime
charged. On the other hand, the Customs Declaration Form is not a part of the custodial
investigation because it is only a custom’s requirement wherein every passenger arriving
from international travel is obliged to comply with the parameters set by the custom’s, not
under the custodial investigation. Therefore, in complying with the Customs Declaration
Form, constitutional rights and procedure cannot be invoked.

46
People v Macabalang, G.R. No. 168694, November 27, 2006
47
Evangelista v People, G.R. No. 163267, May 5, 2010

16
Confession To Newsmen

In People v Dacanay, a confession made before news reporters, absent any

showing of undue influence from the police authorities, is sufficient to sustain a conviction
for the crime confessed to by the accused.
In this case, Antonio insists that his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible on the
ground that it was given under a "coercive physical or psychological atmosphere". The
ground of his claim is the fact that he was inside a detention cell with two (2) or three (3)
other detainees when he allegedly confessed to the crime before the media.48
The Court ruled that Antonio had already admitted in his Appellant's Brief that he
was not under custodial investigation the moment he executed his extrajudicial
confession. The Court further discussed that, although Antonio was not under custodial
investigation, it must be clear that Antonio Dacanay was inside a detention cell with two
(2) or three (3) other detainees when he allegedly confessed before the media. Another
manifestation is, although confession before the media does not form part of custodial
investigation, Antonio Dacanay should have been informed about the consequences of
his when he decided to confess his alleged guilt.
Sorote, the newsman, interviewed Soria, in person, after she was arrested by the
police investigators. The Court discussed that Soria, the appellant, had not only agreed
to be interviewed by the newsman, but she also voluntarily provided details on why and
how she perpetrated the offense. Therefore, there was an admission of guilt made before
Sorote. She confessed to the crime she committed in the absence of any force and
intimidation from the law enforcers that might compel her to to execute involuntary
confession. In this matter, the confession by Soria is admissible in evidence against her.49
The Court said that:
“Clearly, Soria’s confession to the news reporter was given freely from any
undue influence from the police authorities. Sorote acted as a member of
the media when he interviewed appellant, and there was evidence
presented that would show that Sorote was acting under the direction and
control of the police. More importantly, appellant voluntarily supplied the
details surrounding the commission of the offense.” ||
In both cases of People v. Dacanay and People v. Soria, the Court has uniform
ruling based on the similarities of the facts of the case. There is no indication that there
was any of the police officers present at the time when they did confess to the newsmen
within the parameters where undue influence or intimidation is possible to compel them
to confess. Aside from this, there was also no concealment of identity on the part of the

48
People v Dacanay, G.R. No. 216064, November 07, 2016
49
People v Soria, G.R. No. 248372, August 27, 2020

17
newsmen because, as they interviewed the accused, the newsmen presented themselves
as news reporters.
The Court further emphasized that the confession made by the accused, verbally,
to the news reporters were not covered by the Section 12 (1) and (3), Article III, 1987
Philippine Constitution because the Bill of Rights under the Constitution do not govern the
relationship between private individuals and private individuals, it only governs the
relationship of private people and the State. Since, news reporters are private person they
are not covered by the constitutional rights and procedure.

Other Confession

Spontaneous Confession to policemen-not by questioning. In this special complex

crime of rape with homicide, the unsolicited and spontaneous confession of guilt by the
appellant to the police officer is admissible in evidence, highlighted in People v Villarino.50
In the instant case, Villarino voluntarily confessed to SPO4 Genoguin that he raped
and killed "AAA". He even offered to give the pieces of jewelry to the latter if his sando is
thrown into the sea. The moment when Villarino confessed to the crime he committed, he
was alone with SPO4 Genoguin, and no force or intimidation was employed against him
by the police officer. The confession was spontaneously made and not elicited through
questioning. Therefore, the compliance with the constitutional procedure on custodial
interrogation is not applicable in the instant case.
"Bantay bayan," are recognized by the local government unit to perform functions
relating to the preservation of peace and order at the barangay level. The duties and
responsibilities delegated to a "bantay bayan," particularly on the authority to conduct a
custodial investigation, any inquiry he makes has the color of a state-related function and
objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights provided for
under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution or known as the Miranda
Rights.51
In the present case, Lauga contended that the confession he made to Boy Banting,
who was a “bantay-bayan” should be considered as inadmissible as evidence against him
because he was not assisted by a competent and independent counsel at the time, he
executed his confession, nor he provided any waiver of his constitutional rights.
The Court ruled that the “bantay-bayan” is deemed to be a law enforcement officer
as contemplated under Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

50
People v Villarino, G.R. No. 185012, March 5, 2010
51
People v Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010

18
 Therefore, whatever inquiry, investigation, or questioning the “bantay-bayan” will
execute, it will fall under the function and duties of the “bantay-bayan” as recognized by
the Constitution and comprises the entitlement of the accused undergoing custodial
investigation of his constitutional rights under Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution or known as the Miranda Rights. Herein, the extrajudicial confession
executed by Lauga is inadmissible in evidence because he was not assisted by a
competent and independent counsel during the time of extracting statements from him by
a “bantay-bayan”-who is a recognized law enforcement officer.
On the other hand, in Lumanog v People52, extrajudicial confession can only be
part of the conviction if they are taken as evidence. In this case, the conviction of the
appellants was not based on the extrajudicial confession executed by them which means
that the extrajudicial confession was not used in this case. Instead, the appellants were
convicted due to the evidence proving their guilt.

Re-enactment

This is part of the police investigation process wherein it is an act where the
criminal suspects are ordered to describe and act out every step of the crime occurred in
which the suspect the directly connected to the crime.
In People v Luvendino53, Presumption of Regularity is an established aid in the
discharge of the duties of the law enforcement officers to an effective and unhampered
administration of justice and government function. The burden of proof to prove that the
constitutional rights are violated rests upon the accused.
The circumstances that transpired in this case are the following: the re-enactment
took place before Luvendino was brought to the police station. Thus, it is not clear from
the record that before the re-enactment was staged by Luvendino, he had been informed
of his constitutional rights including, specifically, his right to counsel and that he had
waived such right before proceeding with the demonstration. Under these circumstances,
the Court must decline to uphold the admissibility of evidence relating to that re-
enactment.
The Court ruled that the extrajudicial confession that Luvendino executed may be
admitted in evidence because he failed to prove that there was an obvious violation of his
constitutional rights that he suffered from. The burden of proof relies on the person
contending for a violation of his constitutional rights because the law acknowledges the
presumption of regularity.

52
Lumanog v People, G.R. No. 182555, September 7, 2010
53
People v Luvendino, G.R. No. 69971, July 3, 1992

19
Waiver of Rights

In People v Gonzales54, voluntary surrender of things in search warrant constitutes

as consented search in which resulted in waiver of constitutional rights. In the instant
case, the “admission by Bernaldez may be taken as evidence against Joel Gonzales. For
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 accused orally admitted having committed the crime.”55
Herein, Joel Gonzales argued that Inspector Malintad came to bringing no warrant
when the inspector conducted a search of his residence. He also contends that the
alleged items taken during the robbery in the ACF bus compound, and the cassette
recorder and wristwatch must be considered as inadmissible in evidence against him.
The Court ruled that the contention by Gonzales has no merit because Gonzales,
himself, voluntarily surrendered the stolen goods to him. The Inspector further laid down
that the moment he went to the house of Joel Gonzales, the watches, cassette recorder,
chainsaw, and spare parts were given to him. Therefore, it became a consented search,
which constitutes a waiver of the constitutional requirement for a search warrant.
The Constitution is clear that the right to be secure from an unreasonable search
may be waived either expressly or impliedly. If the accused himself waives his right
against unreasonable search and seizure, as in this case, the exclusionary rule (Art. III,
Section 3(2)) in the Constitution does not apply.
Provided in People v Agustin56|, rights cannot be waived if the accused has no
knowledge of such rights and his right to waive the same.
In this case, the Court discussed that there was only a ceremonial reading of his
rights without any giving consideration of the literacy of Agustin whether he had fully
understood his constitutional rights as an accused. Herein, Agustin can only understand
Ilocano dialect during the time he was under the custodial investigation.
As part of the constitutional rights of the accused, he must receive a meaningful
communication of rights with the utmost consideration of his level of understanding for
him to be knowledgeable of the nature and consequences of his statements or
confession.
In this case, there was no waiver of rights for the reason that, in the first place,
Agustin did not understand what was being conveyed to him because he only received
ceremonial reading of his constitutional rights. With this, the accused cannot waive
something that he does not know.

54
People v Gonzales, G.R. No. 142932, May 29, 2002
55
People v Gonzales, G.R. No. 142932, May 29, 2002
56
People v Agustin, G.R. No. 247718, March 3, 2021

20
Exclusionary Rule

Amicable Settlement is not included in the extrajudicial confession because it only

a contract between two parties who have mutual obligations and rights stipulated under
their agreed contract, ruled in Aquino v Paiste.57
As to the nature and scope of custodial investigation, it involves “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 is only after the
investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus
on a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a
process of interrogations that lend itself to eliciting incriminating statements, that the rule
begins to operate.
In this case, when Aquino engaged Atty. As her lawyer, she undoubtedly executed
the amicable settlement. In this sense, Aquino was provided with competent and
independent counsel. The right to counsel is intended to preclude the slightest coercion
as would lead the accused to admit something false. But the lawyer should never be a
factor to the accused to prevent him or her from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.
On the other hand, an amicable settlement is not and does not partake of the
nature of an extrajudicial confession or admission but is a contract between the parties
within the parameters of their mutually recognized and admitted rights and obligations.
Therefore, as Atty. Uy assisted Aquino during the custodial investigation, and it
manifested that Atty. Uy safeguarded petitioner’s rights even if the custodial investigation
did not push through and precluded any threat of violence, coercion, or intimidation.
In People v Maliao58, Municipal Attorney is not considered as “competent and
independent counsel” as contemplated under the constitutional rights of the accused.
In this case, the inadmissibility of his extrajudicial confession, Maliao is not entitled
to an acquittal for the reason that the extrajudicial confession of an accused who was
assisted by a Municipal Attorney during the custodial investigation is not admissible in
evidence because the latter cannot be considered an independent attorney.

Challenges

Most law enforcement officers in the province are not fully knowledgeable of the
technicalities of the rights of the accused. From the time of communicating the
constitutional rights of the accused or the Miranda Rights. There is a gray area on the

57
Aquino v Paiste, G.R. No. 147782, June 25, 2008
58
People v Maliao, G.R. NO. 178058, July 31, 2009

21
manner on how the police officers conveyed the Miranda Rights. As the mandate of the
Constitution, it must be meaningful communication with considerations on the literacy of
the accused, however, it was found out that most local cases demonstrated only
ceremonial or superficial reading of rights only.
The data that will be shown are some out of plenty similar cases found in the 2020
data of the General Santos City-PNP pertaining to the detained persons under their
custody. The marked portion of the photos show that there is no indicated date of arrest
and date of detention. They show that there is discrepancy in assuring the constitutional
rights of detained person. As to the police officers, the reason why there are empty slots
in the data because “they already filed the case” and “it is not necessary because in the
succeeding documents the name of the detained person was already not included”. This
is one of the problems or challenges encountered during data gathering because a mere
lacking on the specific data of every detained person in the document speaks of
something. This can raise a question whether the detained person truly acquired his or
her constitutional rights especially rights under custodial investigation and right to a
speedy trial.
Careful deliberation, we can aptly state that even Human Rights Officers are
constrained with the way they do their responsibilities. In fact, they would confidently say
that there is none so far that they have seen a violation of human rights. Inasmuch as the
jurisdiction of Philippine National Police General Santos City, they observe detention
facilities by making random check once a month. And that random check would only limit
to four (4) detention facilities. Interview conducted with some detained persons in General
Santos City would show a result that their rights to custodial investigation were not
observed. Some would say that they were forced to confess. Some would say that they
were not apprised of the Miranda Rights. And some would say that they were not provided
with counsel. And worst, the only time that they meet with their counsel is right before the
trial.

Data Gathered

From the data provided by Philippine National Police – General Santos City, some
pertinent data such as the date of detention or according to were left in blank even after
the report has been submitted by the detention center. The date of detention means the
date of the filing of the case according to Police Human Rights Chief Officer, PLT. Francis
M. Blancada. However, upon browsing, there were date of detention that remained blank.

22
23
24
25