CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION 1.
The person in custody must be informed at the outset in clear and
Sec. 12. Art. III: (I T I P)
(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 vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention
places, solitary, incomunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited. – T F V T I
(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 and rehabilitation of victims of torture
or similar practices, and their families. ”
Rights under Section 12 ( I S I P – T S I )
1. Right to be informed of rights (#2 and #3 below)
2. Right to remain silent
3. Right to have competent and independent counsel
4. Right to proper treatment of those under investigation
5. Right against torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other
means which vitiate the free will
6. Right against secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
similar forms of detention
7. Right to have confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these
rights considered inadmissible in evidence
Miranda rights procedure (Miranda v. Arizona)
These are the rights to which a person under custodial investigation is entitled.
unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent
2. After being so informed, he must be told that anything he says can and
will be used against him in court.
3. He must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a
lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during the interrogation he
does not have to ask for a lawyer. The investigator should tell him that
he has the right to counsel at that point.
4. He should be warned that not only he has the right to consult with a
lawyer but also that if he is indigent; a lawyer will be appointed to
represent him.
5. Even if the person consents to answer questions without the assistance
of counsel, the moment he asks for a lawyer at any point in the
investigation, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.
6. If the foregoing protections and warnings are not demonstrated during
the trial to have been observed by the prosecution, no evidence
obtained as a result of the interrogation can be used against him.
 Reason for the rule
o it recognized the fact that the psychological if not physical
atmosphere of custodial investigations, in the absence of
proper safeguards, is inherently coercive
o The purpose of providing counsel to a person under custodial
investigation is to curb the police‐state practice of extracting a
confession that leads appellant to make self‐incriminating
statements.
What is Custodial Investigation?
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.
When do these rights become available?
During custodial investigation or as soon as the investigation ceases to be a
general inquiry unto an unsolved crime and direction is aimed upon a particular
1
suspect, as when the suspect who has been taken into police custody and to
whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit
incriminating statements.
Rights during custodial investigation apply only against testimonial compulsion
and not when the body of the accused is proposed to be examined (i.e. urine
sample; photographs; measurements; garments; shoes) which is a purely
mechanical act.
In the case of Galman v. Pamaran, it was held that the constitutional
safeguard is applied notwithstanding that the person is not yet arrested or
under detention at the time. However, Fr. Bernas has qualified this statement by
saying that jurisprudence under the 1987 Constitution has consistently held,
following the stricter view, that the rights begin to be available only when the
person is already in custody. (People v. Ting Lan Uy, G.R. No. 157399, Nov.17,
2005)
Note: Sec. 2 of R.A. 7438 provides that custodial investigation shall include the
practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is under investigation in
connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed
- There is therefore a statutory guarantee broader that the
constitutional.
When are the Miranda rights unavailable?
1. During a police line‐up, unless admissions or confessions are being
elicited from the suspect
 In Gamboa Vs. Cruz,
 Exception when the person is already under custodial
investigation.
2. Paraffin-tested or merely photographed.
3. During administrative investigations
4. Confessions made by an accused at the time he voluntarily surrendered
to the police or outside the context of a formal investigation;
 Spontaneous statements, or those not elicited through questioning
by law enforcement officers, but given in an ordinary manner
where the appellant verbally admits to having committed the
offense, are admissible
 In People v. Bolanos, where, while being conducted to the police
station on board the police jeep, the accused made an extrajudicial
confession that he had killed the victim. Inasmuch as the
uncounselled confession was the sole basis of the judgment of
conviction, it was held that the trial court committed a reversible
error. While on board the police jeep, the accused was deemed to
have been already under custodial investigation, and should have
been informed of his rights.
5. Statements made to a private person
6. When rights ends
 Section 12 (1) applies only to the investigation prior to the filing of
charges, after which Sections 14 and 17 comes in to protect the
accused.
What are the rights that may be waived?
1. Right to remain silent
 If the suspect refuses to give a statement, no adverse inference
shall be made from his refusal to answer questions.
2. Right to counsel
Note: However, the right to be informed of these rights cannot be waived.
Right to be informed
 This contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather
than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract
constitutional principle.
 The Supreme Court, reiterating the foregoing, said that making the
accused read his constitutional rights is simply not enough. The
prosecution must show that the accused understood.
 The right to be informed carries with it the correlative obligation on the
part of the investigator to explain, and contemplates effective
2
 communication which results in the subject understanding what is
conveyed. Since it is comprehension sought to be attained, the degree
of explanation required will necessarily vary and depend on the
education, intelligence and other relevant personal circumstances of
the person under investigation.
Right to Counsel
 The right to counsel is intended to preclude the slightest coercion
as would lead the accused to admit something false.
 In Gamboa v.Cruz, the Supreme Court held that the right to
counsel attaches upon the start of the investigation, i.e., when the
investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information
and/or confessions or admissions from the respondent. At that
point, the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to
avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced
admissions from the lips of the person undergoing investigation.
 The right to counsel is not required in a police line-up, inasmuch as
police line-up is not part of the custodial inquest
What are the requisites for a valid waiver of these rights?
1. Made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently
2. Waiver should be made in writing
3. Made with the presence of counsel
“Competent and Independent Counsel”
 To be competent and independent, it is only required for the lawyer to
be “willing to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused, as
distinguished from one who would merely be giving a routine,
peremptory and meaningless recital of the individual’s constitutional
rights”
 Not independent counsel1 ( SPC MM BO)
a. Special counsel
b. Public/ private prosecutor
1 4
People vs Bardula
c. Counsel of the police
d. Municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to the
accused
e. A mayor unless the accused approaches him as counselor or
adviser
f. A barangay captain
g. Any other whose interest may be adverse to that of the accused
“Preferably his own choice”
 It does not convey the message that the choice of a lawyer by a person
under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent
and independent attorneys from handling the defense; otherwise, the
tempo of custodial investigation will be solely in the hands of the
accused who can impede, nay, obstruct the progress of the
interrogation by simply selecting a lawyer who, for one reason or
another, is not available to protect his interest.2
 Thus, it was held that the right to counsel does not mean that the
accused must personally hire his own counsel. The constitutional
requirement is satisfied when a counsel is engaged by anyone acting on
behalf of the person under investigation, or appointed by the court
upon petition by said person or by someone on his behalf.3
 While the choice of a lawyer in cases where the person under custodial
interrogation cannot afford the services of counsel — or where the
preferred lawyer is not available — is naturally lodged in the police
investigators, the suspect has the final choice as he may reject the
counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. A lawyer provided by
the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused when he does not
raise any objection against the counsel’s appointment during the course
of the investigation, and the accused thereafter subscribes to the
veracity of the statement before the swearing officer4
Confessions obtained after charges had already been filed
2 People v. Barasina
3 People v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 128287
People v. Jerez, G.R. No. 114385
3
  The Supreme Court said that the right to counsel still applies in certain
pre-trial proceedings that are considered “critical stages” in the
criminal process. Custodial interrogation before or after charges have
been filed and non-custodial interrogation after the accused has been
formally charged, is considered “critical pre-trial stages” in the criminal
process.5
No torture, force, etc., which vitiates the free will shall be used
Where the appellants did not present evidence of compulsion orduress or
violence on their persons; where they failed to complain to the officers who
administered the oaths; where they did not institute any criminal or
administrative action against the alleged intimidators for maltreatment; where
there appeared to be no marks of violence on their bodies and where they did
not have themselves examined by a reputable physician to buttress their claim:
all these should be considered factors indicating voluntariness of confessions.
Two kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions treated in this section
1. Coerced confessions, the product of third degree methods, such as
torture, force, violence, threat and intimidation, which are dealt with in
paragraph 2;
2. Uncounselled statements given without the benefit of the Miranda
warning, which are the subject of paragraph 1
Is a confession given to a mayor admissible in court?
Yes, if such confession was given to the mayor as a confidant and not as a law
enforcement officer. In such case, the uncounselled confession did not violate
the suspect’s constitutional rights.
In People v. Andan, what the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of
the incriminating facts or confessions. The rights under Sec. 12 are guarantees
to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the State, and not to prevent the
suspect from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.
5
People v. Espanola,
Exclusionary Rule
 Confession or admission obtained in violation of Sec. 12 and Sec. 17,
Art. Ill, shall be inadmissible in evidence
 A confession is a declaration made voluntarily and without compulsion
or inducement by a person acknowledging that he has committed or
participated in the commission of a crime.
 It is immaterial where the confession was obtained. Thus, where the
confession was given by the accused to NBI agents who visited him in a
Hongkong prison, the confession was still declared inadmissible in
evidence
 On the other hand, any allegation of force, duress, undue influence or
other forms of involuntariness in exacting such confession must be
proved by clear, convincing and competent evidence by the defense.
Otherwise, the confession’s full probative value may be used to
demonstrate the guilt of the accused.
What is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?
This doctrine states that once the primary source (the tree) is shown to have
been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the fruit)
derived from it is also inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that
evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other
evidence, because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence
subsequently obtained.
4