BOR_Custodial Investigation

Question 1

What is custodial investigation?

Answer 1

Custodial investigation commences when a person
a. is taken into custody and
b. is singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime under investigation and the
c. police officers begin to ask questions on the suspect’s participation therein and
d. which tend to elicit an admission.

Question 2

What are the rights of a person under custodial investigation?

Answer 2

RIGHTS OF A PERSON UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION:

1. Right to remain silent;
2. Right to competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice;
3. Right to be reminded that if he cannot afford the services of counsel, he would be provided with one
4. Right to be informed of his rights;
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.

Question 3

What is the purpose of providing counsel to a person under custodial investigation?

Answer 3

To curb the police-state practice of extracting a confession that leads appellant to make self-incriminating statements. (People v. Rapeza 2007)

Question 4

Does it include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is under investigation in connexn w/ an offense?

Answer 4

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. (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 7438)

Question 5

Does right during CI applicable when the body of the accused is proposed to be examined (e.g. urine sample, photographs, measurements,
garments, shoes)?

Answer 5

No.

Question 6

Can the accused be compelled to do certain acts
which would produce evidence against him?

Answer 6

Under the right against self-incrimination, the accused may not also be compelled to do certain acts which would produce evidence against him such as urine tests and providing specimen signature.

Question 7

Will the inadmissibility cover other evidence?

Answer 7

Rights render inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during such investigation. “The admissibility of other evidence
provided they are relevant to the issue and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation” (Ho Wai Pang v. People)

Question 8

What is the Totality of Circumstances Test?

Answer 8

Out-of-court identifications such as police show-up is inadmissible if it is tainted with improper suggestions by police officers.

Question 9

What does the the totality of circumstances test in resolving the admissibility and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects consider?

Answer 9

1. Level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification;
2. Opportunity of witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime;
3. Accuracy of any prior description given by the witness;
4. Witness’ Degree attention at that time;
5. Length of time between the crime and the identification; and
6. Suggestiveness of the identification procedure. (Concha v. People, G.R. No. 208114, 03 Oct. 2018)

Question 10

Cite instances where Miranda rights are inapplicable

Answer 10

Unavailability of Miranda Rights
1. During a police line-up, unless admissions or
confessions are being elicited from the suspect;
(Gamboa v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-56291, 27 June 1988)

2. During administrative investigations;
   (Sebastian, Jr. v Garchitorena, G.R. No 114028, 18
   Oct. 2000)
3. Confessions made by an accused at the time he
   voluntarily surrendered to the police or outside
   the context of a formal investigation; (People v
   Baloloy, G.R. No 140740, 12 Apr. 2002)
4. Statements made to a private person; and
   (People v Tawat, G.R. No 62871, 25 May 1985)
5. Forensic investigation is not tantamount to
   custodial investigation, therefore Miranda
   rights is not applicable. (People v. Tranca, G.R.
   No. 110357, 17 June 1984

Question 11

What are the Rights that may be waived?

Answer 11

1. Right to remain silent; and
2. Right to counsel.

Question 12

What are the Requisites for Valid Waiver?

Answer 12

1. Made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently;
2. In writing; and
3. With the presence of counsel. (People v. Galit)

Question 13

Admissible? Confessions given in response to a question by news reporters? Reason.

Answer 13

Where the suspect gave spontaneous answers to a televised interview by several press reporters, his answers are deemed to be voluntary and are admissible.

Question 14

Are videotaped confessions admissible?

Answer 14

Videotaped confessions are admissible, where it is shown that the accused unburdened his guilt willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of the newsmen. Such confessions do not form part of confessions in custodial investigations as it was not given to policemen but to media in attempt to solicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public.

However, due to inherent danger of these videotaped confessions, they must be accepted with extreme caution. They should be presumed involuntary, as there may be connivance between the police and media men. (People v. Endino, G.R. No. 133026, 20 Feb. 2001)

Question 15

What does the guarantee in Sec. 12 aim to prevent?

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

Exclusionary Rule (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Doctrine

Answer 16

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. It does not necessarily follow that the property illegally seized will be returned immediately, it could remain in custodia legis.

Question 17

The mayor opened the door of the room to let the public and media representatives witness the confession. The mayor first asked for a lawyer to assist appellant but since no lawyer was available she ordered the proceedings photographed and videotaped. In the presence of the mayor, the police, representatives of the media and appellant’s own wife and son, appellant confessed his guilt. His confession was captured on videotape and covered by the media nationwide. Did such uncounseled confession violate the suspect’s constitutional rights?

Answer 17

A: NO. A confession given to the mayor may be admitted in evidence if such confession by the suspect was given to the mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer.

In such a case, the uncounseled confession did not violate the suspect’s constitutional rights.

What the constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of 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. (People v. Andan, G.R. No. 116437, 03 Mar. 1997)

Question 18

A bantaybayan in the barangay, testified that the accused confessed that he had in fact raped AAA. The trial court found him guilty of the crime of rape. Lauga contends that the extrajudicial confession he made to Nepomuceno is inadmissible in evidence as it was made without assistance of counsel. Is his contention tenable?

Answer 18

A: YES. A barangay bantaybayan is considered a public officer and any extrajudicial confession made to him without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence as provided for under Sec. 12, Art. III of the Constitution. (People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, 15 Mar. 2010)