Sectio 12 Custodial Investigation Flashcards
Section 12 codal provision
SECTION 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.
3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 [Right Against Self-Incrimination] hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. [Exclusionary Rule of Sections 12 & 17]
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.
What are pre-trial rights?
- Right to custodial investigation
- Right to bail
- Right to counsel
- Right to speedy trial
- Right to fair trial
As proof of compliance with the constitutional standards, the
extrajudicial confession contains the following statements:
PRELIMINARY: Mr. Jaynard Agustin you are being informed that you are under investigation for your alleged involvement in the commission of an offense particularly an alleged Rape with Homicide committed on November 1, 2010 at xxx, Cagayan. But before we proceed further, I wish to inform you that pursuant to Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, You have the right to remain silent, anything you may say can be used for or against you in any court proceedings, to be assisted by a counsel preferably of your own choice and if you cannot provide your own counsel, you will be provided one to assist in this investigation. Is this clear and understood by you?
ANSWER: Yes, sir.
Thereafter, the police assigned a lawyer to assist accused, who could not
read and write since he never went to school. Is the confession
admissible?
No. The extrajudicial confession itself shows that in the course of the custodial investigation, accused was not adequately informed of his constitutional rights. Accused was supposedly apprised of these rights through a kilometric sentence punctuated by a terse answer of “Yes, sir” , initiated by him. This did not satisfy the strict requirements mandated by the Constitution. Too, it was not demonstrated that Agustin understood his constitutional rights. Thus, there was only a perfunctory, superficial and ceremonial reading of his rights without the slightest consideration of whether the same would result in an understanding by accused of what was
conveyed to him.
To reiterate, in order to comply with the constitutional mandates, there should be meaningful communication to and understanding of his rights by the accused, as opposed to a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital thereof. Since comprehension is the objective, the degree of explanation required will necessarily depend on the education, intelligence, and other relevant personal circumstances of the person undergoing
investigation. Here, accused was an illiterate and could only speak and understand Ilocano. This fact should engender a higher degree of scrutiny in
determining whether he understood his rights.
After X, a rape suspect, was apprised of his right to silence and to counsel, he told the investigators that he was waiving his right to have his own counsel or to be provided one. He made his waiver in the presence of a retired Judge who was assigned to assist and explain to him the consequences of such waiver. It is undisputed that the Malita. Is the waiver valid?
No, the waiver was not reduced in writing
When does the right to counsel attaches? Meaning, at one point in your life as a suspect in a criminal case will you begin to enjoy the right?
That is very crucial in order to determine whether it has been violated or not. The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from the accused. At such point or state, the persons being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogations for the commission of an offense.
This happened in Kaputian, Davao. Before there was no practicing lawyer in Kaputian. So the police investigated the accused and he made a confession. Since there was no lawyer, he brought the accused to PAO of Davao City, and the confession was reduced into writing with the assistance of the counsel.
Issue: Is the confession admissible considering that it is now in writing and with the assistance of counsel?
No. The general principle is that the person is entitled to counsel upon the start of the investigation.,
Thesettled rule is that an uncounseled extrajudicial confession without a valid waiver of the right to counsel that is in writing and in the presence of counsel is inadmissible in evidence.
The belated arrival of a PAdO lawyer the f.ollowing day even if prior to the actual signing of the uncounseled confession does not cure the defect (of lack of counsel) for the investigators were already able to extract incriminatory statements from accused-appellant
Admissions obtained during custodial interrogations without the benefit of counsel although later reduced to writing and signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed under the Constitution
Are voluntary admissions N res vestal statements covered?
A person in Boracay voluntarily went to the police station and admitted to have shot a tourist.
Is the oral confession admissible?
The oral confession is competent evidence against him. The declaration of the accused acknowledging guilt made to the police desk officer after the crime was committed may be given in evidence against him by the police officer to whom the admission was made, as part of the res gestae
. An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in such a case
it must be given in substance. The rule is that, any person, otherwise competent as a witness, who heard the confession, is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood all of it. An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in such a case it must be given in substance. What was told by the accused to the police was a spontaneous statement not elicited through questioning, but given an ordinary manner. No written confession was sought to be presented in evidence as a result of formal custodial investigation.
The Miranda doctrine requires that:
(a) any person under custodial investigation has the right to
remain silent;
(b) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court
of law;
(c) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned
and to have his counsel present when being questioned; and (d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before
any questioning if he so desires.
(a) any person under custodial investigation has the right to
remain silent;
(b) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court
of law;
(c) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned
and to have his counsel present when being questioned; and (d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before
any questioning if he so desires.
What is custodial investigation?
“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.
Is a person placed in a police line-up entitled to counsel?
[Pavillare, Hatton, People v. Lara, 678 SCRA 332 (2012)
General rule: No right to counsel. A police line-up is not considered a part of any custodial inquest, because it is conducted before that stage of investigation is reached. It was only for the purpose of identification, and there was no investigation. Exception: After the start of the custodial investigation, any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is inadmissible. This is particularly true in the case at bar where the police officers first talked to the victims before the confrontation was held. The circumstances were such as to impart improper suggestions on the minds of the victims that may lead to a mistaken identification. Accused were handcuffed and had contusions on their faces (People vs. Macam, 1994).
The accused were brought to the Quezon City General Hospital and made to line-up together with several policemen in civilian clothes. The witnesses, who were confined at the hospital for injuries sustained during the robbery, were asked to pinpoint the perpetrators. At that time, accused were handcuffed and bore contusions on their faces caused by the blows inflicted on them by the police.
After the start of the custodial investigation, any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is inadmissible. This is particularly true in the case at bar where the police officers first talked to the victims before the confrontation was held. The circumstances were such as to impart improper suggestions on the minds of the victims that may lead to a mistaken identification. Accused were handcuffed and had contusions on their faces.
Is an interview given to a TV or radio reporter covered by
the right to counsel? [Espejo, Taboga, Endino] People v.
Dacanay, 807 SCRA 130 (2016)
No. Admission given to a radio or TV reporter, who is a private person, is admissible. The people who made the interview are not law enforcers. The bill of rights cannot be invoked against a private individual.
When an accused is brought to a police station, some TV reporters would interview him. The poor guy does not know anything about lawyer so he
makes a confession. Later on, the TV reporter will be called to testify. Will the admission be admissible in court?
Yes. Because these people interviewing you are not law enforcers. The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against a private individual. It will be another matter if the TV reporter was induced by the police but generally, any confession you make will be and can be used in evidence against you.
Is a videotape confession admissible? (Pp vs. Endino)
The admission of the videotaped confession is proper. The interview was recorded on video and it showed accused unburdening his guilt willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of newsmen. Such confession does not form part of custodial investigation as it was not given to police officers but to media men in an attempt to solicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public. There was no showing that the interview was coerced or against his will. However, because of the inherent danger in the use of television as a medium for admitting one’s guilt, courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further admitting similar confessions.
When a suspect is made to sign receipts of articles taken from him, is he entitled to counsel? [Linsagna, Li Wai Ching, Gutang]
Yes, one is entitled to counsel as permitting such would be an easy and clever way for the police to incriminate the person or admit that a crime was done. For instance, the police searched upon the person and found shabu and one is made to sign a receipt and used such receipt against the person.
The usual practice is that there will be a search conducted on you, maybe with or without warrant. Afterwards, they get some items – shabu, paraphernalia, bullets. Then the suspect is made to sign a receipt. Later on, in trial, they present it against you. Is that admissible?
No. It is not admissible. That is a tricky way of obtaining confession from the accused without a lawyer. If there is a receipt, the one who should sign the receipt should be the arresting officer because he was the one getting the item, not the person who parted with the article.
It has been held in a long line of cases that the signature of the accused in the Receipt of Property Seized is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of counsel. The signature of the accused on such a receipt is a declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged for the reason that, in the case at bar, mere unexplained possession of prohibited drugs is punishable by law. Therefore, the signatures of the petitioner on the two (2) Receipts of Property Seized (Exhibits I and R) are not admissible in evidence, the same being tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession which is prohibited by the Constitution.
What about if he is made to sign a marked money taken from him in a buy-bust operation? (People v. Linsing)
Admissible. One is not entitled to counsel since one is not being charged with illegal possession of money but with illegal possession of drugs. Usually, this is the practice of the police. They conduct buy-bust operation and then arrest you and they get the money to prove that it was taken from you and you are made to sign it. Can the money be admissible in court with your signature?
Can pictures of a re-enactment taken without counsel be admitted in evidence? (Olvis)
No. One is entitled to the right to counsel in case of reenactment. A re-enactment is a usual practice of the NBI. They arrest you for instance for homicide. Then they will bring you to the crime scene and ask you, “How did you shoot the victim?” “Where was he standing?”. Then they will take pictures. Can that be presented in court without you having assisted by counsel during the re-enactment.
No. The SC said that it is inadmissible if done without counsel. The principle is, during re-enactment, the accused is entitled to counsel. Otherwise, pictures taken will be inadmissible in court against him.
In an administrative investigation, is a person entitled to counsel? (Lumiqued, Sebastian/postal, Remolina/CSC, Ting Lan Uy/NPC, Salonga/Metrobank)
No. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a party in a non- criminal proceeding is entitled to be represented by counsel and that, without such representation, he shall not be bound by such proceedings. The assistance of lawyers, while desirable, is not indispensable.
Arsenio P. Lumiqued was the Regional Director of The Department of Agrarian Reform – Cordillera Autonomous Region. aJeannette Ober Zamudio charged Lumiqued with Malversation through place, falsification of public documents. He allegedly falsified gasoline receipts amounting to Php 44,172.46 and made unliquidated cash advances to amounting to Php 116,000.00. Zamudio also charged him with oppression and harassment after being relieved without just cause after filing the 2 cases against Lumiqued. Acting Justice Secretary Eduardo Montenegro issued Department Order No. 145, creating a committee to investigate complaints against Lumiqued. Lumiqued submitted his affidavit alleging that the reason the cases were filed against him was to extort money from him. He also admitted that his average daily consumption was 108.45Li which is an aggregate consumption of the 5 service vehicle issued to him and that the receipts were turned over to him by drivers for reimbursement. Committee hearings on the complaints were conducted and Lumiqued was not assisted by a counsel since he was confident that he can defend himself. President Ramos issued AO No 52 finding Lumiqued administratively liable for dishonesty in the alteration of 15 gas receipts and he was dismissed from service. Petitioners fault the investigating committee for its failure to inform Lumiqued of his right to counsel during the hearing. They maintained that his right to counsel could not be waived unless the waiver was in writing and in the presence of a counsel.
Issue: Whether the right to have a counsel during an administrative hearing is necessary.
No. The right to counsel is not indispensable to due process unless required by the Constitution or the law. In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain one’s side. One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps even much more creditably as it is more practicable than oral arguments, through pleadings. An actual hearing is not always an indispensable aspect of due process. As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process. Moreover, this constitutional mandate is deemed satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Lumiqued’s appeal and his subsequent filing of motions for reconsideration cured whatever irregularity attended the proceedings conducted by the committee.
It is an administrative investigation as this was intended to remove an employee. He committed a misdeed and the employer wants to investigate him for the purpose of removing or suspending him. The question is if it was a government entity such as the CSC, are you entitled to counsel?
No. This applies only to people charged in criminal investigations not administrative investigations. In administrative investigations, a person is not entitled to counsel even if in the end the result in the investigation will be used in a criminal case. Investigation done by the employer is a form of administrative investigation.
Fajardo was employed as Cashier by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office. An audit revealed that she incurred a shortage of P3,000,000.00. Among the evidence presented to her during trial was her letters in answer to a demand sent to her by a Commission on Audit team who audited her wherein she admitted the shortage and promised to reimburse them. Convicted of Malversation, on appeal accused raised the inadmissibility of the letters on the ground that she was not assisted by counsel when she prepared them. Are the letters admissible?
Yes. It must be remembered that the right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect during custodial investigation. While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the fact remains that, under existing laws, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of petitioner’s capacity to represent herself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel. The right to counsel is not always imperative in administrative investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit the imposition of disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.
Are you entitled to counsel when you are only invited or
interviewed at the Police Station? [Tan, Sequino] [Informal
talk (Bravo)
Yes. Any admission elicited from the person without counsel shall be inadmissible. As long as one is under police custody, one is entitled to counsel. Otherwise, any admission elicited from you without counsel shall be inadmissible. As long as you are under the police custody, you are entitled to counsel. Interviews and invitations at the Police Station are covered by the right to counsel.
‘
Are you entitled to counsel when investigation is made by the Barangay Tanod [Malngan] or by Bantay Bayan? [Lauga, 2010]
Investigations done by a Barangay Tanod are covered because they are agents of the state. They act as policemen. You are entitled to counsel.
Barangay-based volunteer organization in the nature of watch groups, as in the case of the “bantay bayan,” are recognized by the local government unit to perform functions relating to the preservation of peace and order at the barangay level; Any inquiry a bantay bayan 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, and an extrajudicial confession taken from a suspect by such bantay bayan without a counsel is inadmissible in evidence.
Are you entitled to counsel in a preliminary investigation?
People v. Penaflor, 766 SCRA 427 (2015), but see People v. Bokingo, 655 SCRA 313 (2011) and other previous cases
This Court has unequivocally declared that a person undergoing preliminary investigation cannot be considered as being under custodial investigation.
The import of the distinction between custodial interrogation and preliminary investigation relates to the inherently coercive nature of a custodial interrogation which is conducted by the police authorities. Due to the interrogatory procedures employed by police authorities, which are conducive to physical and psychological coercion, the law affords arrested persons constitutional rights to guarantee the voluntariness of their confessions and admissions, and to act as deterrent from coercion by police authorities.30 These safeguards are found in Article III, Section 12(1) of the Constitution and Section 2 of R.A. No. 7438. Sans proper safeguards, custodial investigation is a fertile means to obtain confessions and admissions in duress.
