Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People V Judge Ayson
People V Judge Ayson
FACTS:
Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines, assigned at its Baguio City station.
It was alleged that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets, the PAL management
notified him of an investigation to be conducted.
That investigation was scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline, and the Collective
Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos
pertained. A handwritten letter was sent by Ramos to his superiors stating his willingness to settle
the amount of P76,000.
The findings of the Audit team were given to him, and he refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets also
stating that he was prevented from settling said amounts. He proffered a compromise however this did not
ensue.
Two months later, an information was filed against Felipe Ramos charging him with the crime of
estafa. Ramos pleaded not guilty. Evidence by the prosecution contained Ramos’ statement at PAL Baguio City Ticket
Office and the handwritten admission stated earlier. Respondent Judge did not admit those stating that accused
was not reminded of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel. A motion for
reconsideration filed by the prosecutors was denied. Hence this appeal.
ISSUE:
WON the respondent Judge correct in making inadmissible as evidence the admission and statement of
accused? No
HELD:
No.
There are two rights dealt with under Section 20, Article 6 of the 1973 Constitution:
1) the right against self-incrimination — i.e., the right of a person not to be compelled to be a
witness against himself
2) the rights of a person in custodial interrogation, i.e., the rights of every suspect "under
investigation for the commission of an offense."
The right against self- incrimination, "No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself,"
is now embodied in Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The rights of a person in
custodial interrogation, which have been made more explicit, are now contained in Section 12 of
the same Article III.
This is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under compulsion of
subpoena, in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding.
The right is not to "be compelled to be a witness against himself. It prescribes an "option of refusal
to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry." the right can be claimed only
when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be
claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to
appear before the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. It is a right that a
witness knows or should know. He must claim it and could be waived.
Rights in custodial interrogation as laid down in Miranda v. Arizona: the rights of the accused
include:
1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right.
2) nor force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be
used against him.
The rights above specified, to repeat, exist only in "custodial interrogations," or "in-custody
interrogation of accused persons." Custodial interrogation is meant "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 evident that a defendant on trial or under preliminary investigation is not under custodial
interrogation. Hence, with respect to a defendant in a criminal case already pending in court (or the
public prosecutor's office), there is no occasion to speak of his right while under "custodial
interrogation" for the obvious reason that he is no longer under "custodial interrogation."
But unquestionably, the accused in court (or undergoing preliminary investigation before the
public prosecutor), in common with all other persons, possesses the right against self-
incrimination. An accused "occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness." Under
the Rules of Court, in all criminal prosecutions the defendant is entitled among others-
2) to testify as witness in his own behalf; but if he offers himself as a witness he may be cross-
examined as any other witness; however, his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not in any
manner prejudice or be used against him.
The individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a
statement. But unless and until such rights and waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the
trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.
Ruling:
In this case, rights under custodial interrogation cannot be had. Felipe Ramos was not in any sense
under custodial interrogation, as the term should be properly understood, prior to and during the
administrative inquiry into the discovered irregularities in ticket sales in which he appeared to
have had a hand. Also, Ramos had voluntarily answered questions posed to him on the first day of
the administrative investigation and agreed that the proceedings should be recorded. These cannot
be excluded on the ground that Miranda Rights were not accorded to Ramos.
Summary:
In fine, a person suspected of having committed a crime and subsequently charged with its
commission in court, has the following rights in the matter of his testifying or producing evidence,
to wit:
1) BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT (or with the public prosecutor, for preliminary
investigation), but after having been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his liberty in some
significant way, and on being interrogated by the police: the continuing right to remain silent and to
counsel, and to be informed thereof, not to be subjected to force, violence, threat, intimidation or
any other means which vitiates the free will; and to have evidence obtained in violation of these
rights rejected; and
a) to refuse to be a witness;
d) WHILE TESTIFYING, to refuse to answer a specific question which tends to incriminate him for
some crime other than that for which he is then prosecuted.