Rights During Custodial Investigations

Miranda v. Arizona – numerous cases wherein the defendant was in police custody and questioned in a room in which
he was cut off the outside world. None of the defendants was given a full and effective warning
of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. Salient feature is the incommunicado
interrogation of individuals in a police dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating
statements without full warnings of constitutional rights.

Main issue: admissibility of statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived
of his freedom of action in any significant way. Primarily, the interrogation atmosphere and the evils it bring.

Maxim nemo tenetur seipsum accusare – no man has to accuse himself.

 This maxim had its origin in protest against the inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating
accused persons. Brought by a general and silent acquiescence of the courts in a popular demand (no
statute and judicial opinion).
 John Lilburn case – start of the right against self-incrimination. He was granted a privileged and later on,
that privilege was turn into a constitutional right. Dude resisted an oath that would have bound him to
answer all questions posed to him on any subject.

Doctrine: The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial
interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the
privilege against self-incrimination.
 Custodial interrogation – 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
 Procedural safeguards:
1. Person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be
used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or
appointed.
2. Defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly
and intelligently.
3. If the defendant indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with
an attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning.
a. If individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated,
the police may not question him.
4. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions on his own does not deprived him of the
right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and
thereafter consented to be questioned.

The Court dissected the manuals used by police officers in interrogating – basically, the manual encourages the
isolation of a person so as to display the superiority of the officers. In this manual, the guilt of the subject is to be
posited as a fact. The tactics in this manual are designed to put the subject in a psychological state where his story is
but an elaboration of what the police purport to know already – that he is guilty.
 No brutality but the specific stratagems exacts a heavy toll on individual liberty and trades on the weakness
of individuals

Criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an individual produce the evidence against him by its
own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his mouth.
 Privilege is fulfilled only when the person is guaranteed the right “to remain silent unless he chooses to
speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will.”
 The rule is that, for a statement to be admissible, it must be sufficient to establish that the making of the
statement was voluntary >> it was voluntarily made without pressure (person must be able to apprise his
own rights and that the atmosphere did not compel him to make a statement showing that it was not an
independent decision on his part that caused him to speak).
Flow:
1. Person must be first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent.
2. For those unaware of the privilege, the warning is needed simply to make them aware of it – this is an
absolute prerequisite in overcoming the inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere.
a. Warning will show the individual that his interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege
should he choose to exercise it.
b. Whatever the background of the person interrogated, warning is indispensable and must be done
before the interrogation.
c. ALSO!!! It must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against
the individual in court >> to make the person aware of both his privilege and the consequence of
waiving such privilege  it is only through the awareness of these consequences that there can
be any assurance of real understanding and intelligent exercise of the privilege.
3. The presence of counsel is indispensable in an interrogation.
a. Adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the
dictates of the privilege his presence would insure that the statements made were not the
product of compulsion.
b. Failure to ask for a lawyer does not constitute a waiver. No effective waiver of the right to counsel
during interrogation can be recognized unless specifically made after warning.
c. Assistance of counsel is constitutional requisite, the right to be furnished counsel does not depend
on a request.
i. Individual must be clearly informed that he has the right >> No amount of circumstantial
evidence that the person may have been aware of this right will suffice to stand in its
stead. Only through such a warning is there ascertainable assurance that the accused
was aware of this right.

Whatever the testimony of the authorities as to waiver of rights by an accused, the fact of lengthy interrogation or
incommunicado incarceration before a statement is made is strong evidence that the accused did not validly waived
his right.
 Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is admissible in evidence. The
fundamental import of the privilege while an individual is in custody is whether he can be interrogated.

People v. Guillen – Rape case. Woman was inside her house when the accused knocked and entered her house and
raped her. Dude poked a balisong on the neck of the woman. During interrogation, dude remained
silent and passive despite being confronted by the woman with the rape charge at the police
station. He did not deny the accusation and just remained silent. It was in this regard that the RTC
considered the implied admission of guilt of the accused.

SC agreed with the accused that his silence should not be used against him as he was just exercising his constitutional
right to remain silent.
 When he was brough to the police station, he was already a suspect to the crime and, as such, was under
custodial investigation (A3, Sec 12)

Clearly, when he remained silent when confronted by the accusation of the woman, he was exercising his basic and
fundamental right to remain silent. At that stage, his silent should not be taken against him. Thus, it was error on the
part of the trial court to state that his silence should be deemed as implied admission of guilt. In fact, this right cannot
be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel and any admission obtained in violation of this rule shall
be inadmissible in evidence.

BUT! Dude was still convicted of the crime of rape. Woman had a straightforward testimony and the dude was only
able to offer alibi and denial as his defense.
Presumption of Innocence

People v. Dramayo – the accused killed a guy to shut him up so the latter can’t testify against them about a robbery
case in which they were the primary suspect.

The presumption of innocence is a right safeguarded by the Constitution. According to the fundamental law,
accusation is not synonymous with guilt. It is incumbent on the prosecution to demonstrate that culpability lies. The
appellants’ freedom is forfeit only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence. There is
need, therefore, for the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the state, both oral and documentary,
independently of whatever defense is offered by the accused. Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could
arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an exacting test
should the sentence be one of conviction. It is thus required that every circumstance favoring his innocence be duly
taken into account. The proof against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be
permitted to sway judgment. 

Reasonable doubt - doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation,
to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt.

Absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict of any criminal charge but moral certainty is
required, and this certainty is required as to every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense.

Prosecutor’s duty: to lay before the court the pertinent facts as their disposal with methodical and meticulous
attention, clarifying contradictions and filling up gaps and loopholes in their evidence, to the end that the court’s mind
may not be tortured by doubts.

In this case, it cannot be denied that the credible and competent evidence resulted in moral certainty being
entertained not only by the trial judge but by us [SC] as to the culpability of the appellants. It is likewise in this regard
that the other accused were acquitted precisely because the requisite quantum of proof was not present. With this,
the presumption of innocence could not come to the rescue of Dramayo and Escubin as it was more than sufficiently
overcome by the proof that was offered by the prosecution.

Feeder Int’l Line v. CA – a foreign vessel with Honduran registry was anchored in Iloilo without notifying the Iloilo
customs. The vessel did not have on board the required ship and shipping documents and, as
such, the vessel and its cargo were held and a Warrant of Seizure and Detention over the
same was issued after due investigation.

The seizure and forfeiture proceedings under the tariff and customs laws are not criminal in nature as they do not
result in the conviction of the offender nor in the imposition of the penalty. These are purely civil and administrative
in character, the main purpose of which is to enforce the administrative fines or forfeiture incident to unlawful
importation of goods or their deliberate possession.

Are corporate entities protected by the right? No.

Petitioner, which is a corporate entity, has no personality to invoke the right to be presumed innocent which right is
available only to an individual who is an accused in a criminal case.

Right to Counsel

People v. Holgado – Accused was charged with slight illegal detention. During trial, the accused stated “I plead guilty,
but I was instructed by one Mr. Ocampo.” Two days later the trial court charged the accused of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention despite the caption of the case that is named slight illegal
detention >> Since the accused pleaded guilty and no evidence have deduced the capital offense
from the facts pleaded in the information.

In this case, the accused was unaided by counsel during the arraignment. It was not prudent for the trial court to
render such a serious judgment finding the accused guilty of a capital offense, and imposing upon him such a heavy
penalty without absolutely any evidence to determine and clarify the true facts of the case.
RoC, Rule 112, Section 3 – under this provision, when a defendant appears without attorney, the court has four duties
to comply with:
1. It must inform the defendant that it is his right to have attorney before being arraigned.
2. After giving such information, the court must ask him if he desires the aid of an attorney.
a. If he desires and is unable to employ attorney, the court must assig attorney de oficio to defend him.
b. If accused desires to procure an attorney of his own, the court must grant him a reasonable time.

In this case, none of these duties were complied with. The trial court merely asked “Do you have an attorney or are
you going to plead guilty?” Such question failed to inform the accused of his right and it was framed that it could be
construed by the accused as a suggestion from the court that he plead guilty if he has no attorney.

In criminal cases, there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel.
 The right to be heard would be of little avail if it does not include the right to be heard by counsel.

“But I was instructed by Mr. Ocampo.”

 The trial court failed to inquire the true import of this qualification. No investigation was opened by the
court on this matter in the presence of the accused and there is now no way of determining whether the
supposed instruction is a good defense or may vitiate the voluntariness of the confession.

Delgado v. CA – Accused was charged with estafa thru falsification of public and/or official documents. Accused was
assisted and represented by her counsel ex parte Atty. Yco. The counsel failed to appear on the date
set for the continuation of the defense evidence. He sent a telegram requesting for postponement
to which the prosecution objected believing that the motion was dilatory. The trial court sustained
the objection of the fiscal and considered that the accused had waived presentation of her evidence.
Accused was convicted; she appealed but the CA affirmed the decision. An entry of final judgment
was issued but accused was not informed or notified of said decision by her counsel. As such, she
filed an Urgent Motion to the CA but it was denied. Later on, the accused came to know the fact that
her counsel was not a member of the Philippine Bar and prayed that she be granted a new trial. CA
denied the motion.

All assailed orders of respondent courts should be vacated and set aside because her “lawyer” is not a lawyer.

An accused person is entitled to be represented by a member of the bar in a criminal case filed against her. Unless she
is represented by a lawyer, there is great danger that any defense presented in her behalf will be inadequate
considering the legal perquisites and skills needed in the court proceedings. This would certainly be denial of due
process.

People v. Baluyot – the appellants were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. They were assisted by an
attorney de oficio on arraignment and the first presentation of evidence but the attorney had
manifested that he was only appearing as counsel for the appellants for a day only. As such, on the
next trial another attorney assisted the appellants. Thereafter, the appellants were again assisted
by another counsel de oficio who was appointed by the trial court after the appellants informed
the court that they had no lawyer. The court allowed the new counsel to consult with the
appellants for a few minutes and after the consultation, the appellants withdraw the plea of not
guilty. AGAIN, they were assisted by another counsel in their petition to the SC.

Set aside the decision. Trial court failed to ascertain for itself that the appellants completely understood the precise
nature of the charge and the meaning of the aggravating circumstances alleged. Moreover, the appellants were
assisted by 3 different counsel de oficio on three separate trial dates. On the day the decision was rendered, the
counsel proceeded to trial without first fully investigating the facts of the case and that his interview with the
appellants lasted for only 20 minutes.

Sec 5, Rule 116 of RoC >> attorney de oficio shall be given not less than 2 days to prepare his defense.
On the plea of guilty, the court should have informed the accused the implication of their plea.
 The norm that should be allowed where a plea of guilty is entered is that the court should be sure that
defendant fully understood the nature of the charges preferred against him and the character of the
punishment provided by law before it is imposed.
 In capital offenses, the taking of testimony is the proper an prudent course to follow to establish the guilty
and precise degree of culpability of the accused not only to satisfy the trial judge but to aid the SC in
determining whether accused really and truly understood and comprehend the meaning, full significance
and consequence of his plea.

To be informed of the nature and cause of the charge, and to be heard

Ivler v. Judge Modesto San Pedro – Vehicular collision. Petitioner pleaded guilty in one of the charges (reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries) and was convicted. Invoking this conviction, petitioner
moved to quash the second information (RI resulting in homicide and damage to property) using double
jeopardy as a defense. MeTC refused. Petitioner elevated this matter to the RTC and, at the same time,
sought from the MeTC the suspension of proceedings. The MeTC proceeded with the arraignment in which
the petitioner was absent. As such, MeTC cancelled his bail and ordered his arrest. On the other hand, RTC
dismissed his motion on the ground of the petitioner’s forfeiture of standing arising from the MeTC’s order
of arrest due to his non-appearance.

Section 21, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

 Defendant’s absensce merely renders his bondsman potentially liable on its bond; the defendant retains his
standing and should he fail to surrender, will be tried in absentia and could be convicted or acquitted.
Indeed, the 30-day period granted to the bondsman to produce the accused underscores the fact that mere
non-appearance does not ipso facto convert the accused’s status to that of a fugitive without standing.

To secure, confront witnesses, presence during trial

U.S. v. Javier – Natividad fastened his carabao in his corral. The following morning, he found the caraboa disappeared
and reported the matter to the authorities. Almost a month later, Sgt. Presa (dedz now) encountered the accused
leading a carabao and when the accused saw him, they scattered in all directions. The following morning, the
Constabulary found this carabao tied in from of the house of Monterola. The carabao was identified by Natividad as
his. During trial, the sworn statement of Sgt. Presa was admitted as evidence. The defense wants this evidence to be
inadmissible as the Sgt. Presa was now dead and cannot be cross-examined.

“in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right … to meet the witnesses face to face.”
 Intends to secure the accused in the right to be tried, so far as facts provable by witnesses are concerned,
by only such witness as meet him face to face at the trial, who give their testimony in his presence, and give
to the accused an opportunity of cross-examination.
 To prevent the conviction of the accused upon depositions or ex parte affidavits, and particularly to
preserve the right of the accused to test the recollection of the witness in the exercise of the right of cross-
examination

Confrontation is essential because cross-examination is essential.

The sworn statement was improperly received as the defense was not given opportunity to cross-examine the
witness.

Exceptions to the cross-examination of the witness statement:

1. Testimony of a witness deceased
2. Dying declarations or a deposition in a former trial or shown to be a part of the preliminary examination.
“Although we are faced with the alternative of being unable to utilize the statements of the witness now deceased,
yet if there has been no opportunity for cross-examination and the case is not one coming within one of the
exceptions, the mere necessity alone of accepting the statement will not suffice.”

When the presence of the accused mandatory

Aquino v. Military Commission - Ninoy was arrested for complicity in a conspiracy to seize political and state power.
He was brought to Fort Bonifacio. He filed for the issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus which was denied by
the SC. Ninoy then questioned the validity of the denial as well as the declaration of martial law; at the same
time he questioned the authority of the military to try him and his other companions. He was being charged
for illegal possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives. He was also being charged for violation of the
Anti-Subversion Act and for murder. All were filed before the military court. Ninoy argued that the military
court has no jurisdiction for civilian courts are still operational.

Military tribunals has jurisdiction over his case. According to Schwartz, “The immunity of civilians from military
jurisdiction must, however, give way in areas governed by martial law. When it is absolutely imperative for public
safety, legal processes can be superseded and military tribunals authorized to exercise the jurisdiction normally
vested in court.”

There was due process.

 The guarantee of due process is not a guarantee of any particular form of tribunal in criminal case.
 DP of law does not necessarily mean a judicial proceeding in the regular courts.
 It implies due notice to the individual of the proceedings, an opportunity to defends himself and the
“problem of the propriety of the deprivations, under the circumstances presented, must be resolved in a
manner consisted with essential fairness.”
o Essentially a fair and impartial trial and reasonable opportunity for the preparation of defense.

Presence of the accused

1. In cases of felony, accused has the right to be present at every stage of the trial, inclusive of the
arraignment and pronouncement of the judgment
2. Offense is capital, the right to be present is indispensable and cannot be waived
3. Not capital and is in custody, presence is indispensable and cannot be waived
4. Not capital and not in custody, indispensable only
a. At arraignment
b. At the time plea is taken (if guilty)
c. At the pronouncement of judgement

However, under the Constitution, trial even of a capital offense may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
accused.

Section 7, Rule 119 – “failure or refusal on the part of the defendant to attend the examination or the taking of the
deposition after notice hereinbefore provided, shall be considered a waiver.”

People v. Salas – Accused was initially charged with homicide but after reinvestigation an amended information was
filed. Accused then tricked the judge into granting him bail by taking advantage of the first information filed. He then
escaped. Judge cancelled the bond and ordered his arrest, and then suspended all proceedings until the return of the
accused.

“… after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly
notified and his failure to appear is unjustified.”
 Purpose: to speed up the disposition of criminal cases, trial of which could in the past be indefinitely
deferred, and many times completely abandoned, because of the defendant’s escape.
 Allows trials in absentia. Because of this, the prisoner cannot by simply escaping thwart his continued
prosecution and possibly eventual conviction provided only that
 o He has been arraigned
o Duly notified of the trial
o Failure to appear is unjustified.

The right to be present at one’s trial may now be waived except only at that stage where the prosecution intends to
present witnesses who will identify the accused.

Under this provision, defendant’s escape will be considered a waiver of this right and the inability of the court to
notify him of the subsequent hearings will not prevent it from continuing with his trial. He will be deemed to have
received due notice.

Trial in absentia

People v. CA – Dude pretended to be a stock broker. His client filed an estafa information against him and he was
granted to post bail. During the first promulgation of the judgment, both the dude and his counsel was
absent so the TC re-set the promulgation. BUT they still didn’t appear. As such, the judge granted the
motion of the prosecution to cancel his bail.

The trial court correctly canceled Chiok’s bail because of his failure to appear during the promulgation of judgment
despite notice. He violated the condition of his bail that he must appear before the proper court whenever so
required by that court or the Rules. As such, his arrest is proper. This is in accordance with Section 6, Rule 120 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The last paragraph of the mentioned provision authorizes the promulgation of
judgment in absentia in view of Chiok’s failure to appear despite notice. It bears stressing that this rule is intended to
obviate the situation where the judicial process could be subverted by the accused jumping bail to frustrate the
promulgation of judgment.

In this case, Chiok tried in vain to subvert the judicial process by not appearing during the promulgation of judgment.
Thus, he lost his remedies against the judgment. In fact, he cannot challenge successfully the cancellation of his bail
by the trial court. The CA certainly erred in enjoining the arrest. Its declaration that Chiok might flee or commit
another crime is conjectural utterly lacks merit as Chiok already demonstrated that he is a fugitive from justice.

Against Self-Incrimination

Pp v. Ayson – Ramos was ticket freight clerk at PAL and he was involved in irregularities in the sale of plane tickets.
PAL then informed him that they will conduct an investigation. Ramos complied with the investigation:
he admitted that he had not disclosed the sale of tickets and had misused the proceeds. He proffered a
compromise however this did not ensue. Two months after a crime of estafa was charged against
Ramos. Ramos pleaded not guilty. Evidence by the prosecution contained Ramos’ written admission and
statement, to which defendants argued that the confession was taken without the accused being
represented by a lawyer. 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.

Sec 17, A3 – right against self-incrimination

 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… as such, it prescribes an “option of refusal to answer incrimination
questions and not a prohibition of inquiry.”
o Secures to a witness the right to refuse to answer any particular incriminatory question.
 Right can be claimed only when the specific question is actually put to the witness and it does not give a
witness the right to disregard subpoena, to decline to appear before the court, or to refuse to testify.
o Person must appear in court and be sworn in and he can only enforce this right when he is being
questioned.
 This provision does not impose on the judge, or other officer presiding over a trial, any affirmative obligation
to advise a witness of his right against self-incrimination.
 This right is not self-executing or automatically operation. It must be claimed.
o If not, the protection does not come into play. It follows that this right can be waived, expressly or
impliedly.
Sec 12 – rights of a person in custodial interrogation (group of rights)
 Apply to persons “under investigation for the commission of an offense”
 Objective is to prohibit "incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere,
resulting in self-incriminating statement without full warnings of constitutional rights."
 Statement must be made “under custodial investigation” or “under investigation for the commission of an
offense.” If not, protection doesn’t apply

Rights in giving testimony

The right of the defendant in a criminal case "to be exempt from being a witness against himself" signifies that he
cannot be compelled to testify or produce evidence in the criminal case in which he is the accused, or one of the
accused. He cannot be compelled to do so even by subpoena or other process or order of the Court. He cannot be
required to be a witness either for the prosecution, or for a co-accused, or even for himself.

If he should wish to testify in his own behalf, however, he may do so. But if he does testify, then he "may be cross-
examined as any other witness." He may be cross-examined as to any matters stated in his direct examination, or
connected therewith. He may not on cross-examination refuse to answer any question on the ground that the answer
that he will give, or the evidence he will produce, would have a tendency to incriminate him for the crime with which
he is charged.

Before filing
1. the continuing right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed thereof,
2. not to be subjected to force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiates the free will;
and
3. to have evidence obtained in violation of these rights rejected
After filing
1. to refuse to be a witness;
2. not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal;
3. to testify to his own behalf, subject to cross-examination by the prosecution;
4. WHILE TESTIFYING, to refuse to answer a specific question which tends to incriminate him for some time
other than that for which he is prosecuted.

In this case, Ramos testified in an administrative investigation. Likewise, he voluntarily answered question posed to
him and agreed that the proceedings should be recorded.