Three rights are made available by Sec.

12(1):

(a)The right to remain silent Under the right against self-incrimination in Sec. 17, only an accused has
the absolute right to remain silent. A person who is not an accused may assume the stance of silence
only when asked an incriminatory question. Under Sec. 12, however, a person under investigation has
the right to refuse to answer any question. His silence, moreover, may not be used against him (People
vs. Alegre and Gordoncillo, 94 SCRA 109);
(b)The right to counsel Example of those who are not impartial counsel are (1) Special counsel,
private or public prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is adverse to
that of the accused; (2) a mayor, unless the accused approaches him as counselor or adviser; (3) a
barangay captain; (4) any other whose interest may be adverse to that of the accused (People vs.
Tomaquin, GR 133188, July 23, 2004);
(c)The right to be informed o his rights the right guaranteed here is more than what is shown in
television shows where the police routinely reads out the rights from a note card; he must also explain
their effects in practical terms (People vs. Rojas, 147 SCRA 169). Short of this, there is a denial of the
right, as it cannot then truly be said that the person has been informed of his rights (People vs.
Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289).
(4) Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person
has been taken into custody otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. The right
to custodial investigation begins only when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an
unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police
custody, the police carry out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating
statements (Escobedo vs. Illinois, 378 US 478; People vs. Marra, 236 SCRA 565). It should be noted
however, however, that although the scope of the constitutional right is limited to the situation in
Escobedo and Marra, RA 7438 has extended the guarantee to situations in which an individual has not
been formally arrested but has merely been invited for questioning (People vs. Dumantay, GR
130612, May 11, 1999; People vs. Principe, GR 135862, May 2, 2002).

HUMAN RIGHTS DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AND TACTICAL INTERROGATION

Right of the Accused

1. Rights of a Person prior to investigation

Miranda Doctrine
- The right to be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that
anything that he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to presence of any
attorney, and that if he cannot afford attorney, one will be appointment for him prior to any questioning
if he so desires..

2. Rights of a Person under Investigation

Article III Bill of Rights ( 1987 Constitution )

1. Right to remain silent

2. Right to counsel

3. Right against torture

4. Right against secret detention

Sec. 11 Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance
shall not be denied to any by reason of poverty.

Sec. 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 presence of counsel.

(2) No torture force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which 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 his or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.

Sec. 13 All persons, except those charged with offense punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence
of guilt is strong, shall before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognized
as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

Sec. 14 (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and
shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witness face to face, and
to have compulsory of evidence in his behalf. However, after the arraignment of the trial my proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he been duly and his failure to appeal is
unjustifiable.

Sec. 15 The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except before in cases of
invasion, or rebellion when the public safety requires it.

Sec. 16 All person shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial,
quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

Sec. 17 No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Sec. 18 (1) No person shall detained solely by reason of his political belief and aspirations.

Sec. 19 (1) excessive fine shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any Death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.

(2) The employment of Physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against prisoner or

detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman condition shall be
dealt with by law.

Sec. 22 No ex post facto law of bill of attainder shall be enacted.

1. Rights of Accused at the Trial

Sec. 1 Rules of Court annotated, 1991 first edition, by Paras

 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled;

(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt;

(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him;

(c) To be presented defend in person and by counsel at every stage or the proceedings, from the
arraignment to the promulgation of the judgment. The Accused may, however, wave his presence at the
trial pursuant to the stipulation set forth in his bail bond, unless his presence is specially ordered by the
court for the purpose of identification. The absence of the accused without any justifiable cause at the
trial on a particular date of which he had notice shall be considered waiver of his right to be present
during trial. When an accused under custody had been notified of the date of the trial and escape, he
shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on said date and on all subsequent trial dates
until custody is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it
sufficiently appears to the court that can properly protect his right without assistance of counsel.

(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross examination on matters covered
direct examination. His silence in any manner shall not prejudiced him.

(e) To Confront and cross-examined the witness against him at the trail. Either party may utilized as
part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be
found in the Philippines, unavailable or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding,
judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having had
the opportunity to cross examine him;

(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of
other evidence in his behalf;

(h) To have a speedy, process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other
evidence in his behalf;

Rights under Section 12: origins and rationale -----

1. Magtoto v. Manguera
 murder; admissibility of confession A confession obtained from a person under investigation for the
commission of an offense, who has not been informed of his right to silence and right to counsel is
INADMISSIBLE as evidence; Miranda and Escobedo

----- When the rights become available -----

2. People v. Taylaran

accidental killing
Right to silence and to counsel NOT applicable where no written confession was to be presented in
evidence as a result of a formal custodial investigation

3. Galman v. Pamaran

assassination of Ninoy; Agrava Commission The fact that the framers of the Constitution did not use
the word custodial investigation shows that it did not entirely adopt the Miranda Doctrine; The
accused are also entitled to be admonished of their constitutional right to remain silent, to counsel and
be informed that any or all statements given by them may be used against them; This also applies in
other cases, not just those criminal in nature

4. People v. Ayson

irregularity in the sale of plane tickets Right against self incrimination is accorded to every person
who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena in any proceeding. The right
is NOT to be compelled to be a witness against himself and NOT a prohibition of inquiry; The right can
only be claimed when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness; It
does not give the right to refuse a subpoena. This right must be claimed, it is not automatically
operational | Miranda rights | Custodial investigation questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken away into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action
in any
way; A defendant on a trial or preliminary investigation is NOT under custodial investigation; Accused

RIGHTS: BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT

(or with public prosecutor for preliminary investigation; taken into custody)
a. right to remain silent
b. right to counsel
c. right to be informed
d. right to have evidence obtained in violation of those above rejected

RIGHTS: AFTER THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT

a. right to refuse to be a witness
b. not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him because of such refusal
c. right to testify in his own behalf , subject to cross examination by the prosecution
d. while testifying: to refuse to answer an specific question which tends to incriminate him for some
crime other that which he is being prosecuted

----- Police line-ups; paraffin test; signature -----

5. Gamboa v. Cruz

vagrancy The right to counsel attaches at the start of the investigation (when investigating officers
elicit information/ admission/ confession. Police line-up not part of the inquest.

6. People v. Dimaano

robbery with homicide A police line-up is not part of the custodial inquest so at this stage, they have
no right to counsel yet. They are not being held to answer for criminal offense for which they are being
charged or convicted.

----- Right to counsel -----

7. Estacio v. Sandiganbayan

- estafa thru falsification When the waiver of the right to remain silent and assistance by counsel was
not made in the presence of counsel, the defect was cured when the lawyer arrived at the closing stage
of the interrogation, read the statement and talked to the accused before the latter signed it.

8. People v. De Jesus

robbery with homicide Right to counsel attaches upon the start of the investigation; Custodial
investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved
crime but has began to focus on the particular suspect who had been taken into custody; questions
initiated when a person is taken into custody and deprived of his freedom of action

9. People v. Lucero

extrajudicial confession; lawyer was away when accused gave his uncounselled confession - doctrine
same as above

----- Right to be informed -----

10. People v. Pinlac

robbery The constitutional right of the accused to be informed of his rights to remain silent and to
counsel contemplates the transmission of meaningful information and not just a mere ceremonial and
perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. Police officer is duty bound not just to
recite
the rights; he must explain it as well; Waiver MUST BE MADE in the presence of counsel

----- Waiver -----

11. People v. Rous

robbery with homicide

A confession is admissible until the accused successfully proves that it was given as a result of violence,
intimidation, threat or promise of reward of leniency; Presumption that a confession was made
deliberately and knowingly.

Miranda vs Arizona Case Digest

Miranda vs Arizona
13 June 1966

Facts:

On 3 March 1963, an 18-year-old girl was kidnapped and raped near Pheonix Arizona. Ten days later, Petitioner
Miranda was arrested and taken to the police station. At the police station, the victim picked Miranda out of a lineup
and thereafter took the latter in a separate room to interrogate. Though at first denying his guilt, within a short time,
Miranda gave a detailed oral confession and then wrote his own hand and signed a brief statement admitting the
crime.

Issue: Whether Miranda's confessions are inadmissible

Ruling:

Mirandas oral and written confessions are held inadmissible.

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.

By custodial interrogation, we mean 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. As for the procedural safeguards
to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and
to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required.

Prior to any questioning, the 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 attorney, either retained or
appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily,
knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he 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. Likewise, if the individual is alone and
indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him.

People Vs. Maqueda

242 SCRA 565

G.R. No.112983

March 22, 1994

Facts: British Horace William Barker (consultant of WB) was slain inside his house in Tuba, Benguet while
his Filipino wife, Teresita Mendoza was badly battered with lead pipes on the occasion of a robbery. Two
household helpers of the victims identified Salvamante (a former houseboy of the victims) and Maqueda
as the robbers. Mike Tabayan and his friend also saw the two accused a kilometer away from the house
of the victims that same morning, when the two accused asked them for directions.

Maqueda was then arrested in Guinyangan, Quezon. He was taken to Calauag, Quezon where he signed
a Sinumpaang Salaysay wherein he narrated his participation in the crime. According to SPO3 Molleno,
he informed Maqueda of his constitutional rights before he signed such document. Afterwards he was
brought to the Benguet Provincial Jail. While he was under detention, Maqueda filed a Motion to Grant
Bail. He stated therein that "he is willing and volunteering to be a State witness in the above entitled
case, it appearing that he is the least guilty among the accused in this case."

Maqueda also admitted his involvement in the commission of the robbery to Prosecutor Zarate and to
Salvosa.

Issue: Whether or Not the trial court was correct in holding that the Sinumpaan Salaysay is admissible as
evidence.

Held: No. The Sinumpaang Salaysay is inadmissible because it was in clear violation of the constitutional
rights of the accused. First, he was not informed of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel.
Second, he cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. At the time of the confession, the
accused was already facing charges in court. He no longer had the right to remain silent and to counsel
but he had the right to refuse to be a witness and not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by
such refusal. And yet, despite his knowing fully well that a case had already been filed in court, he still
confessed when he did not have to do so.

The contention of the trial court that the accused is not entitled to such rights anymore because the
information has been filed and a warrant of arrest has been issued already, is untenable. The exercise of
the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under Section 12(1) of the Bill of
Rights are not confined to that period prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or information but are
available at that stage when a person is "under investigation for the commission of an offense."

Pursuant to Section 12(3) of the Bill of Rights therefore, such extra-judicial admission is inadmissible as
evidence.

As to the admissions made by Maqueda to Prosecutor Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa, the trial court
admitted their testimony thereon only to prove the tenor of their conversation but not to prove the
truth of the admission because such testimony was objected to as hearsay. Maqueda voluntarily and
freely made them to Prosecutor Zarate not in the course of an investigation, but in connection with
Maqueda's plea to be utilized as a state witness; and as to the other admission (Salvosa), it was given to
a private person therefore admissible.

Note: a distinction between a confession and admission has been made by the SC:

Admission of a party. The act, declaration or omission of party as to a relevant fact may be given in
evidence against him.

Confession. The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any
offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BERNARDO SARA 417 SCRA 431 (2003)

It is unnatural for aggrieved relatives to falsely accuse someone other than the actual culprit, for
their natural interest in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating
any other. Paterno Morcillo was about to transfer his Carabao in front of their house in Cabatuan,
Iloilo when gunshots were fired against him which caused his death. Morcillos two sons,
Benjamin and Felipe saw that the perpetrator was Bernardo Sara and Efren Robles. Upon
investigation, the police found Berning and Efren to be positive for gunpowder residue but they
denied the allegation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted Efren and convicted Berning
guilty of murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the evidence of the prosecution established the guilt of Bernardo Sara beyond
reasonable doubt

HELD:

Both Felipe and Benjamin testified that there was ample illumination from the moon to enable
them to see the face of there fathers assailant. There was thus no possibility for both witnesses to
be mistaken in identifying their fathers assailant, especially considering that they have known
Bernardo Sara, their neighbor, for a long time. There being no indication that Felipe and Benjamin
were actuated by any improper motive to falsely testify against appellant, their relationship with
the victim notwithstanding, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of their testimonies.
Relationship could in fact even strengthen the witnesses credibility; it being unnatural for
aggrieved relatives to falsely accuse someone other than the actual culprit, for their natural interest
in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating any other.

Ladiana vs. People, 393 SCRA 419

FACTS: The accused, a public officer, being then a member of the Integrated National Police (INP now
PNP) assigned at the Lumban Police Station, Lumban, Laguna, acting in relation to his duty which is
primarily to enforce peace and order within his jurisdiction, taking advantage of his official position
confronted Francisco San Juan why the latter was removing the steel pipes which were previously
placed to serve as barricade to prevent the entry of vehicles along P. Jacinto Street, Barangay Salac,
Lumban, Laguna, purposely to insure the safety of persons passing along the said street and when
Francisco San Juan told the accused that the latter has no business in stopping him, said accused who
was armed with a firearm, attacked and shot Francisco San Juan with the firearm hitting Francisco San
Juan at his head and neck inflicting upon him fatal wounds thereby causing the death of Francisco San
Juan.
Petitioner admitted that he shot the victim while the latter was attacking him. Kaya itong si Kapitan San
Juan ay sumugod at hinawakan ako sa may leeg ng aking suot na T-shirt upang ako ay muling saksakin;
sa dahilang hindi ako makatakbo o makaiwas sa kabila ng aking pananalag hanggang magpaputok ako ng
pasumala sa kanya; sa bilis ng pangyayari ay hindi ko alam na siya ay tinamaan
ISSUE: whether he acted in self-defense is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender.
Through the above statement, petitioner admits shooting the victim -- which eventually led to the
latters death -- but denies having done it with any criminal intent. In fact, he claims he did it in self-
defense. Nevertheless, whether categorized as a confession or as an admission, it is admissible in
evidence against him.
In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing their untruth or by showing they were made by
mistake. The party may also establish that the response that formed the admission was made in a
jocular, not a serious, manner; or that the admission was made in ignorance of the true state of facts.
Yet, petitioner never offered any rationalization why such admissions had been made, thus, leaving
them unrebutted. Having admitted that he had fatally shot the victim, petitioner had the duty of
showing that the killing was justified, and that the latter incurred no criminal liability therefor. Petitioner
should have relied on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that for the
prosecution. Even if his evidence be weak, it cannot be disbelieved after the accused has admitted the
killing. Petitioner argues that it was the prosecution that indirectly raised the issue of self-defense.
Hence, he could not be bound by it. This argument deserves scant consideration. Therefore, petitioner
can no longer invoke his constitutional right to be presumed innocent of the crime charged. As far as he
is concerned, homicide has already been established. The fact of death and its cause were established
by his admissions coupled with the other prosecution evidence including the Certificate of Death, the
Certificate of Post-Mortem Examination and the Medico-Legal Findings. The intent to kill is likewise
presumed from the fact of death.
The only pieces of evidence in support of the plea of voluntary surrender made by petitioner are
statements made by two (2) prosecution witnesses that they were allegedly told by other people that he
had already gone to the police station. There is no showing that he was not actually arrested; or that
when he went to the police station, he surrendered himself to a person in authority. Neither is there any
finding that he has evinced a desire to own to any complicity in the killing.
We have ruled in the past that the accused who had gone to the police headquarters merely to report
the shooting incident did not evince any desire to admit responsibility for the killing. Thus, he could not
be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered. In the absence of sufficient and convincing proof showing
the existence of indispensable circumstances, we cannot appreciate voluntary surrender to mitigate
petitioners penalty.
Petition is DENIED