RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR

UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS

THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING
AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS
R.A.7439
 CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
-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.

-questioning by law enforcement of a suspect taken into custody or

otherwise deprived of his action in a significant way
- Critical pre- stage when the investigation ceases to be a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular
person as a suspect
 RIGHTS OF PERSONS ARRESTED, DETAINED
OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
1.at all times be assisted by counsel.

2. Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his
place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of
an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by
him, of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to
confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he
must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the
investigating officer.
3. The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the
investigating officer, provided that before such report is signed, or thumb
marked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to read and
write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by
the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or
dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such
investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

4. Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under

custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the
presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in
the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse,
the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest
or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial
confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
 5. Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in
writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the
waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.

6. Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be

allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or
any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any
member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national non-
governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human
Rights of by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited
by the Office of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall include his
or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent
or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
 “MAHINAY DOCTRINE” OR THE
“EXPANDED MIRANDA DOCTRINE
• The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investigation must be informed in a language known to
and understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown a copy of the warrant of arrest, if any;
Every other warnings, information or communication must be in a language known to and understood by said
person;

• He must be warned that he has the right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as
evidence against him;
 
• He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an independent
and competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice;
 
• He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him;
and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon petition
of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf;
 
• That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, , he must be informed that no
custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the presence of his
counsel or after a valid waiver has been made;
 
• The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the right to
communicate or confer by the most expedient means---telephone, radio, letter or
messenger---with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any member of his
immediate family; or any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or by any one
from his immediate family or by his counsel, or be visited by/confer with duly
accredited national or international non-governmental organization. IT SHALL BE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OFFICER TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED;

• He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is
made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he understood the same;
• In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must be informed that it must be done in
writing AND in the presence of counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is void even if he
insist on his waiver and chooses to speak;

• That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any manner at any time or state of the
process that he does not wish to be questioned with the warning that once he makes such indication, the
police may not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced, or the interrogation has begun;

• The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to remain silent, the right to
counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from invoking it at any other time during the process,
regardless of whether he may have answered some questions or volunteered some information or
statements;
 
• He must be informed that any statement OR EVIDENCE, as the case may be, obtained in violation of any
of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE IN
EVIDENCE.
 NOT APPLICABLE TO SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT
Not applicable to spontaneous statement , not elicited through
questioning by the authorities but given in an ordinary manner
whereby the suspect orally admits having committed the crime.

WITHOUT ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL NOT ADMISSIBLE

Confessions made without the assistance of counsel are not

admissible as evidence to incriminate the accused
 ABRUPT DEPARTURE OF COUNSEL, EFFECT

By his “coming and going” during the custodial investigation,

and by his abrupt departure before the termination of the
proceedings, can hardly be the counsel contemplated. Thus,
the statement signed by the accused is inadmissible because
the lawyer should assist his client from the time the confessant
answers the first question asked by the investigating officer
until the signing of the extrajudicial confession
DOES NOT APPLY
Administrative investigations
Confession to private individual
Verbal admission made to radio announcer who was not a
part of the investigation
Mayor who approached as a personal confidante and not in
his official capacity
Videotaped interview where the accused willingly admit his
guilt in the presence of a newsmen
 MAHINAY DOCTRINE/ EXPANDED
MIRANDA DOCTRINE
When is custodial investigation deemed to have started

-begins when it is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved

crime but starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect,
i.e., when the police investigator starts interrogating or
exacting confession from the suspect in connection with an
alleged offense.
 THE PLACE OF INTERROGATION
THE PLACE OF INTERROGATION IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE
EXISTENCE OR ABSENCE OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION BUT THE TONE
AND MANNER OF QUESTIONING BY THE POLICE AUTHORITIES. Thus, there was
custodial investigation when the police authorities, upon their arrest of some of the accused,
immediately asked them regarding their participation in the commission of the crime , even
while they were still walking along the highway on their way to the police station
 INVESTIGATION BY A PRIVATE
PERSON
Not applicable. The claim that his affidavit is inadmissible in evidence in
accordance with section 12 [1] of the Bill of Rights is not tenable. The
“investigation” under said provision refers to “custodial investigation where
a suspect has already been taken into police custody and that the
investigating officers begin to ask questions to elicit information and
confessions or admissions from the suspect. Succinctly stated, custodial
investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the investigation
ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has began to
focus on a particular person as a suspect (People vs. Duenas, Jr., 426
SCRA 666).
 EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF A SUSPECT OBTAINED
WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF A LAWYER, BUT SPEAKS OF
GOSPEL TRUTH,
• Not admissible. In PEOPLE VS. GALIT, 135 SCRA 465, PEOPLE VS. PANFILO CABILES, 284
SCRA 199; and PEOPLE VS. TAN, 286 SCRA 207, it was held that even if the confession of the
accused speaks the truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible in
evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it was voluntarily given.
 
In order that a confession is admissible, the following requisites must be present:
 
• the confession must be voluntary;
• the confession must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel;
• the confession must be express; and
• the confession must be in writing.
The above requirements, however, are not applicable when the
suspect makes an spontaneous statement, not elicited through
questioning by the authorities, BUT GIVEN IN AN ORDINARY
MANNER WHEREBY THE ACCUSED ORALLY ADMITTED
HAVING COMMITTED THE CRIME. This was the decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of PEOPLE VS. ANDAN,
March 3, 1997 when the accused made a voluntary and verbal
confession to the Municipal Mayor that he committed the
crime imputed to him. As such, his uncounselled confession is
admissible in evidence.
ASSISTED BY THE STATION COMMANDER OF THE WESTERN
POLICE DISTRICT WHILE HE WAS BEING INVESTIGATED BY THE
POLICEMEN OF THE SAME STATION? HOW ABOUT IF THE
INVESTIGATION IS BEING CONDUCTED BY THE NBI AND THE
SUSPECT WAS ORDERED ASSISTED BY A LAWYER-APPLICANT
THEREIN?

There is no compliance of the constitutional requirement of competent and

independent counsel to assist an accused during custodial investigation
when the accused was assisted by the station commander of the WPD,
atty. De los reyes, while being investigated by other policemen of the same
police station because the interest of the police is naturally adverse to the
accused. In fact, the SC in the case of PEOPLE VS. JANUARIO, 267
SCRA 608 held that a lawyer applying for a position in the NBI could not
validly assist an accused being investigated then by the NBI. (People vs.
Obrero, 332 scra 190)
 POLICE LINE-UP?
 

The Supreme Court had conflicting decisions on this aspect

but ended up with the rule that since the accused will not be
made to make any testimony or statement during the police
line-up, then he is not under custodial investigation and
therefore, there is no need for him to be assisted by a lawyer
IS THERE A VALID CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION IF THE LAWYER WHO ASSISTED HIM
DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION IS A PUBLIC ATTORNEY WHO WAS NOT CHOSEN
BY THE ACCUSED HIMSELF BUT GIVEN TO HIM FREE OF CHARGE? COULD THE FISCAL
ALSO REPRESENT THE ACCUSED DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION TO SATISFY THE
REQUIREMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE ACCUSED IS ASSISTED BY COUNSEL?

The counsel must be the choice of the accused or suspect. (P. vs. Alegria,
September 28, 1990) Also, the Fiscal could not have protected the rights of
the suspect, even if they are known to each other, since the Fiscal is there
for the private complainant.
 EVIDENCE OF VOLUNTARINESS IN THE SUSPECT’S EXTRAJUDICIAL
CONFESSION MAKING IT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE? MAY SUCH
CONFESSION BE USED AGAINST A CO-ACCUSED? UP TO WHAT
EXTENT?
• In People vs. Pia, 229 Phil. 577 and PEOPLE VS. REYES, G.R. No.
178300, March 17, 2009, the Supreme Court enumerated the following
as evidence of voluntariness in the extrajudicial confession of a suspect:
• Their physical examination reports certify that no external signs of
physical injury or any form of trauma were noted during their examination
In People v. Pia, we held that the following factors indicate voluntariness
of an extra-judicial confession:
• (1) where the accused failed to present credible evidence of compulsion or duress or
violence on their persons;
• (2) where they failed to complain to the officers who administered the oaths;
• (3) where they did not institute any criminal or administrative action against their alleged
intimidators for maltreatment;
• (4) where there appeared to be no marks of violence on their bodies; and
• (5) where they did not have themselves examined by a reputable physician to buttress
their claim.

• It should also be noted that the extra-judicial confessions of appellants Arnaldo and Flores are
replete with details on the manner in which the kidnapping was committed, thereby ruling out the
possibility that these were involuntarily made. Their extra-judicial confessions clearly state how
appellants and their cohorts planned the kidnapping as well as the sequence of events before,
during and after its occurrence. The voluntariness of a confession may be inferred from its
language if, upon its face, the confession exhibits no suspicious circumstances tending to cast
doubt upon its integrity, it being replete with details which could only be supplied by the accused.
With respect to appellant Reyes’s claim that the extra-judicial
confessions of appellants Arnaldo and Flores cannot be used
in evidence against him, we have ruled that although an extra-
judicial confession is admissible only against the confessant,
jurisprudence makes it admissible as corroborative evidence of
other facts that tend to establish the guilt of his co-accused . In
People v. Alvarez , we ruled that where the confession is used
as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of
participation by the co-conspirator, that confession is
receivable as evidence against a co-accused
RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION CARRIES WITH
IT THE OBLIGATION OF PREVENTING THE SUSPECT FROM ADMITTING
THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME OR INCRIMINATING HIMSELF?

The presence of a lawyer during custodial investigation is not

intended to stop an accused from saying anything which might
incriminate him; but rather, it was adopted in our Constitution
to preclude the slightest coercion on the accused to admit
something else. THE COUNSEL SHOULD NEVER PREVENT
AN ACCUSED FROM FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY TELLING
THE TRUTH.