SECTION 12 , ARTICLE III. 2.

after a person has been taken into custody or

otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
Rights Available to Person Under Investigation significant way
3. covers only situations where the person is already in
1. Right to remain silent (in clear and unequivocal terms) custody
2. Right to competent and independent counsel 4. rights under custodial investigation
(preferably of his own choice)
3. Right to be informed of such rights
Jurisprudence under 1987 Constitution: ESCOBEDO
Reason: psychological if not physical atmosphere of custodial
investigations, in the absence of proper safeguards is  Rights begin to be available only when the person’s
inherently coercive already in custody

Right to Counsel Custodial Investigations

 preclude the slightest coercion to admit something
false
Lawyer: never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily
telling the truth
Constitutional Right extends only to testimonial compulsion
& not when the body is proposed to be examined: urine test is
permissible
Miranda v Arizona
Constitutional requirements in Custodial Investigations:
1. must be informed in clear and unequivocal terms of
his right to remain silent
2. that anything he says can and will be used against
him in court
3. right to consult with a lawyer & to have lawyer with
him during the interrogation
 not have to ask for a lawyer
 investigators should tell him
4. if indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him
5. even if he consents to answer without assistance of a
lawyer, the moment he asks for a lawyer at any point,
the interrogation must cease until an attorney is
present
6. if the forgoing protection & warnings are not
demonstrated, no evidence obtained can be used
against him
In-Custody Confessions
Prosecutors must show that the constitutional safeguards were
observed in obtaining
Rights begin to be available
1. investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an
unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular
suspect
 suspect has been taken into police custody
 police carry out a process of interrogation
that lends to eliciting incriminating
statements
 Any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers
 After a person has been taken into custody/deprived
of his freedom of action in any significant way
 Investigation ceases to be a general inquiry
 Begins to focus on a particular suspect
o Suspect is taken into custody
o Police carries out a process of interrogation
that lends itself to eliciting incriminating
statements
 Applies to a re-enactment of a crime
 Protection against testimonial compulsion
 Extends to any evidence “communicative in nature”
 Whether testimonial/passive  disclosure of
incriminatory facet
 Accused is made to admit criminal responsibility
against his will
 Photos of reenactment are not admissible where
accused was not with counsel
Circumstances not covered:
 Right to counsel- attaches upon the start of an
investigation
o When the officer starts to ask questions
to elicit information and /or
confessions/admissions from the
respondent/accused
 Not the situation in a police line-up
Constitutional procedures in custodial investigation do not
apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited thru questioning
by the authorities but given in an ordinary manner
Right to be informed of his rights
 Right to be informed- implies a correlative obligation
on the part of the police officer/investigator to explain
& contemplate an effective communication that results
in understanding what is conveyed
 Short of this, ther is denial of rights
Updated Miranda Rights
 Informed in a language known to and understood by
him of a reason for the arrest & shown the warrant
  Right to remain silent, any statement made may be
used against him
 Right to be assisted at all times & have presence of
an independent and competent lawyer
 If indigent, lawyer will be provided for him
 w/n the person has no lawyer, he must be informed
that no custodial investigation shall be conducted
except in the presence of his counsel or after a valid
waiver
 right to communicate/confer of the most expedient
means with his lawyer, family, doctor, priest/minister,
NGO
 right to waive any of the rights- made voluntarily,
knowingly &intelligently
 if he waives his rights, it must be done
1. in writing
2. in the presence of counsel
 may indicate in any manner at any time/stage that he
does not wish to be questioned & the police may not
interrogate him
 initial waiver does not bar him from invoking at any
time during the process
 any evidence/statement obtained in violation shall be
inadmissible
Right to Competent & independent Counsel
 Significance: product of experience under Martial Law
when military authorities used to make available to
detainees only counsel of the military’s choice
working for the interest of the military
Lawyers provided by investigators deemed engaged by the
accused:
Accused:
1. Never raised any objection against the lawyer’s
appointment in the investigation &
2. He subscribed to the veracity of his statement before
the swearing officer
Preferable of his Own Choice
 Tempo of custodial investigation will be solely in the
hands of the accused who can impede, nay, obstruct
the progress by selecting a lawyer who does not
protect his interest
 Accused cannot afford/ preferred lawyer is not
available:
o Choice of lawyer is dislodged in the police
investigators
o The suspect has the final choice as he may
reject and ask for another one
Who are not deemed independent counsel
 Special counsel, public/private prosecutor, counsel of
the police, municipal attorney
 Mayor
 Barangay Captain
 Any other with adverse interest
Right to counsel is not imperative in Administrative
Investigations
 Inquiries are conducted merely to determine facts
that merit disciplinary measures against public
officers & employees
Right to counsel was a right to effective counsel from
first onset of questioning & all throughout
The court during trial is not duty bound to appraise the
accused that he has right to remain silent. It is
counsel who should claim the right for him
Counsel calls the accused to the witness stand, right
to remain silent is waived
 Accused waiver of his rights & signification of willingness
to make a confession are ceremonies that require the
presence of counsel
 Any confession/admission obtained in violation of this/sec.
17 (provision against self-incrimination) hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him
Waiver of Rights
 Only in Writing and in the presence of a counsel
 In localities where there are no lawyers, the State must
bring the accused to a place where there is one or bring a
lawyer to his place
Admissible & Inadmissible Evidence
 Infractions of the Miranda rights render inadmissible
only extrajudicial confession/admission made during
custodial investigation
 Admissibility of other evidence, provided they are
1. relevant to the issue
2. not otherwise excluded by law/rules
is not affected even if obtained or taken in the ocurse
of custodial investigation
 What the Constitution Prohibits is the use of
physical/moral compulsion to extort communication
from the accused, but an inclusion of his body in
evidence, when it may be material
Confessions and Admissions
 Admission: act, declaration or omission of party as to a
relevant fact
 Confession: declaration of an accused acknowledging his
guilt of the offense charged or of any offense necessarily
included therein
o Need not be explicit, they can merely be implicit
in any evidence that is communicative in nature
Fundamental Requisites for an EXTRAJUDICIAL
CONFESSION TO BE ADMISSIBLE
1. Confession must be voluntary
 2. Made with the assistance of competent & If the accused voluntarily surrenders/arrested- custodial
independent counsel investigation is deemed to have started
3. Express Involuntary/coerced Confessions
4. In writing 1. Coerced ( product of torture, force, violence,
5. Signed/thumbmarked threat, intimidation)
2. Uncounselized (given without the benefit of the
 A confession is not rendered involuntary merely because Miranda Rights)
defendant was told that he should tell the truth or that it
would be better for him to tell the truth
o Threats/promises, which the accused must
successfully prove to make his confession
inadmissible
o Must take in the form of violence, intimidation,
promise of reward or leniency
 General Rule: Extrajudicial statements are as a rule,
admissible against their declaration (basis is admission)
that no man would declare anything against himself unless
true
o Exception: INTERLOCKING CONFESSIONS,
several persons charged with an offense and
there could have been no collusion with
reference to said several confessions
 Statements are in all material aspects
identical, confirmatory of the confession
of co-defendants
 Admissible as circumstantial against the
person implicated to show actual
participation

Illegal confessions &admissions are inadmissible against him,

against the source of confession/admission; he alone can seek
for exclusion
 Admissible against the person violating the
constitutional prohibition

Termination of Sec.12 rights

Criminal Procedure:
1. Investigation prior to filing of charges
2. Preliminary examination & investigation after
charges are filed
3. Period of trial

Other rights Sec 12 (2)

 No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any
other means that vitiate the free will be used against him
 Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited
 The law shall provide for
1. Penal & civil sanctions for violators of this section as
well as
2. Compensation to &rehabilitation of victims of tortures
or similar practices and their families ( psychological
damage done to minor children of detainees)

Reason: torture, force, etc are prohibited because

1. They vitiate truth
2. They are an assault on the dignity of the person to
emphasize the need to protect the sacredness of the
person

Constitutional provision does not apply to a spontaneous

statement no elicited
 Given in an ordinary manner; suspect orally admits
Consti bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating
confessions
 Not to lead the accused to admit something false, not
to prevent him from freely telling the truth voluntarily