silence, he must be advised that such silence will not be taken against him. This is due to the fact that in many instances, persons arrested feel that it looksworse for them if they remain absolutely silent.3. Is the right to be informed of the above rights satisfied if they are typewrittenNo. In People vs. Galit, it was held that each right must be explained to the accused in simple words in his own dialect/language. Such is the requirement for warnings to be valid and effective.Police line-upsIS A POLICE LINE-UP DEEMED PART OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION? In the case of Gamboa v. Cruz (162 SCRA 642), the petitioner had not yet beener for a criminal offense when he was identified by the complainant at the police line-up. The Court held that in this case, the police line-up was not part of custodial investigation and therefore the right to counsel did not attach at thattime. The Court held that when the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory as when police investigation does not elicit a confession, the accused may not yet avail of the services of his lawyer. The Gamboa ruling was reiterated in the case of People v. Santos (236 SCRA 686rein the Court noted that there was nothing in the records of the case that would show that in the course of the line-up, the police investigators sought to extract any admission or confession from the accused. In the US case of US v. Wade (908 U.S. 218; 1957) however, which involved a pot line-up, it was held that the absence of counsel during the line-up was violative of the accused's rights. The Court held that the post-indictment line-up wasa critical stage of the prosecution at which the accused was as much entitled tothe aid of counsel as at the trial itself.Miranda DoctrineRights embodied in the Miranda doctrinea. right to remain silentb. right to counselc. right to be informed of the above rightsConstitutional changes in the Miranda doctrined. Waiver of assistance of counsel must now be in writing and in the presence of couele. Persons under investigation are not only entitled to counsel, they are entitled tompetent and independent counsel
4. Harmonize the ruling in Galman v. Pamaran with People v. AysonIn Galman v. Pamaran, the court opined that the incriminatory testimonies givenin the investigation conducted by the Agrava Board were not admissible in evidence by reason of non-compliance with the Miranda warnings. This ruling was made despite its acknowledgment that said testimonies were given before an administrative body, not in a criminal case, and that the suspects weren
t in custody at the time they gave their testimonies. The reason given was that the protection grantedunder the Phil. Consti was wider in scope than in the US because the word
was not included in our constitution, which extends its protection to
any person under investigation for the commission of an offense.In Pp vs. Ayson, the Court held that the constitutionally mandated Miranda warnings of the accused
s right to silence and counsel are applicable only to police
as the commencement of adversarial proceedings against thesuspect.To harmonize the 2 cases, Prof. Tadiar commented that
although the proceedings before the Agrava Board were certainly not police investigations, they undoubtedlywere an integral part of a criminal investigation looking in the double murder.As such, the Agrava proceedings could be held as the commencement of the adversarial criminal process that mandates the right to counsel. This is inapplicable tothe Ayson case which involved an administrative investigation by PAL managementof a ticket clerk for alleged irregularities in the sale of tickets.