RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED/SUSPECT (not judicially charged yet)

If a police makes an arrest to a suspect WITHOUT WARRANT, the investigation, both

custodial investigation and preliminary investigation or inquest, should be
conducted within the prescribed period (18,24,26) otherwise, will be charged for
arbitrary detention or illegal detention.

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

Poverty should not be a reason to deny a person (suspect) access to judicial or quasi
judicial. Adequate legal assistance.
PAO- free legal assistance as provided by the supreme court.

The moment a person is arrested without a warrant of arrest, he is guaranteed of

procedural due process, and custodial rights or Miranda rights.
e.g. person invited for some questioning in the police station, its already considered
as deprivation of freedom of action in any significant way and under
RA 7438, sec. 12 – rights of the suspect (custodial rights)
These rights commences from the moment a person is arrested or denied of
freedom of action AND there is the conduct of investigation by a law enforcer.

Auxiliary police – considered as law enforcer or agents of person in authority.

There has to be an investigation immediately following the arrest of the suspect, so

that anything that he says, he has custodial rights (right to remain silent, and right
to be assisted by a competent and independent lawyer).
If he admits anything in relation to any provision of a crime, without being informed
of his custodial rights, it is inadmissible as evidence.
e.g. suspect arrested by the police, says he shot the victim. Admissible? Yes
because there was no custodial investigation yet. Considered as spontaneous
admission of guilt or admission of a fact that there is no questioning yet by the
police.
e.g2. suspect admitted to the Desk Officer. Admissible? Yes because he is not yet
investigated. Part of extrajudicial confession or admission. (part of res gestae)
e.g3. someone brought before a superior in the PNP for some interview by the
media, suspected admitted to the media. Confession or admission admissible in
evidence? Yes because the disclosure is not made to the police officer. He was not
questioned by the police officer but the media.
e.g4. barangay treasurer, audited by the COA, state auditor(investigator). Did you
use the money for personal benefit? He admitted to malversation of public fund. Not
assisted to a lawyer and not informed to his custodial rights. Admissible. A state
auditor is not a law enforcer.
Miranda vs state of Arizona
Miranda was arrested for killing accidentally a suspect of robbery. His lawyer admit
based on his confession. Acquitted, his confession without being informed of his
right to remain silent or without assistance of a lawyer is inadmissible in evidence.

Custodial investigation – conducted by a law enforcer, confession or admission or

investigation conducted after the accused is arrested without a warrant, or when he
is denied of his freedom of action.
e.g. arrested in hong kong for possession of illegal drugs. Detained in hong kong jail.
He was connected with someone who is arrested in the Philippines for possession of
illegal drugs. They went to hong kong and conducted investigation upon the person.
Case was filed against him also in the Philippines. Admissible? Was he arrested? No,
but detained. Who investigated him? NBI, a law enforcer. He was not informed of his
rights. INADMISSIBLE!

PP vs Cruz
Person flagged down by the police for not wearing helmet. He was asked questions
by the road side, thereafter brought to the police station. He admitted to have
committed violation of an ordinance.
Investigation conducted in the road side, considered as custodial investigation? NO!
that much of time, and cant properly done at the road side.
There cant be a custodial investigation on the road side.
If he makes an admission, admissible in evidence because he is not yet entitled to
custodial rights.

e.g. accused got arrested, he was placed before he was questioned in a police line up,
and was identified by the witness. Is the Identification in a police line up admissible
considering that he was not informed of his rights neither be assisted with a lawyer?
Yes, because custodial investigation has not yet commenced. The identification is
just standing there, It is a mere mechanical act.

If the investigation in a police line up, he was alone. Basically in facing the witness,
to point him as the culprit, if he was not informed of his rights to remain silent and
be assisted of a lawyer, that may already be considered as part of his custodial
investigation, NOT ADMISSIBLE IN IDENTIFICATION.

Constitutional investigation consist of:

1. he cant be made to answer in any offense without due process of law
(procedural and substantive) no matter how immoral the act is, if it is not
punishable by law, he cant be made to answer for that.
2. Right to remain silent and right to be assisted by a competent and
independent counsel and to be informed of those rights.

Right to remain silent

A person can’t be compelled to answer to questions that would raise him to a crime
scene.
If the suspect is asked, what is your name? he invoked his right to remain silent and
refused to answer. NOT SELF INCRIMINATING QUESTION.

On the day of 2019, where were you? It can be incriminating because what if
incidentally you are in the crime scene.
I was not there – may be charged for perjury for telling a lie.
Invoke your right to remain silent!

Right to remain silent is not just limited to vocal answer, it may also include to
require you to perform acts that are communicative in nature.
 Can you be compelled to put your foot in a foot print that was suspected to
have been left by the culprit?
 Police asked the person, can you please put your foot in the footprint? Can
you be compelled?
 Gun powder test (paraffin test). Can be compelled?
 Mug shots and taking of measurement of your body. Can be compelled? What
if all these will fit the description of the footprint?
 Woman accused by her husband of infidelity. Compelled to undergo
pregnancy test. The results taken from her body will not be used against her.
Self incriminating.
 Snatcher swallowed the necklace. Police let him take up something that he
will vomit the necklace. Can be used as evidence against him?
It may be self incriminating, but the question should have been, can you be
compelled?
 Can be compelled to give a sample of hair or blood or saliva for DNA testing
to compare it to the evidence that was found in the crime scene?
All these acts are mechanical in nature, and as such, they may be self
incriminating, but you can be compelled, because you don’t have to use your
intelligence to produce them or perform them. ADMISSIBLE in evidence. You
can be compelled. Should you refuse, that may be taken against you.
Presumption arises that you might be hiding something, because you
refrained from performing acts that are mere mechanical.

BUT!
Asked to give a sample of your hand writing.
Presented a falsified document during the custodial investigation.
Is this your hand writing?
Can be compelled to give a sample of your hand writing?
Must invoke the right to remain silent.
The moment you say no, that is not mine. Considered that you have waived your
right to remain silent. Then in which case be compelled to give a sample of your
hand writing and compare it to the falsified document.
The answer should be, I invoke my right to remain silent. Not admission or
denial.
In drug cases, asked to sign the inventory, will that be an admission that those
evidences were actually recovered from your possession? Admissible in evidence to
prove that you admitted as you sign the inventory.
The signature is nothing, and cant be used against you, especially when not assisted
by a lawyer when you signed the inventory.

Asked to sign a booking sheet for a crime. Admissible in evidence? There’s only the
proof of a fact of arrest.
Can refuse to sign because later it may be used against you.

Asked to affix signature and initials to each evidence caught against him.
INADMISSIBLE. Violated his right against self incrimination and right to remain
silent because this was done during the custodial investigation immediately after his
arrest.

Right to remain silent can be waived by:

- in writing, in the presence of his lawyer, or parish priest, principal of a public
school, local official, superintendent of DEPED. Under RA 7438.
Reason: to ensure that he has not been forced to make a confession. No force,
violation or intimidation must be used the accused in order to extract admission or
confession otherwise it is inadmissible in evidence.

Competent counsel – vigilance on the knowledge of law.

Independent – cant be a prosecutor, judge, mayor.
Choice – preferable choice. Not exclusive.
Right to counsel waivable? It has to be done in writing, and in the presence of
another lawyer.

Failure of the law enforcer to inform the suspected of his custodial rights is the basis
for criminal, administrative and civil liability.

No presumption of regularity in the performance of duty on the part of the law

enforcer. Burden of proof rests upon the law enforcer and not on the suspect.
(RA7438).