Two elements under custodial investigation

1. the person who makes the admission must be the focus of the investigation

2. there must be some measure of restraint upon the liberty of the suspect.

Implied third element: it is undertaken by the government. If it were private, this rule will not apply at
all.

NBI

It is also right? To send subpoenas to respondents upon complaints received by him. So the complainant
files a complaint, a subpoena is sent to respondents. And the respondents arrives at the NBI
headquarters. They are made to confront with each other by the NBI agents who sends the subpoena
and the NBI agent will say “ayusin nyo yan” and then he leaves, they talk, they come to terms they
execute a compromise agreement and sign it in the presence of the NBI agent who also affixes his
signature.

In that particular compromise agreement, the respondent admits his liability to the complainant and he
admits the fact of defrauding him. he admits to make instalment payments and he reneges on this
obligation for which reason the complainant files a criminal action against the respondent using that
compromise agreement as basis. That is admissible because that was made not in the context of a
custodial investigation following the elements.

Even if the compromise agreement was signed insided a government office, there was no investigation
undertaken by the lawful officer.

A police line up is not part of a police investigation. It can lead to a custodial investigation but it is
essentially not a part of the custodial investigation, therefore the Miranda rights are not available as a
general principle in a police line up.

Note the nuance in the 2016 case.

In this case, the suspects were arrested already. And in a press conference presented to the mass media,
yung usual na nakikita niyo, yung police nakaupo, mga nakaorange at dilaw nakatayo. So they were
already suspects and being investigated upon by the media as the culprits. The police line up for the
purpose of enabling the victims to identify was that the day after. At that point, they were already
suspects. Their liberty was already restrained, therefore, during the police line up done after the press
conference, they were already entitle to counsel, to be informed to their right to remain silent, etc.

Search warrant is served.

Ang usual na pinapapirma jan is the certificate of service of the search warrant. If the owner of the
premises is asked to sign a search warrant to just affirm that the search warrant was conducted
properly. Remember that a signature is not an admission of any liability. It is only for purposes of
affirming or attesting as to the proper conduct of the search pursuant to the search warrant. Ibahin nyo
yan sa sitwasyon na ito:

A search warrant was properly issued. Oh itong shabu ha ilalagay ko ito sa kahon kumpare. Oh itong box
iseseal natin to gamit ang masking tape, oh pipirmahan ko para alam natin na pareho ang laman neto
yung nilagay ko. Pumirma ang officer at yung owner ng premises searched.

Class that signature is an admission. If it was done without being informed of his Miranda rights, then
the evidence of shabu in there is admissible.

This is patterned after a case in an airport.

A group of hongkong tourist arrived uniformly. In the x-ray, it was discovered that there were alpha
cereal boxes. That alerted the xray examiner. So they opened the luggage each of these hongkong
tourist. They opened the boxes and found the narcotics uniformly hidden inside. They call upon the NBI
officers and the contents discovered were shown to the hongkong tourist one by one and each of them
acknowledged that these boxes are found in their respective knowledge and were asked to sign the
sealing tape to restore the boxes in their closed state. Those signatures are considered as admissions
and if they were done without first being informed of their Miranda rights, those boxes of evidence are
inadmissible.

People v. andan – has been reiterated for 3 times

There was a second year HS student who was stabbed to death and the culprit was caught and was
taken to the police precinct and was investigated. Custodial rights was there but he was not informed of
his right to remain silent and to counsel. In the course of that investigation, he disclosed the location of
the knife that he used in stabbing the poor HS student. The evidence was eased from his home and the
knife was found. There was an admission during the investigation. After that he was placed behind bars
and a tv reporter was there and interviewed the accused and he made a second admission and it was
videotaped by the news reporter. That was done behind bars. He requested a meeting with his
kumpadre the mayor in the mayor’s office. It was granted by the mayor and they met and talked close
door. He admitted again to the mayor his culpability. And afterwards the mayor informed that there is a
mass media outside and suggested that they be interviewed. They opened the door and the mass media
asked the question and he made a fourth admission.

Of these 4 admission, it is only the first which is not admissible since he was not informed of his Miranda
rights. When he was interviewed behind bars, that was not in the context of investigation because the
reporter is not authorized to conduct and investigation even if his behind bars. It was a spontaneous and
voluntary statement therefore, res gestae. Admission before the mayor- considerably, the mayor is a
person of authority. He could have investigated, and could restrain the liberty of the suspect. But here is
the point, he is not in the exercise of those powers at that time. He is merely having a conversation with
his friend. That is also res gestae and therefore admissible. The mass media, ganun din, admissible yun
kasi it is also res gestae.
Tandaan nyo, reporters are not allowed to conduct investigation or much less restrain liberty. Therefore,
any admission given to report were to be considered as admissible evidence.

Next point, binato ni aling rosa ng gasera si mang ambo kasi nambabae na naman. Sunog ang buong
barangay dahil doon. Arson. Dumating ang barangay captain, anong nangyari? Si rosa binato na naman
si mang ambo nambabae na naman eh. Pumunta sa barangay hall nagkaroon ng imbestigasyon kasama
si barangay chairman without being informed of her Miranda rights. Inadmissible yun. The brgy.
Chairman is also authorized to conduct custodial investigations and restrain liberty. But in the same
barangay hall dumating si aleng petra na chismosa. Pasok sa brgy. Hall nag usap sila ni aling rosa. Oh
anong nangyari madre? Eh yung kumpadre mo binato ko ng pagmumukha nya ng gasera. That
statement coming from aling petra is admissible, its res gestae. Final point: remember that an admission
to a barangay tanod without the Miranda rights is inadmissible. But an admission to a brgy. Kagawad is
admissible because he is not authorized to conduct investigation or restrain liberty. That will be part of
res gestae.

Let me tackle the final point for this segment of this lecture which is the right to bail.

Bail can be a matter of right and a matter of discretion. It is a matter of right before and after conviction
in the MTC and before conviction in the RTC. But after conviction in the RTC, it becomes discretionary
and after such conviction the basic principle is that tough? against bail policy pursued by courts. In
either case, when it is a matter of right or discretionary, the court is consistent that there can be
granting of bail even prior to a favourable recommendation of the prosecutor without the requisite
hearing. That is easy to understand when it comes to bail as a matter of discretion because what
pertains is basically there is conviction already in the RTC if the offense is punishable by reclusion
perpetua when the evidence of guilt is strong. Of course, the presence of strong evidence cannot be
determined except upon the prior hearing. What about the requirement of a prior hearing even when it
comes to bail as a matter of right in the MTC? Well this is a policy pursued by the court as it consistently
pronounce that there must be a hearing nevermind if it is summary, but the purpose of the hearing is to
enable the court to apply the guidelines in posting a bail. A lot of judges has been punished because of
absence of hearing in granting a bail.

The defense of a judge who granted the bail of his kumpare without hearing. He raised the defense that
it should be considered as constructive bail. There is no such thing as constructive bail.

Punishable by reclusion perpetua

Be mindful of the pronouncement by Justice Peralta in this case of Valdez v. People.

The phrase punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher, shall be based on the prescribed penalty and
never in the imposable penalty. Explanation is very brief. The offense calls a punishment of reclusion
temporal in its medium and maximum periods. But the information alleges several aggravating and
qualifying circumstances if duly appreciated as against the accused. It would elevate the imposable
penalty to reclusion perpetua and therefore within the coverage of discretionary bail.
Here is the thing, you cannot determine the imposable penalty until after the trial and there lies the
practical justification soundly offered by the court, that is why the court has pronounced that the basis
of reclusion perpetua, its limitation shall be the prescribed penalty.

Reclusion perpetua case and a hearing is conducted and remember the evidence presented in the
hearing for bail can be adopted as evidence in chief in the course of the main trial. Here is the thing, the
evidence of guilt was shown not to be strong therefore bail was granted.

Luis v. Alameda - The defense pursuit on that particular point and now insist that because the evidence
of guilt was not strong then therefore there could be no probable cause during the preliminary
investigation stage which would have warranted the filing of the criminal information because the
quantum of evidence in either proceeding is different.

Can a person charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is
strong can still be granted bail?

The answer is yes. Dela Rama v. People

If he is provably ill and requires hospitalization, bail can still be granted.

Enrile case

You strip it of the personality involved. Understand that Enrile has been a public officer for all his life. He
had faced similar non-bailable offenses and he had always voluntarily surrendered to the jurisdiction of
the court. The man is already about 90 years old.

In this case, it said that Bail is not for purposes of preventing the accused from committing further
offenses. If it’s only for the purposes of ensuring the continuing exercise of the court who has
jurisdiction over the person of the accused if there is no implication that he would flee or escape from
the jurisdiction of the court, why not because it is the humane thing. Remember that Estrada, Enrile,
and Revilla are still presumed innocent until proven guilty of their crime.

A little procedural matter

The posting of bail does not preclude or result of a waiver of the right to challenge the validity of the
arrest or the absence or defect in the conduct of preliminary investigation.

In preliminary investigation, we will have a problem in questioning the validity of the arrest because you
have to understand the commensurate principle to that effect. If one posted bail, that is a submission to
the jurisdiction of the court. In one case, after he posted bail, he filed several motion with the court
seeking an affirmative relief clearly invoking the jurisdiction of the court. Here the SC decided that
posting bail as well as its subsequent affirmative motions for various affirmative relief necessary results
in his waiver to his right to challenge the validity of his arrest. What is troubling for me is that the court
made several statements by way of reiteration to the effect that if the accused posed bail, he waives his
right to challenge the validity of his arrest.
Not all courts has totally ignored rule 114 which says that even if you post bail, you can still question the
validity of your arrest. The validity of the arrest would only pertain to warrantless arrests not necessarily
issued after a probable cause has been determined by the judge after an information has been filed in
the court. I think that the non-waiver here would be with respect to the competence to challenge the
validity of the warrantless arrest because on the basis of this 2016 case, it appears clear that if you post
bail, notwithstanding apparently the provisions of rules of court, you are considered especially if you
filed several motions asking for various affirmative relief, you have actually waived your right to
challenge the validity of your arrest.