What is Police Custodial Investigation?

Our Supreme Court consistently defines custodial investigation as the

stage where an investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved
crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the
police or other law enforcement agents who carry out a process of
interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements. It involves
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been
taken into custody or deprived of freedom of action in any significant way.

However, Republic Act No. 7438, or the Act Defining Certain Rights of

Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation , has expanded the
definition of custodial investigation. Specifically, the law provides that said
investigation shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person
who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have
committed.

Given this, it is incorrect to conclude that custodial investigation is

always the consequence of an arrest. Someone can be considered to be under
custodial investigation when invited for questioning by law enforcement
officers, even though the person has not been formally arrested.

What are the Rights Guaranteed to a Person under Custodial Investigation?

1. Miranda Rights

Article III, Section 12 (1) of the Constitution  provides that any person
under investigation for the commission of an offense is guaranteed the
following rights
a. The right to remain silent – A person under custodial
investigation  has the right to refuse answering any question. If he
indeed refuses, this may not be used against him.
b. The right to competent and independent counsel, preferably of
his own choice. If the person cannot afford services of counsel,
he must be provided with one – In People v. Rapeza (G.R. No.
169431), the Supreme Court held that the purpose of providing
counsel to a person under custodial investigation is to curb the
police-state practice of extracting a confession that leads suspects
to make self-incriminating statements. In order to comply with the
constitutional mandate, there should be meaningful
communication to, and understanding of rights by the suspect, as
opposed to a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital thereof.
Not only does a person under custodial investigation have the
right to counsel, but the provision states that said counsel must be
an independent and competent one, preferably of his own choice.
Jurisprudence explains that the lawyer called to be present during
the investigation should be as far as reasonably possible the
choice of the individual undergoing questioning.   If the lawyer
were one furnished in the person’s behalf, he should be present
and able to advise and assist his client from the time the latter
answers the first question asked by the investigating officer until
the signing of the extrajudicial confession, if any. The lawyer
should ascertain that the confession is made voluntarily and the
 person under investigation fully understands the nature and
consequences of his confession in relation to his constitutional
rights.
c. The right to be informed of such rights  – In affording this right
to a person under custodial investigation, it is not sufficient that
the investigating officer reads out the rights, or merely repeats
what is stated in the constitutional provision. The officer is duty-
bound to also explain the effects of these rights and ensure the
person’s understanding thereof, in a language known to and
understood by him.
These three rights, widely known as the “Miranda rights”, were
adopted by Philippine jurisprudence and later on included in the
drafting of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, following the 1966
decision of the United States Supreme Court in the landmark case
of Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436). Here, the defendants made
confessions or admissions without any evidence of them being
apprised of their constitutional rights during the interrogation
process.  The US Supreme Court held that no statements stemming
from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers may be
used by the prosecution, unless it demonstrates the use of
procedural safeguards effective to secure the constitutional rights
of a person under custodial interrogation.

These rights may not be waived unless made in writing

and in the presence and assistance of counsel.

But note that not all types of investigatory situations are

classified as custodial investigations where these rights may be
invoked.
In People v. Gamboa (G.R. No. 91374), the Supreme Court
held that subjection to paraffin test does not require that the right
to have competent and independent counsel be afforded as this is
necessary only in testimonial compulsions, not when it is the body
of the accused which is proposed to be examined. Another
example would be People v. Rueras (G.R. 174471), where the
Supreme Court reiterated the view that police lineups are not part
of custodial investigation; therefore, the right to counsel cannot be
invoked at this stage.

2. Right against Torture, Force, Violence, Threat, Intimidation

Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution  further provides that no
torture, violence threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate
the freewill shall be used against a person under investigation for the
commission of an offense. It further states that the use of secret
detention places, solitary, incommunicado or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited.

3. Right to Visits and Conferences

In addition to the constitutional rights,  Republic Act No.
7438 provides that a person under custodial investigation shall be
allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate
family (spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, sibling, grandparent
 or grandchild, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, guardian or ward), or by
counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly
accredited by the Commission on Human Rights, or by any
international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the
Office of the President.

What are the Effects of, and Sanctions for, Violation of these Rights?

Article III, Section 12(3) of the Constitution  states that any confession
or admission in violation of the above rights shall be inadmissible in evidence.
This is called the exclusionary rule. A confession or admission should be
given voluntarily, free from any suspicious circumstances tending to cast
doubt upon the integrity thereof. Otherwise, the same cannot be used as
evidence in any proceeding against the source of confession or admission.
Confessions or admissions covered by this provision need not be explicit, as
long as they are part of evidence communicative in nature. In  People v.
Jungco (G.R. No. 78531), the Supreme Court applied this rule to participation
of the accused in a re-enactment of the crime scene. In  People v. Enriquez
(G.R. No. 90738), the High Court held that the marijuana cigarettes where the
accused wrote his name without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible as
evidence.

If the constitutional rights of a person under custodial investigation are

violated, there are corresponding penal and civil sanctions, as well as
compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices,
and their families. These sanctions are provided for in different statutes, i.e.,
civil sanctions, in the form of damages, covered by  Article 32 of the New
Civil Code, and penal sanctions covered by the penal clause of  Republic Act
No. 7438, where a fine, penalty, or both, may be imposed upon an erring
officer.

When do these Rights Cease to be Available?

Custodial investigation does not include quasi-judicial or judicial

investigations conducted by the fiscal or the judge. Thus, in  People v. Ayson
(G.R. No. 85215), Justice Andres Narvasa discussed that the rights of a person
under custodial interrogation do not apply or extend to persons under
preliminary investigation, or those already charged in court for a crime.