CONSTI 2 – 1/1/2021

Custodial investigation
- Sec 12 (1)
- Miranda rights (the origin)
- Miranda v. Arizona
- The inclusion of “independent and competent counsel”
- Waiver should be in writing and presence of counsel
o To secure the rights of the accused or persons suspected of the commission of a crime
- HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
o You will appreciate the benefits or protection afforded by this particular provision
- FIRST CLAUSE OF SEC 12 (1)
- WHEN IS A PERSON UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION?
o IF THE PERSON IS NOT UNDER C.I., THIS RIGHT WILL NOT ARISE
- By virtue of a law, the Congress found it with the protection of those people who are merely
summoned for investigation
- A person is under custodial investigation, when restrained or deprived from his freedom of
movement in a significant degree – a person then will be considered under custodial
investigation
- When is the bill of rights applicable or not?
o Applies only as against public officials or law enforcement agency
o CASE: a person was investigated by his company
- Does the person have to be restrained PHYSICALLY to consider being under C.I?
o Is his admission or confession being considered against the accused?
o Kapag nakasalubong lang sa daan, under CI na ba?
- UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE:
o Clearly indentified
o Standing order for his arrest due to his suspected illegal activity
o There were several police officers in the premises, ready and waiting for his arrest
o Any confession obtained in violation of Miranda rights is CONSIDERED INADMISSIBLE.
- RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND RIGHT TO COUNSEL
o DOES RIGHT TO COUNSEL MEAN THAT THE YOU AS COUNSEL SHOULD ADVISE THE
ACCUSED TO NOT TELL ANYTHING BECAUSE HE HAS THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT?
 ANSWER: The counsel should inform the accused of the consequences he might
incur upon stating his planned confession
 Dapat aware and cognizant si accused regarding his planned confession, as he is
informed by his counsel (called as intelligent confession)
- Counsel should be present during the entirety of the custodial investigation
- Counsel should uprise and inform the accused
- The presence of the counsel should not be merely perfunctory
- It’s not enough that Miranda rights are recited, they should be fully explained to the suspected
individual
- CASE: the counsel did not even explain to the accused what he was signing – SC said, the right to
independent counsel was violated
- The right to independent compentent counsel – preferably of the accused’s choice
o Does not mean the accused can demand counsel of his choice, then the accused can
actually frustrated the conduct of the C.I.
 o If the police assigns a counsel and the accused affirmed it – it is considered a counsel of
his own choice

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER FOR THE CONFESSION TO BE ADMISSIBLE?

 The confession must be voluntary
o Elements of voluntariness
 Written extrajudicial confession – PRESUMED VOLUNTARY; it is the burden of
the accused that the confession was procured through extra-legal means
 It must be with the assistance with the independent and competent counsel
 The confession or admission must be expressly made
o What EXPRESSLY MADE means?
 Must be categorical
 Should be expressed
 Can you make an implied confession? NO. Because confession means
acknowledgment of guilt
 Admission – is less than confession, not acknowledgment BUT acknowledgment
of facts and circumstances where CONFESSION may be deduced
 When you confess – you are admitting your guilt
 The confession or admission MUST BE in writing
Why should be in writing? Because if not in writing and the police wants to rely on extrajudicial
confession, how can you present a extrajudicial confession not in writing? Magiging hearsay
nalang yung what he is told by the accused out of court; it should be in writing

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION IS BASICALLY OUT OF COURT; INAMIN OUT OF COURT

EXCLUSIONARY RULE: CONFESSION OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF MIRANDA RIGHTS = INADMISSIBLE

WHAT IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND?
 TO DETER LAW ENFORCERS FROM COMMITING VIOLATION OF MIRANDA RIGHTS; MAGIGING
SAYANG EFFORT AND RESPONSE NG POLICE

THE CONSTITUTION SAID THE CONFESSION IS INADMISSIBLE

SITUATION:
OFFICERS WENT TO THE HOUSE OF JUAN DELA CRUZ THEN SAID NA “IKAW ANG MAY SALA”

COURTS ARE “COURTS OF LAW AND EQUITY”

EQUITY ONLY APPLIES IN THE ABSENCE OF THE LAW

If the evidence is inadmissible – no matter how convincing, strong and valid – the court will cover its
eyes and will consider it admissible

Object/ evidence – if competent and relevant; it will be considered admissible

 Relevant – connected to the crime or case at bar
 Competent – not excluded by the law
If an extrajudicial confession was previously executed but in violation of Miranda rights, can the defects
be cured by the subsequent confession which complies with the Miranda Rights?
If confession was constitutionally defective, is it curable?
- SC said YES
- Can be cured, provided the subsequent confession is already COMPLIANT with the elements of
an admissible confession

RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Right of the people to know matters of public concern

Access to official records or documents
Documents pertaining to public knowledge

This provision should be read together with the scattered provisions under the constitution
Citizens have the right to access to public information
There is a correlative duty of public disclosure
Article 12 – accountability that public office is public trust
Secrecy has no place in government transactions

LIMITATIONS TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION

- This is not absolute
- What is matter of public concern?
o A matter that a public may want to know out of curiosity
o Identify facts and circumstances whether it would fall under public concern
- If public money is being spent, then you are public figure
- The public has the right to access
- SC said: trade secrets are not covered by the right to information
- Matters involving national security – not covered by right to information
- CASE: are predicisional matters by government agencies are covered by right to information?
When the joint venture agreement was scrutinized, there were a lot of questionable provisions,
hence it was amended;
o Whether matters pertaining to ongoing negotiations would be covered by the right to
information?
 These matters are likewise covered provided there is already definite offer on
the part of the government
 Kung mere suggestions pa lang, hindi
 There is a privilege information which is not covered no matter what stage they
are;
 It is necessary to allow this privilege in order to preserve the process
- If a particular recommendation which led to a particular official or governmental action does the
privilege nature of that recommendation cease to exist?
o Even if there is already an official action, the privilege nature RETAINS SUCH STATUS

- WHAT IS THE REASON WHY RIGHT TO ACCESS PUBLIC INFORMATION IS GRANTED?

o It is an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of right of the freedom of expression
o Because before you can express yourself, you must first educate yourself
 o In order for freedom of expression can be intelligently exercised, freedom of
information must be done first
o The public without informing itself, keeps expressing itself
o How can you enforce public accountability if you don’t have the right to information?
o Running the government is like flying an airplane

BAIL
- All persons before conviction is charged with an offense but not with reclusion perpetua or
death is BAILABLE
- What is the rationale behind the right to bail?
o The response of the constitution to what is essentially two conflicting interest:
 Interest of the detainee
 Interest of the public
- Three basic questions/bar-level question:
o When is bail a matter of right, matter of discretion, when is it neither right nor discretion
hence be denied?
o Bail is matter of right under three instances:
 Before conviction and offense charged is not capital
 Before conviction and the offense is charged is capital and the evidence of guilt
is NOT STRONG
 Before or after conviction if the criminal case is within the jurisdiction of
metropolitan trial court
o Bail is matter of discretion when
 Before rendering of capital punishment
 After RTC judgment and the offense is not punishable by capital punishments
and not of disqualifying instances exist
 Murder – R. perpetua
 Homicide – R. temporal

WHEN SHOULD BAIL BE DENIED:

 Bail should be denied before conviction when the crime is punishable by r. perpetua or death
and the evidence is convincing and proven beyond reasonable doubt
 After RTC conviction and it is a capital punishment
 Upon conviction by the RPC and imprisonment is exceeding 6 years

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED:

EXAMPLE FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES:

RIGHT TO MEET WITNESSES FACE TO FACE

- Known as right to confrontation
- Right to cross examination
- Direct examination is self-serving; witness narrating his own version of the story
- You cannot demolish a statement of a witness if you know the facts of the case thoroughly
- A SKILLFUL EXAMINER KNOWS HOW TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTION

EX-POST FACTO LAW

- Know the definition and memorize by heart
- What is the principle behind
- Principle of retrospectivity
- An act should not be made criminal when it was done with that intent to be criminal
- Liberty is the rule; restraint is the exception
- Void for vagueness
o Violates due process law
- Over-breadth doctrine
- Go back to the cases where these two doctrines have been discussed by SC
- Understand it by heart

- Treat all your subjects as if we are under a traditional and academic setup
- Try to understand what you are reading (by heart) very hard before you try to memorize them
o Do not memorize them without understanding them
o Caveat: the natural consequence of that effort is that you will be able to memorize what
you are trying to understand WITHOUT memorizing them
If you understand it well, it will take less effort to memorize them
- Try to embrace the language of the law
o In reference to number 2
o Memory will fail but rationale will not
o Understand not just memorize
o When I ask you an objective question, wag kang mag-imbento ng sagot; pag di mo
inimbento ang sagot mo; don’t invent your own words
o If the law defines a particular provision;
o Most students don’t understand what they’re writing about; they just memorize but not
understand it; they lose the grammar and quality of their response
o Help your memory by understanding
o Understand and then your memory will naturally come into place
o They respond like a law student but not like a lawyer
o Poor logic, poor grammar – kaya nagfa-fail
o Prepare your notes; what are the concepts you learned, doctrines you learned
o Don’t rely on prepared notes; they should only SUPPLEMENT your personal notes
o Unsolicited advice: as students aspiring to become lawyers – learn to be assertive and
inquisitive; ask questions; be inquisitive at this early; train yourself; assertive but not
arrogant; inquisitive and not a nuisance
o You’re no different from other students, but later on the differences will appear if you’re
not helping yourself to improve
o Keep your 1st year notes and 4th year notes – see the difference between logic,
construction, grammar
o Compare your 1st year digests to 4th year digests
o Be able to ask the right questions
o Lawyers are known for two things – they talk well and they write well
o See a major difference between your present and future notes