Rights of a Person Under Custodial

Investigation
by adminin Uncategorizedon Posted onJanuary 7, 2023

CUSTODIAL RIGHTS OF A PERSON

Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution

Sec. 12: (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of
an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain
silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably
of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other

means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or

Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations
of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of
victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
Custodial Investigation is any questioning by law enforcement after a person has
been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way. It refers to the investigation conducted by law enforcement
immediately after arrest for the commission of an offense. It begins when a person
has been arrested and brought to the custody of law enforcers in which suspicion is
focused on him in particular and questions are asked from him (the suspect) to elicit
admissions or information on the commission of an offense.

What is the Miranda Doctrine?

The Miranda Doctrine means that prior to questioning during custodial investigation,

the person must be warned that he has the right to remain silent, that any statement
he gives may be used as evidence against him, and that he has the right to the
presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.

The name comes from the the U.S. case, Miranda vs. Arizona, 16 L. Ed 2d 694, in
which the US Supreme Court laid down the principle of custodial rights of an
accused. It held, thus:

“Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow, but,
briefly stated, it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory
or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it
demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege
against self-incrimination. By custodial investigation, we mean questioning initiated
by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the procedural
safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform
accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to
exercise it, the following measures are required: Prior to any questioning, the person
must be warned that he has the right to remain silent, that any statement he does
make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence
of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of
these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If,
however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes
to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning. Likewise, if
the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be
interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have
answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not
deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has
consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned.”

What are the rights of a person during custodial investigation?

1. The right to be informed of his rights

– i.e. the reading of the Miranda Doctrine or custodial rights by police during his
arrest. This carries the correlative obligation on the part of the investigator to explain
and contemplates effective communication which results in the subject
understanding what is conveyed.

2. The right to remain silent and to be reminded that anything he says can and
will be used against him

– This refers not only to verbal confessions but also to acts. However, mechanical
acts that does not require the use of intelligence (such as providing DNA samples) or
to answers to general questions are not protected under this right.

3. The right to an attorney or to counsel, preferably of his own choice; if not, one
will be provided for him

– This right is absolute and applies even if the accused himself is a lawyer. The right
is more particularly the right to independent and competent An independent
counsel is one not hampered with any conflicts of interest, and a competent counsel
is one who is vigilant in protecting the rights of an accused.

4. Right against torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other

means which vitiate the free will of the person

5. Right against secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other

similar forms of detention

Any confession or admission obtained from the person arrested in violation of these
rights are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be used against said person. This is
called the Exclusionary Rule, i.e. it is excluded from the evidence to be considered
by the court during trial. Such confession or admission is tainted and must be
suppressed under the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine.

Do rights of a suspect during custodial investigation attach as soon as he

is invited to the police station to be investigated in connection with an offense
he is suspected to have committed?

Yes. The practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in

connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed is part of custodial
investigation, as such, the rights of a person under Section 12, Article III attach.

However, the rights of a suspect during custodial investigation do not generally

attach in the following situations:

1. Police line-up, or during process of identification

2. Spontaneous statements not elicited through questioning but given in an
ordinary manner (spur-of-the-moment statements) – they are considered as
part of res gestae
3. Volunteered statements
 4. Extrajudicial admission to the prosecutor or a private person (media
personnel or TV interview)
5. Investigation made by a citizen or private security officer

It is only when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved
crime but has begun to focus on the particular suspect who had been taken into
custody. It begins when accusatory questions are initiated when a person is taken
into custody and deprived of his freedom of action.

When does the right to counsel attach?

The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e. when the

investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or
admissions from the respondent / accused. At such point or stage, the person being
interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting
false or coerced admission or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing
interrogation, for the commission of an offense. (Gamboa vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-
56291, June 27, 1988)

What is meant by the right to counsel?

Any person under investigation must, among other things, be assisted by counsel.
Any admission or confession made by the suspect during interrogation without
benefit of counsel is inadmissible in evidence.

The Court has consistently held that no custodial investigation shall be conducted
unless it be in the presence of counsel, engaged by the person arrested, or by any
person in his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee
himself, or by anyone in his behalf, and that, while the right may be waived, the
waiver shall not be valid unless made in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(Gamboa vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-56291, June 27, 1988)

Does a suspect need counsel during identification by police line-up?

The police line-up is not considered as part of the custodial inquest. Hence, the
suspect is not yet entitled, at such stage, to counsel.

“When petitioner was identified by the complainant at the police line-up, he had not
been held yet to answer for a criminal offense. The police line-up is not part of the
custodial inquest, hence, he was not yet entitled to counsel. Thus, it was held that
when the process had 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. Since petitioner in the course of his identification in the
police line-up had not yet been held to answer for a criminal offense, he was,
therefore, not deprived of his right to be assisted by counsel because the accusatory
process has not yet set in. The police could not have violated petitioner’s right to
counsel and due process as the confrontation between the State and his had not
begun. In fact, when he was identified in the police line-up by the complainant, he did
not give any statement to the police. He was, therefore, not interrogated at all as he
was not facing a criminal charge. Far from what he professes, the police did not, at
that stage, exact a confession to be used against him. For it was not he but the
complainant who was being investigated at that time. He was ordered to sit down in
front of the complainant while the latter was being investigated. Petitioner’s right to
counsel had not accrued.” (Gamboa vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-56291, June 27, 1988)

What is the correct procedure for arresting officers to follow when making
arrest and in conducting custodial investigation?

At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officers to inform
him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, x x x.
He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel and
that any statement he might make could be used against him. The person arrested
shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses
by the most expedient means by telephone if possible or by letter or messenger. It
shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished.
No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel
engaged by the person arrested, by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the
court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone in his behalf. The right
to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the
assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein
laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory in whole or in part shall be
inadmissible in evidence. (People v. Pinlac, 249 Phil. 114)

How important is the giving of Miranda warnings to the suspect during his
arrest?

Any admission or confession made by a suspect during his arrest but without having
been read his Miranda rights are inadmissible. This was the ruling of the Supreme
Court in People v. Obrero, G.R. No. 122142, May 17, 2000.

In that case, the Court held that extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary,
and in the absence of conclusive evidence showing the declarant’s consent in
executing the same has been vitiated, such confession will be sustained. xxx But
what renders the confession of accused-appellant inadmissible is the fact that
accused-appellant was not given the Miranda warnings effectively. Under the
Constitution, an uncounseled statement, such as it is called in the United States from
which Art. III, Sec. 12(1) was derived, is presumed to be psychologically coerced.
Swept into an unfamiliar environment and surrounded by intimidating figures typical
of the atmosphere of police interrogation, the suspect really needs the guiding hand
of counsel.

Now, under the first paragraph of this provision, it is required that the suspect in
custodial interrogation must be given the following warnings: (1) He must be
informed of his right to remain silent; (2) he must be warned that anything he says
can and will be used against him; and (3) he must be told that he has a right to
counsel, and that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.

Is the mere reading of the Miranda Warnings enough?

A perfunctory reading of the Miranda rights without any effort to find out from the
suspect whether he wanted to have counsel and, if so, whether he had his own
counsel or he wanted the police to appoint one for him is insufficient. Mere
ceremonial giving of warnings is inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the
suspect.

In People v. Pinlac, 249 Phil. 114, the Court held that when the Constitution requires
a person under investigation “to be informed” of his right to remain silent and to
counsel, it must be presumed to contemplate the transmission of a meaningful
information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract
constitutional principle. As a rule, therefore, it would not be sufficient for a police
officer just to repeat to the person under investigation the provisions of the
Constitution. He is not only duty-bound to tell the person the rights to which the latter
is entitled; he must also explain their effects in practical terms. In other words, the
right of a person under interrogation “to be informed” implies a correlative obligation
on the part of the police investigator to explain, and contemplates an effective
communication that results in understanding what is conveyed. Short of this, there is
a denial of the right, as it cannot truly be said that the person has been “informed” of
his rights.

Can a voluntary admission made to the Mayor or media be used against the
suspect of a crime?

Yes.

In People v. Andan, G.R. No. 116437, March 3, 1997, the Supreme Court that under
these circumstances, it cannot be successfully claimed that appellant’s confession
before the mayor is inadmissible. It is true that a municipal mayor has “operational
supervision and control” over the local police and may arguably be deemed a law
enforcement officer for purposes of applying Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the
Constitution. However, appellant’s confession to the mayor was not made in
response to any interrogation by the latter. In fact, the mayor did not question
appellant at all. No police authority ordered appellant to talk to the mayor. It was
appellant himself who spontaneously, freely and voluntarily sought the mayor for a
private meeting. The mayor did not know that appellant was going to confess his
guilt to him. When appellant talked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law
enforcement officer, his uncounseled confession to him did not violate his
constitutional rights. Thus, it has been held that the constitutional procedures on
custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through
questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby appellant
orally admitted having committed the crime. What the Constitution bars is the
compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. The rights under Section
12 are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state as would
lead the accused to admit something false, not to prevent him from freely and
voluntarily telling the truth. Hence, we hold that appellant’s confession to the mayor
was correctly admitted by the trial court.

Appellant’s confessions to the media were likewise properly admitted. The

confessions were made in response to questions by news reporters, not by the
police or any other investigating officer. We have held that statements spontaneously
made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary
and are admissible in evidence.

When is an extrajudicial confession admissible?

It is admissible when:

1. Voluntary
2. Made with assistance of counsel
3. In writing; and
4. Express

What are examples of mechanical acts that are not protected by the right to
remain silent?

1. Paraffin test
2. DNA test
3. Examination of the physical body
4. Fingerprinting
5. Being asked to step on a footprint to compare foot size
6. Urine sample

What are not considered as mechanical acts?

1. Handwriting
2. Initials on marked money
3. Signing of inventory receipts in search warrant
4. Reenactment

Can any of these rights be waived?

Only the rights to remain silent and to counsel may be waived. The right to be
informed his rights cannot be waived at any time.

What constitutes a valid waiver of the right to counsel?

The waiver of the right to counsel is valid only when it is made voluntarily, in writing
and with the presence of counsel.

When is the right to remain silent waived?

The right to remain silent is waived when the declaration of the accused
acknowledging guilt made to the police desk officer after the crime was committed.
Such spontaneous acknowledgment of guilt to the police desk officer may be given
in evidence against him as part of the res gestae.

When are the rights of a person under custodial investigation terminated?

They are terminated as soon as charges are filed against him. In such case,
Sections 14 and 17, Article III serve to protect his rights as an accused.