PEOPLE VS ROBELYN CABANADA

Topic: Custodial Investigation

Related Article:
Section 12, paragraphs 1and3, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution provide
that:
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.
xxxx
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall
be inadmissible in evidence against him.
Facts
In the case at bar, the accused-appellant Cabanada was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime Qualified Theft for taking personal property belonging to
Catherine Victoria amounting to Php 154,000.00.
The prosecution established that during investigation at the residence of the
complainant, the accused-appellant admitted to PO2 Cotoner the crime she committed.
She presented the pouch containing Php 16,000.00 and the leather wallet containing
the missing master key of Victor's vehicle. Subsequently, she was brought at the
Criminal Investigation Unit for further investigation. During the investigation at CIU, the
accused-appellant admitted that she kept some of the missing jewelry of the
complainant in her house in Mandaluyong City. The police were able to recover the
Technomarine, Pierre Cardin, Relic and Santa Barbara watches and a pair of earrings
with diamonds placed in a toolbox.
On the other hand, the accused-appellant narrated different set of events.
According to her, when the police came, she and her sister Rose asked to board the
police mobile and after a half an hour they were brought in the police station. There, she
was interrogated without the assistance of a counsel.
An appeal filed by Cabanada in the Court of Appeals was denied. The CA ruled
that the alleged admission was not obtained under custodial investigation as it was
established that she was not yet arrested at that time. The "uncounseled admissions"
were given freely and spontaneously during a routine inquiry.
Issue
Whether or not the uncounseled admission of Cabanada is inadmissible as evidence for
the crime charged to her?
Held
The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal is partially meritorious.
Article 12 Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the 1987 Constitutions contemplated the so-called
Miranda Rights. This doctrine provides four requisites in custodial investigation, to wit:
a) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent;
b) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law;
c) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to have his
counsel present when being questioned; and
d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if he
so desires
This doctrine provides protection to the accused for admitting something false and
not to prevent him to state the truth.
According to the Court, custodial investigation occurs when a person is taken into
custody and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime under
investigation and the police officers begin to ask questions on the suspect's
participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission. In Mara Case, the Court
expounded the concept of custodian investigation as any investigation after general
inquiry. Here, the authority singled-out a particular suspect, taken into their
custody, and carries out the process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting
incriminating statements.
Under R.A 7438, provides that even those who voluntarily surrendered before a
police officer is entitled of Miranda Rights. A portion of Section 2 of R.A. No. 7438
reads:
SEC. 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or under Custodial
Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. -
As used in this Act, "custodial 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, without prejudice to the liability
of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.
In the case at bar, Cabanada was not under custodial investigation when she
admitted without counsel the crime she committed. The alleged admissions were
obtained during general inquiry of the crime at the residence of the complainant.
However, it was found that when the accused-appellant was brought to the CIU
office for further investigation, the police officer admitted that Cabanada was not
appraised of her constitutional rights.
 These circumstances reflect within the light of custodial investigation. Even she
was not considered as suspect at that time, the subsequent confession of Cabanada or
investigation at the CIU, ceased to be a general inquiry and can be considered having
been done in a custodial setting.
The Court reiterates its ruling in Javar case that admission obtained in
violation of the constitutional provision, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in
whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence. Even if the confession contains a
grain of truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it becomes inadmissible
in evidence, regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily
given. Hence, the confession of the accused-appellant without counsel at the CIU is
inadmissible. Nevertheless, her admission during general inquiry is still admissible.