Custodial Investigation

1. PP v Macam (right to counsel begins upon the start of investigation, absence of such uncounseled
identification is inadmissible)
Appellants, together with Eduardo Macam, Antonio Cedro and Eugenio Cawilan, Jr., were accused of Robbery with Homicide and
violation of Anti-Fencing Law was filed against Eugenio Cawilan, Sr. Upon being arraigned, all the accused pleaded "not guilty".

After the prosecution had presented its evidence, accused Eduardo Macam, Antonio Cedro and Eugenio Cawilan, Jr. changed their
plea from "not guilty" to "guilty". Separate judgment was rendered sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.

The trial proceeded with respect to Eugenio Cawilan, Sr. and appellants. The trial court rendered its judgment finding appellants
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and acquitting Eugenio Cawilan, Sr. of violation of the Anti-
Fencing Law

Appellants contend that their arrest without a warrant and their uncounseled identification by the prosecution witnesses during the
police line-up at the hospital are violative of their constitutional rights under Section 12, Article 3 of the Constitution.

WON the uncounseled identification during the police line-up is unconstitutional

The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation such as when the investigating officer starts to ask
questions to elicit information, confessions or admissions from the accused.

After the start of the custodial investigation, any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is
inadmissible.

The police officers first talked to the victims before the confrontation was held to impart improper suggestions on the minds of the
victims that may lead to a mistaken identification.

The prosecution did not present evidence regarding appellant's identification at the police line-up, but the appellants did not object
to the in-court identification made by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witnesses, who made the identification of
appellants at the police line-up at the hospital, again identified appellants in open court. Appellants did not object to the in-court
identification as being tainted by the illegal line-up.

In the absence of such objection, the prosecution need not show that said identifications were of independent origin.

The arrest of appellants was made without the benefit of a warrant of arrest, but the appellants are estopped from questioning the
legality of their arrest because they have not moved for the quashing of the information before the trial court on this ground. Any
irregularity attendant to their arrest was cured when they voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the trial court by
entering a plea of not guilty and by participating in the trial. The decision is AFFIRMED.

2. PP v Judge Ayson (voluntary answers and consented recording in administrative inquiry is not
violation on the right of custodial investigation)
Private respondent Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines (PAL), assigned at its Baguio City station,
allegedly come to light that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets the PAL management notified him of an
investigation to be conducted into the matter.

Investigation was scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement
signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. At the investigation conducted
by the PAL Branch Manager in Baguio City, Edgardo R. Cruz, in the presence of Station Agent Antonio Ocampo, Ticket Freight
Clerk Rodolfo Quitasol, and PALEA Shop Steward Cristeta Domingo, Felipe Ramos was informed "of the finding of the Audit
Team."

Felipe Ramos answers in response to questions by Cruz, were taken down in writing, his answers were to the effect that he had
not indeed made disclosure of the tickets mentioned in the Audit Team's findings, that the proceeds had been "misused" by him,
that although he had planned on paying back the money, he had been prevented from doing so, that he was still willing to settle his
obligation, and proffered a "compromise to pay on staggered basis, and the amount would be known in the next investigation;" that
he desired the next investigation to be at the same place, "Baguio CTO," and that he should be represented therein by "Shop
stewardess ITR Nieves Blanco;" and that he was willing to sign his statement.

An information was filed against Felipe Ramos charging him with the crime of estafa allegedly committed in Baguio City. On
arraignment on this charge, Felipe Ramos entered a plea of "Not Guilty," and trial thereafter ensued.

The private prosecutors made a written offer of evidence which included "the statement of accused Felipe J. Ramos at PAL Baguio
City Ticket Office.”

The defendant's attorneys filed "Objections/Comments to Plaintiff s Evidence, that "said document, which appears to be a
confession, was taken without the accused being represented by a lawyer."

The respondent judge admitted all the exhibits "as part of the testimony of the witnesses who testified in connection therewith and
for whatever they are worth," except Exhibits A and K, which it rejected.

Respondent Judge Ayson declared Exhibit A "inadmissible in evidence, it appearing that it is the statement of accused Felipe
Ramos taken at PAL Baguio City Ticket Office, in an investigation conducted by the Branch Manager and since it does not appear
that the accused was reminded of this constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel, and that when he waived the same
and gave his statement, it was with the assistance actually of a counsel. For the same reason, he also declared inadmissible
"Exhibit K, the handwritten admission made by accused.
The private prosecutors filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.

Private prosecutors in the name of the People of the Philippines assailed the Order in the petition for certiorari.

The Solicitor General has made common cause with the petitioner and prays that the petition be given due course and thereafter
judgment be rendered setting aside respondent Judge's Orders.

WON Exhibits “A” and “K” are inadmissible as evidence

Custodial interrogation is 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.

The rights of a person in custodial interrogation that is the rights of every suspect "under investigation for the
commission of an offense

Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself Any person
under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be
informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be
used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence.

Section 20 states that whenever any person is "under investigation for the commission of an offense"--

1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right,
2) nor force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him;
and
3) any confession obtained in violation of these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence.

In custodial investigations the right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the
assistance of counsel.

Rights in custodial investigation cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

Felipe Ramos was not in any sense under custodial interrogation prior to and during the administrative inquiry into the discovered
irregularities in ticket sales.

Ramos had voluntarily answered questions posed to him on the first day of the administrative investigation and agreed that the
proceedings should be recorded.

The record having thereafter been marked during the trial of the criminal action subsequently filed against him as Exhibit A that he
sent to his superiors on the day before the investigation, offering to compromise his liability in the alleged irregularities, was a free
and even spontaneous act on his part.

Respondent Judge has misapprehended the nature and import of the disparate rights set forth in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973
Constitution. The constitutional rights of a person under custodial interrogation under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution
did not therefore come into play.

The Orders of the respondent Judge is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Exhibits "A" and "K" are ordered to admit.