G.R. No. 157399 November 17, 2005 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JOSE TING LAN U , JR.

!A"#$%&&e'(, ERNESTO GA)US * SOTELO, JAI)E O+HOA, ,-- o. &/e N,&%o0,- Po1er +or2or,&%o0, ,0' RAUL GUTIERRE3 ,-%,4 R,$- N%"o-,4, A-%,4 Geor5e A6o0$evo, ,-%,4 ),r, A6o0$evo !A& -,r5e(, A""$4e'. JAI)E O+HOA, Appellant. FACTS: For allegedly diverting and collecting funds of the National Power Corporation (NPC intended for the purchase of !S "ollars fro# the !nited Coconut Planters $an% (!CP$ , &ose Ting 'an !y, &r., (rnesto )a#us,* &ai#e +choa and ,aul )utierre- were indicted .efore the Sandigan.ayan for the co#ple/ cri#e of 0alversation through Falsification of Co##ercial "ocu#ents 1n his defense, appellant clai#s that his conviction was .ased on the alleged sworn state#ent and the transcript of stenographic notes of a supposed interview with appellant .y the NPC personnel and the report of the National $ureau of 1nvestigation (N$1 . Appellant #aintains that he signed the sworn state#ent while confined at the Philippine 2eart Center and upon assurance that it would not .e used against hi#. 2e was not assisted .y counsel nor was he apprised of his constitutional rights when he e/ecuted the affidavit. 1SS!(: 3+N appellant should .e ac4uitted since his conviction was .ased on his sworn state#ent, transcript of stenographic notes fro# which the sworn state#ent was ta%en and the N$1 ,eport, which are inco#petent evidence and that his sworn state#ent was ta%en without the .enefit of counsel, in violation of his constitutional right under Section *5, Article 111 of the *678 Constitution. 2('": Paragraph *, Section *5, Article 111 of the *678 Constitution states that 9 Section *5. (* . Any person under investigation for the co##ission of an offense shall have the right to .e infor#ed of his right to re#ain silent and to have co#petent and independent counsel prefera.ly of his own choice. 1f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he #ust .e provided with one. These rights cannot .e waived e/cept in writing and in the presence of counsel. The :investigation: under the a.ove;4uoted provision refers to a :custodial: investigation where a suspect has already been taken into police custody*< and the investigating officers .egin to as% 4uestions to elicit infor#ation and confessions or ad#issions fro# the suspect. *= 0ore specifically 9 Custodial investigation involves any 4uestioning initiated .y law enforce#ent authorities after a person is ta%en into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedo# of action in any significant #anner. And, the rule .egins to operate at once as soon as the investigation ceases to .e a general in4uiry into an unsolved cri#e and direction is then ai#ed upon a particular suspect who has .een ta%en into custody and to who# the police would then direct interrogatory 4uestion which tend to elicit incri#inating state#ents.*8

Succinctly stated, custodial investigation refers to the critical pre;trial stage when the investigation ceases to .e a general in4uiry into an unsolved cri#e .ut has .egun to focus on a particular person as a suspect.*7 Such a situation conte#plated has .een #ore precisely descri.ed thus where 9 After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation .egins a confrontation arises which at .est #ay .e ter#ed une4ual. The detainee is .rought to an ar#y ca#p or police head4uarters and there 4uestioned and cross;e/a#ined not only .y one .ut as #any investigators as #ay .e necessary to .rea% down his #orale. 2e finds hi#self in a strange and unfa#iliar surrounding, and every person he #eets he considers hostile to hi#. The investigators are well;trained and seasoned in their wor%. They e#ploy all the #ethods and #eans that e/perience and study has taught the# to e/tract the truth, or what #ay pass for it, out of the detainee. 0ost detainees are unlettered and are not aware of their constitutional rights. And even if they were, the inti#idating and coercive presence of the officers of the law in such an at#osphere overwhel#s the# into silence....*6 Clearly, therefore, the rights enu#erated .y the constitutional provision invo%ed .y accused; appellant are not availa.le before govern#ent investigators enter the picture.5> Thus we held in one case5* that ad#issions #ade during the course of an ad#inistrative investigation .y Philippine Airlines do not co#e within the purview of Section *5. The protective #antle of the constitutional provision also does not e/tend to ad#issions or confessions #ade to a private individual,55 or to a ver.al ad#ission #ade to a radio announcer who was not part of the investigation,5? or even to a #ayor approached as a personal confidante and not in his official capacity.5@ Along the sa#e vein, we held that a videotaped interview showing the accused un.urdening his guilt willingly, openly and pu.licly in the presence of news#en is not covered .y the provision although in so ruling, we warned trial courts to ta%e e/tre#e caution in further ad#itting si#ilar confessions .ecause we recogni-ed the distinct possi.ility that the police, with the connivance of unscrupulous #edia practitioners, #ay atte#pt to legiti#i-e coerced e/traAudicial confessions and place the# .eyond the e/clusionary rule .y having an accused ad#it an offense on television.5< Neither does the constitutional provision on custodial investigation e/tends to a spontaneous state#ent, not elicited through 4uestioning .y the authorities, .ut given in an ordinary #anner where.y the accused orally ad#its having co##itted the cri#e, 5= nor to a person undergoing an audit e/a#ination .ecause an audit e/a#iner is not a law enforce#ent officer.58