CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

NOTES ON MIRANDA RIGHTS

HO WAI PANG VS PEOPLE
WON the custodial rights the petitioners were violated? (drugs found in their bags during the custom search at the airport
when they arrived)
Petitioner did not make any extrajudicial confession or admission during his custodial investigation. No statement was
taken from during the investigation and subsequently used as evidence against him.
GUTANG VS PEOPLE (GR 135406)
WON the evidence against them are admissible, it being seized in violation of their custodial rights? (caught in flagrante
delicto with shabu and paraphernalia in the bedroom)
It has been held in a long line of cases that the signature of the accused in the Receipt of Property Seized is inadmissible
in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of counsel. The signature of the accused on such a receipt is a
declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged for the reason that, in the case at bar, mere
unexplained possession of prohibited drugs is punishable by law. Therefore, the signatures of the petitioner on the two (2)
Receipts of Property Seized (Exhibits I and R) are not admissible in evidence, the same being tantamount to an
uncounselled extra-judicial confession which is prohibited by the Constitution. But the fact that the Receipts of Property
Seized (Exhibits I and R) are inadmissible in evidence does not render inadmissable the Physical Science Reports
(Exhibit D and M) and the Chemistry Report (Exhibit L) inasmuch as the examined materials were legally seized or taken
from the petitioners bedroom on the strength of a valid search warrant. The urine sample is also admissible as evidence.
However, what the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the
accused, but not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material. The situation in the case at bar falls within
the exemption under the freedom from testimonial compulsion since what was sought to be examined came from the body
of the accused. This was a mechanical act the accused was made to undergo which was not meant to unearth
undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple observation. In fact, the record shows that
petitioner and his co-accused were not compelled to give samples of their urine but they in fact voluntarily gave the same
when they were requested to undergo a drug test.

PEOPLE VS GAMER (GR 115984)
WON the custodial rights of the accused was violated? (CARNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE CASE)
Yes. Because when he was invited at the CIS office, he was clearly placed under custodial investigation for there the
questioning was never a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but already focused on appellant as the particular suspect
in the Loremas carnapping.

PEOPLE VS LAUGA
WON accused confession to the bantay-bayan already constitutes custodial investigation? (FATHER RAPED HIS
DAUGHTER)
YES. This court is convinced that brgy-based volunteer org in the nature of watch groups are recognized by the LGU to
perform functions relating to the preservation of peace and order at the brgy. Level. Any inquiry a bantay-bayan makes
has the color of a state-function and objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his Miranda rights.

PEOPLE VS GALIT (GR 51770)
WON the accused was duly informed of his Miranda rights? (ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY
FOR 5DAYS SUBJECTED TO MALTREATMENT)
NO. Such a long question followed by a monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the requirements of the law that the
accused be informed of his rights under the Constitution and our laws. Instead there should be several short and clear
questions and every right explained in simple words in a dialect or language known to the person under investigation.
Accused is from Samar and there is no showing that he understands Tagalog. Moreover, at the time of his arrest, accused
was not permitted to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or a friend. In fact, his sisters and other relatives did not
know that he had been brought to the NBI for investigation and it was only about two weeks after he had executed the
salaysay that his relatives were allowed to visit him. His statement does not even contain any waiver of right to counsel
and yet during the investigation he was not assisted by one. At the supposed reenactment, again accused was not
assisted by counsel of his choice. These constitute gross violations of his rights.

PEOPLE VS OBRERO GR 122142
WON accused custodial rights were violated (extrajudicial confession, right to counsel)? Robbery with homicide
YES. 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,2(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. There was thus only a perfunctory reading of the Miranda rights to accused-appellant without any effort
to find out from him 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. This kind of giving of warnings, in several decisions
16
of this Court, has been found to be
merely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect. Especially in this case, care should
have been scrupulously observed by the police investigator that accused-appellant was specifically asked these questions
considering that he only finished the fourth grade of the elementary school. Moreover, Art. III (1) requires that counsel
assisting suspects in custodial interrogations be competent and independent. Here, accused-appellant was assisted by
Atty. De los Reyes, who, though presumably competent, cannot be considered an "independent counsel" as contemplated
by the law for the reason that he was station commander of the WPD at the time he assisted accused-appellant.
PEOPLE VS ENDINO GR 133026
WON the admission of the accused in front of the media constitutes extrajudicial confession? (they killed the new
boyfriend of endinos ex gf)
NO. The court a quo's admission of accused-appellant's videotaped confession, we find such admission proper. The
interview was recorded on video and it showed accused-appellant unburdening his guilt willingly, openly and publicly in
the presence of newsmen. Such confession does not form part of custodial investigation as it was not given to police
officers but to media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public. Besides, if he had indeed been
forced into confessing, he could have easily sought succor from the newsmen who, in all likelihood, would have been
sympathetic with him. Furthermore, accused, in his TV interview (Exh. H), freely admitted that he had stabbed Dennis
Aquino, and that Edward Endino had shot him (Aquino). There is no showing that the interview of accused was coerced or
against his will. Hence, there is basis to accept the truth of his statements therein.
PEOPLE VS BASE GR 109773
WON the extrajudicial statement was made voluntarily by accused:
YES. The said statement is replete with details which only one who has an intricate knowledge thereof can supply. It
remains only to note that the extrajudicial statements of Romeo Jabil and Rufo Llenarasas are replete with details and
they corroborate and complement each other so substantially that it is very difficult to suppose that the statements had
been merely derived from the creative imagination of the police officers involved. The confessions, in other words, have
the ring of truth about them.
When, as in this case, "[a]n extrajudicial statement satisfies the requirements of the Constitution, it constitutes evidence of
a high order because of the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowing confess to
a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience. The defense has the burden of proving that it was extracted by means
of force, duress, promise or reward."

Unfortunately for accused-appellant, he failed to overcome to overwhelming
prosecution evidence to the contrary.
PEOPLE VS ANDAN GR 116437
WON the extrajudicial confession made by accused to the Mayor and the media admissible as evidence?
YES. 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
uncounselled 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 news reporters were given free from any undue influence from the police authorities. The
news reporters acted as news reporters when they interviewed appellant. They were not acting under the direction and
control of the police. They were there to check appellant's confession to the mayor. They did not force appellant to grant
them an interview and reenact the commission of the crime. In fact, they asked his permission before interviewing him.
They interviewed him on separate days not once did appellant protest his innocence. Instead, he repeatedly confessed
his guilt to them. He even supplied all the details in the commission of the crime, and consented to its reenactment. All hi s
confessions to the news reporters were witnessed by his family and other relatives. There was no coercive atmosphere in
the interview of appellant by the news reporters.
PEOPLE VS MAHINAY GR 122485
WON the extrajudicial confession of the accused is admissible as evidence?
YES. Accused Larry Mahinay during the custodial investigation and after having been informed of his constitutional rights
with the assistance of Atty. Restituto Viernes of the Public Attorney's Office voluntarily gave his statement admitting the
commission of the crime. Said confession of accused Larry Mahinay given with the assistance of Atty. Restituto Viernes is
believed to have been freely and voluntarily given. That accused did not complain to the proper authorities of any
maltreatment on his person. There is no clear proof of maltreatment and/or tortured in giving the statement. There were
no medical certificate submitted by the accused to sustain his claim that he was mauled by the police officers. There being
no evidence presented to show that said confession were obtained as a result of violence, torture, maltreatment,
intimidation, threat or promise of reward or leniency nor that the investigating officer could have been motivated to concoct
the facts narrated in said affidavit; the confession of the accused is held to be true, correct and freely or voluntarily given.






Notes:
The right to counsel begins from the time a person is taken into custody and placed under investigation for the
commission of a crime, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or
confession or admissions from the accused
There are two kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions treated in this constitutional provision: (1) those which
are the product of third degree methods such as torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, which are dealt with
in paragraph 2 of III, and (2) those which are given without the benefit of Miranda warnings, which are the subject
of paragraph 1 of the same.
The independent counsel required by Art. III, ?12(1) cannot be a special counsel, public or private prosecutor,
municipal attorney, or counsel of the police whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused.

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.