CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 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 against him.
4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this Section as
well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar
practices, and their families.
These rights are called as the Miranda Rights. This is because these rights are enunciated in the
case of Miranda v. Arizona.
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND TO HAVE
COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
The law enforcement agency must read these rights to the accused in a language and manner
which can be clearly understood by the accused. The law enforcement agency must see to it that
the accused had intelligently and fully understood these rights including its legal effects and
significance.
RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
This refers to the right of a person not to answer any questioning as may be propounded on him
by the law enforcement agencies because whatever he may say may be used as evidence against
him.
RIGHT TO HAVE COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
The lawyer must be competent and independent. Thus, a lawyer chief of the police or a lawyer
mayor cannot represent an accused because they are presumed to be not independent for they are
biased in favor of the State.
The lawyer must be present during the custodial investigation.
WAIVER OF THESE RIGHTS

In order for the right to remain silent and right to have competent and independent counsel may
be validly waived, the ff. must concur:
a) The waiver must be in writing by the accused
b) Such waiver must be done in the presence of counsel
The counsel should attest and sign into the waiver. This is to ensure that the waiver by the
accused of these rights is done freely, voluntarily, and intelligently.
However, the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel cannot be waived. This is because rights cannot be waived if in the first
place the person entitled thereto did not know that he have these rights.
Moreover, the rights under Art. III, Sec.12 (2) can never be waived.
OTHER RIGHTS
Under R.A. 7438, the accused also have the ff. rights under custodial investigation:
a) To confer with any immediate member of his family who are his parents, spouse,
children, brothers, sisters, grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts, nephews, and
nieces
b) To confer with a doctor
c) To confer with a priest or religious minister
d) To confer with an NGO duly accredited by the Commission of Human Rights
Under the same law, it is mandated that for an extrajudicial confession during custodial
investigation to be valid, it has to be:
a) In writing
b) Signed by the accused
c) It must be attested by the counsel. However, if the right to competent and independent
counsel is waived, it must be attested to by any of his parents, elder brothers or sisters,
spouse, municipal mayor, municipal judge, school district supervisor, priest, or minister
as chosen by the accused
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
These rights only apply when the accused is in custodial investigation. Conversely, when the
accused is not in custodial investigation, then he cannot invoke these rights.
Custodial investigation refers to the process or state of proceedings whereby a person is formally
interrogated by the police authorities after the person is taken into custody or when he is
deprived of his freedom of movement in a significant manner.
A person who is merely invited to come to the police station to give information regarding a
particular crime is deemed to be under custodial investigation.

In Pp. v. Bolano, the Supreme Court held that when the police officer asked the accused some
questions in a casual conversation while the accused was brought to the police station is already
considered as a custodial investigation. This is because a custodial investigation is not always a
formal investigation. It is enough if the accused was interrogated while he was deprived of his
freedom of movement in a significant manner. Thus, the extrajudicial confession of the accused
was inadmissible for he was not afforded with his Miranda Rigths.
In Pp. v. Dela Cruz and Pp. v. Dy, the Supreme Court held that the spontaneous and voluntary
confession of the accused after he was arrested cannot be considered as done under custodial
investigation because there was no interrogation conducted by the police officers. The accused
had spontaneously and voluntary made such extrajudicial confessions. Thus, such are admissible
in evidence.
In Pp. v. Ordonio and Medina, the Supreme Court held that the extrajudicial confessions of the
accused to the media reporters cannot be considered as done under custodial investigation. This
is because a custodial investigation can only be conducted by the police authorities. Thus, such
extrajudicial confessions are admissible as evidence.
Moreover, an investigation conducted by an employer regarding an infraction committed by an
employee is not a custodial investigation.
A person included in a police line-up cannot be considered as under custodial investigation.
However, if the police line-up had already become accusatorial and not only inquisitorial, then
such police line-up will deemed as a custodial investigation. The police line-up is deemed to be
accusatorial when the police officers already have a suspect in mind
EFFECT OF VIOLATION OF THESE RIGHTS
If any of the rights of the accused under custodial investigation are violated, then any
extrajudicial confessions thereto are inadmissible in evidence in court by virtue of Art. III, Sec.
12 (3)
However, the accused must make a timely objection in order for such extrajudicial confessions to
be inadmissible as evidence.
If such inadmissible extrajudicial confessions are the only evidences against the accused, then
the accused may be acquitted.