POLICE INVESTIGATION

STAGE
Jesalva v. People
If the confession is voluntary and spontaneous,
it is admissible although it is made without a
counsel. Consequently, the Miranda Rights do
not come into play.
People v. Baloloy
1) The constitutional provision on custodial
investigation does not apply to a spontaneous
statement, not elicited through questioning by
the authorities but given in an ordinary manner
whereby the suspects orally admits having
committed the crime, nor to confessions made
before he is placed under investigation.
----Thus, the voluntary narration of the accused
to Brgy. Capt. Ceniza, after the latters mere
inquiry regarding the ownership of the black
rope found at the scene of the crime, of his
acts which led to the demise of the victim is an
admissible evidence.
2) Custodial Investigation is also deemed to
have started at the moment the accused
voluntarily surrenders to the police officers.
----After the confession made by the accused,
Ceniza turned over the accused Baloloy to a
policeman and was later brought to the police
station. Juanito was then accompanied by
Ceniza and several people to the office of Judge
Dicon on August 4, 1996 to swear their
affidavits before him. From the foregoing
events, it is clear that the accused in now
under custodial investigation.
3) The constitutional rights during custodial
investigations is deemed to be violated if law
enforcement officers ask incriminating
questions to the accused without the presence
of a counsel.
----Judge Dicon propounded the accused with
incriminating questions without informing the
latter of his constitutional rights and without
the presence of a counsel. Thus, a violation of
said right.
People v. Ayson
Miranda rights are not applicable in
administrative investigations. However, the
"right to self incrimination" may be invoked in
civil, criminal and administrative investigations
but it must be invoked on the right time.
People v. Escordial
Escordial's Defense: 1) He was tortured into
admitting; 2) Police offered him compromise, if

he admitted to the crime; 3) No warrant of

arrest; and 4) Not assisted by counsel.
Admissibility: It was inadmissible but waived
due to lack of timely objection.
Custodial Investigation: 1) Does not fall under
exceptions w/c allows warrantless arrest but
waived the defense; 2) Even if he was not
informed, no evidence was elicited / he never
admitted; 3) He was entitled to police line-up
but waived it due to untimely objection (XPN)
Evidence: Police line-up was suggestive / social
psychological influences; and testimony of
prosecution witness (Erma) is not credible.
People v. HilarionTeves
Pre-trial identification of the suspect in a oneon-one confrontation while doing some kind of
a re-enactment, was pointedly suggestive,
generated confidence where there was none,
activated visual imagination and, all told,
subverted the identification of the appellant by
the witness. This method of identification is as
tainted as an uncounseled confession and thus,
falls within the same ambit of the
constitutionally entrenched protection.
Thus, the presence of counsel is necessary in a
pre-trial identification or re-enactment of the
events of the crime while under custodial
investigation because the results of such
actions may be used against the accused and
infringe the right against self-incrimination,
among others.
People v. Deorito Porio
Extrajudicial Confessions. Requisites for
admissibility.
1. the confession must be voluntary; 2. it must
be made with the assistance of a competent
and independent counsel; 3. the confession
must be express; and 4. the confession must
be in writing
All four requisites were present in the case
People v. Andan
1. Pieces of evidence acquired in violation of
custodial investigation are deemed
inadmissible. They are considered "Fruits of a
Poisonous Tree"
2. Free, voluntary, and spontaneous
Confessions done to a public officer acting in
the capacity of a confidant and not a legal
enforcer are admissible.
3. Confessions done to members of the media
are admissible because the Constitutional
prohibition applies only to public officers.

ARREST
Allado v. Diokno
Sufficient probable cause for issuance of valid
arrest warrant.
Petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto
Mendoza are lawyers accused as the brains
behind the alleged kidnapping and slaying of
Eugen Alexander Van Twest, a German
national. An arrest warrant against them was
issued by Quezon City RTC Judge Roberto
Diokno based on the statement of a security
guard (Umbal) who served as a henchmanlookout during the crime.
Petitioners argued that the preliminary
investigation failed to establish probable
cause:
1) There was no "corpus delicti" or body of
crime (substantial and fundamental fact
necessary to prove the commission of a crime)
as there was no slightest indication that Van
Twest was killed. With a notorious criminal
background, it was possible that he faked his
own death.
2) Since Van Twest was an internationallywanted criminal, he could have been the target
of numerous people.
3) The testimonies of Umbal (as the sole
witness against them) were full of
inconsistencies.
The Supreme Court held that Judge Diokno
failed to show how he came to the decision of
finding enough probable cause to issue the
warrant.
Warrant of Arrest against petitioners set aside.
AAA v. Carbonell
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
states that "...no warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce.
This constitutional provision does not
mandatorily require the judge to personally
examine the complainant and her witnesses.
Instead, he may opt to personally evaluate the
report and supporting documents submitted by
the prosecutor or he may disregard the
prosecutors report and require the submission
of supporting affidavits of witnesses.
Roberts, Jr. v. Court of appeals
A judge, in issuing a warrant of arrest, must
take cognizance of all evidentiary documents
which the complainant submitted to the
prosecutor who recommended the filing of an

information.
With regard to the jurisdiction, DOJ can request
for the suspension of the court proceedings
had the defendant filed a petition for review in
re: joint resolution issued by the city prosecutor
since it is executive in nature. Following the
DOJ decision, the judge could then
decide/determine whether there exist a
probable cause against the defendant. If the
judge finds otherwise, it warrants the dismissal
of the case.
Pangandaman v. Casar
1. With regard to the duty of the judge,
including issuance of warrant of arrest, the
legal presumption is that official duty has been
regularly performed. Thus, the burden of
proving the irregularity of performance in
connection with the duty of the judge is with
the party challenging the validity of the
performance.
2. John Doe warrants are not invalid per se.
Name is not an essential requisite to the
validity of warrants. A warrant is valid if it
particularly describes the person or persons to
be seized. Art. III Sec. 2 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution states that:The right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized.
***With regard to serving of the warrant of
arrest by a police officer, the duty is
ministerial. Hence, the police officer cannot
exercise his discretion regarding who should be
arrested. The police officer must follow the
instructions provided in the warrant.
People v. Nasario Molina
1.The fundamental law of the land mandates
that searches and seizures be carried out in a
reasonable fashion that is, by virtue or on the
strength of a search warrant predicated upon
the existence of a probable cause.And Any
evidence obtained in violation of this shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
2. Search and seizure may be made without a
warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom
may be admissible in the following instances:
A)Search incident to a lawful arrest;
B)Search of a moving motor vehicle;

C)Search in violation of customs laws;

D)Seizure of evidence in plain view;
E)When the accused himself waived his
right against unreasonable searches and
seizures; and
F)Stop and frisk situations.
3. A valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two (2)
requisites must concur:
(1) The person to be arrested must execute an
overt act indicating that he just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to
commit a crime; and
(2) Such overt act is done in the presence or
within the view of the arresting officer.
People v. Dequina
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
provides that a lawful arrest without a warrant
made by a peace officer or a private person

under the following circumstances:

1.) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;
2.) When an offense has just been committed,
and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed
it; and
3.) When the person to be arrested is a
prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final
judgement or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
"Transport" as used under the Dangerous
Drugs Act is defined as "to carry or convey
from one place to another"