CASE 1 – SET C RULING

No. Section 20 of the 1987 constitution provides that the right

PEOPLE VS JUDGE AYSON
against self-incrimination (only to witnesses other than accused, unless what
FACTS
is asked is relating to a different crime charged- not present in case at bar).
Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines, assigned at
This is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or
its Baguio City station. It was
under compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal, or administrative
alleged that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets, the
proceeding. The right is not to "be compelled to be a witness against
PAL management notified him of an investigation to be conducted. That
himself.” It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer incriminating
investigation was scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and
questions and not a prohibition of inquiry." the right can be claimed only
Discipline, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the
when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the
Philippine Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos
witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness the
pertained. A letter was sent by Ramos stating his willingness to settle the
right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before the court at the time
amount of P76,000. The findings of the Audit team were given to him, and he
appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. It is a right that a witness knows
refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets also stating that he was prevented
or should know. He must claim it and could be waived.
from settling said amounts. He proffered a compromise however this did not
Rights in custodial interrogation as laid down in miranda v. Arizona: the
ensue. Two months after a crime of estafa was charged against Ramos. Ramos
rights of the accused include:
pleaded not guilty. Evidence by the prosecution contained Ramos’ written
1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed
admission and statement, to which defendants argued that the confession was
of such right.
taken without the accused being represented by a lawyer. Respondent Judge
2) nor force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates
did not admit those stating that accused was not reminded of his constitutional
the free will shall be used against him.
rights to remain silent and to have counsel. A motion for reconsideration filed
3) any confession obtained in violation of these rights shall be inadmissible
by the prosecutors was denied. Hence, this appeal.
in evidence.

ISSUE The individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights
and agree to answer or make a statement. But unless and until such rights and
Whether the respondent Judge was correct in making inadmissible as
waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial, no evidence
evidence the admission and statement of accused?
obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.