Rom - Art III Sec. 12 Cont Updated For Report

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II REPORT De los Reyes, Romnick
GROUP 3
SCOPE OF REPORT
1. Duty of an Officer During Custodial Investigation
2. When the Rights of Custodial Investigation May Be Invoked
3. The Right to Remain Silent
4. The Right to Counsel
1. When to Invoke
2. When Presence of Counsel is Required
ARTICLE III, SECTION 12(1)
“(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.
DUTY OF AN OFFICER DURING CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
INVESTIGATION
People v. de la Cruz // GR No. 118866-68 // September 17, 1997
FACTS:
Appellant has a problem in expressing himself and has an impediment in his speech (ngo-ngo).
By appellants own account, he only reached the fourth grade of elementary schooling and,
although conversant with Tagalog, he is unable to read and write, although he can sign his
name. He bluntly repudiated the version of SPO1 Atanacio, Jr. and insisted that he was never
assisted by any counsel of his choice, much less met said Atty. Lorenza Bernardino Villanueva,
when he was interrogated at the police headquarters in Cainta, Rizal and signed his supposed
extrajudicial confession. Parenthetically, his answers to the questions appearing therein are in
surprisingly fluent, flawless and expressive Tagalog, which could not have been done by him
because of his defect in speech and articulation.
While SPO1 Atanacio, Jr. informed appellant in Tagalog of his right to remain silent, that any
statement he made could be used for or against him in any court, and that he could have
counsel preferably of his own choice, he nonetheless failed to tell appellant that if the latter
could not afford the services of counsel, he could be provided with one.
INVESTIGATION
RULING:
An accused person must be informed of the rights set out in said paragraph of Section
12 upon being held as a suspect and made to undergo custodial investigation by the
police authorities.
Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities
after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
any significant manner. And, the rule begins to operate at once as soon as the
investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and direction is then
aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the
police would then direct interrogatory question which tend to elicit incriminating
statements. (People vs. Marra)
INVESTIGATION
Furthermore, not only does the fundamental law impose, as a requisite function of the
investigating officer, the duty to explain those rights to the accused but also that there
must correspondingly be a meaningful communication to and understanding thereof by
the accused. A mere perfunctory reading by the constable of such rights to the
accused would thus not suffice.
The defendant in the dock must be made to understand comprehensively, in the
language or dialect that he knows, the full extent of the same. A confession made in an
atmosphere characterized by deficiencies in informing the accused of all the rights to
which he is entitled would be rendered valueless and inadmissible, perforated, as it is by
non-compliance with the procedural and substantive safeguards to which an accused is
entitled.
INVESTIGATION
People v. Salcedo // GR No. 100920 // June 17, 1997
FACTS:
Appellants deny involvement in the murder of Aparejado and refute the voluntariness
of the execution of their purported confessions. The three claimed to have been
physically maltreated by the apprehending officer and forced to sign the statements
prepared by the police investigator. The trial judge, however, gave no credit to their
allegations of maltreatment, and further ruled against the objections of the defense
counsel to the admissibility of appellants statements on the ground that they had
been taken without the assistance of counsel. Significantly, the absence of counsel at
the time of the investigation of the three above-named appellants was confirmed by
the police investigator himself.
INVESTIGATION
RULING:
Under Sec. 12, par. 1, Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution, any person under custodial 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. The right to be informed
carries with it the correlative obligation on the part of the investigator to explain, and contemplates
effective communication which results in the subject understanding what is being conveyed. Since
what is sought to be attained is comprehension, the degree of explanation required will vary and
depend on education, intelligence and other relevant personal circumstances of the person being
investigated.
INVESTIGATION
RULING:
In further ensuring the right to counsel of the person being investigated, it is not enough that the subject
be informed of that right; he should also be asked whether he wants to avail himself of the same and
should be told that he can hire a counsel of his own choice if he so desires or that one will be provided
him at his request. If he decides not to retain a counsel of his choice or avail himself of one to be
provided him and, therefore, chooses to waive his right to counsel, such waiver, to be valid and effective,
must be made with the assistance of counsel. That counsel must be a lawyer.
Even assuming that in the instant case the extrajudicial confession made by appellant spoke the truth and
was not extracted through violence or intimidation, still the failure of the police investigators to inform
appellant of his right to remain silent, coupled with the denial of his right to a competent and
independent counsel or the absence of effective legal assistance when he waived his constitutional rights,
rendered the confession inadmissible under Sec. 12, par. 3, Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution.
WHEN THE RIGHTS OF CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION MAY BE INVOKED
People v. Loveria // GR No. 79138 // July 2, 1990
FACTS:
Accused were arrested and detained for committing robbery which caused the death of a
jeepney passenger and injuries to the driver and other passenger.
Manzanero, the victim, upon learning that certain hold-up men were being detained
at the 225th PC Company, Cogeo, Antipolo, Rizal in connection with another robbery,
went there to check. Having identified the appellant among the detainees, he
reported the matter to the Marikina police. Thereafter, Pat. Bill Ayun accompanied
Manzanero back to the PC headquarters in Antipolo where Manzanero identified to
Pat. Ayun the appellant as one of the persons involved in the incident. Pat. Ayun then
took the sworn statement of Manzanero which was presented in court as Exh. "B.“
Accused is claiming violation his right to counsel.
People v. Loveria // GR No. 79138 // July 2, 1990
RULING:
The so-called Miranda rights contained in Sec12(1) Art III of the 1987 Constitution and Sec 20
Art IV of the 1973 Constitution may be invoked by a person only while he is under custodial
investigation which has been defined as the "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers
after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
any significant way" Hence, for instance, these constitutional rights may no longer be claimed if
the accused is no longer under custodial investigation.
Since the appellant was not investigated when Manzanero was in the process of identifying
him, he cannot claim that his right to counsel was violated because at that stage, he was not
entitled to the constitutional guarantee invoked.
Sebastian v. Garchitorena // GR No. 114028 // October 18, 2000
FACTS:
Petitioner was charged for malversation of Public Funds for taking advantage of his
position in the misappropriation and embezzlement of fund out of the postage stamps
in his custody. A fact-finding investigation was conducted by the Chief Postal Service
Office relative to the missing postage stamps. In his pleading, the petitioner claims to
have been deprived of their constitutional rights under Sec 12 and 17 of the 1987
Constitution. Petitioner alleges that nothing in his sworn statement shows compliance
with the constitutional provisions on the right to counsel, the right to remain silent and
the right to waive these rights in the presence of counsel.
RULING:
The rights provided in Section 12, Article III of the Constitution may be invoked only
when a person is under "custodial investigation" or is "in custody investigation.“
Custodial investigation has been defined as any questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
RULING:
The fact-finding investigation conducted by the Chief Postal Service Officer, is not a
custodial investigation but is merely an administrative investigation. While an
investigation conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal
proceeding, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by
counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent's capacity to
represent himself, and no duty rests on such a body to furnish the person being
investigated with counsel. The right to counsel is not imperative in administrative
investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether
there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and
employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.
People v. Tan // GR No. 117321 // February 11, 1998
FACTS:
Accused were charged for the crime of Highway robbery with murder for the death of a
tricycle driver. Accused were invited for questioning at the police headquarters where one
accused admitted his participation in the crime. However, accused was not informed of his
constitutional right to remain silent and to assistance of a counsel. Also, the confession was
not reduced into writing.
RULING:
The Court reiterated the provisions under Section 12 para 1 and 3 of Art III.
Moreover, RA 7438 re-enforced the constitutional mandate protecting the rights of persons
under custodial investigation which contains the ff provision:
Custodial investigation shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to
the liability of the inviting officer for any violation of law.
Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a
person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant
manner.
RULING:
The rules on custodial investigation begin to operate as soon as the investigation ceases to be a
general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus a particular suspect, the suspect is
taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that tends itself to
eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate.
While the Constitution sanctions the waiver of the right to counsel, it must, however, be voluntary,
knowing and intelligent, and must be made in the presence and with the assistance of counsel.
Even if the confession contains a grain of truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it
becomes inadmissible in evidence, regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been
voluntarily given.
RULING:
When appellant was invited for questioning at the police headquarters, he allegedly admitted
his participation in the crime. This will not suffice to convict him, however, of said crime. The
constitutional rights of appellant, particularly the right to remain silent and to counsel, are
impregnable from the moment he is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to
have committed, even if the same be initiated by mere invitation
THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
ART III, SEC 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 …”
People v. Bandin // GR No. 104494 // September 10, 1993
FACTS:
Accused was arrested through a buy-bust operation for the alleged sale of marijuana. He
was then brought to the NARCOM office for investigation and there, a prepared Receipt of
Property Seized was signed by him. He also signed a prepared Booking Sheet and Arrest
Report, but he was unassisted by a counsel. Both documents were admitted by the RTC as
evidence.
RULING:
When an arrested person signs a Booking Sheet and Arrest Report at a police station, he
does not admit the commission of an offense nor confess to any incriminating circumstance.
The Booking Sheet is merely a statement of the accused's being booked and of the date
which accompanies the fact an arrest. It is a police report and may be useful in charges of
arbitrary detention against the police themselves. It is not an extra judicial statement and
cannot be the basis of a judgment of conviction.
Moreover, the accused signature in the Receipt of Property Seized is inadmissible as
evidence because it was given without the assistance of counsel.
RULING:
Nevertheless, despite the exclusion of the Receipt of Property Seized, the guilt of the
accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt by other evidence in the record.
The clear and convincing testimonies of the apprehending officers prevail over the accused'
denials, for the records do not show that his arrest was motivated by other than the desire
of the police officers to curb the vicious drug traffic. Courts generally give full faith and
credit to police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular
manner
People v. Lacbanes // GR No. 88684 // March 20, 1997
FACTS:
Accused was arrested and was charged in violation of Dangerous Drug Act after a buy-bust
operation in the sale of marijuana cigarettes. He was brought to the police station where
upon investigation, he allegedly admitted his possession of Marijuana which was for sale.
A witness testified that they informed accused about his constitutional rights before the
investigation and that the latter understood them. However, they allegedly forgot to put
down in writing the accused admission of guilt. The accused subsequently denied. He also
testified that the investigators forced him to affix his signature on a piece of paper, the
contents of which he did not know at the time but which turned out to be a receipt for
property seized.
People v. Lacbanes // GR No. 88684 // March 20, 1997
RULING:
The Court cannot accept as evidence the receipt for property seized purportedly signed by accused
as proof for the prosecution failed to prove that he was assisted by counsel at the time. Neither does
the Court condone this practice as this is tantamount to an extra-judicial confession for the commission
of the offense.
In People v. De Las Marinas, the police officers who confiscated the same should have signed such
receipt. Undoubtedly, this is a violation of the constitutional right of appellant to remain silent. Here
he was, in effect, made to admit the commission of the offense without informing him of his right. Such
a confession obtained in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in evidence.
Nevertheless, while said receipt of property seized is inadmissible in evidence, it was sufficiently
established by the categorical and positive assertions of witnesses as shown in the records, that
indeed accused-appellant committed the offense of selling the three sticks of marijuana cigarettes.
People v. Morico // GR No. 92660 // July 14, 1995
FACTS:
Accused was arrested and was charged in violation of Dangerous Drug Act after a buy-bust
operation. On his detention, he was manhandled and ordered to sign the "Receipt of Seized
property" without the assistance of counsel. He was threatened with bodily harm if he failed
to sign the document.
Appellant also claimed that when he signed the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, the same
was never explained to him nor was he assisted by counsel.
RULING:
When an arrested person signs a Booking Sheet and Arrest Report at a police station, he
does not admit the commission of an offense nor confess to any incriminating circumstance.
The Booking Sheet is merely a statement of the accused's being booked and of the date
which accompanies the fact of an arrest. It is a police report and maybe useful in charges
of arbitrary detention against the police themselves. It is not an extrajudicial statement and
cannot be the basis of a judgment of conviction. His signature on the Receipt of Property
Seized is inadmissible as evidence, as it was given without the assistance of counsel.
RULING:
In People v. Mauyao, the Court stated that appellant's signature on this document is a
declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged. Any admission
taken from appellant, as a result of a violation of his constitutional right, is inadmissible in
evidence against him.
But even disregarding this exhibit, the remaining evidence on record is sufficient to sustain
appellant's conviction.
People v. Ang Chun Kit // GR No. 109232// December 29, 1995
FACTS:
Accused was arrested after a buy-bust operation conducted in a hospital parking lot.
Money was seized from him and 3 packs of shabu were also search and found in his
vehicle. Included in his claims is that when he signed the receipt or lists of items
confiscated from him, he was not assisted by a counsel.
RULING:
The accused' signature on the receipt or lists of items confiscated from him is inadmissible in
evidence as there is no showing that he was then assisted by counsel.
In People v. Mauyao:
Conformance to these documents are declarations against interest and tacit admissions of the
crime charged, since merely unexplained possession of prohibited drugs is punished by law.
They have been obtained in violation of his right as a person under custodial investigation for
the commission of an offense, there being nothing in the records to show that he was assisted
by counsel.
RULING:
With regard to the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, citing People v. Morico:
When an arrested person signs a Booking Sheet and Arrest Report at police station, he does
not admit the commission of an offense nor confess to any incriminating circumstance.
The Booking Sheet is merely a statement of the accused’s being booked and of the date
which accompanies the fact of an arrest. It is a police report and may be useful in charges of
arbitrary detention against the police themselves. It is not an extra-judicial statement and
cannot be the basis of a judgment of conviction
THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL
ART III, SEC 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. …”
THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL: WHEN TO INVOKE
People v. Labtan // GR No. 127493 // December 8, 1999
FACTS:
Accused-appellant Henry Feliciano was charged and thereafter convicted by the RTC of
Highway Robbery and Robbery with Homicide on the basis of a sworn statement narrating
and admitting the crime committed though which he repudiated during the trial.
He was questioned in the police station and thereby he testified without a counsel. When the
sworn statement was executed, the accused was informed of his rights: right to remain silent
and not to answer incriminating questions; right to choose his attorney; and that if he can’t get
a lawyer, a counsel-de-oficio will be given to defend him. This sworn statement was signed by
him in the presence of Atty. Chavez, his counsel-de-oficio. However, upon repudiating the
sworn statement, the RTC still admitted this as evidence imposing him the penalty of reclusion
perpetua with fines. Hence this appeal. He is contending that the RTC erred in admitting the
sworn statement and that it was executed in the absence of an effective and vigilant counsel.
RULING:
The Court found that accused-appellant Feliciano had been denied of his right to have a
competent and independent counsel.
Under Art III Sec 12 (1), the right of a person under custodial investigation are
provided as follows:
“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. “
RULING:
In People v. Gamboa:
The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e. when the investigating
officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from the
respondent/accused. At such point or stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted
by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or
confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation, for the commission of an
offense. The moment there is a move or even urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or
confessions or even plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time,
from said suspect, he should then and there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right,
but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of counsel."
RULING:
When he was questioned in the Police Station, accused-appellant had been subjected to
custodial investigation without a counsel.
In Navallo v. Sandiganbayan:
A person is deemed under custodial investigation where the police investigation is no longer a
general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has began to focus on a particular suspect who
had been taken into custody by the police who carry out a process of interrogation that lends
itself to elicit incriminating statements.
RULING:
The right to counsel is a fundamental right and contemplates not a mere presence of the lawyer
beside the accused.
Atty. Chavez did not provide the kind of counselling required by the Constitution. He did not explain to
accused-appellant the consequences of his action that the sworn statement can be used against him and
that it is possible that he could be found guilty and sent to jail. Also, he is regularly engaged by the
Cagayan de Oro City Police as counsel de officio for suspects who cannot avail the services of counsel.
He even received money from the police as payment for his services.
Thus, the lawyer called to be present during such investigation should be as far as possible, the choice
of the individual undergoing questioning. If the lawyer were one furnished in the accused’ behalf, it is
important that he should be competent and independent, i.e., that he is willing to fully safeguard the
constitutional rights of the accused, as distinguished from one who would merely be giving a routine,
peremptory and meaningless recital of the individuals constitutional rights.
CITED JURISPRUDENCE:
In People v. Dela Cruz: An effective counsel was characterized as one who can be made to
act in protection of his rights, and not by merely going through the motions of providing him
with anyone who possesses a law degree.
In People v. Basay: An accused’ right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to
counsel contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the
ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.
In People v. Sahagun: The constitutional requirement that a lawyer should be independent
was not complied with when a lawyer who just happened to be following-up a case at the
NBI was asked to counsel the accused.
CITED JURISPRUDENCE:
In People v. Januario: On extrajudicial confessions extracted and signed in the presence and
with the assistance of a lawyer who was applying for work in the NBI. Such counsel cannot in
any wise be considered independent because he cannot be expected to work against the
interest of a police agency he was hoping to join, as a few months later he in fact was
admitted into its work force.
In People v. de Jesus: An independent counsel cannot be a special counsel, public or private
prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse
to the accused.
People v. Sapal // GR No. 124526 // March 17, 2000
FACTS:
Accused and his wife were brought to the police headquarters for investigation. The arresting
officer informed them the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, but nonetheless did
not provide a counsel allegedly on the ground that he only wanted to confirm about a certain
Robert Yu and that the spouse was willing to cooperate and hence mentioned something
about the group (of Robert Yu).
People v. Sapal // GR No. 124526 // March 17, 2000
RULING:
The Court only mentioned the absence of counsel during the
investigation as one of the irregularities in the performance of
the arresting officers’ duties.
Question: Was a counsel required even if the officer only wanted

to confirm about a certain person and that the spouse was willing
to cooperate?
People vs. Maqueda // GR No. 112983 // March 22 1995
FACTS:
The trial court admitted the Sinumpaang Salaysay of accused Maqueda although it was taken
without the assistance of counsel because it was of the opinion that since an information had
already benefited in court against him and he was arrested pursuant to a warrant of arrest
issued by the court, the Sinumpaang Salaysay was not, therefore, taken during custodial
investigation. Hence, Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution is not applicable, i.e., the
police investigation was " no longer within the ambit of a custodial investigation.
The RTC relied on the case of People vs. Ayson where the Court stated that at the time of the
confession, the accused was already facing charges in court. He no longer had the right to
remain silent and to counsel but he had the right to refuse to be a witness and not to have
any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal.
RULING:
The exercise of the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under
Section 12(1) of the Bill of Rights are not confined to that period prior to the filing of a
criminal complaint or information but are available at that stage when a person is "under
investigation for the commission of an offense."
Section 12(1) of the Bill of Rights:
“ 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...”
People vs. Maqueda // GR No. 112983 // March 22 1995Miranda v. Arizona:
MIRANDA DOCTRINE:
The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial
interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure
the privilege against self incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of
action in any significant way. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective
means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity
to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning the person must be warned that
he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and
that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive
effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however,
he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before
speaking there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he
does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered
some question or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from
answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to a
questioned..
RULING:
The fact that the framers of our Constitution did not choose to use the term "custodial" by having it
inserted between the words "under" and "investigation," as in fact the sentence opens with the phrase
"any person" goes to prove that they did not adopt in toto the entire fabric of the Miranda doctrine.
Instead, it has broadened the application of Miranda by making it applicable to the investigation for the
commission of an offense of a person and in custody.
It was, therefore, wrong for the trial court to hold that Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution is
strictly limited to custodial investigation and that it does not apply to a person against whom a criminal
complaint or information has already been filed because after its filing he loses his right to remain silent
and to counsel. If we follow the theory of the trial court, then police authorities and other law
enforcement agencies would have a heyday in extracting confessions or admissions from accused persons
after they had been arrested but before they are arraigned because at such stage the accused persons
are supposedly not entitled to the enjoyment of the rights to remain silent and to counsel.
RULING:
Once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court and the accused is thereafter arrested by
virtue of a warrant of arrest, he must be delivered to the nearest police station or jail and the
arresting officer must make a return of the warrant to the issuing judge, and since the court has
already acquired jurisdiction over his person, it would be improper for any public officer Or law
enforcement agency to investigate him in connection with the commission of the offense for which he
is charged. If, nevertheless, he is subjected to such' investigation, then Section 12(1), Article III of the
Constitution and the jurisprudence thereon must be faithfully complied with.
The Sinumpaang Salaysay of Maqueda taken by SP02 Molleno after the former's arrest was taken
in palpable violation of his rights under Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution. As disclosed by
a reading thereof, Maqueda was not even told of any of his constitutional rights under the said
section. The statement was also taken in the absence of counsel. Such uncounselled Sinumpaang
Salaysay is wholly inadmissible
Confession vs. Admission:
Admission — The act, declaration or omission of party as to a relevant fact may be given in
evidence against him.
Confession — The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense
charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against
him.
In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt. The term admission is usually applied in
criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do not directly involve an
acknowledgment of his guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is
charged.
People v. Macam // GR No. L-91011-12 // November 24, 1994
FACTS:
This is an appeal from the decision of RTC finding Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentencing each of
them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
They were brought to the Quezon City Police Headquarters for investigation. Since they
refused to admit their participation in the commission of the crime, appellants were then
brought to the Quezon City General Hospital and were made to line-up together with several
policemen in civilian clothes. Salvacion Enrera, Benito Macam and Nilo Alcantara, who were
confined at the hospital for injuries sustained during the robbery, were asked to pinpoint the
perpetrators. At that time, appellants were handcuffed and bore contusions on their faces
caused by the blows inflicted on them by the police investigators.
RULING:
Historically, the counsel guarantee was intended to assure the assistance of counsel at the
trial, inasmuch as the accused was "confronted with both the intricacies of the law and the
advocacy of the public prosecutor. Today, it is appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee
to critical stages of prosecution even before trial. A police line-up is considered a “critical”
stage of the proceedings.
After the start of the custodial investigation, any identification of an uncounseled accused
made in a police line-up is inadmissible. This is particularly true in the case at bench where
the police officers first talked to the victims before the confrontation was held. The
circumstances were such as to impart improper suggestions on the minds of the victims that
may lead to a mistaken identification. Appellants were handcuffed and had contusions on
their faces.
RULING:
However, the prosecution did not present evidence regarding appellant's identification at the
police line-up. Hence, the exclusionary sanctions against the admission in evidence of custodial
identification of an uncounseled accused cannot be applied.
On the other hand, appellants did not object to the in-court identification made by the
prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witnesses, who made the identification of appellants at
the police line-up at the hospital, again identified appellants in open court. Appellants did not
object to the in-court identification as being tainted by the illegal line-up.
The arrest of the appellants was without a warrant. HOWEVER, they are estopped from
questioning the legality of such arrest because they have not moved to quash the said
information and therefore voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the trial court
by entering a plea of not guilty and participating in trial.
NOTE:
In US v Wade, a critical stage was defined as "any stage of the prosecution, formal or
informal, in court or out, where ‘the presence of his counsel is necessary to preserve the
defendant's basic right to a fair trial as affected by his right meaningfully to cross-examine
the witnesses against him and to have effective assistance of counsel at the trial itself.’“
POLICE LINE-UP, WHEN RIGHT OF COUNSEL CAN BE INVOKED
People v. Macam.
Accused were brought to the Quezon City Police Headquarters for investigation. Since they
refused to admit their participation in the commission of the crime, appellants were then brought
to the Quezon City General Hospital and were made to line-up together with several policemen
in civilian clothes. The victims, who were confined at the hospital for injuries sustained during the
robbery, were asked to pinpoint the perpetrators. At that time, appellants were handcuffed and
bore contusions on their faces caused by the blows inflicted on them by the police investigators.
POLICE LINE-UP, WHEN RIGHT OF COUNSEL CANNOT BE INVOKED
People v. Loveria.
Manzanero, upon learning that certain hold-up men were being detained in connection with
another robbery, went there to check. Having identified the appellant among the detainees, he
reported the matter to the Marikina police. Thereafter, Pat. Bill Ayun accompanied Manzanero
back to the PC headquarters in Antipolo where Manzanero identified to Pat. Ayun the appellant
as one of the persons involved in the incident. Pat. Ayun then took the sworn statement of
Manzanero which was presented in court as Exh. "B.“
POLICE LINE-UP, WHEN RIGHT OF COUNSEL CAN BE INVOKED
People v. Macam: Accused were brought to the Police Headquarters for investigation. Appellants were then
brought to the Hospital and were made to line-up together with several policemen in civilian clothes. The victims, who
were confined at the hospital were asked to pinpoint the perpetrators. At that time, appellants were handcuffed and
bore contusions on their faces caused by the blows inflicted on them by the police investigators.
It is appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of prosecution even before trial. A police line-up is
considered a “critical” stage of the proceedings. After the start of the custodial investigation, any identification of an
uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is inadmissible. This is particularly true in the case at bench where the
police officers first talked to the victims before the confrontation was held. The circumstances were such as to impart
improper suggestions on the minds of the victims that may lead to a mistaken identification. Appellants were handcuffed
and had contusions on their faces.
POLICE LINE-UP, WHEN RIGHT OF COUNSEL CANNOT BE INVOKED
People v. Loveria: Manzanero, upon learning that certain hold-up men were being detained in connection with
another robbery, went there to check. Having identified the appellant among the detainees, he reported the matter to
the police. Thereafter, Pat. Bill Ayun accompanied Manzanero back to the PC headquarters where Manzanero
identified to Pat. Ayun the appellant as one of the persons involved in the incident. Pat. Ayun then took the sworn
statement of Manzanero which was presented in court. The appellant was not investigated when Manzanero was in the
process of identifying him, he cannot claim that his right to counsel was violated because at that stage, he was not
entitled to the constitutional guarantee invoked.
THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL: WHEN PRESENCE OF
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
People v. Rodriguez // GR No. 129211 // October 2, 2000
FACTS:
This is an appeal from RTC decision convicting the appellant Artellero, a cement mixer and his
co-accused Rodriguez, a mason, for the crime of murder of Matias, the bank security guard.
Rodriguez later withdrew his appeal for financial reasons.
Rodriguez executed a sworn statement confessing that he and appellant together with
Mendoza, and two other men whose names he did not know, killed Matias.
In his appeal, he contends that the RTC erred in giving credence to the extrajudicial
confession of co-accused Rodriguez, alleged co-conspirator, in proving conspiracy as
circumstantial evidence to show probability of participation of Larry Artillero as co-accused.
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
FACTS:
Accused and appellant were arrested and brought to the police station at around 5:00 P.M.
of October 11, 1991.
The records show that the extrajudicial confession of Rodriguez was taken down by Pat. David
D. Tuazon at 2:00 P.M. of October 15, 1991. Atty. Lao confirmed on the stand that the police
investigators called him at around 2:00 P.M. of October 15, 1991, and that he conferred with
the accused for about 10 minutes prior to the execution of the extrajudicial confession.
Rodriguez and appellant were detained for four days, but Atty. Lao of the PAO was called
only on the fourth day of detention when accused was about to put his confession in writing.
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
RULING:
We find that Rodriguez’s confession is constitutionally flawed so that it could not be used as
evidence against them at all.
The four fundamental requisites for the admissibility of a confession are:
(1) the confession must be voluntary;
(2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel;
(3) the confession must be express; and
(4) the confession must be in writing.
We find the second requisite lacking. Under the factual milieu, the moment accused and
appellant were arrested and brought to the police station, they were already under custodial
investigation.
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
RULING:
Custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the investigation is no longer
a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular person as a
suspect.
When Rodriguez and appellant were arrested by the police in the afternoon of October 11,
1991, they were already the suspects in the slaying of the security guard, Ramon Matias, and
should have been afforded the rights guaranteed by Article III, Section 12 of the 1987
Constitution, particularly the right to counsel. The records do not show that Rodriguez and
appellant, at the time of their arrest in the afternoon of October 11, 1991, were informed of
the well-known Miranda rights. Worse, they were not provided with competent and
independent.
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
RULING:
In People v. De la Cruz, we declared as inadmissible the extrajudicial confession of accused
where the interrogation started at 9:00 A.M. and his lawyer arrived only at 11:00 A.M.
Jurisprudence is clear that an accused under custodial investigation must continuously have a
counsel assisting him from the very start thereof. In this case, Rodriguez and appellant were in
the hands of the police for about four days without the assistance of counsel.
Moreover, so stringent is this requirement that even if the confession of an accused speaks the
truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence regardless
of the absence of coercion, or even if it had been voluntarily given. Since the extrajudicial
confession executed by Rodriguez was given in violation of the safeguards in Art. III, Sec. 12
of the 1987 Constitution, we hold that Rodriguez’s confession is totally inadmissible, and it
was error for the trial court to use it in convicting Rodriguez and appellant
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
Estacio v. Sandiganbayan // GR No. 75362 // March 6, 1990
FACTS:
Petitioner Jesus Estacio y Estrella moves to reconsider the Court’s Resolution dismissing for lack
of merit his petition to review, set aside and reverse the Decision of respondent
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a co-
principal of the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public/Commercial Documents.
In seeking a reconsideration, petitioner claims that: his extra-judicial statements are
inadmissible in evidence as he was not properly informed of his constitutional rights, and there
was no valid waiver on his part of such rights prior to the taking of those statements; that the
statements were extracted through force and intimidation.
Relying very heavily on the case of People v. Galit, petitioner now contends that there was no
valid waiver of his right to remain silent and to counsel because the same was not made with
the assistance of counsel.
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
Estacio v. Sandiganbayan // GR No. 75362 // March 6, 1990
RULING:
While it is true that petitioner’s waiver of his right to remain silent and to assistance by
counsel was not made in the presence of counsel, the defect was cured and the requirement
laid down in the Galit case was substantially complied with when Estacio’s lawyer, one Atty.
Madarietta, arrived at the closing stage of the interrogation, read the statement and talked
to Estacio before the latter signed it.
If the accused had not voluntarily waived his constitutional rights prior to the investigation or
had wanted to change his mind by availing of his right to remain silent after his counsel
arrived and read the statement before the accused signed it, he could easily have refused to
sign the same and demand possession of the unsigned statement.
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
People v. Bandula // GR No. 89223 // May 27, 1994
FACTS:
Six armed men barged into the compound of Polo Coconut Plantation in Tanjay, Negros Oriental. The
armed men were identified by Security Guard, including accused. Salva and Pastrano, security guards
were hogtied and accused proceeded to Atty. Garay, counsel of plantation. They ransacked the place
and took with them money and other valuables. Atty. Garay was killed. Accused appellant is charged
with robbery with homicide along with 3 others who were acquitted for insufficiency of
evidence. Appellant was convicted.
Now, appellant argues that the extrajudicial confessions he and accused Dionanao executed suffer from
constitutional infirmities, hence, inadmissible in evidence considering that they were extracted under
duress and intimidation, and were merely countersigned later by the municipal attorney who, by the
nature of his position, was not entirely an independent counsel nor counsel of their choice.
Consequently, without the extrajudicial confessions, the prosecution is left without sufficient evidence to
convict him of the crime charged.
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
RULING:
From the records, it can be gleaned that when accused-appellant Bandula and accused
Dionanao were investigated immediately after their arrest, they had no counsel present. If at
all, counsel came in only a day after the custodial investigation with respect to accused
Dionanao, and two weeks later with respect to appellant Bandula. And, counsel who
supposedly assisted both accused was Atty. Ruben Zerna, the Municipal Attorney of Tanjay.
On top of this, there are telltale signs that violence was used against the accused.
Certainly, these are blatant violations of the Constitution which mandates in Sec. 12, Art. III.
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
RULING:
In Gamboa v. Judge Cruz, the right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e.,
when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions
or admissions from respondent/accused. At such point or stage, the person being interrogated
must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced
admissions or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation for the
commission of the offense.”
Hence, if there is no counsel at the start of the custodial investigation, any statement elicited
from the accused is inadmissible in evidence against him.
In People v. De Jesus, admissions obtained during custodial interrogations without the benefit
of counsel although later reduced to writing and signed in the presence of counsel are still
flawed under the Constitution.
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
RULING:
The Constitution also requires that counsel be independent. Obviously, he cannot be a special counsel,
public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly
adverse to the accused. Granting that Atty. Zerna assisted accused Dionanao and Bandula when they
executed their respective extrajudicial confessions, still their confessions are inadmissible in evidence
considering that Atty. Zerna does not qualify as an independent counsel. As a legal officer of the
municipality, he provides legal assistance and support to the mayor and the municipality in carrying out
the delivery of basic services to the people, including the maintenance of peace and order. It is thus
seriously doubted whether he can effectively undertake the defense of the accused without running into
conflict of interests. He is no better than a fiscal or prosecutor who cannot represent the accused during
custodial investigations.
This Court is greatly disturbed with the way the accused were treated or maltreated. In fine, we cannot
accept the extrajudicial confessions of the accused and use the same against them or any of them.
Where there is doubt as to their voluntariness, the same must be rejected in toto.
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
People v. Isla // GR No. 96716 // August 21, 1997
FACTS:
Appellant, Zenaida Isla was charged with the crime of Kidnapping of Maritess Organez, a minor.
She was brought back to the Malabon Police Department but was transferred to the Western Police District
of Manila. On July 21, 1987, appellant was investigated before P/Cpl. Marasigan, an investigator at the
WPD General Assignment Section. Thereafter, she executed an extrajudicial statement wherein she admitted
that she took Maritess Organez and brought her to Teofilo Ablaza for adoption. Said extrajudicial statement
was executed with Atty. Domingo Joaquin of the Citizen’s Legal Assistance Office (CLAO), Department of
Justice, beside her.
Appellant however then denied the charges hurled against her. She claimed that she has no knowledge of
the contents of the sworn statement attributed to her which is marked as Exhibit “B” nor had she read it. She
alleged that she was lured into signing the said document when Marasigan promised to release her after
affixing her signature thereat. More so, she alleged that when she affixed her signature in the document, she
was not assisted by a counsel as Atty. Domingo Joaquin of CLAO arrived at the police station after the
document was already prepared and finished.
In her appeal, appellant contended that the alleged extra-judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence,
being extracted in violation of the constitutional rights of the accused.
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
RULING:
As can be gleaned from the records, appellant was already in the custody of the police
authorities as early as July 18, 1987. She was turned over to the elements of the Western
Police District only on July 21, 1987. The Malabon police detained appellant, who was then
pregnant, for three days, without filing any formal charge, before she was turned over to the
Western Police District. A perusal of the records shows that, while appellant was at the
Western Police District, Police Corporal Pablito Marasigan immediately conducted an
investigation, without providing her with counsel of her choice, or advising her of her
constitutional rights.
The law does not distinguish between preliminary questions and questions during custodial
investigation, as any question asked of a person while under detention, is considered as a
question asked while under custodial investigation.
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
RULING:
In Gamboa v. Cruz, the moment there is a move of the investigator to elicit admissions or even
plain information from the suspect which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, the
suspect should be assisted by counsel, unless he waives his right, but the waiver should be
made in writing and in the presence of counsel.
So, in the case at bar, when P/Cpl. Marasigan started his investigation without providing
appellant with counsel of her choice, the former violated her rights as enshrined in the
Constitution. It was only after he conducted an investigation on appellant that P/Cpl.
Marasigan summoned Atty. Domingo Joaquin of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office and
detailed at the Western Police District as inquest lawyer, to assist the appellant in giving a
confession.
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
People v. Jimenez // GR No. 82604 // December 10, 1991
FACTS:
Accused, Marcos and Robert Jimenez, were suspects for the murder of their father Pelagio
Jimenez. Together with Pelagios widow, they were invited for questioning by the Police.
After confrontation of Lt Bancog, Marcos admitted that it was Roberto who hacked his father
and thereafter they carried their father near the balite tree by the cliff and left him there.
Initially, Lt Bancog tool down appellant confession in a piece of paper and gave the draft to
Pat. Cavalida to type it. Pat continued the investigation in the presence of ex-Judge Jabagat
who acted as counsel of Marcos. Appellant was unable to sign his confession since Judge
Calderon before whom the confession was supposed to be sworn to and signed, had earlier
left. He was asked to return the next day but later on refused with the signing.
He claims that what is stated there is in accordance with what his uncle, Dr. Jimenez, wanted
him to tell; that he was pressured to admit the crime under threat of punishment.
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
FACTS:
The RTC found Marcos and Robert guilty for the crime of parricide and further held that a
confession although unsigned and/or involuntarily given, is admissible as evidence if in
consequence of such confession facts are discovered which confirm it. As correctly pointed out,
jurisprudence sustains the admission of such an involuntary confession and where details as
described in such confession is corroborated by evidence aliunde which dovetails with the
essential fact contained in the confession.
Included in their appeal, they contend that the RTC erred in not giving credit to the claim of
accused Marcos Jimenez that what he stated in the alleged confession is in accordance with
what his uncle, Marcos Jimenez, wanted him to tell and that he was pressured to admit the
crime under threat of punishment
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
RULING:
The Constitution explicitly declares that a person being investigated by the police as a suspect in an offense
has the right, among others, “to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice” and
if he “cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one;” and that said right “cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel." The lawyer who assists the suspect under custodial
investigation should be of the latter’s own choice, not one foisted on him by the police investigators or other
parties.
In this case, former Judge Jabagat was evidently not of Marcos Jimenez’ own choice; she was the police
officers’ choice; she did not ask Marcos if he was willing to have her represent him; she just told him: “I am
here because I was summon(ed) to assist you and I am going to assist you.” This is not the mode of solicitation
of legal assistance contemplated by the Constitution.
In another case, the confession given during custodial investigation was invalidated where it appeared that
the lawyers called to be present at the interrogation were members of the police organization investigating
the suspects and did not actively assist and advise them, being there merely to give a semblance of legality
to the proceedings.
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
RULING:
Furthermore, the evidence discloses that Judge Jabagat was not present at the critical time
that interrogation of Marcos Jimenez by the police was actually taking place. She came only
after the questioning had been completed, and the handwritten record of Marcos Jimenez’
answers already typewritten; and all she did was to show the typewritten document to Marcos
and ask him if he had voluntarily given the statements therein contained. This is far from being
even substantial compliance with the constitutional duty of police investigators during custodial
interrogation. It follows that neither the handwritten summary of Marcos Jimenez’ answers
made by two investigating officers nor the typewritten statement based thereon is admissible
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
RULING:
The interrogation of Marcos Jimenez having been conducted without the assistance of counsel,
and no valid waiver of said right to counsel having been made, not only the confession but
also any admission obtained in the course thereof are inadmissible against Marcos Jimenez.
This, too, is the explicit mandate of the Constitution: any confession or admission obtained in
violation among others of the rights guaranteed in custodial investigations shall be
inadmissible in evidence against the person making the confession or admission. This is so even
if it be shown that the statements attributed to the accused were voluntarily made, or are
afterwards confirmed to be true by external circumstances.

Rom - Art III Sec. 12 Cont Updated For Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Rom - Art III Sec. 12 Cont Updated For Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II REPORT De los Reyes, Romnick

ART III, SEC 12 ¶ 1

Question: Was a counsel required even if the officer only wanted

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi