2. Exclusionary Rule

Effect of Absence of a Valid Waiver: Confession Inadmissible in Evidence

In the absence of a valid waiver, any confession obtained during the police custodial investigation relative to the crime, including any other evidence secured by virtue of the said confession is inadmissible in evidence even if the same was not objected to during the trial by the counsel of the appellant. (People v. Samontañez, G.R. No. 134530, Aug. 12, 2002)

Any inquiry a “bantay bayan” makes has the color of a state-related function and objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights provided for under Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is concerned. (People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, Mar.15, 2010)

An uncounseled custodial confession and evidence secured through it are inadmissible even if the defense did not object at trial. A waiver of the rights under Article III, Section 12 must satisfy the Constitution’s requirements; it cannot be inferred merely from failure to object. (1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 12(3); People v. Samontañez, G.R. No. 134530, Aug. 12, 2002)

Applicable to Accused Aliens

The fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not preclude application of the "exclusionary rule" because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens.(People v. Wong Chien Ming, G.R. Nos. 112801-11, Apr. 12, 1996)

Exclusionary Rule Not Applicable to the Violator of the Right

The constitutional provision makes the confessions and admissions inadmissible “against him,” that is, against the source of the confession or admission. And it is he alone who can ask for exclusion. They are, however, admissible against the person violating the constitutional prohibition, to the extent that admissibility is allowed by the ordinary rules on evidence. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009)