Political and Public International Law › Constitutional Rights
O. Right Against Self-Incrimination
Q. Right Against Self-incrimination
1. Scope and Limitations 2. Immunity Statutes
Investigations can be conducted by:
- Police authorities, including:
- Municipal police
- Philippine National Police (PNP)
- NBI officers
- CAFGU members
- Barangay Captains (People v. Ochate, G.R. No. 127154, July 30, 2002, Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009)
Instances when the Miranda Rights do not apply:
- The rights are not available before government investigators become involved. Thus, admissions made in an administrative investigation conducted by officials of the Philippine Airlines do not come under Section 12. (People v. Ayson, G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 1989)
- The rights are not available when the confession or admission is made to a private individual. (People v. Tawat, G.R. No. L62871, May 25, 1984)
- The rights do not apply to a person undergoing audit because an audit examiner is not a law enforcement officer. (Navallo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 97214, July 16, 1994)
- The rights do not apply to a verbal admission made to a radio announcer who was not part of the investigation. (People v. Ordono, G.R. No. 132154, June 29, 2000)
- The rights do not apply to an admission made to a mayor who is approached not as mayor but as confidante. (People v. Zuela, G.R. No. 112177, Jan. 28, 2000)
- The rights do not apply to an interview recorded on video in the presence of newsmen, but the Supreme Court warned that trial courts should admit similar confessions with extreme caution. (People v. Endino, G.R. No. 133026, Feb. 20, 2001)
- Voluntary surrender alone does not trigger the warnings, but custodial questioning about the person’s involvement after surrender requires compliance with Article III, Section 12. (People v. Baloloy, G.R. No. 140740, April 12, 2002)
- The rights do not apply to spontaneous statements, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused orally admits having committed the crime. (People v. Baloloy, G.R. No. 140740, April 12, 2002)
- Person in a police line-up not entitled to counsel. (Gamboa v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-56291, June 27, 1988)
- Administrative proceedings. (Cudia v. Superintendent of the PMA, G.R. No. 211362, Feb. 24, 2015)
- Signing of arrest reports and booking sheets. It is not an extra-judicial statement and cannot be the basis of a judgment of conviction. The Booking Sheet is merely a statement of the accused's being booked and of the date which accompanies the fact of an arrest. (People v. Bandin, G.R. No. 104494, Sept. 10, 1993)
- Signing of marked money. A person’s right against self-incrimination was not violated for his signing and possession of the marked bills did not constitute a crime; (People v. Linsangan, G.R. No. 88589, April 16, 1991)
Right against Self-Incrimination
A subpoenaed witness cannot refuse to attend a legislative inquiry by invoking his or her right against self-incrimination. Such right may be invoked only when the incriminating question is being asked, since they have no way of knowing in advance the nature or effect of the questions to be asked of them. (Sabio v. Gordon, G.R. No. 174340, Oct. 17, 2006).
RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
If the individual 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 questions 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 be questioned. (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, Jun. 13, 1966)
Must Include an Explanation that Anything Said Can and Will be Used Against Him
The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it. (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, June 13, 1966)
Authorities
- First Class Caddrin Jeff P. Cudia of the Philippine Military Academy v. Superintendent of the Philippine Military A, G.R. No. 211362, 24 February 2015
- Gamboa v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-56291, 27 June 1988
- Miranda v. Arizona
- Navallo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 97214, 16 July 1994
- People v. “Boy, G.R. No. 127154, 30 July 2002
- People v. "Goring", G.R. No. L-49149, 23 October 1981
- People v. Baloloy, G.R. No. 140740, 12 April 2002
- People v. Bandin, G.R. No. 104494, 10 September 1993
- People v. Endino, G.R. No. 133026, 20 February 2001
- People v. Judge Ruben Ayson, G.R. No. 85215, 7 July 1989
- People v. Linsangan, G.R. No. 88589, 16 April 1991
- People v. Ordoño, G.R. No. 132154, 29 June 2000
- People v. Tawat, G.R. No. L-62871, 25 May 1984
- People v. Zuela, G.R. No. 112177, 28 January 2000
- Sabio v. Gordon, G.R. No. 174340, 17 October 2006
- Section 12