L. Rights of Persons Under Custodial Investigation (See RA 7438)

RIGHTS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

• 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.
• No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
• Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
• The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families. (PHIL. CONST., art. 3, § 12)

Miranda Rights Under Sec. 12(1)

• The right to remain silent.
• The right to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.
• The right to be informed of such rights. (People v. Rapeza, G.R. No. 169431, April 4, 2007)

Meaning of custodial investigation

Custodial investigation involves 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.

It is only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate. (People v. Marra, G.R. No. 108494, Sept. 20, 1994)

The invocation of these rights applies during custodial investigation. (People v. Chavez, G.R. No. 207950, Sept. 22, 2014)

Applies to Invitation, “Request for Appearance” & Voluntary Surrender

Republic Act No. 7438 expanded the definition of custodial investigation to “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. This means that even those who voluntarily surrendered before a police officer must be apprised of their Miranda rights. For one, the same pressures of a custodial setting exist in this scenario. (People v. Bitancor, GR. No. 207950; Sept. 22, 2014)

The circumstances surrounding the appearance of the accused in the police station falls within the definition of custodial investigation. He was identified as a suspect and when he was given a “request for appearance”, he was already singled out as the probable culprit. When he appeared before the police station, the pressure of custodial setting was present. Furthermore, based on his testimony, the police was inside the station during the confrontation. A "request for appearance" issued by law enforcers to a person identified as a suspect is akin to an "invitation." Thus, he is covered by the rights of an accused while under custodial investigation. Any admission obtained from the "request for appearance" without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence. (Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 212186, June 29, 2016)

Does Not Apply to Police Lineups

As a rule, a police lineup is not part of the custodial investigation. The right to be assisted by counsel attaches only during custodial investigation and cannot be claimed by the accused during identification in a police line-up because it is not part of the custodial investigation process. This is because during a police line-up, the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory and it is usually the witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a statement in the course of the line-up. (People v. Lara, G.R. No. 199877, Aug. 13, 2012)

However, the moment there is a move or even an 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. (Gamboa v. Judge Cruz, G.R. No. L-56291 June 27, 1988)

Concept

Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety; property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance. (ROC, Rule 114, § 1)

Summary of When Rights are Available

Rights of a person under custodial investigation

The Miranda doctrine requires that:

• Any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain Silent;
• Anything he says can and will be used Against him in a court of law;
• He has the right to talk to an Attorney before being questioned and to have his counsel present when being questioned; and
• If he cannot Afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if he so desires. (People v. Cabanada, G.R. No. 221424, February 26, 2018)

Silence Not an Implied Admission of Guilt

Clearly, when appellant remained silent when confronted by the accusation of "AAA" at the police station, he was exercising his basic and fundamental right to remain silent. At that stage, his silence should not be taken against him. Thus, it was error on the part of the trial court to state that appellant’s silence should be deemed as implied admission of guilt. (People v. Guillen, G.R. No. 191756, Nov. 25, 2013)

A person under investigation has the right to refuse to answer any question. His silence, moreover, may not be used against him. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009)

Purpose

The right to counsel at all times is intended to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false. The lawyer, however, should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. (People v. Mojello, G.R. No. 145566, March 9, 2004)

Being independent refers to those who do not have an adverse interest to that of the accused. (Bernas, The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer, 2011)

Moreover, being independent does not mean that the choice of a lawyer by a person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and independent attorneys from handling the defense. (People v. Mojello, G.R. No. 145566, March 9, 2004)

Non-Independent Counsel

The Constitution further requires that the counsel be independent; thus, he cannot be:

• A special counsel
• Public or private prosecutor
• Counsel of the police
• A municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to that of the accused
• Barangay captain
• Lawyer applying for a position in the NBI where it was NBI conducting the investigation (People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 178300, March 17, 2009; People v. Tomaquin, G.R. No. 133188, July 23, 2004; People v. Januario, G.R. No. 98252, Feb. 7, 1997)

Mandatory; Must be Provided if Person Cannot Afford

The right to counsel is mandatory. Thus, if the person under custodial investigation cannot afford the services of a competent and independent counsel, he must be provided with one. (PHIL. CONST., art. III, § 12[1])

Counsel of Choice Not Exclusive

The right to counsel does not mean that the accused must personally hire his own counsel. The constitutional requirement is satisfied when a counsel is:

• Engaged by anyone acting on behalf of the person under investigation; or
• Appointed by the court upon petition of the said person or by someone on his behalf. (People v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 128287, Feb. 2, 1999)

The phrase "preferably of his own choice" does not convey the message that the choice of a lawyer by a person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and independent attorneys from handling the defense; otherwise the tempo of custodial investigation will be solely in the hands of the accused who can impede, nay, obstruct the progress of the interrogation by simply selecting a lawyer who, for one reason or another, is not available to protect his interest. (People v. Mojello, G.R. No. 145566, March 9, 2004)

The Miranda rights or the Section 12(1) rights were conceived for the first of these three phases, that is, when the inquiry is under the control of police officers. It is in this situation that the psychological if not physical atmosphere of custodial investigations, in the absence of proper safeguards, is inherently coercive. Outside of this situation, Section 12(1) no longer applies and Sections 14 and 17 come into play instead. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009)

RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF HIS RIGHTS

The right to be informed of his rights is more than the routine-reading out of the rights. It implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain, and contemplates an effective communication that results in understanding what is conveyed. Short of this, there is a denial of the right, as it cannot be said that the person has been informed of his right. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009)

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. Under Philippine law, a waiver of these rights must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and must be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. (1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 12(1), (3); Republic Act No. 7438, Sec. 2) 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. (Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, Jun. 13, 1966)

R.A. 7438 Extrajudicial Confession (Sec. 2)

Under RA 7438, an extrajudicial confession by a person arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation must be in writing and signed by that person in the presence of counsel. If counsel is absent, the confession may be signed only after a valid waiver and in the presence of a person chosen by the confessant from this list:

• A parent;
• An elder brother or sister;
• A spouse;
• A municipal mayor;
• A municipal judge;
• A district school supervisor; or
• A priest or minister of the gospel.

These persons do not serve as unconditional substitutes for counsel. Their presence is permitted only when counsel is absent and a valid waiver has been executed. (People v. Ordono, G.R. No. 132154, June 29, 2000)

Admissibility of an extrajudicial confession. The confession must:

• Be in writing, in a language known to and understood by the confessant;
• Be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel;
• Be given voluntarily and intelligently, with the accused aware of the legal significance of the act;
• Be express and categorical; and
• Be signed by the confessant or, if the confessant cannot read and write, bear the confessant’s thumbmark. (People v. Olivarez, Jr., G.R. No. 77865, Dec. 4, 1998)

Exclusionary Doctrine

Any confession or admission obtained in violation of the rights of a person under custodial investigation hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (PHIL. CONST., art. III, § 12[3])

Only Covers Confession or Admission Made During Custodial Investigation

Infractions of the so-called Miranda rights render inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial investigation. The admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation.

The fact that the accused was not assisted by counsel during the investigation and inquest proceedings does not in any way affect his culpability. It has already been held that "the infractions of the so-called Miranda rights render inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial investigation." Here, appellant's conviction was based not on his alleged uncounseled confession or admission but on the testimony of the prosecution witness. (People v. Bio, G.R. No. 195850, Feb. 16, 2015)

However, there is merit in Juanito’s claim that his constitutional rights during custodial investigation were violated by Judge Dicon when the latter propounded to him incriminating questions without informing him of his constitutional rights. It is settled that at the moment the accused voluntarily surrenders to, or is arrested by, the police officers, the custodial investigation is deemed to have started. So, he could not thenceforth be asked about his complicity in the offense without the assistance of counsel. Judge Dicon’s claim that no complaint has yet been filed and that neither was he conducting a preliminary investigation deserves scant consideration. The fact remains that at that time Juanito was already under the custody of the police authorities, who had already taken the statement of the witnesses who were then before Judge Dicon for the administration of their oaths on their statements. (People v. Baloloy, G.R. No. 140740, April 12, 2002) At any rate, Juanito’s extrajudicial confession before Judge Dicon, made without the advice and assistance of counsel, is inadmissible against him; it cannot be admitted merely through the testimonies of persons who heard it or conducted the investigation of the accused. (1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 12(3))