SPECIAL LECTURE ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: MIRANDA DOCTRINE

Atty. RONNEL C. SOPSOP

SEC. 12, ART. III, PHIL. CONST.

(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 A 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.

CONT
(2) NO TORTURE, FORCE, VIOLENCE, THREAT, INTIMIDATION OR ANY OTHER MEANS WHICH VITIATES THE FREE WILL SHALL BE USED AGAINST HIM. SECRET DETENTION PLACES, SOLITARY, INCOMMUNICADO, OR OTHER SIMILAR FORMS OF DETENTION ARE PROHIBITED.

CONT
(3) ANY CONFESSION OR ADMISSION OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THIS OR SECTION 17 HEREOF SHALL BE INADMISIBLE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. (4) 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.

CONT
RIGHTS ARE AVAILABLE ONLY CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION. DURING

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION REFERS TO 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.

PEOPLE v. DELA CRUZ, G. R. No. 11886668, SEPTEMBER 17, 1997

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 DIRECT INTERROGATORY QUESTIONS WHICH TEND TO ELICIT INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS.

PEOPLE v. BALOLOY, G. R. No. 140740, APRIL 12, 2002

THE GUARANTEE DOES NOT APPLY TO A SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT, NOT ELICITED THROUGH QUESTIONING BY THE AUTHORITIES BUT GIVEN IN AN ORDINARY MANNER WHEREBY THE SUSPECT ORALLY ADMITTED HAVING COMMTITTED THE OFFENSE.

CONT
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.

PEOPLE v. DEL ROSARIO, G. R. No. 127755, APRIL 14, 1999

FROM THE TIME DEL ROSARIO WAS INVITED FOR QUESTIONING AT THE HOUSE OF THE BRGY CAPTAIN, HE WAS ALREADY UNDER EFFECTIVE CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION. BECAUSE HE WAS NOT APPRAISED NOR MADE AWARE THEREOF BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND BEC THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT DEL ROSARIO HAD WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, HIS VERBAL ADMISSION WERE INADMISSIBLE AGAINST HIM.

CONT.
A POLICE LINE UP IS NOT CONSIDERED A PART OF ANY CUSTODIAL INQUEST, BEC IT IS CONDUCTED BEFORE THAT STAGE OF INVESTIGATION IS REACHED [PEOPLE v. BRAVO, G. R. No. 135562, NOVEMBER 22, 1999]. WHEN THE ACCUSED IS BROUGHT TO THE POLICE STATION ONLY TO BE IDENTIFIED BY A WITNESS, TECHNICALLY, HE IS NOT YET UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION [PEOPLE v. HATTON, 210 SCRA 1].

CONT
HOWEVER, WHERE THE ACCUSED, HAVING BECOME THE FOCUS OF ATTENTION BY THE POLICE AFTER HE HAD BEEN POINTED TO BY A CERTAIN RAMIE AS THE POSSIBLE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME, IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN THEOUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATION WAS CONDUCTED BY THE POLICE, THE ACCUSED WAS ALREADY UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION [PEOPLE v. ESCORDIAL, G. R. Nos. 138934-35, JANUARY 16, 2002].

PEOPLE v. ORDONO, G. R. No. 132154, JUNE 29, 2000

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION COMMENCED WHEN THE ACCUSED ORDONO AND MEDINA VOLUNTARILY WENT TO THE SANTOL POLICE STATION TO CONFESS, AND THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER STARTED ASKING QUESTIONS TO ELICIT INFORMATION FROM THEM. AT THIS POINT, THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO COUNSELAUTOMATICALLY ATTACHED TO THEM.

PEOPLE v. ENDINO, G. R. No. 133026, FEBRUARY 20, 2001

THE ADMISSION OF THE VIDEOTAPED CONFESSION IS PROPER. THE INTERVIEW WAS RECORDED ON VIDEO AND IT SHOWED ACCUSED UNBURDENING HIS GUILT WILLINGLY, OPENLY AND PUBLICLY IN THE PRESENCE OF NEWSMEN. SUCH CONFESSION DOES NOT FORM PART OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS IT WAS NOT GIVEN TO POLICE OFFICERS BUT TO MEDIA MEN IN AN ATTEMPT TO SOLICIT SYMPATHY AND FORGIVENESS FROM THE PUBLIC.

WHAT RIGHTS ARE AVAILABLE

TO REMAIN SILENT TO COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL [PREFERABLY OF HIS OWN CHOICE] AT ALL STAGES OF THE INVESTIGATION

TO BE INFORMED OF SUCH RIGHTS

 RIGHTS CANNOT BE WAIVED EXCEPT IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE PERSON IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS COUNSEL

NO TORTURE, FORCE, ETC., WHICH VITIATES THE FREE WILL SHALL BE USED SECRET DETENTION PROHIBITED PLACES, ETC. ARE

 CONFESSIONS/ADMISSIONS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF RIGHTS ARE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.

PEOPLE v. ENANORIA, 209 SCRA 577

THE LAWYER, HOWEVER, SHOULD NEVER PREVENT AN ACCUSED FROM FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY TELLING THE TRUTH.

PEOPLE v. LUCERO, 244 SCRA 425

THE PETITIONER WAS DENIED OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHERE THE LAWYER, NOT COUNSEL OF CHOICE, ARRIVED AT CIS HEADQUARTERS AROUND 9 PM, THE SECOND NIGHT OF APPELLANTS DETENTION, TALKED TO THE LATTER ABOUT HIS RIGHTS, AND LEFT HIM AT CIS HEADQUARTERS DURING THE ACTUAL INTERROGATION AND THEN CAME BACK THE NEXT DAY FOR EXAMINATION AND SIGNATURE OF THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT.

PEOPLE v. BANDULA, 232 SCRA 565

THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT THE COUNSEL BE INDEPENDENT. AS LEGAL OFFICER OF THE MUNICIPALITY, IT IS SERIOUS DOUBTED WHETHER A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY CAN EFFECTIVELY UNDERTAKE THE DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED WITHOUT RUNNING INTO CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

PEOPLE v. HERNANDEZ, G. R. No. 117629, DECEMBER 4, 1997

HOWEVER, THE MERE FACT THAT THE LAWYER WAS A RETIRED MEMBER OF JUDGE ADVOCATES OFFICE DOES NOT CAST ANY DOUBT ON HIS IMPARTIALITY IN ASSISTING THE ACCUSED DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION.

PEOPLE v. ESPIRITU, G. R. No. 128287, FEBRUARY 2, 1999

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 BY SAID PERSON OR BY SOMEONE ON HIS BEHALF.

PEOPLE v. ESPINOLA, G. R. No. 119308, APRIL 18, 1997

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION BEFORE OR AFTER CHARGES HAVE BEEN FILED, AND NON-CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION AFTER THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN FORMALLY CHARGED, ARE CONSIDERED CRITICAL PRE-TRIAL STAGES IN THE CRIMINAL PROCESS.

SEC.2(d), R.A. 7438

ANY EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION MADE BY A PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY SUCH PERSON IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS COUNSEL OR IN THE LATTERS ABSENCE, UPON A VALID WAIVER, AND IN THE PRESENCE OF ANY OF HIS PARENTS, OLDER BROTHERS AND SISTERS, HIS SPOUSE, THE MUNICIAPAL MAYOR, THE

MUNICIPAL JUDGE, DISTRICT SCHOOL SUPERVISOR, OR PRIEST OR MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL AS CHOSEN BY HIM; OTHER WISE, SUCH EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE IN ANY PROCEEDING.

KINDS ON INVOLUNTARY OR COERCED CONFESSIONS

COERCED CONFESSION THE PRODUCT OF THE THIRD DEGREE METHODS, SUCH AS TORTURE, FORCE, VIOLENCE, THREAT & INTIMIDATION. UNCOUNSELLED STATEMENTS GIVEN W/OUT THE BENEFIT OF THE MIRANDA WARNING.

NBI v. JUDGE RAMON REYES, A.M.MTJ-97-1120, FEBRUARY 21, 2000

THE ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION IS RELEVANT AND MATERIAL ONLY WHERE AN EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OR ADMISSION FROM THE ACCUSED BECOMES THE BASIS OF CONVICTION.

PROPLR v. ANDAN, G. R. No. 116437, MARCH 3, 1997

THE VOLUNTARY BUT UNCOUNSELLED CONFESSION OF THE ACCUSED TO THE MAYOR AND TO THE MEDIA WAS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS NOTED THAT IT WAS THE ACCUSED WHO FREELY, SPONTANEOUSLY AND VOLUNTARILY SOUGHT THE MAYOR FOR A PRIVATE MEETING, AND THE MAYOR DID NOT KNOW THAT THE ACCUSED WAS GOING TO CONFESS HIS GUILT.

WAIVER: REQUISITES
MUST BE IN WRITING AND MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THERE WAS A VALID WAIVER RESTS ON THE PROSECUTION. THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL ARE WAIVABLE BUT NOT THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THESE RIGHTS.

PEOPLE v. ALICANDO, 251 SCRA 293

ONCE THE PRIMARY SOURCE (THE TREE) IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED, ANY SECONDARY OR DERIVATIVE EVIDENCE (THE FRUIT) DERIVED FROM IT IS ALSO INADMISSIBLE. THUS, THE UNCOUNSELLED ADMISSION BEING INADMISSIBLE, THE PILOW AND THE T-SHIRT WITH ALLEGED BLOODSTAINSBEING EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM THE UNCOUNSELLED COFESSIONWOULD, LIKEWISE, BE INADMISSIBLE.

PEOPLE v. GONZALES, G. R. No. 142932, MAY 29, 2002

FOR FAILURE OF THE ACCUSED TO OBJECT TO THE OFFER IN EVIDENCE, THE UNCOUNSELLED CONFESSION WAS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE.