Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
(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.
(3) any confession or admission
obtained in violation of this or section
17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.
(4) the law shall provide for penal
& civil sanctions for violations of this
section as well as compensation to &
rehabilitation of victims of torture or
similar practices, and their families.
Rights under investigation:
(1) The right to remain silent
(2) The right to competent & independent
counsel preferably of his own choice
(3) The right to be informed of such rights
Reason making the rule applicable to
investigation:
According to Miranda vs Arizona, it is but a
recognition of the fact that the psychological
if not physical atmosphere of custodial
investigations, in the absence of proper
safeguards, is inherently coercive.
Miranda v Arizona (immediate
jurisprudential antecedent )
Of all cases to make its way to the Supreme
Court, Miranda v Arizona may well be the
most popular to date. Virtually everyone has
heard of the "Miranda Rights" which are read
to suspects. While many people may be
familiar with the terminology from television
remember what he did to her. On crossexamination Mico admitted that he did not
inform the appellant of his constitutional
rights to remain silent, to counsel and of his
right against self-incrimination before the
appellant made the said admission because
he was only informally interviewing the
accused when he made the admission and
that custodial interrogation proper was
conducted by the assigned investigator.
Appellant admitted in court that he
passed by the house of Gracia Monahan but
stated that he did not see the two girls
watching television along the road. At
home, he found his mother very sick and so
he decided to stay home all night. He woke
up the following morning at around 4:30 a.m.
and prepared to go to work. On January 15,
1994 a policeman came to his place of work
and apprehended him without a warrant
of arrest and at the police station he
was forced to admit commission of the
crime of rape. The appellant denied the
accusation and stated that the deceased
was his godchild and that he has known
Fely Handoc, the mother of the child, for
three years prior to this proceedings
Juanito Bravo, the brother of the
appellant testified that the appellant stayed
home on the night of January 12, 1994 to
take care of their sick mother who died a few
days thereafter. Ernesto Pastor, the foreman
at the Spring Garden Resort where the
appellant was employed, testified that he
has known the appellant for a long time and
that he knows him to be hardworking
and of good moral character. Pastor
corroborated the appellants testimony
that police investigator Mico came to the
Spring Garden Resort and arrested Bravo
without a warrant.
The testimony of the Municipal Health
Officer who conducted the autopsy was
dispensed with by the prosecution as the
handwritten Autopsy Report made by the
Municipal Health Officer of Santiago, Isabela,
marked as Exhibit B, was admitted by both
parties.
Was investigated under the mango tree
where the crime was committed and left side
of the face is covered by sand (done by
anay) with rigor mortis and with putrification,
easy pulling of the skin and plenty of small
worms coming out from the ears, nose,
Benito
Bravo
is
hypovolenic
laceration.[4]
shock
secondary
to
the
Held:.
Yes. There is no question that at the time
of his apprehension, accused-appellant was
already placed under arrest and was
suspected of having something to do with
the disappearance of Nairube. In fact, the
lower
court
declared
that
accused-
sales
of
plane
tickets,
the
PAL
management notified him of an investigation
to be conducted. That investigation was
scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of
Conduct and Discipline, and the Collective
Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the
Philippine Airlines Employees' Association
(PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. A letter
was sent by Ramos stating his willingness to
settle the amount of P76,000. The findings of
the Audit team were given to him, and he
refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets
also stating that he was prevented from
settling said amounts. He proffered a
compromise however this did not ensue. Two
months after a crime of estafa was charged
against Ramos. Ramos pleaded not guilty.
Evidence by the prosecution contained
Ramos written admission and statement, to
which defendants argued that the confession
was taken without the accused being
represented by a lawyer. Respondent
Judge did not admit those stating that
accused was not reminded of his
constitutional rights to remain silent
and to have counsel. A motion for
reconsideration filed by the prosecutors was
denied. Hence this appeal.
Issue: Whether or Not the respondent Judge
correct in making inadmissible as evidence
the admission and statement of accused.
Held: No. Section 20 of the 1987
constitution provides that the right against
self-incrimination (only to witnesses other
than accused, unless what is asked is
relating to a different crime charged- not
present in case at bar).
This is accorded to every person who gives
evidence, whether voluntarily or under
compulsion of subpoena, in any civil,
criminal, or administrative proceeding. The
right is not to "be compelled to be a witness
against himself. It prescribes an "option of
refusal
to
answer
incriminating
questions and not a prohibition of
inquiry." the right can be claimed only when
the specific question, incriminatory in
character, is actually put to the witness. It
cannot be claimed at any other time. It does
not give a witness the right to disregard a
subpoena, to decline to appear before the
court at the time appointed, or to refuse to
testify altogether. It is a right that a witness
knows or should know. He must claim it and
could
be
waived.
Rights in custodial interrogation as laid down
in miranda v. Arizona: the rights of the
accused include:
1) he shall have the right to remain
HELD
However, during the trial, the accusedappellant pleaded not guilty and disowned
his interview with TV Patrol. He claimed that
he was coerced by police officers to
admit to the crime.
ISSUE
WON, the accused-appellant's videotaped
confession is admissible as evidence in
court?
1
2
HELD
1
WHEREFORE,
respondent
Judge
Augusto Sumilang is hereby found guilty of
gross negligence .Respondent Felicidad Malla
is found guilty of misappropriating funds .
**Because the court administrator is not
a
law
enforcement
officer,
an
investigation conducted by him does
not constitute custodial investigation
within
the
contemplation
of
the
constitutional guarantee.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINE, vs. ABELARDO SALONGA
Abelardo Salonga, Flaviano Pangilinan, Amiel
Garcia and Ricardo Licup were charged with
the crime of Qualified Theft through
Falsification of Commercial Document.
That on or before the 23rd day of October,
1986, in the Municipality of Makati, accused,
conspiring and confederating with one
another and mutually helping and aiding one
another, and as such had access to the
preparation of checks in the said
Metrobank and Trust Company, with
grave abuse of confidence, intent of gain
and without the knowledge and consent
of the owner thereof, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take,
steal and carry away the total amount of
P36,480.30 by forging the signature of
officers authorized to sign the said
check and have the said check
deposited in the account of Firebrake
Sales and Services, the supposed payee
when in truth and in fact there is no such
transaction between Firebrake and
Metrobank, thereby causing the preparation
and use of a simulated check described as
Check No. 013702 in the amount of
P36,480.30 making it appear genuine and
authorized, through which they succeeded in
its encashment, enabling them to gain for
themselves the total sum of P36,480.30, to
the damage and prejudice of Metrobank and
Trust Company in the total amount of
P36,480.30.
On January 7, 1991, Salonga was arraigned
and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
His co-accused, Flaviano Pangilinan, Amiel
Garcia and Ricardo Licup are still at large.
On July 19, 1993, the RTC rendered its
decision finding Salonga guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Qualified Theft
through Falsification of Commercial
Document.
On January 20, 1987, Arthur Christy Mariano,
lead examiner of Metrobanks Loans and
Placement Department, conducted a spot
Defense:
x x x x Abelardo Salonga testified that from
1973 to 1987, he was employed by
Metrobank as an acting assistant cashier.
In such capacity, he was in charge of
managing money market placements and
payments of maturing money placement
investments. Before accused Abelardo
Salonga may prepare and issue a
cashiers check, he must first be instructed
by his manager to do so. Then the prepared
check will be back to the Accounting Section
for examination, then back to the manager
for his signature and to the other officer for
his counter-signature, the check is then
returned to accused Abelardo Salonga for
eventual release to the banks client.
According to Abelardo Salonga, he first
learned that he was being accused of the
present charge after the audit of his
department was concluded. Two persons
from the Internal Affairs Department invited
him to an investigation.
During the investigation, accused Abelardo
Salongas alleged statement was typewritten
but he was neither asked any questions nor
did the investigators talk to him. He was
given an opportunity to read his
statement but only for a limited period
of time. He allegedly affixed his signature
involuntarily on the typewritten statement
after the investigators threatened him and
hit him on the nape. The investigators
never informed him of his right to counsel