PEOPLE v JUDGE AYSON Facts: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines, assigned at its

BaguioCity station. It was alleged that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets, thePAL management notified him of an investigation to be conducted. T hat investigation wasscheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline, and the CollectiveBargaining 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 theamount of P76,000. T he findings of the Audit team were given to him, and he refuted that hemisused proceeds of tickets also stating that he was prevented from settling said amounts. Heproffered a compromise however this did not ensue. Two months after a crime of estafa wascharged against Ramos. Ramos pleaded not guilty. Evidence by the prosecution containedRamos written admission and statement, to which defendants argued that the confession wastaken without the accused being represented by a lawyer. Respondent Judge did not admitthose stating that accused was not reminded of his constitutional rights to remain silent and tohave 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 theadmission 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 crimecharged- not present in case at bar). This is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under compulsionof 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 whenthe specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot beclaimed at any other time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, todecline to appear before the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. It isa 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 accusedinclude: 1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right.2) nor force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shallbe used against him.3) any confession obtained in violation of these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence. The individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or makea statement. But unless and until such rights and waivers are demonstrated by the prosecutionat the trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.