Assigned Cases for Rights of A Person under Custodial Investigation

A. People Vs Mahinay
GR NO. 122485
Feb. 1, 1999
Facts:
Appellant Larry Mahinay worked as a houseboy with Maria Isip, one of his tasks was to take
care of Isips house which was under construction adjacent to the latters residence. The victim was a
12-year old girl who used to frequent the residence of Isip.Appellant Larry Mahinay worked as a houseboy
with Maria Isip, one of his tasks was to take care of Isips house which was under construction adjacent to
the latters residence. The victim was a 12-year old girl who used to frequent the residence of Isip.
On the late evening of 25 June 1995, the victim was reported missing by her mother. The
following morning, the Appellant boarded a passenger jeepney and disappeared.
The victims body was found, lifeless, at around 7:30 am that same day. She was found in the septic tank
wearing her blouse and no underwear. The autopsy showed that the victim was raped and was strangled
to death.
Upon re-examining the crime scene, policemen found a pair of dirty white short pants, a brown
belt and a yellow hair ribbon which was identified by the victims mother to belong to her daughter. Also,
they found a pair of blue slippers which Isip identified as that of the appellant. Also found in the yard,
three armslength away from the septic tank were an underwear, a leather wallet, a pair of dirty long pants
and a pliers positively identified by Isip as appellants belongings.
The appellant was soon arrested and executed an extra-judicial confession wherein he narrated
how the crime was committed. The trial ensued and the lower court convicted him of the crime of Rape
and was sentenced to death. The case was forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
Issues:
1. WON the appellants extra-judicial confession was validly taken and in accordance with his rights under
Section 12 of the Bill of Rights?
2. WON the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution sufficient to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt?
Held:
The conviction of the appellant is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court ruled that the appellants extrajudicial confession was taken within the ambit of the law as
evinced by the records and testimony of the lawyer who assisted, warned and explained to him his
constitutionally guaranteed pre-interrogatory and custodial rights.
As to the second issue, the appellant argues that the circumstantial evidence presented by the
prosecution is insufficient to warrant a conviction of his guilt. However, the Court ruled otherwise.
The Court recalled the Rule on Evidence and settled jurisprudence. Absence of direct proof does not
absolve the appellant because conviction may be had with the concurrence of the following requisites as
stated in the Rules of Court:

>there is more than one circumstance;

>the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
>the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.
The Court recalled the ruling in People v. De Guia, 280 SCRA 141, all circumstances must be
consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time
inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other rational hypothesis except that
of guilt.
And also in People v. Alberca, 257 SCRA 613 citing People v. Abitona, 240 SCRA 335, that facts and
circumstances consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence, constitute evidence which, in weight
and probative force, may surpass even direct evidence in its effect upon the court.
The Court agreed with the trial courts decision in giving credence to several circumstantial evidence,
which is more than enough to prove appellants guilt beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
The Court also updated the Miranda rights with the developments in law that provided the rights of
suspects under custodial investigation in detail.
A person under custodial investigation should be informed:
1. In a language known to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the
warrant of arrest, if any; Every other warnings, information or communication must be in a language
known to and understood by said person;
2. That he has a right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against
him;
3. That he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an independent and
competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice;
4. That if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that
a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon petition
of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf;
5. That no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the presence of his counsel or
after a valid waiver has been made;
6. That, at any time, he has the right to communicate or confer by the most expedient means telephone,
radio, letter or messenger with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any member of his immediate
family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or
by his counsel, or be visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international non-government
organization. It shall be the responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is accomplished;
7. That he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and
intelligently and ensure that he understood the same;
8. That the waiver must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel, otherwise, he must be warned
that the waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to speak;
9. That he may indicate in any manner at any time or stage of the process that he does not wish to be
questioned with warning that once he makes such indication, the police may not interrogate him if the
same had not yet commenced, or the interrogation must ceased if it has already begun;
10. That his initial waiver of his right to remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar
him from invoking it at any time during the process, regardless of whether he may have answered some
questions or volunteered some statements;
11. That any statement or evidence, as the case may be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing,
whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.

B. Miranda vs Arizona
384 US 436
1966
Facts:
On March 2, 1963, Patricia McGee (not her real name) was kidnapped and raped while walking home after
work in Phoenix, Arizona. She accused Ernesto Miranda of the crime after picking him out of a lineup.
He was arrested and taken to an interrogation room where after three hours he signed a written
confession to the crimes. The paper on which he wrote his confession stated that the information was
given voluntarily and that he understood his rights. However, no specific rights were listed on the paper.
Issue:
In arresting and interrogating susptects, is it a requirement to notify the arrested party of the Fifth
Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants?
Ruling:
Miranda was found guilty in an Arizona court based largely on the written confession. He was sentenced to
20 to 30 years for both crimes to be served concurrently.
Ratio Decidendi:
MIrandas attorney attempted to argue that his rights had been violated since he was not provided an
attorney during the confession, citing the Sixth Amendment, particularly of his right to have an attorney
represent him or that his statement could be used against him. He appealed the case in the Arizona
State Supreme Court, which did not agree that Mirandas confession was coerced, and therefore upheld
the conviction. The case was raised to the United States Supreme Court. However, the Court focused
on the rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment including that of protection against self-incrimination.
Ernesto Miranda was arrested after a crime victim identified him, but police officers questioning him did not inform
him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an
attorney. The Supreme Court agreed, deciding that the police had not taken proper steps to inform Miranda of his
rights. The Majority Opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that "without proper safeguards

the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently
compelling pressures which work to undermine the individuals will to resist and to compel him to speak
where he would otherwise do so freely." ". . . the prosecution may not use statements, whether
exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates
the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination."
Chief
Justice Earl Warren also wrote that The Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of
constitutional rule.[that] an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the
right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation. . . Only through such a
Miranda was not
warning is there ascertainable assurance that the accused was aware of this right.
released from prison, however, because he had also been convicted of robbery which was not affected by
the decision. He was retried for the crimes of rape and kidnapping without the written evidence and
found guilty a second time.
Significance of Miranda vs Arizona:
"[A suspect] must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can
be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford

an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires."

C. People vs Almanzor
GR NO. 124916
July 11, 2002
Facts:
Rene Almanzor y Roxas was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Forcible Abduction with rape and sentenced to
suffer the death penalty.
On March 11, 1994 Almanzor allegedly abducted Sally Roxas while walking along Makati Avenue Ayala Center, Makati,
Metro Manila, near the Landmark Department Store, on her way to the Greenbelt Branch of Jollibee, where she works
as a service crew. Almanzor allegedly introduced himself to Roxas as a member of the Marikina Police while poking a
handgun on the left side of Roxas body. He then forced her to board inside the front passenger seat of his car and
threatened to shoot her. Almanzor then brought Roxas to a secluded area within Makati. He then pointed a gun at
her and ordered her to undress by taking off her t-shirt, pants, and panty; and by means of force, violence, and
intimidation he succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her against her will.
On March 12, 1994, Roxas underwent a physical examination and also gave a physical description of the suspect for a
cartographic sketch to be made.
On March 22, 1994, policement fetched Roxas and informed her that a man who looked similar to the one in the
cartographic sketch was arrested. Five men stood in front of Roxas in a police line. She positively identified
Almanzor.
Almanzors defended by saying that he was a trainor at a 2-day seminar conducted by his company at the Hyatt
Regency Hotel, and that he had been there since March 10, 1994.
Issue:

Is the identification of Alamanzor ina police line-up inadmissible in evidence being a fruit of an illegal
arrest and violative of his constitutional right to counsel?
Ruling:
Rene Almanzor is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, and the penalty imposed is reduced to reclusion
perpetua plus damages.
Ratio Decidendi:

Almanzor claimed that the absence of his attorney at the police line-up renders the line-up irregular
and invalid. The Court does not agree with him. According to the Court, the guarantees of Section
12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, or the so-called Miranda rights, may be invoked only by a person
while he is under custodial investigation. Custodial investigation starts when the police investigation is
no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken
into custody by the police who starts the interrogation and propounds questions to the person to elicit
incriminating statements. A police line-up is not part of the custodial investigation; hence, the right to
counsel cannot yet be invoked at this stage.
In this case, Almanzor was not under custodial
investigation when he was brought to the Makati Police Station, since they did not interrogate him or
elicit incriminating statements from him.
Instead, he was brought to the police station to be
presented, along with other men, to Roxas to be identified by her. During this stage, the presence of
an attorney is not necessary.

D. People vs Ordono
334 SCRA 673
Facts:
On 5 August 1994 the decomposing body of a young girl was found among the bushes near a bridge in Barangay
Poblacion, Santol, La Union. The girl was identified as 15 year old Shirley Victore, who was reported missing for the
past three days. Post-mortem examination, conducted by the NBI, revealed that Victore was raped and strangled to
death. Unidentified sources pointed Pacito Ordoo and Apolonio Medina as the authors of the crime. The police
invited the two suspects and brought them to the police station for questioning. However, for lack of evidence , they
were allowed to go home.
On 10 August 1994, Ordoo and Medina returned to the police station and acknowledged that they had indeed
committed the crime. The police immediately conducted an investigation and put their confessions in writing.
They, however, could not at once get the services of a lawyer to assist the two accused in the course of the
investigation because there were no practicing lawyers in the Municipality. Be that as it may, the statements of the
two accused were taken. Both accused were apprised in their own dialect of their constitutional right to remain
silent and to be assisted by a competent counsel of their choice. Ordono and Molina both said that they understood
their rights and that they did not require the services of a lawyer, because of this the investigation was conducted
with the Parish Priest, the Municipal Mayor, the Chief of Police, other police officers and the suspects wife and
mother, in attendance to listen to and witness the giving of the voluntary statements of Ordona and Molina, who
both admitted their participation in the crime. Roland Almoite, leading radio announcer, visited and interviewed
them.
In the interview which was duly tape-recorded both accused , again , admitted their
complicity in the crime and narrated individually the events surrounding their commission thereof.
A couple of days later, the police brought the two to the office of the PAO lawyer in Balaoan, LaUnion, for
assistance and counseling. PAO lawyer apprised each of the accused of his constitutional rights and explained to
them each of the questions and answers taken during the investigation. He likewise advised them to ponder the
consequences of their confessions, leading them to defer the affixing of their second signature/ thumb mark thereon.
After a week or so, the two (2) separately went back to Atty. Corpuz and informed him of their willingness
to affix their signatures and thumb marks for the second time in their respective confessions. They assured that
their statements had been given freely and voluntarily. Upon such assurance that they had not been coerced into
giving and signing their confessions, Judge Bautista finally asked the accused to affix their signatures/ thumb marks on
their respective confessions, and to subscribe the same before him. Atty. Corpuz then signed their statements as
their assisting counsel, followed by a few members of the MTC staff who witnessed the signing.On arraignment, in a
complete turnabout, the two (2) accused pleaded not guilty.The accused are now assailing their conviction on the
ground that constitutional infirmities attended the execution of their extrajudicial confessions, i.e., mainly the lack of
counsel to assist them during custodial investigation thereby making their confessions inadmissible in evidence.Issue
Issue:
1. Does the absence of a lawyer during Ordono and Molina s custodial interrogation, render
their statements inadmissible in court as evidence?
Ruling:

If there is no counsel at the start of the custodial investigation any statement elicited from the accused is
inadmissible in evidence against him.
Ratio Decidendi for #1:
The Constitution lays down rules, pursuant to law and jurisprudence, that in order for a confession to be
admissible in evidence, it must satisfy 4 fundamental requirements, which are:

(a) the confession must be voluntary;

(b) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel;
(c) the confession must be express; and,

(d) the confession must be in writing.

Among all these requirements none is accorded the greatest respect than an accused's right to
counsel to adequately protect him in his ignorance and shield him from the otherwise condemning nature
of a custodial investigation. The person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the
pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person
undergoing interrogation for the commission of the offense. Hence, if there is no counsel at the start
of the custodial investigation any statement elicited from the accused is inadmissible in evidence
against him. This exclusionary rule is premised on the presumption that the defendant is thrust into an
unfamiliar atmosphere and runs through menacing police interrogation procedures where the potentiality
for compulsion, physical and psychological, is forcefully apparent.
In this case, custodial investigation began when the Ordoo and Medina voluntarily went to the
Santol Police Station to confess and the investigating officer started asking questions to elicit
information and/or confession from them.
At such point, the right of the accused to counsel
automatically attached to them. Concededly, after informing the accused of their rights, the police
sought to provide them with counsel. However, none could be furnished to them because of the
non-availability of practicing lawyers in Santol, La Union, and the remoteness of the town to the next
adjoining town of Balaoan, La Union, where practicing lawyers could be found. At that stage, the
police should have already desisted from continuing with the interrogation but they persisted and
gained the consent of the accused to proceed with the investigation.
It should further be recalled that the accused were not effectively informed of their constitutional
rights when they were arrested, so that when they allegedly admitted authorship of the crime after
questioning, their admissions were obtained in violation of their constitutional rights against
self-incrimination under Sec. 20, Art. IV, of the Bill of Rights.

Issue:
2. Does the presence of a parish priest, municipal mayor, and relatives of the accused cure the
defect of the custodial investigation, which is the absence of the lawyer?
Ruling:

To the credit of the police, they requested the presence of the Parish Priest and the Municipal Mayor
of Santol as well as the relatives of the accused to obviate the possibility of coercion, and to witness the
voluntary execution by the accused of their statements before the police. Nonetheless, this did not cure
in any way the absence of a lawyer during the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi:
In providing that during the taking of an extrajudicial confession the accused's parents, older
brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest
or minister of the gospel as chosen by the accused may be present. RA 7438 does not propose that they
appear in the alternative or as a substitute for counsel without any condition or clause. It is explicitly
stated therein that before the above-mentioned persons can appear two (2) conditions must be met:
(a) counsel of the accused must be absent, and,
(b) a valid waiver must be executed.
RA 7438 does not therefore unconditionally and unreservedly eliminate the necessity of counsel but
underscores its importance by requiring that a substitution of counsel with the above-mentioned
persons be made with caution and with the essential safeguards.
Hence, in the absence of such valid waiver, the Parish Priest of Santol, the Municipal Mayor, the
relatives of the accused, the Chief of Police and other police officers of the municipality could not stand
in lieu of counsel's presence. The apparent consent of the two (2) accused in continuing with the
investigation was of no moment as a waiver to be effective must be made in writing and with the
assistance of counsel. Consequently, any admission obtained from the two (2) accused emanating from
such uncounselled interrogation would be inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding.

Issue:
3. Will the assistance of the PAO lawyer, acquired five days later, remedy the omission of both
the absence of a lawyer and the absence of a lawyer s valid waiver during the custodial
investigation?

Ruling:
Securing the assistance of the PAO lawyer five (5) to eight (8) days later does not remedy this omission
either.
Ratio Decidendi:
Although there was a showing that the PAO lawyer made a thorough explanation of the rights of the
accused, enlightened them on the possible repercussions of their admissions, and even gave them time to
deliberate upon them, this aid and valuable advice given by counsel still came several days too late. It
could have any palliative effect.
It could not cure the absence of counsel during the custodial
investigation when the extrajudicial statements were being taken.
The second affixation of the signatures/ thumbmarks of the accused on their confessions a few days after
their closed-door meeting with the PAO lawyer, in the presence and with the signing of the MTC judge,
the PAO lawyer and other witnesses, likewise did not make their admissions an informed one. Admissions
obtained during custodial investigation without the benefit of counsel although reduced into writing and
later signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed under the Constitution. If the lawyer's role is
diminished to being that of a mere witness to the signing of a prepared document albeit an indication
therein that there was compliance with the constitutional rights of the accused, the requisite standards
guaranteed by Art. III, Sec. 12, par. (1), are not met. The standards utilized by police authorities to assure
the constitutional rights of the accused in the instant case therefore fell short of the standards demanded
by the Constitution and the law.