Section 12 (1) of the Constitution provides that “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."

Counsel of Choice

 In the case of People v. Gallardo, (G.R. 113684, Jan. 25, 2000), Herein, Atty.Velasco acted
properly in accordance with the dictates of the Constitution and informed the accused of their
Constitutional rights. Atty. Velasco assisted the accused and made sure that the statements given
by the accused were voluntary on their part, and that no force or intimidation was used by the
investigating officers to extract a confession from them.

 However in People v. Barasina, 229 SCRA 450 (1994), the phrase "competent and independent"
and "preferably of his own choice" under Section 12 [1], Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution 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 his defense. If
the rule were otherwise, then, the tempo of a custodial investigation will be solely in the hands
of the accused who can impede, nay, obstruct the progress of the interrogation by simply
selecting lawyer who for one reason or another, is not available to protect his interest. This
absurd scenario could not have been contemplated by the framers of the charter.

Counsel’s presence required in entire proceedings

 In the case of People v. Morial, G.R. 129295, August 15, 2001: the person under custodial
investigation enjoys the right to counsel from its inception, so does he enjoy such right until its
termination — indeed, "in every phase of the investigation." An effective and vigilant counsel
"necessarily and logically requires that the lawyer be present and able to advise and assist his
client from the time the confessant answers the first question asked by the investigating officer
until the signing of the extrajudicial confession." Furthermore, Section 2(a) of RA 7438 requires
that "[a]ny person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be
assisted by counsel." The last paragraph of Section 3 of the same law mandates that "[i]n the
absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be conducted." The right of Leonardo
Morial to counsel was therefore completely negated by the precipitate departure of Atty.

Seized Articles

 In People vs. Castro, 274 SCRA 115 (1997 ), it was held that Castro's signature on the "Receipt
of Property Seized" is inadmissible in evidence as there is no showing that he was assisted by
counsel when he signed the same. Since this is a document tacitly admitting the offense
charged, the constitutional safeguard must be observed. Be that as it may, even disregarding
this document, there is still ample evidence to prove Castro's guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
 the same having been shown by the detailed testimonies of the law officers who took part in
the buy-bust operation.

 In People v Wong Chuen Ming, 256 SCRA 182 (1996) The Court holds that the signatures of
accused on the boxes, as well as on the plastic bags containing "shabu", are inadmissible in
evidence. Specifically, accused were not informed of their Miranda rights i.e. that they had the
right to remain silent and to counsel and any statement they might make could be used against
them. These signatures of accused are tantamount to an uncounseled extra-judicial confession
which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights (Section 12[1] [3], Article III, 1987 Constitution).
They are, therefore, inadmissible as evidence for any admission wrung from the accused in
violation of their constitutional rights is inadmissible against them.

 However, in a case of mail pilferage as to Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, (G.R. No. 109242, Jan. 26,
1999), the accused were asked to sign the envelopes purportedly for purposes of identifying
the envelopes taken from them. This was done in custody without the assistance of counsel.
Hence, it is not admissible. The envelopes would be evidence of guilt.

Confession to newsmen

 In the case of People v. Andan, 269 SCRA 95 (1997),it was held that statements spontaneously
made by a suspect to news reporters during a televised interview are voluntary and admissible
in evidence.

 In People v. Endino (G.R. No. 133026, February 20,2001), An interview that was recorded on
video that shows accused-appellant unburdening his guilt willingly, openly and publicly in the
presence of newsmen is admissible evidence. 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 elicit
sympathy and forgiveness from the public.

 People v. Ordono, (G.R. No. 132154, June 29, 2000), Note that Sections 12, pars. (1) and (3), Art.
Ill, of the Constitution do not cover the verbal confessions to a radio announcer. What the
Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions.

 People v. Guillermo, (G.R. 147786, January 20, 2004),