1.

Miranda Rights

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. (Sec. 12, Art. III, 1987 Constitution)

2. Custodial investigation involves 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 vs. Marra)

3. NO. The guarantees of Sec. 12 (1), Art. 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.

Police line-up is not part of the custodial investigation; hence, the right to counsel guaranteed by
the Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage. This was settled in the case of People vs.
Lamsing and in the more recent case of People vs. Salvatierra. The right to be assisted by counsel
attaches only during custodial investigation and cannot be claimed by the accused during
identification in a police line-up because it is not part of the custodial investigation process. This
is because during a police line-up, the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the
accusatory and it is usually the witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a
statement in the course of the line-up. (People vs. Amestuzo)

4. NO. The so-called Miranda rights, may be invoked only by a person while he is under custodial
investigation. Rights in custodial interrogation apply only to admissions made in a criminal
investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation. (Remolona vs. CSC)

21. YES. The freedom of expression, as with the other freedoms encased in the Bill of Rights, is, however,
not absolute. It may be regulated to some extent to serve important public interests, some forms of
speech not being protected. As has been held, the limits of the freedom of expression are reached when
the expression touches upon matters of essentially private concern. In the oft-quoted expression of
Justice Holmes, the constitutional guarantee "obviously was not intended to give immunity for every
possible use of language." From Lucas v. Royo comes this line: "[T]he freedom to express one’s
sentiments and belief does not grant one the license to vilify in public the honor and integrity of another.
Any sentiments must be expressed within the proper forum and with proper regard for the rights of
others." (Soriano vs. Laguardia)
22. YES. There is no constitutional right to counsel for resource persons in a congressional inquiry.
(Philcomsat vs. Senate)

23. YES. The rule is that the omission or negligence of counsel binds the client. This is truer if the client
did not make a periodic check on the progress of her case. (Ramirez vs. People)