PEOPLE VS. JUDGE AYSON [175 SCRA 216; G.R. NO.

85215; 7 JUL 1989]

Facts:
Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines, assigned at
its Baguio City station. It was alleged that he was involved in irregularities in
the 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.
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 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 shall be 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 make a statement. But unless and until such rights and waivers
are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial, no evidence obtained as a
result of interrogation can be used against him.

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.