Custodial Investigation Flashcards
Module 8 covers these topics:
- Custodial Investigation
- Miranda Rights (remain silent, competent & independent counsel, informed of such rights)
- Waiver
- Exclusionary Rule
Basis of Rights under Custodial Investigation
Article III, Sec. 12 (1)
“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 MSUT be provided with one
These rights cannot be waived (EXC)
- in writing and,
- in the presence of counsel”
[A]
Police Line-Up
[B]
Police Line-Up Preceded (before) by Custodial Investigation, any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up
[A]
Miranda Rights do NOT apply
[B]
Unconstitutional
Will admission to the media be admissible in Court?
Yes, confession can be made because Sec 12 does not apply to the media.
Miranda rights cover extrajudicial confession but not to media. Bill of rights does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another individual but the between the individual and the state
(Pp v. Andan)
what does the Inadmissibility of evidence imply?
Though there is truth to the confession, but if made w/o assistance of counsel, such confession cannot be admitted in evidence even if there was no coercion or even if it was voluntarily given
(Pp v. Cabanada)
⚠️
How can Inadmissible Evidence be cured?
If the information of the inadmissible extrajudicial is admitted in OPEN COURT, then the admission can be admitted as a judicial admission
can the court still convict the accused in spite of the inadmissibility of extrajudicial confessions?
Even if extrajudicial confessions are inadmissible, the court may still convict if there is sufficient evidence showing proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
(Pp v. Andan)
Case of Pp v. Andan insofar as Exclusionary Rule and other principles is concerned
what is the exclusionary rule
Pp v. Andan
“The 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.
The incommunicado character of custodial interrogation or investigation also obscures a later judicial determination of what really transpired.”
Pp v. Andan Notes
a municipal mayor has “operational supervision and control” over the local police 32 and may arguably be deemed a law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution. However, appellant’s confession to the mayor was not made in response to any interrogation by the latter. xxx It was appellant himself who spontaneously, freely and voluntarily sought the mayor for a private meeting
[2 Admissible Confessions Were Made]
Appellant’s confessions to the media were likewise properly admitted. The confessions were made in response to questions by news reporters, not by the police or any other investigating office
Pp v. Tunday on Waiver
you could also use “Pp v. Galit”
‘oh? galit ka?!”
“The confession having been obtained in violation of the Bill of Rights, it is not admissible in evidence against the accused-appellant.
Still and all, the conviction can be sustained, but on another basis”
[another basis]
The accused-appellant was positively identified as the person in possession of — and actually driving — the stolen truck
People v. Sayaboc, G.R. No. 147201, 15 January 2004.
insofar as Right to be informed of such rights
|and| **right to competent and independent counsel
Its tired, punctilious, fixed, and artificially stately style does not create an impression of voluntariness or even understanding on the part of the accused. The showing of a spontaneous, free, and unconstrained giving up of a right is missing.
The right to be informed requires “the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle
We likewise rule that Sayaboc was not afforded his constitutional right to a competent counsel. …, the facts show through the testimonies of Sayaboc and prosecution witness SPO4 Cagungao that Atty. Cornejo remained silent throughout the duration of the custodial investigation.
it appears that Sayaboc’s counsel was ineffectual for having been cowed by his client’s enthusiasm to speak, or, worse, was indifferent to it
The desired role of counsel in the process of custodial investigation is rendered meaningless if the lawyer merely gives perfunctory advice as opposed to a meaningful advocacy of the rights of the person undergoing questioning. If the advice given is so cursory as to be useless, voluntariness is impaired
A = Marlon
B = Sayaboc (shooter
C & D
mere presence near the crime scene or in the tricycle driven by Marlon Buenviaje does not necessarily make them conspirators. Even knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act — without the cooperation and the agreement to cooperate — is not enough to establish conspiracy.
It has been held that price or reward is evidence of conspiracy (but the extrajudicial was inadmissible) but Conspiracy need not, however, be established by direct proof; it may be shown by circumstantial evidence
Knowledge Check: when is circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction?
(1) there is more than one circumstances established;
(2) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been proved; and
(3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
People v. Judge Ayson, G.R. No. 85215, 7 July 1989. (using 1973 consti) on appeal used the current
insofar as custodial investigation is concerned
basically PAL v Felipe, PAL’s atty as private prosecute.
[HIGHLIGHT]
The defendant’s attorneys filed “Objections/Comments to Plaintiff s Evidence.”7 Particularly as regards the peoples’ Exhibit A, the objection was that “said document, which appears to be a confession, was taken without the accused being represented by a lawyer.” Exhibit K was objected to “for the same reasons interposed under Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘J.’
Resp Judge did not admist A and K and denied MR
can an ADMINISTRATIVE case not attach the miranda rights?
The Constitutional Provision on Custodial Investigation does not attach.
It is clear from the undisputed facts of this case that Felipe Ramos was not in any sense under custodial interrogation, as the term should be properly understood, prior to and during the administrative inquiry into the discovered irregularities in ticket sales in which he appeared to have had a hand
he is hereby ordered to admit in evidence Exhibits “A” and “K” of the prosecution in said Criminal Case No. 3488-R, and thereafter proceed with the trial and adjudgment thereof
