1
Custodial Investigation
Section 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 must be provided with one.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17
hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this
section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or
similar practices, and their families.
Gamboa vs. Cruz
162 SCRA 642, June 27, 1988
Facts:
On July 19, 1979, at about 7:00 o’clock in the morning, petitioner
Christopher Gamboa was arrested for vagrancy, without warrant of arrest, by
Patrolman Arturo Palencia. On July 20, 1979, during the line up of five (5)
detainees including petitioner Gamboa who was identified by complainant
Erlinda B. Bernal as one of the companions in the commission of the crime of
robbery. On July 23, 1979, an information for robbery was filed against him.
On August 22, 1979, he was arraigned.
On August 13, 1980, petitioner filed a Motion to Acquit predicated on
the ground that the conduct of the line- up, without notice to, and in the
absence of, his counsel violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due
process.
On October 23, 1980, the lower court denied the Motion to Acquit,
hence, the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner’s constitutional rights to counsel and to
due process were violated during the conduct of police line- up.
Held:
Police line- up was not part of the custodial inquest, hence, petitioner
was not yet entitled at such stage to counsel. When the process had not yet
shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory as when police investigation
does not elicit a confession the accused may not yet avail of the services of
his lawyer. Since petitioner in the course of his identification in the police
line- up had not yet been held to answer for a criminal offense, he was,
therefore, not deprived of his right to be assisted by counsel because the
accusatory process had not yet set in. The police could not have violated
petitioner’s right to counsel and due process as the confrontation between
the State and him had not begun.
The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation. At
such point or stage, 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 an offense.
On the right to due process, the Court finds that petitioner was not,
in any way, deprived of the substantive and constitutional right, as he was
duly represented by a member of the Bar. He was accorded all the
opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his
defense; only that he chose not to, and instead opted to file a Motion to
Acquit after the prosecution had rested its case. What due process abhors is
the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.
The petition is dismissed. The temporary restraining order issued is lifted.
PEOPLE VS. MACAM [238 SCRA 306; G.R. NOS. 91011-12; 24 NOV 1994]
Facts:
Prosecution’s version:
On Aug 18,1987, Eduardo Macam, Antonio Cedro, Eugenio Cawilan Jr., Danilo
Roque and Ernesto Roque went to the house of Benito Macam (uncle of
Eduardo Macam) located at 43 Ferma Road QC. Upon the arrival of the
accused, Benito invited the former to have lunch. Benito asked his maid
Salvacion Enrera to call the companions of Eduardo who were waiting in a
tricycle outside the house. A. Cedro, E. Cawilan and D. Roque entered the
house while E. Roque remained in the tricycle. After all the accused had taken
their lunch, Eduardo Macam grabbed the clutch bag of Benito Macam and
pulled out his uncle’s gun then declared a hold-up. They tied up the wife
(Leticia Macam), children, maid (Salvacion) and Nilo Alcantara and brought
them to the room upstairs. After a while Leticia was brought to the bathroom
and after she screamed she was stabbed and killed by A. Cedro. Benito, Nilo
and Salvacion was also stabbed but survived. The total value of the items
2
taken was P536, 700.00.
Defense’s version:
Danilo Roque stated that he being a tricycle driver drove the 4 accused to
Benito’s house for a fee of P50.00. Instead of paying him, he was given a
calling card by Eduardo Macam so that he can be paid the following day.
Upon arriving, he went with the accused inside the house to have lunch.
Thereafter he washed the dishes and swept the floor. When Eugenio Cawilan
pulled a gun and announced the hold-up, he was asked to gather some things
and which he abided out of fear. While putting the said thins inside the car of
Benito (victim) he heard the accused saying “kailangan patayin ang mga taong
yan dahil kilala ako ng mga yan”. Upon hearing such phrase he escaped and
went home using his tricycle. He also testified that his brother Ernesto Roque
has just arrived from the province and in no way can be involved in the case
at bar. On the following day, together with his brother, they went to the
factory of the Zesto Juice (owned by the father of Eduardo Macam) for him to
get his payment (50.00) . He and his brother was suddenly apprehended by
the security guards and brought to the police headquarters in Q.C. They were
also forced to admit certain things.
After which, he together with all the accused, in handcuffs and bore
contusions on their faces caused by blows inflicted in their faces during
investigation, was brought to the QC General Hospital before each surviving
victims and made to line-up for identification. Eugenio Cawilan was also
charged with Anti-fencing Law but was acquitted in the said case.
Issue: Whether or Not their right to counsel has been violated. WON the
arrest was valid. WON the evidence from the line-up is admissible.

Held: It is appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of
prosecution even before trial. A police line-up is considered a “critical” stage
of the proceedings. Any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a
police line-up is inadmissible. HOWEVER, the prosecution did not present
evidence regarding appellant’s identification at the line-up. The witnesses
identified the accused again in open court. Also, accused did not object to the
in-court identification as being tainted by illegal line-up.
The arrest of the appellants was without a warrant. HOWEVER, they are
estopped from questioning the legality of such arrest because they have not
moved to quash the said information and therefore voluntarily submitted
themselves to the jurisdiction of the trial court by entering a plea of not guilty
and participating in trial.
The court believed the version of the prosecution. Ernesto Roque, while
remaining outside the house served as a looked out.
Wherefore, decision of lower court is Affirmed. Danilo Roque and Ernesto
Roque is guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide as co-conspirators of
the other accused to suffer reclusion perpetua.
Things taken: 2 toygun, airgun riffle, CO2 refiller, TV, betamax tapes, betamax
rewinder, Samsonite attache case, typewriter, chessboard, TOYOTA Crown
Car Plate No. CAS-997, assorted jewelry. .22 gun and money.
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
3
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.
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.
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.
PEOPLE VS. BOLANOS [211 SCRA 262; G.R. NO. 101808; 3 JUL 1992]
Facts: Oscar Pagdalian was murdered in Marble Supply, Balagtas Bulacan.
According to Pat. Rolando Alcantara and Francisco Dayao, deceased was with
two companions on the previous night, one of whom the accused who had a
drinking spree with the deceased. When they apprehended the accused they
found the firearm of the deceased on the chair where the accused was
allegedly seated. They boarded accused along with Magtibay, other accused
on the police vehicle and brought them to the police station. While in the
vehicle Bolanos admitted that he killed the deceased. RTC convicted him
4
hence the appeal.
Issue: Whether or Not accused-appellant deprived of his constitutional right
to counsel.
Held: Yes. Being already under custodial investigation while on board the
police patrol jeep on the way to the Police Station where formal investigation
may have been conducted, appellant should have been informed of his
Constitutional rights under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution,
more particularly par. 1 and par. 3.
Consti II case digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs PABLITO ANDAN
Rights of Suspects under Custodial Investigation
Confessions given to a Municipal Mayor
FACTS:
Marianne Guevarra, a second-year nursing student at Fatima was on her way
to her school dormitory in Valenzuelal, Metro Manila when Pablito Andan
asked her to check the blood pressure of the grandmother of Andan’s wife
but there was nobody inside the house. She was punched in the abdomen by
Andan and was brought to the kitchen where he raped her. She was left in
the toilet until it was dark and was dragged to the backyard. It was when
Andan lifted her over the fence to the adjacent vacant lot where she started
to move. Andan hit her head with a concrete block to silence her and dragged
her body to a shallow portion of the lot and abandoned it.

The death of Marianne drew public attention which prompted Baliuag Mayor
Cornelio Trinidad to form a team of police officers to solve the case. Apart
from the vacant lot, they also searched Andan’s nearby house and found
evidences linked to the crime. The occupants of the house were interviewed
and learned that accused-appellant was in Barangay Tangos, Baliuag, Bulacan.
A police team lead by Mayor Trinidad located Andan and took him to the
police headquarters where he was interrogated where he said that Dizon
killed the girl. The three were then brought to Andan’s house where he
showed the police where the bags of Marianne were hidden. They were then
brought back to the police station while waiting for the result of the
investigation.
The gruesome crime attracted the media and as they were gathered at the
police headquarters for the result of the investigation, Mayor Trinidad arrived
and proceeded to the investigation room. Upon seeing the mayor, appellant
approved him and whispered a request that they talk privately to which the
mayor agreed. They went to another room and there, the Andan agreed to
tell the truth and admitted that he was the one who killed Marianne. The
mayor opened the door of the room to let the public and the media
representatives witness the confession. Mayor Trinidad first asked for a
lawyer to assist the appellant but since no lawyer was available he ordered
the proceedings photographed and recorded in video. In the presence of the
media and his relatives, Andan admitted to the crime and disclosed how he
killed Marianne and that he falsely implicated Larin and Dizon because of ill-
feelings against them.
However, appellant entered a plea of “not guilty” during his arraignment. He
provided an alibi why he was at his father’s house at another barangay and
testified that policemen tortured and coerced him to admit the crime but the
trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to death.
ISSUE:
5
Whether or not the admission of Andan to the mayor without the assistance
of counsel is in violation of the constitution and cannot be admitted as
evidence in court.
RULING:
Under these circumstances, it cannot be claimed that the appellant’s
confession before the mayor is inadmissible. A municipal mayor has
“operational supervision and control” over the local police and may be
deemed a law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Section 12 (1) and
(3) of Article III of the Constitution. However, Andan’s confession to the
mayor was not made in response to any interrogation by the latter. In fact,
the mayor did not question appellant at all and no police authority ordered
the appellant to talk to the mayor. It was the appellant who spontaneously,
freely and voluntarily sought the mayor for a private meeting. The mayor
acted as a confidant and not as a law enforcer and therefore did not violate
his constitutional rights.
Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a
spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities,
but given in an ordinary manner whereby appellant orally admitted having
committed the crime. What the constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure
of incriminating facts or confession. Hence, we hold that appellant’s
confession to the mayor was correctly admitted by the trial court.
Andan was found guilty of the special complex crime of rape with homicide.