Political Law and Public International Law

The Bill of Rights

N. Custodial Investigation

1. Requisites of a Valid Waiver and the Exclusionary Rule

Custodial investigation refers to the stage where an individual has been taken into custody by law enforcement authorities, and interrogative procedures begin. This is critical because the rights of the person under investigation are at their most vulnerable. The constitutional and statutory provisions governing custodial investigation are designed to ensure that a person’s rights are safeguarded.

A. Custodial Investigation and Its Constitutional Basis

The right of a person under custodial investigation is enshrined under Section 12, Article III (The Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. This provision safeguards the rights of individuals during custodial investigations, ensuring protection against abuse, coercion, and violations of human dignity.

Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states:

Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of their right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of their own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, they must be provided with one.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against a person under investigation for the commission of an offense. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

B. Requisites of a Valid Waiver

A waiver refers to the voluntary relinquishment of a known right. In the context of custodial investigation, a waiver usually pertains to the waiver of Miranda rights—the right to remain silent and the right to counsel.

For a waiver of these rights to be valid under the Constitution and established jurisprudence, the following requisites must be complied with:

The waiver must be made voluntarily – The waiver must be given freely, without any form of compulsion, coercion, or duress. It must be an act of free will.
The waiver must be made knowingly and intelligently – The person waiving their rights must be fully aware of what they are giving up. This requires that the individual understands the consequences of their waiver.
The waiver must be in writing – Verbal waivers are not sufficient. The waiver must be documented in writing to avoid any ambiguity or dispute about whether the individual waived their rights.
The waiver must be made in the presence of counsel – To ensure that the waiver is done intelligently and knowingly, the Constitution requires that the waiver of rights must be executed in the presence of competent and independent counsel. This requirement is absolute; a waiver executed without the assistance of counsel is invalid.

Without compliance with these requisites, any statement or confession given by a person under custodial investigation is inadmissible in evidence.

Case Law on Waiver:

People v. Mahinay (G.R. No. 122485, February 1, 1999): The Supreme Court clarified that any waiver of constitutional rights, particularly in custodial investigations, must not only be voluntary but also made with full awareness of its consequences. The Court held that any confession obtained without the observance of these rights is inadmissible.

C. The Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule is a legal principle that mandates the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights. In the Philippines, the exclusionary rule is embodied in Section 12(3), Article III of the Constitution.

This provision explicitly states that:

"Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him."

Thus, if an individual's rights under custodial investigation are violated, particularly the right to counsel or the right to remain silent, any confession, admission, or statement obtained from such person cannot be used as evidence against them in court.

The purpose of the exclusionary rule:

To deter law enforcement officials from obtaining confessions or admissions through unconstitutional methods such as torture, coercion, or intimidation.
To uphold the integrity of the judicial process, ensuring that evidence presented in court is obtained legally and is therefore reliable.

D. Scope of the Exclusionary Rule

Statements obtained without advising the suspect of their rights: Any confession made by the suspect without being informed of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel is inadmissible.
Statements obtained through coercion or intimidation: Any confession made under duress, intimidation, or any form of coercion is invalid, as it violates the suspect's right to due process and human dignity.
Failure to provide counsel: Even if the suspect waives their rights to remain silent, the waiver is void if not executed in the presence of counsel. Consequently, any statements made without the presence of counsel are inadmissible.

Case Law on the Exclusionary Rule:

People v. Galit (G.R. No. L-51770, March 20, 1985): The Supreme Court held that any confession or admission made by a person under custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence. This case reinforced the mandatory nature of legal counsel during custodial interrogation.
People v. Penera (G.R. No. 204458, June 28, 2016): The Court emphasized that the exclusionary rule operates automatically once it is shown that a suspect's rights were violated during custodial investigation.

E. The Role of Counsel in Custodial Investigation

The requirement that the waiver of rights during custodial investigation be executed in the presence of competent and independent counsel is crucial. The role of counsel is to ensure that the individual understands the consequences of waiving their constitutional rights.

In People v. Rapeza (G.R. No. 169431, August 15, 2012), the Court emphasized that the lawyer present during custodial investigation must not only be present in form, but must actively assist the individual under investigation. The presence of a "token" counsel—one who merely sits in without offering any advice or explanation—is insufficient and tantamount to no counsel at all.

F. Burden of Proof in Cases of Waiver and Violation

In cases where a confession or statement is challenged on the ground that it was obtained in violation of the suspect’s constitutional rights, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution to show that the rights were properly observed and that the waiver was valid.

Jurisprudence:

In People v. Pascual (G.R. No. 203454, February 25, 2015), the Supreme Court held that the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the accused’s rights were respected and that any confession or waiver made was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.

G. Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

There are no exceptions to the exclusionary rule in the Philippines concerning violations of rights during custodial investigation. The rule is absolute. Once a violation is established, any evidence obtained is automatically inadmissible, regardless of the seriousness of the offense or the strength of the other evidence.

Conclusion

The constitutional rights of persons under custodial investigation are sacrosanct and protected by stringent legal safeguards. A waiver of these rights must meet specific requirements to be valid, particularly being voluntary, knowing, and executed in writing with the assistance of counsel. The exclusionary rule ensures that any evidence obtained in violation of these rights is inadmissible in court, serving as a vital deterrent against abuse and upholding the integrity of the judicial process.