Rights of the persons under custodial investigation | Rights of the Accused (RULE 115) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive discussion of the rights of persons under custodial investigation under Philippine law, integrating all pertinent constitutional, statutory, and jurisprudential guidelines. Citations are included where essential to highlight key legal bases.

I. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

  1. Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

    • Explicitly provides that any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of the following rights:
      • The right to remain silent;
      • The right to have competent and independent counsel preferably of their own choice;
      • The right to be informed of these rights.
    • It further states that no torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against the accused.
    • Any confession or admission obtained in violation of these rights is inadmissible in evidence against the person.

  2. Miranda Doctrine

    • Enshrined under the Constitution and clarified through jurisprudence, this doctrine requires that before any custodial interrogation, the suspect must be clearly informed of their rights.
    • The Constitutional provision is essentially the local counterpart of the U.S. Miranda warnings, adapted to Philippine legal standards.

II. DEFINITION OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

  1. When does custodial investigation begin?

    • Custodial investigation begins when a law enforcement officer starts to question a suspect who has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner, and the suspect is asked to answer questions intended to elicit an incriminating response.
    • In Philippine jurisprudence, any investigation conducted by law enforcement officers (or by legislative, administrative, or other government investigative bodies acting as law enforcement agencies) after a person is taken into custody to determine possible involvement in the commission of a crime triggers the rules on custodial investigation.

  2. Distinction from general inquiry or on-the-scene questioning

    • Brief and general on-the-scene questioning intended to determine the nature of the situation or to establish the identity of persons involved (e.g., basic “what happened” questions) may not yet amount to custodial investigation.
    • Once the questioning becomes a form of interrogation aimed at eliciting a confession or admission, or once the person’s freedom of movement is substantially curtailed, the rights of custodial investigation must be observed strictly.

III. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK: REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7438

  1. Republic Act No. 7438 (“An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation and Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating Officers, and Providing Penalties Therefor”)
    • This law reinforces the constitutional rights of persons under custodial investigation. Key provisions include:
      1. Information on Rights: The investigating officer must inform the person of their right to remain silent and to competent counsel.
      2. Right to Counsel: If the person cannot afford counsel, a lawyer from the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) must be provided.
      3. No Waiver Except in Writing: Any waiver of these rights must be in writing and made in the presence of counsel.
      4. Presence of Counsel: The counsel should be present at all times during the custodial interrogation, not merely during the execution of a confession.
      5. Penalties: Violations of RA 7438 subject erring law enforcement or investigating officers to criminal liability and administrative sanctions.

IV. CORE RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

1. Right to Remain Silent

  • The suspect may refuse to answer any question posed by law enforcement.
  • This cannot be used against the suspect as evidence of guilt.
  • If the suspect decides to speak, such statements must be accompanied by the safeguards below to be valid in court.

2. Right to Counsel

  • Competent and independent counsel of the suspect’s own choice must be provided, or if the suspect cannot afford one or does not have a specific lawyer in mind, an independent counsel (usually a PAO lawyer) shall be appointed.
  • The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the counsel must be active, vigilant, and independent, and not merely present as a passive observer.
  • If a suspect waives this right, that waiver must be voluntary, in writing, and executed in the presence of counsel.

3. Right to Be Informed of These Rights

  • Law enforcement personnel have the obligation to inform the suspect clearly, in a language known and understood by the suspect, of their rights before and during any custodial interrogation.
  • A mere perfunctory reading of the rights is inadequate; the investigator must ensure the suspect actually understands them.

4. Right Against Self-Incrimination and Torture

  • No method that compels or coerces the suspect to incriminate themselves—whether physical, psychological, or through threats and intimidation—is allowed.
  • Any confession or statement obtained through force, threats, intimidation, or any form of compulsion is inadmissible in evidence.

5. Right to a Proper Waiver

  • If the suspect chooses to waive any of the aforementioned rights (especially the right to remain silent or right to counsel), such waiver must:
    • Be made voluntarily;
    • Be in writing;
    • Occur in the presence of counsel.
  • Any waiver obtained in contravention of these requirements is invalid, rendering any subsequent confession or admission inadmissible.

V. JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDELINES

  1. People v. Mahinay (G.R. No. 122485, February 1, 1999)

    • The Supreme Court enumerated guidelines for trial courts to observe in ensuring that the rights of the accused to counsel are effectively protected.
    • It reiterated that the accused must be given ample opportunity to confer with counsel before and during custodial interrogation.

  2. People v. Marra (G.R. No. 119251, January 24, 1997) and People v. Deniega (G.R. No. 111381, January 24, 1997)

    • Clarified that any extrajudicial confession made without the assistance of competent counsel is inadmissible.
    • Stressed that the constitutional guarantee under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution is self-executing.

  3. People v. Cabiles (G.R. No. L-39700, December 27, 1977)

    • An early case recognizing that a confession not in compliance with the constitutional and statutory mandates is a “mere scrap of paper” without legal effect.

  4. People v. Arrojado (G.R. No. 84153, April 3, 1992)

    • Emphasized that the presence of counsel cannot be substituted by the presence of a person who is neither a lawyer nor authorized to represent the accused in the manner required by law.

  5. People v. Oliva (G.R. No. 202571, September 4, 2013)

    • Reiterated that law enforcement officers have the burden to prove compliance with all custodial rights. Failure to do so makes any extra-judicial confession inadmissible.

VI. EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE

  1. Inadmissibility of Evidence

    • Any statement or confession obtained in violation of the rights under custodial investigation is inadmissible as evidence. This is commonly known as the “Exclusionary Rule.”
    • The Supreme Court has consistently applied the principle that evidence illegally obtained cannot be used in court (“fruit of the poisonous tree”).

  2. Potential Criminal and Administrative Liability

    • RA 7438 specifically penalizes law enforcement officers who fail to observe the rights of persons under custodial investigation.
    • Officers may also face administrative sanctions (e.g., suspension, dismissal from service) and even criminal charges.

  3. No Rehabilitation of Invalid Statements

    • A confession or admission initially taken in violation of constitutional rights cannot be later cured by a subsequent, valid custodial investigation unless the latter is shown to be fully independent and the suspect is once again properly informed of the rights and afforded counsel.

VII. PROCEDURAL APPLICATION IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

  1. Arrest and Booking

    • Once arrested, the suspect must be informed of the nature of the arrest and of the rights under custodial investigation if an interrogation ensues.
    • The “booking” process (fingerprinting, photographing, etc.) does not necessarily trigger custodial investigation rights unless the police begin interrogating the suspect beyond routine questions.

  2. Inquest Proceedings (Warrantless Arrests)

    • If the arrest is without a warrant, the suspect is subjected to an inquest conducted by a prosecutor.
    • During the inquest, the suspect has the right to counsel and to be informed of the option to undergo inquest proceedings or waive the same in favor of a regular preliminary investigation.

  3. Preliminary Investigation

    • Post-inquest or with a warrant of arrest, the suspect (now called a respondent) is given the right to submit counter-affidavits and other evidence.
    • Although not strictly “custodial interrogation,” the suspect is still entitled to the assistance of counsel at this stage in order to protect constitutional rights.

  4. Trial Stage

    • If the case proceeds to trial, any confession or admission secured in violation of custodial rights is typically challenged by the defense through a Motion to Suppress or Exclude Evidence.
    • The trial court will conduct a voir dire (a mini-hearing) to determine the admissibility of any disputed extrajudicial statement.

VIII. SUMMARY AND PRACTICAL POINTS

  • Absolute Necessity of Counsel: An accused person’s right to an attorney of their choice—absent a valid waiver—is always paramount.
  • Valid Waiver Requirements: There can be no waiver of rights without it being voluntary, written, and with the assistance of counsel.
  • Burden on Law Enforcement: The State (through the police and prosecution) carries the burden of demonstrating compliance with all legal safeguards.
  • Impact on Evidence: Violations result in the suppression of any confession or admission, heavily impacting the prosecution’s case.
  • Preventive Safeguard: These constitutional and statutory rights protect the individual from coercive methods and help ensure the reliability of statements.

Key Takeaways

  1. Constitutional Primacy: Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution is the bedrock of custodial rights.
  2. Statutory Reinforcement: RA 7438 imposes criminal and administrative sanctions on officers who flout these rights.
  3. Jurisprudential Consistency: The Supreme Court decisions consistently safeguard these rights, invalidating confessions taken without strict compliance.
  4. No Substitute for Counsel: “Independent and competent counsel” must not be replaced by non-lawyers or any lawyer who merely acts as a figurehead without real assistance.
  5. Write and Witness: Waivers must always be in writing and in the presence of counsel; any deviation is a fatal defect.

By adhering meticulously to these rules, law enforcement ensures that the accused’s constitutional rights are protected and that the integrity of the criminal justice process is upheld. From a defense standpoint, asserting these rights at the earliest opportunity is crucial to safeguarding an accused’s liberty and preventing unlawful coercion or self-incrimination.

That is the comprehensive overview of the rights of persons under custodial investigation in the Philippines, anchored on the 1987 Constitution, the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 115 on Rights of the Accused, read alongside the relevant Constitutional provisions), Republic Act No. 7438, and controlling jurisprudence.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login