G.R. No.

79138 July 2, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.DAVID LOVERIA y SANTOS,
defendant-appellant.
FACTS: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines and was
allegedly 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.
ISSUE: Whether or Not the respondent Judge correct in making inadmissible as
evidence the admission and statement of accused.
HELD: No. The judge should admit the evidence in court as the accused was not under
custodial investigation when his statements were taken. One cannot invoke violation of
the right to counsel in administrative proceeding. The right to self-incrimination and
custodial investigation are accorded only when the accused is subjected to custodial
inquest which involves the questioning initiated by police authorities after a person is
taken in custody or deprived of his freedom in any way. Because the statements were
obtained beyond the purview of custodial investigation the evidence should be admitted
in court.