People vs Ayson GR No.

85215 July 7, 1989 Facts: Ramos, a ticket freight clerk of Philippine Airlines (PAL), was allegedly involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. PAL management notified him of an investigation thereafter. The day before the investigation, Ramos gave a handwritten note stating that he was willing to settle the irregularities charged against him. At the investigation conducted by the PAL Branch Manager, Ramos was informed of the finding of the Audit Team. Thereafter, Ramos answers were taken down in writing. Ramons answers were to the effect inter alia that he had not indeed made disclosure of the tickets and that the proceeds had been misused by him, he also indicated that he was wiling to sign his statement, in fact afterwards he did. After two months, an information was filed charging Ramos of estafa. The private prosecutors made a written offer evidence which included the Ramos statement as well as his handwritten admission. Respondent judge admitted all the exhibits except Ramos statement and his admission. Issue: Whether the constitutional rights of a person under custodial investigation comes into play during the administrative inquiry. Held: No. The constitutional rights of a person under custodial interrogation did not come into play, and were of no relevance to the inquiry. Ramos was not under custodial interrogation. Ramos voluntarily answered questions posed to him on the administrative investigation. Just as it is obvious that he sent a note to his superiors a day before the investigation, offering to compromise his liability in the alleged irregularities, was a free and even spontaneous act. As to the danger of violation of the right of any person against selfincrimination when the investigation is conducted by the complaining companies or employers, it suffices to draw attention to the specific and peremptory requirement of the law that disciplinary sanctions may not be imposed on any employee by his employer until and unless the employee has been accorded due process, by which is meant that the latter must be informed of the offenses ascribed to him and afforded adequate time and opportunity to explain his side. The requirement entails the making of statements, oral or written, by the employee under such administrative investigation in his defense, with opportunity to solicit the assistance of counsel, or his colleagues and friends. The employee may, of course, refuse to submit any statement at the investigation, that is his privilege. But if he should opt to do so, in his defense to the accusation against him, it would be absurd to reject his statements, whether at the administrative investigation or at a subsequent criminal action brought against him, because he had not been accorded, prior to his making and presenting them, his Miranda rights, which to repeat, are relevant only in custodial investigations. Indeed, it is self-evident that the employees statements, are submitted by him precisely so that they may be admitted and duly considered by the investigating officer or committee, in negation or mitigation of his liability.