Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Exceptions
When Custodial Investigations May Not Apply
A. Preliminary Investigation
7.62 People v Judge Ayson 175 SCRA 216
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 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 and denied the right to remain silent during the course of preliminary
investigation. However, Respondent Judge did not accept 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 the defendant on trial or under preliminary investigation is under custodial interrogation?
Whether during the preliminary investigation the accused has the right to remain silent?
RULING:
No. The defendant on trial or under preliminary investigation is not under custodial interrogation. His
interrogation by the police, if any there had been, would already have been ended at the time of the filing of criminal
case in court or public prosecutors office. Hence, with respect to a defendant in a criminal case already pending there
is no occasion to speak of his rights while under custodial interrogation.
Yes. The right of an accused in court (or undergoing preliminary investigation before the public prosecutor),
in common with all other persons, possesses the right against self-incrimination i.e., the right to refuse to answer a
specific incriminatory question at the time that it is put to him. Additionally, the accused in a criminal case in court
has other rights in the matter of giving testimony or refusing to do so. An accused occupies a different tier of protection
from an ordinary witness.
All criminal prosecutions the defendant is entitled, among others:
1. To be exempt from being a witness against himself; and
2. To testify as witness in his own behalf; but if he offers himself as a witness he may be cross-examined as
any other witness; however, his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not in any prejudiced or be used
against him.
Custodial interrogations - questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody
or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
B. Voluntary Surrender
7.63 People v Taylaran 108 SCRA 373
FACTS:
Accused killed Ofremia Atup y Sarabosing using his small bolo and stabbed the deceased several times causing
her to fall on the floor dead. After killing the deceased, accused proceeded to the house of the son of the deceased for
the purpose of killing him and his wife but accused did not accomplish his purpose because the deceased's son refused
to left him enter his house. After that the accused surrendered himself with his bolo to policeman Demetrio Basilad
who was then on guard at the municipal hall of Ubay. When asked why he killed the deceased who was also his
grandmother-in-law, accused answered, 'because she promised to kill me with a 'barang', hence killed her first.
ISSUE:
Whether voluntary surrender by the accused may exempt him to custodial investigation?
RULING:
No. The applicability of the foregoing provision does not seem to contemplate cases like the present where no
written confession was sought to be presented in evidence as a result of formal custodial investigation. What was
testified to be only what appellant told the police why he is surrendering to them. It is but natural for one who
surrenders to the police to give reason or explanation for his act of surrendering. It can hardly be said that under such
circumstance, the surrenderee is already under investigation, within the meaning of the constitutional provision. As
the Sol Gen correctly observes on the circumstances of this case: If however, he voluntarily admits the killing and
it was precisely because he surrendered to admit the killing, the constitutional safeguards to be informed
of his rights to silence and to counsel may not be invoked.
C. Audit Examination
7.64 Navallo v Sandiganbayan 234 SCRA 175
FACTS:
Accused who is the Collecting and Disbursing Officer of the Numancia National Vocational School, who was
holding in trust moneys and/or properties of the government of the Republic of the Philippines and holding in trust
public funds with all freedom, intelligence, criminal intent and intent of gain, did then and there voluntarily and
without lawful authority appropriate and misappropriate to his own private benefit, public funds he was holding in
trust for the Government. He failed to account during an audit and to restitute despite demands by the office of the
Provincial Auditor, to the damage and prejudice of the Government equal to the amount misappropriated.
A warrant of arrest was issued, followed by two alias warrants of arrest, and he was arrested. During the
custodial investigation he signed the Examination Report prepared by Dulguime. Later on, he claimed that his been
pressured to sign. Thus, deprived of his constitutional rights.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner was under custodial investigation when he signed the certification prepared by State
Auditing Examiner Leopoldo Dulguime.
RULING:
No. A person under a normal audit examination is not under custodial investigation. Accused-petitioner claims
to have been deprived of his constitutional rights under Section 12, Article III, of the 1987 Constitution. Well-settled
is the rule that such rights are invocable only when the accused is under custodial investigation, or is in custody
investigation, which we have since defined as any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person
has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. A person under a
normal audit examination is not under custodial investigation. An audit examiner himself can hardly be deemed to
be the law enforcement officer contemplated in the above rule.