Place of interrogation is not determinative of the existence

1. Not under custodial investigation

a. General inquiry
b. Administrative subpoena
c. Extra judicial confession not under custodial investigation
(http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jun2001/131131.htm#_ednref7)
d. THE PLACE OF INTERROGATION IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE EXISTENCE OR
ABSENCE OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION BUT THE TONE AND MANNER OF
QUESTIONING BY THE POLICE AUTHORITIES (PEOPLE VS. BARIQUIT, G.R. No.
122733)
2. Presumption of Regularity
a. Not in custodial investigation
b. It cannot be overemphasized that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, as amended, credence should be given to the narration of the
incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers
who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there
is evidence to the contrary. (People v. Alcala)
3. Well-entrenched doctrine on the conclusiveness Of the findings of the Trial Court
a. Well-settled is the rule that the factual findings and conclusions of the
trial court and the CA are entitled to great weight and respect, and will
not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that
the trial court overlooked certain facts or circumstances which would
substantially affect the disposition of the case. (Bayani v. People)
b. it is not the function of the Supreme Court to assess and evaluate all over again
the evidence, testimonial and evidentiary, adduced by the parties particularly
where the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court on the matter
coincide. (G.R. No. 116372)
c. it is settled that the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of
the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its
conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded respect, if not conclusive
effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court.
When the findings of the trial court have been affirmed by the appellate court,
said findings are generally binding upon this Court. (Dacanay. V People)
d. the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings
of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over
his/her bare allegation. (People v, ALcala
4.

R.A 7438
Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel
or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents,
 elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district
school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such
extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding. (R.A 7438)

People v. Ayson
The precept set out in that first sentence has a settled meaning. 15 It prescribes an
"option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry." 16
It simply secures to a witness, whether he be a party or not, the right to refue to answer
any particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the answer to which has a tendency to
incriminate him for some crime. However, the right can be claimed only when the
specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be
claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena,
to decline to appear before the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify
altogether. The witness receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as required, take the
stand, be sworn and answer questions. It is only when a particular question is addressed
to him, the answer to which may incriminate him for some offense, that he may refuse
to answer on the strength of the constitutional guaranty.

That first sentence of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution does not impose on
the judge, or other officer presiding over a trial, hearing or investigation, any affirmative
obligation to advise a witness of his right against self-incrimination. It is a right that a
witness knows or should know, in accordance with the well known axiom that every one
is presumed to know the law, that ignorance of the law excuses no one. Furthermore, in
the very nature of things, neither the judge nor the witness can be expected to know in
advance the character or effect of a question to be put to the latter. 17

Thus, in one case, 29 where a person went to a police precinct and before any sort of investigation
could be initiated, declared that he was giving himself up for the killing of an old woman because she
was threatening to kill him by barang, or witchcraft, this Court ruled that such a statement was
admissible, compliance with the constitutional procedure on custodial interrogation not being exigible
under the circumstances. (Peo. v. Taylaran)

Administrative Subpoena – testify only

are assertions of maltreatment by the police authorities in extracting confessions

from the accused are not sufficient in view of the standing rule enunciated in cases
of People vs. Mada-I Santalani;[18] People vs. Balane;[19] and People vs.
Villanueva,[20] that where the defendants did not present evidence of compulsion,
or duress nor violence on their person; where they failed to complain to the officer
who administered their oaths; where they did not institute any criminal or
administrative action against their alleged intimidators for maltreatment; where
there appeared to be no marks of violence on their bodies; and where they did not
have themselves examined by a reputable physician to buttress their claim, all
these were considered by this Court as factors indicating voluntariness. (people v.
Del Rosario, G.R. No. 131036)

The confession has details that only the person who committed the crime could
have possibly known. (People v. aleman)

Robert Manuel executed an extrajudicial confession wherein he admitted planning to

rob the victim together with appellant. Although Manuel later alleged that the statement
he gave was given under duress, the Court sees no evidence of the same. We have
declared that "voluntariness of a confession may be inferred from its language such that
if upon its face the confession exhibits no sign of suspicious circumstances tending to
cast doubt upon its integrity, it being replete with details, which could possibly be
supplied only by the accused, reflecting spontaneity and coherence which
psychologically cannot be associated with a mind to which violence and torture have
been applied, it may be considered voluntary. (Peole. v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 106580
)