Self-incrimination

Section 17.
1. Concept:
a. Humanitarian – intended to prevent the State, with all its coercive powers, from
extracting from the suspect testimony that may convict him.
b. Practical – a person who is subjected to such compulsion may perjure himself for
his own protection.
c. This right is available not only in criminal prosecutions but also in all other
governmental proceedings, including civil and administrative or legislative
investigations. It may be claimed not only by the person accused of an
offense but by any witness to whom an incriminating question is
addressed.
d. Note: witnesses or resource persons in legislative inquiries neither stand as
accused in a criminal case nor will they be subjected to any penalty by reason of
their testimonies. Thus, they cannot altogether decline appearing before
respondent, although they may invoke the privilege when a question calling for
an incriminating answer is propounded.
2. Scope:
a. As long as the question will tend to incriminate, the witness is entitled to the
privilege.
b. The right may not be invoked where the question asked relates to a past
criminality for which the witness can no longer be prosecuted as where the crime
has already prescribed or he has already been acquitted or convicted thereof.
c. He may not also refuse to answer where he has been previously granted
immunity under a validly enacted statute.
d. The kernel of the right, it has been held, is against not all compulsion but
testimonial compulsion only.
i. May be compelled to submit a physical examination of his body to
determine his involvement in an offense.
ii. Self-incrimination is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral
compulsion to extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his
body as evidence when it may be material.
e. Protects the accused against any attempt to compel him to furnish a specimen of
his handwriting in connection with his prosecution for falsification.
i. Writing is more than moving the body, or the hand, or the fingers. Writing
is not a purely mechanical act, because it requires application of
intelligence and attention.
f. Note the SJS vs DDB:
i. As to students – ok, parental authority.
ii. As to employees – ok, randomless and suspicionless
iii. As to accused for criminal offenses – not ok, not randomless and
suspicionless
3. When available:
a. As to an ordinary witness:
i. May be invoked only when and as the incriminating question is asked,
since the witness has no way of knowing in advance the nature or effect
of the question to be put to him.
b. As to an accused:
 i. He can refuse at the outset and altogether to take the stand as a witness
for the prosecution, on the reasonable assumption that the purpose of his
interrogation will be to incriminate him.
ii. Accused occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness.
For in reality, the purpose of calling an accused as a witness for the
People would be to incriminate him.
4. Waiver:
a. May be waived, either directly or by a failure to invoke it, provided the waiver is
certain and unequivocal and intelligently, understandingly, and willingly trade.
b. Example: an accused takes the witness stand voluntarily.
c. When a person fails to invoke this right at the appropriate time, or when,
for instance, he is asked to provide samples of his signature, he is deemed
to have waived.

Custodial investigation:
Section 12, 1-4

1. Concept:
a. Means 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.
b. Begins when there is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and
the investigation has started to focus on a particular person as a suspect –
when the police investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession
from the suspect in connection with an alleged offense.
c. It has been ruled however that this right may not be invoked in situations where
the statements are given simultaneously made, as when it was the accused
himself who went to the police station and voluntarily made the statement
eventually used as evidence against him at his trial.
d. NOTE:
i. People vs Bokingo, the Court considered as inadmissible the statements
of the accused made, without assistance of counsel, during his
preliminary investigation during which he mentioned his plan to kill
the victim.
ii. The right to counsel applies in certain pretrial proceedings that can
be deemed critical stages in the criminal process. The PI can be no
different from in-custody interrogations by the police, for a suspect who
takes part in a PI will be subjected to no less than the State’s processes,
oftentimes intimidating and relentless, of pursuing those who might be
liable for criminal prosecution.
e. Affixing of signatures – READ in crim pro book.
f. Right to counsel may not be invoked by resource persons in the public hearings
conducted by the Congress. While a party’s right to the assistance of counsel
is sacred in proceedings criminal in nature, there is no such requirement in
administrative proceedings. Admin duties are under no duty to provide the
person with counsel because assistance to counsel is not an absolute
requirement.
g. Roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine stop:
i. Has not been considered as a custodial investigation or even a formal
arrest.
 ii. HOWEVER, if a motorist has been detained pursuant to a traffic stop
thereafter is subjected to treatment that renders him in custody for
practical purposes, he will be entitled to the full panoply of protections
prescribed by Miranda.
h. Administrative investigations are likewise not considered as covered by
Section 12 which is limited to criminal investigations.
i. Thus a written statement made in the course of an admin investigation,
and given voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently, would be inadmissible in
evidence against him.
i. RA 7438: Custodial investigation shall include the practice of issuing an
invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he
is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the
inviting officer for any violation of law.
j. Extrajudicial confession:
i. Voluntary
ii. With assistance of counsel
iii. In writing
iv. Express
k. Example of admissible uncounselled statements:
i. Made by the accused to a mayor, whom he treated as a confidante and
who did not even question him.
ii. Voluntarily made to news reporters during televised interviews.
iii. Neighbors and barangay kagawads which were not made during
custodial investigation have been admitted in evidence against the
accused who made them.
l. Inadmissible uncounseled statements:
i. Made to barangay tanods and barangay chairmen
2. Right to competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice to be
provided free if he cannot afford counsel de parte. This and the other rights
guaranteed in Subsection 1 may be waived by the suspect so long as he does this
in writing and in the presence of counsel, who has presumably advised him.
a. The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, when the
investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information, confessions or
admissions from the accused.
3. Police line-up is not part of the custodial investigation; hence, the right to counsel
guaranteed by the Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage.
a. The process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory and it is
usually the witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a
statement in the course of the line-up.
4. Out of court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances
test where they consider the following factors:
a. The witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime.
b. The witness’ degree of attention at the time.
c. The accuracy of any prior description, given by the witness.
d. The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification.
e. The length of time between the crime and the identification.
f. The suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
5. NOTE: the infraction of the rights of an accused during custodial investigation or the so-
called Miranda Rights render inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission
made during such investigation. The admissibility of other evidence, provided they
 are relevant to the issue and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules, it not
affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation.
6. Reenactment of the crime in the absence of counsel is inadmissible against the
accused.
7. Any objection with respect to a violation of these rights must be raised before
arraignment.
a. An uncounseled extrajudicial confession is admissible if later affirmed by the
accused in open court during his trial.
8. Extrajudicial confession which is inadmissible because of a violation of his right to be
informed or his right to counsel would likewise be inadmissible against his co-accused.
a. Extrajudicial admission of one accused is admissible only against said accused,
but is inadmissible against the other accused.

Bail.
Section 13.

1. Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by
him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court as may be
required.
2. Only persons under detention may petition for bail, for the purpose of bail is to
secure provisional release.
3. Bail cannot be denied simply because the person detained has not yet been formally
charged in court but is still under investigation for the commission of an offense.
4. Exception:
a. Any offense which under the law existing at the time of its commission and at the
time of the application for bail may be punished by reclusion perpetua or death,
even if a lesser penalty may be imposed upon conviction owing to mitigating
circumstances that may be disclosed later.
b. Note: He is entitled to bail if, say, he is charged with murder and the evidence
adduced by the prosecution at the hearing on the petition for bail indicates only a
case of homicide.
5. Even if the crime imputed to the accused is punishable by reclusion perpetua, he is still
entitled to bail if the evidence of guilt is strong. This does not have to be established by
him; it is for the prosecution to prove the contrary, although it is not necessary at this
point to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
6. The standard of strong evidence of guilt which is sufficient to deny bail to an accused is
markedly higher than the standard of judicial probable cause which is sufficient to
initiate a criminal case.
7. The Prosecution must be given a chance to show the strength of its evidence; otherwise,
a violation of due process occurs.
8. A court may not release on bail an accused who has confessed to the crime.
9. Separate hearing is not indispensable.
10. Bail may not be granted upon mere ex parte motion. Notice and hearing are required
whether the bail is a matter of right or discretion.
11. An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the
validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the
regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge against
him, provided that he raises them before entering his plea.
a. The principle that the accused is precluded from questioning the legality of his
arrest after arraignment is true only if he voluntarily enters his plea and
participates during trial, without previously invoking his objections thereto.
Presumption of Innocence
Section 14(a)

1. Absolute certainty is not demanded by law to convict of any criminal charge but moral
certainty is required, and this certainty is required as to every proposition of proof
requisite to constitute the offense.