Reviewer by: Lorebeth España Constitutional Law II | Judge Estela Alma Singco |S.Y.
2nd sem (2019)|EH 408
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
SEC. 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel,
he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived, except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat intimidation, or any
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violence of
this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
violations of this section as well as compensation to and
rehabilitation pf victims of torture of similar practices, and
their families.
WHAT IS A CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION?
 Custodial Investigation is 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.”
 It has been ruled that this right may not be invoked
in situations where the statements are
spontaneously 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.
 ONLY IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NOT
IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
As used in this Act, "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.
WHEN DOES A CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION BEGINS?
 A custodial investigation 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.
1|Page “SET A GOAL. ENDURE THE PAIN. NEVER GIVE UP. BELIEVE.”
EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION
1. Must be VOLUNTARY
2. With assistance of counsel
3. In writing
4. Express
ILLUSTRATION
When a police investigator starts interrogating or exacting
a confession from the suspect in connection with an
alleged offense.
WHAT IS RA 7438?
AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON
ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE
ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING
OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF
Section 1. Statement of Policy. – It is the policy of the
Senate to value the dignity of every human being and
guarantee full respect for human rights.
Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or
Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public
Officers.–
(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial
investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.
(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under
his order or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates
any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the
latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his
rights to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall
at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such
person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he
must be provided with a competent and independent counsel
by the investigating officer.
(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to
writing by the investigating officer, provided that before such
report is signed, or thumb marked if the person arrested or
detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be
read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by
the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in
the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained
person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and
void and of no effect whatsoever.
Reviewer by: Lorebeth España Constitutional Law II | Judge Estela Alma Singco |S.Y. 2nd sem (2019)|EH 408
(d) 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.
(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under
custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such
person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver
shall be null and void and of no effect.
(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial
investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with
any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor
or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any
member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any
national non-governmental organization duly accredited by
the Commission on Human Rights of by any international
non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office
of the President.
The person's "immediate family" shall include:
1. his or her spouse
2. fiancé or fiancée,
3. parent
4. child
5. brother or sister
6.grandparent
7. grandchild,
8. uncle or aunt
9. nephew or niece
10. guardian or ward.
Section 4. Penalty Clause. – (a) Any arresting public officer
or employee, or any investigating officer, who fails to inform
any person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice, shall suffer a fine of Six thousand pesos (P6,000.00)
or a penalty of imprisonment of not less than eight (8) years
but not more than ten (10) years, or both. The penalty of
perpetual absolute disqualification shall also be imposed
upon the investigating officer who has been previously
convicted of a similar offense.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or
employee, or anyone acting upon orders of such
investigating officer or in his place, who fails to provide a
competent and independent counsel to a person arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation for the commission
2|Page “SET A GOAL. ENDURE THE PAIN. NEVER GIVE UP. BELIEVE.”
of an offense if the latter cannot afford the services of his own
counsel.
(b) Any person who obstructs, prevents or prohibits any
lawyer, any member of the immediate family of a person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, or any
medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him
or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel,
from visiting and conferring privately with him, or from
examining and treating him, or from ministering to his
spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of
the night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less
than four (4) years nor more than six (6) years, and a fine of
four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).
The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any
security officer with custodial responsibility over any detainee
or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as
may be necessary to secure his safety and prevent his
escape.
ADMISSIBLE CASES
- Statements made prior the custodial investigation.
- Statements made in an administrative investigation.
- Settlement executed before NBI agents with the
assistance of counsel.
- Uncounseled confessions of an accused to a
mayor.
- Uncounseled confessions made to Barangay
kagawad and neighbors which were not made
during custodial investigation.
- An extrajudicial confession obtained without the
assistance if counsel but later affirmed by the
accused in an open cour during his trial has been
considered admissible against him.
TANENGGEE VS PEOPLE
Administrative investigations are likewise not covered by
section 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION. A “Written
statement” made in the course of an administrative
investigation, and “given voluntarily, knowingly, and
intelligently” would be admissible against him.
MIRANDA VS ARIZONA (LANDMARK CASE)
The source of this constitutional provision, emphasized
that statements made during the period of custodial
interrogation to be admissible require a clear intelligent
waiver of constitutional rights, the suspect being warned
prior to questioning that he has a right to remain silent, that
any utterance may be used against him, and that he has
the right to the presence of a counsel, either retained or
appointed.
In the language of Chief Justice Warren: 'Our holding will
be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which
follow, but briefly stated, it is this: the prosecution may not
Reviewer by: Lorebeth España Constitutional Law II | Judge Estela Alma Singco |S.Y. 2nd sem (2019)|EH 408
use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory,
stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant
unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards
effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.
By custodial interrogation, we mean 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. As for the
procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully
effective means are devised to inform accused persons of
their right of silence and to assure a continuous
opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are
required.
Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned
that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he
does not make (sic) may be used as evidence against him,
and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney,
either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive
effectuation of those rights, provided the waiver is made
voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he
indicates in any manner and at any stage of the
process that he wishes to consult with an attorney
before speaking, there can be no questioning.
Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any
manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police
may not question him. The mere fact that he may have
answered some questions or volunteered some
statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to
refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has
consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be
questioned.
AQUINO VS PAISTE
An amicable settlement, executed before NBI agents with
the assistance of counsel, presumed to be competent and
independent, is not and does not partake of the nature of
an extrajudicial confession or admission but is a contract
between the parties within the parameters of their mutually
recognized and admitted rights and obligations.
The presence of counsel “safeguarded the
petitioner’s rights even if the custodial investigation
did not push through and precluded any threat of
violence, coercion, or intimidation.”
PEOPLE VS ANDAN
ADMISSIBLE AND INADMISSIBLE
The Court considered as ADMISSIBLE THE
UNCOUNSELLED CONFESSIONS MADE BY THE
ACCUSED TO A MAYOR, whom he treated as a
confidante and who did not even question him, and
voluntary statements made to news reporters during
televised interviews.
The Confessions made during his custodial
investigation leading to the subsequent discovery
3|Page “SET A GOAL. ENDURE THE PAIN. NEVER GIVE UP. BELIEVE.”
and seizure from his house of the evidence eventually
used against him. (INADMISSIBLE)
PEOPLE VS GIL
ADMISSIBLE AND INADMISSIBLE
Uncounseled extrajudicial statements given to
barangay tanods and barangay chairmen have likewise
been considered as INADMISSIBLE.
Uncounseled admission to neighbors and barangay
kagawads which were not made during custodial
investigations have been admitted in evidence against
the accused who made them. (ADMISSIBLE)
INADMISSIBLE CASES
- Uncounseled extrajudicial statements given to
barangay tanods and barangay chairmen.
- Confession during Custodial investigation leading to
the subsequent discovery seizure from his house.
- Extrajudicial confessions extracted through
maltreatment during custodial investigation.
- Affidavit executed by the accused which she
executed without the assistance of a counsel or
informed of his right to remain silent.
- Confessions taken by the police before advising him
of his custodial rights (People Vs Andan)
- An extrajudicial confession which is
inadmissible against an accused because of a
violation of his right to be informed or his right to
counsel would likewise be inadmissible against his
co-accused.
PEOPLE VS GALIT (VERY IMPORTANT)
The SC reiterated Morales vs Enrile concerning the
treatment of a person under Custodial investigation.
The confession was rejected because of the proven
torture inflicted on the accused. Moreover, before his
interrogation, HE WAS INFORMED OF HIS RIGHTS in a
LENGTHY STATEMENT FOLLOWED BY THE
QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS READY TO MAKE HIS
STATEMENT, to which HE REPLIED “Opo”.
Such long question followed by a monosyllabic answer
DOES NOT SATIFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
LAW that the accused be informed of his rights.
PEOPLE VS PECARDAL
Reviewer by: Lorebeth España Constitutional Law II | Judge Estela Alma Singco |S.Y. 2nd sem (2019)|EH 408
At the tine the accused-appellant was apprehended and
interrogated, he was only 17 years old. THAT IS A
SUSCEPTIBLE AGE. One can accept how easily a
teenager can succumb to the pressure exerted upon him
by hardened investigators experienced in extracting
confessions through the use of methods less than legal.
PEOPLE VS CAPITIN
The trouble is that the confession was completely
inadmissible because it was taken without observance of
the safeguards provided by the Bill of Rights for the
protection of the suspect facing custodial investigation. A
reading of the supposed confession shows there was the
usual mechanical advise of the suspect’s rights, including
the right to assistance of counsel, followed by the
sacramental query as to whether or not she was waiving
her right to such assistance, followed by the stereotyped
answer so familiar in statements of this nature. As
unacceptable as the question was, the answer thereto was
no less so and could not have been possibly composed by
the accused-appellant in her state of mind at the time and
given her limited knowledge of Tagalog.
It is not believable that the organized and ready answer,
with all its legal overtones to boot, could have come from
this 22-year old housemaid, who, on top of her
deficiencies in the language (and the law), was
presumably not thinking clearly then (even assuming she
was sane) because she had just killed her child and was
under strong emotional stress.
If we have outlawed confessions written in advance by the
police for persons of limited intelligence or educational
attainment, we see no reason why a confession signed by
a person whose sanity is dubious, as in the present case,
should receive any less disapprobation. Leticia’s
intelligence was not only limited but impaired.
PEOPLE VS BARROS
The Court made the salutary reminder that swearing
officers should have the confessants physically examined
by independent doctors before administering the oath, to
discourage attempts to secure confessions through
violence.
PEOPLE VS CABRERA
On the strength of medical evidence of the defendants’
manhandling by the police authorities.
“Claims of torture are easily concocted, and cannot be
given credence unless substantiated by competent and
independent corroborating evidence, like medical
certificates.”
PEOPLE VS MUIT
4|Page “SET A GOAL. ENDURE THE PAIN. NEVER GIVE UP. BELIEVE.”
One of the indicia of voluntariness in the execution of
petitioner’s extrajudicial statement is that it contains many
details and facts which the investigating officers could not
have known and could not have supplied without the
knowledge and information given by him.
PEOPLE VS DEL ROSARIO
Where the defendant did not present evidence of
compulsion, where he did not institute any criminal or
administrative action against his supposed intimidators,
where no physical evidence of violence was presented, his
extrajudicial statement shall be considers as having been
voluntarily executed.
PEOPLE VS BUSCATO
The accused were convicted on the BASIS OF
EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS EXTRACTED
THROUGH THEIR MALTREATMENT DURING THEIR
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION from January 15-18,
1973.
HELD: Their conviction was REVERSED on the ground
that the physical mental and moral coercion exerted upon
them rendered the confessions inadmissible as contrary
to the right against self-incrimination.
PEOPLE VS RAMOS
The admissions of the accused during his custodial
investigation was REVERSED by the court although there
was evidence that he had been appraised of his rights
under the provision.
HELD: The court observed that “Appellant has only
finished Grade VI, which means that he is NOT
ADEQUATELY EDUCATED TO UNDERSTAND FULLY
AND FAIRLY the significance of his constitutional rights to
silence and to counsel. As mandated, it is NOT ENOUGH
THAT THE POLICE INVESTIGATOR MERELY INFORM
OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SILENCE AND
TO COUNSEL, and then taking statements down, the
interrogating officer must have patience in explaining
these rights to him.
The records do not reveal that these requirements have
been fully complied with, nor was there any showing that
appellant has been represented by counsel during the
custodial investigation. She was, however, after signing
the document, taken instead, first to the National Bureau
of Investigation and, later to the Department of Justice
PEOPLE VS GUSTAFSSON
The Supreme Court considered THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE
ACCUSED AS INADMISSIBLE which she executed,
without the assistance of counsel and without first
being informed of her right to remain silent, shortly
Reviewer by: Lorebeth España Constitutional Law II | Judge Estela Alma Singco |S.Y. 2nd sem (2019)|EH 408
after airport personnel found drugs inside what was
believed to be her trolley bag. She admitted in said sworn
statement that she owned the luggage which the drugs
were found.
She executed the document at the airport because she
was told then that she could board her flight to
Germany after she signed the document. She was,
however, after signing the document, taken instead, first,
to the National Bureau of Investigation and, later to the
Department of Justice, and was thereafter charged and
later prosecuted.
PEOPLE VS LUCERO
Where it was held that information elicited from the
accused without his first being informed of these rights
would be inadmissible against him.
ABALLE VS PEOPLE
Where the Court declared that “Together with the
Extrajudicial confession, the fatal weapon is but a fruit of
a constitutionally infirmed interrogation and must
consequently be disallowed.”
EUGENIO VS PEOPLE
The Court declared that a “Mere uncounseled statement”
made during a custodial investigation of the NBI,
WITHOUT ANY PROOF THAT THE SAME WAS USED
AS PROSECUTION EVIDENCE, CANNOT SERVE TO
INVALIDATE THE TRIAL.
PEOPLE VS BOKINGO
INADMISSIBLE (STATEMENTS)
The Court considers as INADMISSIBLE THE
STATEMENTS ACCUSED MADE, WITHOUT
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, DURING HIS
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION during which he
mentioned to plan to kill the victim.
PEOPLE VS SUNGA
The right to counsel applies in certain pre-trial proceedings
that can be deemed “critical stages” in the criminal
process. The preliminary investigation can be no different
from the in-custody interrogations by the police, for a
suspect who takes part in a preliminary investigation will
be subjected to no les than the State’s processes,
oftentimes intimidating and relentless, of pursuing those
who might be liable for criminal prosecution.
People vs Wong Chuen Ming
INADMISSIBLE (SIGNATURES)
The Supreme Court has likewise considered as
inadmissible the signatures affixed by the accused on
5|Page “SET A GOAL. ENDURE THE PAIN. NEVER GIVE UP. BELIEVE.”
boxes and plastic bags seized from and eventually used
as evidence against him.
The Court has “Construed the accused’s act of affixing
their signatures thereon as a tacit admission of the crime
charged. And, since accused were not informed of their
Miranda Rights when they affixed their signatures, the
admission was declared inadmissible evidence for having
obtained in violation of their constitutional rights.
THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL
“competent and independent counsel, preferably of his
own choice” to be provided free if he cannot afford counsel
de parte.
-The Right to Counsel is UNLIMITED , however the
accused’s option to hire one of his own choice is LIMITED.
- Any objection with respect to a violation of these rights
MUST BE RAISED BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT.
- WAIVABLE as long as he does this in writing and in the
presence of counsel, who has presumably advised him.
PEOPLE VS SERZO
Where the accused repeatedly asked for postponement of
his trial on the ground that he was still looking for a lawyer
de parte.
The court should then appoint a counsel de oficio for
him.
1. POLICE LINE-UP
- Considered as a “critical” stage of the proceedings.
- After the start of the custodial investigation, any
identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police
line-up is INADMISSIBLE.
- This is particularly true in the case where the police officers
talked to victims before the confrontation was held. The
circumstances were such as to impart improper suggestions
on the minds of the victims that may lead to a mistaken
identification. Appellants were handcuffed and contusions on
their faces. (Gamboa vs Cruz)
PEOPLE VS LARA (VERY IMPORTANT)
The Court explained that a “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. During a police line-up, the
process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the
accusatory and it is usually the witness or the complainant
which is interrogated and who gives a statement in the
course of line-up.
Reviewer by: Lorebeth España Constitutional Law II | Judge Estela Alma Singco |S.Y. 2nd sem (2019)|EH 408
WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE FOR “OUT OF COURT
IDENTIFICATIONS”?
It is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone Is brought
face-to-face with the witness for identification. It is done thru
mugshots where the photographs are shown to the witness
to identify the suspects.
TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES TEST
 Used to resolve the admissibility of the “out of
court identifications”.
1. The witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time
of the crime.
2. The witness’ degree of attention at that time
3. The accuracy of any prior description given by the
witness
4. The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the
identification
5. The length of time between the crime and the
identification
6. The suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
“EFFECTIVE AND VIGILANT COUNSEL”
The lawyer must be present and be able to advise and assist
his client from the time the confessant answers the first
question asked by the investigating officer until the signing of
the extrajudicial confession.
PEOPLE VS COMPIL
The accused was upon his arrest in Quezon, where he
had fled, subjected by the police to informal inculpatory
interrogation hat continued during their trip back to Manila,
where his formal investigation was conducted ta the police
station. He was not even assisted by counsel, who arrived
the following day.
HELD: The Right to Counsel began when the
INTERROGATION STARTED IN QUEZON.
“The Operative Act” is when the police investigation
is NO LONGER A GENERAL INQUIRY INTO AN
UNSOLVED CRIME BUT HAS BEGUN TO FOCUS ON
A PARTICULAR SUSPECT WHO HAS BEEN TAKEN
INTO CUSTODY BY THE POLICE to carry out a process
of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting incriminatory
statements.
PEOPLE VS LUCERO
The counsel de oficio was present at the start of the
custodial investigation of the accused but left after awhile
to attend the wake of a friend. The next morning, two CIS
agents took Lucero to his signed confession to the
lawyer’s house, and the lawyer asked him if he had freely
6|Page “SET A GOAL. ENDURE THE PAIN. NEVER GIVE UP. BELIEVE.”
signed it. When the accused said yes, obviously under
pressure from his military escort, the lawyer also signed
the confession to authenticate its regularity.
HELD: The Court rejected the confession, holding that the
Constitution requires not just “any kind of counsel but
effective and vigilant counsel.”
Philcomsat Holdings Corporation vs Senate
The Right to Counsel may not be invoked by “resource
persons” in the public hearings conducted by the
Congress.
AMPONG VS CSC
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.
LUMIQUED VS EXEVEA
Administrative bodies are “under no duty to provide the
person with counsel because assistance of counsel is not
an absolute requirement.
PEREZ VS PEOPLE
There is no law, jurisprudence or rule which mandates that
the employee should be assisted by a counsel in an
administrative case. ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IS
NOT INDISPENSABLE IN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS.
PEOPLE VS CACHUELA
ISSUE: Whether or not an extrajudicial confession made
with the assistance of a lawyer provided by the same
agency, the National Bureau of Investigation, which was
conducting the investigation can be considered as
admissible evidence.
HELD: The Services of Atty. Melita Go, the lawyer who
acted in behalf of Nabilgas, were provided by the same
agency investigating her, the NBI itself. She was assigned
the task despite Nabilgas’ open declaration that he already
had a lawyer in the person of Atty. Donardo Paglinawan.
The said lawyer confirmed this at the time of her
allegation, and that Atty. Go did not disclose that she was
a lawyer that would represent her when she was called.
We note in this regard that the prosecution did not present
Atty. Go at the witness stand despite hints made during
the early stages of the trial that she would be represented.
RIGHT TO BAIL
SEC. 13 All persons, except those charged with
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua with
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction,
Reviewer by: Lorebeth España Constitutional Law II | Judge Estela Alma Singco |S.Y. 2nd sem (2019)|EH 408
be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to
bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail
shall not be required.
What is bail?
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.
Purpose: To secure their provisional release.
If one who has already been indicted is entitled to bail, there
is no reason why another who has not yet been charged -
and against whom a prima facie case has not yet been
established-should be denied a similar right.
RULE 114 OF THE RULES OF COURT
“Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may
apply for bail with any court in the province, city or
municipality where he is held.”
Garcia-Padilla vs Enrile
Reversed by Sec.13 by preserving the right to bail even
if the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus has been
suspended.
EXCEPTION: Applies to an 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 Perpertua,
or death, even if a lesser penalty may be imposed upon
conviction owing to mitigating circumstances that may be
disclosed later.
ENRILE VS SALAZAR (VERY IMPORTANT) P.692
The petitioners were charged with rebellion with murder and
multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed in connection
with the failed coup d’etat that took place in late 1989.
-Arrested and detained without bail, they went to the
Supreme Court and invoked People vs Hernandez.
People vs Hernandez: the crime of rebellion cannot be
complexed with murder. Simple rebellion is punished only
with Prision Mayor and a P20,000 fine, and therefore,
BAILABLE.
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
7|Page “SET A GOAL. ENDURE THE PAIN. NEVER GIVE UP. BELIEVE.”
SEC. 14 (1) No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law.
-Restricted to Criminal Cases only and purely to their
procedural requirements.
- Requires that the accused be tried by an IMPARTIAL AND
COMPETENT COURT in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by law and with proper observance of all the rights
accorded him under the Constitution and the applicable
statutes.
Denial of Right to Preliminary investigation
- Not among the rights in the Bill of Rights
- Purely Statutory.
- Substantive right
- As required by law: Denial of due process
THE OMBUDSMAN
- Need not conduct a preliminary investigation upon a
receipt of a complaint if it is utterly devoid of merit by
his investigating officers/
- Upheld the power to dismiss a complaint outright
without a preliminary investigation
- Full discretion whether a criminal case should be
filed or preliminary investigation is warranted.
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
-Like a court proceeding
-Judicial proceeding wherein the prosecutors or investigating
officer, by the nature of his actions, acts as a quasi-judicial
officer.
BORLONGAN VS PENA
HELD: The conduct of preliminary investigation is not
mandatory. Upon the filing of the complaint and affidavit
with the respect to cases cognizable by the MTCC, the
prosecutor shall take the appropriate action based on the
affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by
the complainant. The prosecutor may either dismiss the
complaint if he does not see sufficient reason to proceed
with the case, or file the information if he finds the probable
cause. THE PROSECUTOR IS NOT MANDATED TO
REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF COUNTER-
AFFIDAVITS. Petitioners cannot validly claim the right
to preliminary investigation.
IF ACCUSED PLEADS TO THE CHARGE
- He Is deemed to have waived the right to preliminary
investigation and the right to question any irregularity
that surrounds it.
SALONGA VS PAÑO (landmark case)
The petitioner moved for the dismissal of the subversion
charges against him on the ground of the lack of prima
Reviewer by: Lorebeth España Constitutional Law II | Judge Estela Alma Singco |S.Y. 2nd sem (2019)|EH 408
facie case. The motion was denied and he went to the SC,
where he was upheld. The court found the supposed
evidence against him extremely tenuous; the testimony of
the prosecution witnesses was contradictory and
incredible , if not at times exculpatory; a photograph in
which he and another accused appeared was rejected
as evidence of the subversion, as so too was the claim
that is house had been used as a “contact point of the
conspirators”; and certain remarks made by the
petitioner which were critical of the Marcos administration
were considered protected by the freedom of expression.
GALMAN VS SANDIGANBAYAN
The SC acting on a second motion for reconsideration of
the decision of respondent court ACQUITTING ALL THE
ACCUSED IN THE SLAYING OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO
and ROLANDO GALMAN, created a fact-finding
commission which, after holding extensive hearings,
concluded that the trial had been rigged and the acquittal
pre-ordained by the no less than President Marcos
himself. The COURT, ADOPTING THESE FINDINGS,
ANNULLED THE PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERED A
NEW TRIAL OF THE CASE, DECLARING THAT THE
INTERFERENCE AND PRESSURE OF THE
PRESIDENT WAS VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS AND
PREVENTED A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL.
BREITHANPAT VS ABRAHAM
The doctor extracted a small amount of blood from a
person while he was unconscious to determine whether
he was intoxicated at the time of a vehicular accident in
which he was involved, THE SUBSEQUENT USE OF
THE RESULTS OF THE BLOOD TEST AS EVIDENCE
AGAINST HIM DID NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS.
MARTELINO VS ALEJANDRINO
“The spate of publicity in this case before us did not focus
on the guilt of the petitioners but rather on the
responsibility of the government for what was claimed to
be a “massacre” of Muslim trainees. Absent here is a
showing of FAILURE OF THE COURT MARTIAL TO
PROTECT THE ACCUSED FROM MASSIVE
PUBLICITY ENCOURAGED BY THOSE CONNECTED
WITH THE CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL EITHER BY A
FAILURE TO CONTROL THE RELEASE OF
INFORMATION OR TO REMOVE THE TRIAL TO
ANOTHER VENUE OR TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE
DELUGE OF PREJUDICIAL PUBLICITY SHALL HAVE
SUBSIDED.
PESIGAN VS ANGELES
The carabaos plaintiff were taking from Camarines Sure
to Batangas were confiscated in Camarines Norte
pursuant to EO No. 626-a prohibiting transporting of
carabaos from one province to another.
PEOPLE VS VERIDIANO
8|Page “SET A GOAL. ENDURE THE PAIN. NEVER GIVE UP. BELIEVE.”
Issues of bouncing check in May 1979 allegedly in
violation of BP 22 as published in the Official gazette dated
April 9, 1979. The Solicitor General argued that the law
became effective 15 days from the said date as, according
to Sec. 11 of the Revised Administrative code, the Gazette
is conclusively presumed to be published on the day
indicated, therein as the date of the issue. However the
accused obtained a certification from the Govt. Printing
office that the said issue was “officially released for
circulation on June 14, 1979”.
HELD: The law BECOMES EFFECTIVE 15 DAYS FROM
THE DATE OF RELEASE *June 14, 1979 which it
considered the date of publication. CASE DISMISSED.
SELF-INCRIMINATION
SEC.17 No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself
- Roots: Common law
- Based on: Humanitarian and practical
Considerations
- Humanitarian: intended to prevent the state with all
its coercive powers from extracting from the suspect
testimony that may convict him
- Practical: A person subject to such compulsion is
likely to perjure himself for his own protection.
- Available not only in criminal proceedings but also in
in all other government proceedings, including civil
actions and administrative or legislative
investigations.
- 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.
SCOPE: As long as the questions will tend to
incriminate, the witness is entitled to the privilege.
KERNEL OF RIGHT: Against TESTIMONIAL
COMPULSIONS ONLY.
APPLICATION
- A person may be compelled to submit to a
physical examination of his body to determine
his involvement in an offense of which he is
accused.
- The prohibition applies to the compulsion for the
production of documents, papers and chattels that
may be used as an evidence against the witness.
Reviewer by: Lorebeth España Constitutional Law II | Judge Estela Alma Singco |S.Y. 2nd sem (2019)|EH 408
- The Privilege also protects the accused against
any attempt to compel him to furnish a specimen
of his handwriting
EXCEPTION: Except where the state has a right to inspect
the same, such as the books of accounts or corporations,
under the police power.
WHEN AVAILABLE
In the case of the accused himself, it is settled that HE CAN
REFUSE AT THE OUSET AND ALTOGETHER TO TAKE
THE STAND AS A WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION,
on the reasonable assumption that the purpose of the
interrogation will be to incriminate him.
NOT APPLICABLE
- Refusing to answer questions provided that it is
relevant and otherwise allowed even if the answer may
tend to embarrass him or subject to him to civil liability.
- 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.
- He may also not refuse to answer where he has been
previously granted immunity under a validly enacted
statute.
- Requiring persons charged before the prosecutor’s
office with a criminal offense not less than 6 years and 1
day shall undergo a mandatory drug testing.
US VS TAN TENG
Where a person charged with rape was examined for
gonorrhea, which might have been transmitted to the
victim.
HELD: Examination is valid, saying it was no different
from examining his fingerprints or other parts or features
of his body for identification purposes.
VILLAFLOR VS SUMMERS
Examination of a woman accused of adultery to ascertain
if she was pregnant.
HELD: The prohibition of compelling a man in a
criminal court to be a witness against himself 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.
BELTRAN VS SAMSON
The privilege also protects the accused against any
attempt to compel him to furnish a specimen of his
handwriting in connection with his prosecution for
falsification.
HELD: Writing is something than moving the body, or the
hand, or the fingers; writing is not purely a mechanical act,
9|Page “SET A GOAL. ENDURE THE PAIN. NEVER GIVE UP. BELIEVE.”
because it requires the application of intelligence and
attention. In the case at bar, writing means that the
petitioner herein is to furnish a means to determine
whether or not he is a falsifier.
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY VS DANGEROUS DRUGS
BOARD
Requiring persons charged before the prosecutor’s
office with a criminal offense not less than 6 years and
1 day shall undergo a mandatory drug testing IS
VIOLATIVE OF ONE’S RIGHT.
Held: SEC.36 (c) and (d) of RA 9165, the Court finds no
valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons
accused of crimes. To impose mandatory drug testing on
the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test
as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated
objectives of RA 9165. Drug testing in this case would
violate a persons’ right to privacy guaranteed under Sec.
2, Art III of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused
persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves.
CHAVEZ VS COURT OF APPEALS
The prosecutor called one of the accused, the petitioner,
as his first witness. The petitioner demurred, invoking his
right against self-incrimination, but was compelled to
testify under pressure from the court. Convicted on the
strength of testimony elicited from him as the “Sar witness
for prosecution”, in the words of the judge, he filed a
petition for habeas corpus.
SC: Granted the writ declaring “Petitioner as accused
occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary
witness, Whereas an ordinary witness may be compelled
to take the witness stand and claim the privilege as each
question requiring an incriminating answer is shot at him,
AN ACCUSED MAY ALTOGETHER REFUSE TO TAKE
THE WITNESS STAND AND REFUSE TO ANSWER
ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS. For in reality, the purpose
of calling an accused as a witness for the People would be
to incriminate him. The rule positively intends to avoid and
prohibit the certainty and inhuman procedure of
compelling a person to furnish the missing evidence
necessary for his conviction.
WAIVER
Reviewer by: Lorebeth España
The right against self-incrimination MAY BE WAIVED, either
DIRECTLY or BY A FAILURE TO INVOKE IT.
Provided the waiver is CERTAIN and UNEQUIVOCAL and
INTELLIGENTLY, UNDERSTANDINGLY and WILLINGLY
MADE.
ILLUSTRATION
One who under a subpoena duces tecum voluntarily
surrenders an incriminating paper which is put in evidence
against him.
 Deemed to have waived the privilege, as so too is an
accused who takes the witness stand and offers
testimony on his behalf.
 The witness may be cross-examined and asked
incriminating questions on any matter he testified to
on direct examination.
When a person fails to invoke this right “at the appropriate
time”, or when he is asked to provide samples of his
signature.
 Deemed to have waived the same.
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
Sec. 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by
reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist
except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted.
Involuntary servitude is the “condition of one who ia
compelled b
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
SCOPE: All cases of illegal confinement and detention which any person
is deprived of his liberty; or rightful custody of any person is withheld from
the person entitled (102.1)
Actual violation before writ issues. Note Villavicencio v. Lukban on
applicability of the writ in case of constructive restraint
Limitations: May be suspended in cases of invasion or rebellion when public
safety requires it (Consti. Art. III Sec. 18)
WHO MAY FILE?
By a petition signed and verified
by the party for whose relief it is intended,
or by some person on his behalf (102.3)
APPLICABLE IN:
1. Physical Restraint of one’s liberty
10 | P a g e “SET A GOAL. ENDURE THE PAIN. NEVER GIVE UP. BELIEVE.”
Constitutional Law II | Judge Estela Alma Singco |S.Y. 2nd sem (2019)|EH 408
- Illegal Detention, Arbitrary detention
2. Rightful Custody over a minor
GR: Parents should have the custody over their Minor
Children
Exception: The State has the right to intervene where the
parents, rather than care for such children, treat them cruelly
and abusively, impairing their growth
EXAMPLES:
a. A person imprisoned during Japanese times due to
political complexion and demand his release based on
Habeas Corpus after the restoration of the legal government
=VALID (Sentence is automatically extinguished)
b. Unlawful Denial of Bail (VALID)
c. Error alleged denies Right to Speedy Trial
(VALID)
NOT APPLICABLE:
a. Where the decision is tainted only with errors of law
b. Errors of Jurisdiction
Remedy: Ordinary Appeal
PROCEDURE
It is not the writ itself but only the privilege may be suspended
Only where the return of the respondent shows that the
person In custody is being HELD FOR A CRIME COVERED
BY THE PROCLAMATION SUSPENDING THE PRIVILEGE
OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND IN A PLACE WHERE
IT IS EFFECTIVE WILL THE COURT DISMISS THE
PETITION.
EXCEPTION: Suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas
corpus in cases such as Invasion or rebellion, when the
public safety requires it
GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION
Suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus in cases
such as:
1. Invasion or rebellion
2. when the public safety requires it
Application: Suspension of Writ of Habeas corpus are only
allowed to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses
inherent or directly connected with invasion.
President – can issue the privilege of writ of Habeas corpus
Limitation: Congress or the Supreme Court in proper cases
may revoked it
Reviewer by: Lorebeth España Constitutional Law II | Judge Estela Alma Singco |S.Y. 2nd sem (2019)|EH 408
Art. VII Section 18
President – Commander-in-Chief of all AFP
Suspension of Privilege of Writ of habeas corpus
- NOT EXCEEDING 60 days
Within 48 hours of the proclamation for suspension of WHC
or martial law, the president shall make a report to Congress.
Congress (If not in session hall): within 24 hours following
such proclamation, can convene the proclamation
The Congress may, by a majority vote of all its members
voting jointly, revoke his action. The Revocation may not be
set aside by the President.
By the Same manner, the Congress may, upon the initiative
of the President, extend his suspension or proclamation for
a period to be determined by the Congress if the invasion or
rebellion shall continue and the public safety requires the
extension.
SUPREME COURT
- May review in an appropriate proceeding filed by any
citizen (Within 30 days from filing)
- Challenged may be filed by any citizen.
- commitment with an offense punishable by death, he
MARTIAL LAW DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN
SUSPENSION OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
-Civil courts and legislative bodies shall remain open
-Military courts (not under the law)
-Person arrested for such offenses shall be discharged
therewith WITHIN 3 DAYS. Otherwise, he shall be released.
ILAGAN VS ENRILE
The petition has been rendered MOOT AND ACADEMIC by
virtue of the filing of an information against them for rebellion,
a capital offense, in RTC Davao and the issuance of WOA
against them. The function of the Special proceeding of the
Writ of HBC is to INQUIRE THE LEGALITY OF ONE’S
DETENTION. Now that the detained attorneys'
incarceration is by virtue of a judicial order in relation to
criminal cases subsequently filed against them before the
Regional Trial Couravao City, the remedy of habeas
corpus no longer lies. The Writ had served its purpose.4
SEC. 4. When writ not allowed or discharge authorized.-If
it appears the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty
is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a
court or judge or by virtue of a judgment, or order of a
court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction
11 | P a g e “SET A GOAL. ENDURE THE PAIN. NEVER GIVE UP. BELIEVE.”
to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the
order, the writ shall not be allowed; or if the jurisdiction
appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be
discharged by reason of any informality or defect in the
process, judgment or order. Nor shall anything in this rule
be held to authorize to discharge of a person charged with
or convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or of a person
suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment. (Rule 102)
If the detained attorneys question their detention
because of improper arrest, or that no preliminary
investigation has been conducted, the remedy is not
a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus but a Motion
before the trial court to quash the Warrant of Arrest,
and /or the Information on grounds provided by the
Rules or to ask for an investigation / reinvestigation
of the case. 5 Habeas corpus would not lie after the
Warrant of commitment was issued by the Court on the
basis of the Information filed against the accused. 6 So is
it explicitly provided for by Section. 14, Rule of 102 of the
Rules of Court, reading:
SEC. 14. When person lawfully imprisoned
recommitted and when let to bail.
- If it appears that the prisoner was lawfully committed,
and is plainly and specifically charged in the warrant of
shall not be released, discharged, or bailed.
If he is lawfully imprisoned or restrained on a charge of
having committed an offense not so punishable, he may
be recommitted to imprisonment or admitted to bail in
the discretion of the court or judge. . . .
But petitioners submit that because of the absence of a
preliminary investigation, the Information for Rebellion
filed against the detained attorneys is void and the Court
below could not have acquired jurisdiction over them, and
consequently, they are entitled to release.
On the other hand, respondents contend that a
preliminary investigation was unnecessary since the
detained attorneys were lawfully arrested without a
warrant.
Section 7, Rule 112, of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure above referred to provides:
SEC. 7. When accused lawfully arrested without
warrant.- When a person is lawfully arrested without a
warrant for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial
Court the complaint or information may be filed by the
offended party, peace officer or fiscal without preliminary
Reviewer by: Lorebeth España Constitutional Law II | Judge Estela Alma Singco |S.Y. 2nd sem (2019)|EH 408
investigation having been first conducted on the basis of
the affidavit of the offended party or arrested officer
or person.
However, before the filing of such complaint or
information, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary
investigation by a proper officer in accordance with this
Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, with the
assistance of a lawyer and in case of non-availability of a
lawyer, a responsible person of his choice.
Notwithstanding such waiver, he may apply for bail as
provided in the corresponding rule and the
investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15)
days from its inception.
If the case has been filed in court without a
preliminary investigation having been first
conducted, the accused may within five (5) days from the
time he learns of the filing of the information, ask for a
preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce
evidence in his favor in the manner prescribed in this Rule.
WRIT OF AMPARO
Scope: Protection of Life, liberty and security of the
desaparecido and can order the respondent to exert more
and actual effort in locating the missing person and showing
that he s in good condition and has not been maltreated by
the authorities.
- MERE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED
- SPECIAL PROCEEDING
- Remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status,
a right, or a particular fact,
- NOT CIVIL OR CRIMINAL IN ACTION
APPLICATION:
Remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty,
and security is violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or
of a private individual or entity.
1. EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY TO ADDRESS Extralegal
killings
2. Enforced disappearances
ELEMENTS (Sec .3 RA9851)
1.arrest, abduction, detention or any other forms of
deprivation of liberty by agents of the state.
12 | P a g e “SET A GOAL. ENDURE THE PAIN. NEVER GIVE UP. BELIEVE.”
2.Carried out by, or with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of, the State or a political organization
3.That it be followed by the State or political organization’s
REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR GIVE INFORMATION
ON THE FATE OR WHEREABOUTS OF THE PERSON
SUBJECT OF THE AMPARO PETITION.
4. That the intention of such refusal is to REMOVE SUBJECT
PERSON FROM THE PROTECTION OF LAW FOR A
PROLONGED PERIOD OF TIME.
Is this applicable to a Private individual?
YES, but still, government involvement in the disappearance
remains an indispensable element.
NOT APPLICABLE IN
1. Security guards who does not work for the government
2. Mere inclusion of a person’s name in and “order battle list”.
allegation that a person is missing is not enough.
-QUANTUM OF PROOF is REQUIRED that they were
carried out by, “or with the authorization, support, r
acquiescence of, [the government]. Or political organization,
followed by a refusal to acknowledge or give information on
the fate or whereabouts of said missing persons.
WHO MAY FILE?
Petition filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person or entity in
the following order:
a. Any member of the immediate family
b. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved within
the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity
c. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution
Filing by the aggrieved or representative suspends the right of all others
(RWA Sec. 2)
SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE VS MANALO
FACTS:
The brothers Raymond and Reynald Manalo,
farmers from Bulacan were abducted, detained in
various locations, tortured by Citizen Armed Forces
Geographical Unit (CAFGU) on the suspicion that they
were members and supporters of the New People’s
Army (NPA). After eighteen (18) months of
restrained liberty, torture, and other dehumanizing
acts, were able to escape. Ten days after their
escape, they filed a Petition for Prohibition,
Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order before
the Supreme Court to prevent military officers and
agents from depriving them of their right to liberty
and other basic rights. Existing petition was treated
as Amparo petition. The Supreme Court granted the
Writ of Amparo and ordered the Court of Appeals to
Reviewer by: Lorebeth España Constitutional Law II | Judge Estela Alma Singco |S.Y. 2nd sem (2019)|EH 408

conduct the summary hearing and decide the

petition.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not statements from the victims is
sufficient for amparo petitions.
2. Whether or not actual deprivation of liberty is
necessary to invoke the right to security of a person

RULING:
1. Yes. Much of the information and evidence of the
ordeal will come from the victims themselves, and
the veracity of their account will depend on their
credibility and candidness in their written and oral
statements. Their statements can be corroborated by
other evidence such as physical evidence left by the
torture they suffered or landmarks they can identify
in the places where they were detained.
2. Yes. Covered by the privilege of the writ,
respondents must meet the threshold requirement
that their right to life, liberty and security is violated
or threatened with an unlawful act or omission. The
right to security of person is “freedom from fear.” In
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
states that “a world in which human beings shall
enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from
fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest
aspiration of the common people.” Moreover, the
right to security of person is a guarantee of
protection of one’s rights by the government. As the
government is the chief guarantor of order and
security, the Constitutional guarantee of the rights to
life, liberty and security of person is rendered
ineffective if government does not afford protection
to these rights especially when they are under threat.

13 | P a g e “SET A GOAL. ENDURE THE PAIN. NEVER GIVE UP. BELIEVE.”