CUSTUDIAL INVESTIGATION(2_4min.

) [2&3]

Different Officials in the government who are allowed custodial investigation and if you are one of the officials
enumerated then you have the obligation to enumerate the 11 rights of the suspect under custodial investigation.

*As enumerated the case of People vs. Mahinay, feb. 1, 2019.

TAKE NOTE: failure to inform the suspect his 11 rights. Any admissible confession whether inculpatory or exculpatory
shall not be admissible in evidence.

1. If the one conducting the custodial investigation is a private person that is still admissible in evidence even if there
was no recital of those 11 rights (people vs. judge Aison Baguio city where the persons who conducted the custodial
investigation were officials, private individuals, officials of the phillippine air lines.

Or

**In the case if people vs. meceda/makeda

The one who conducted the custodial investigation without informing the accused his rights was read by palbusa the
vice pres of baguio colleges foundation at that time becuase he was the friend of the world bank official who was
murdered. Therefore, he has no obligation to relay to them their rights under the mahinay doctrine.

People vs. ordonio

If the one who conducted the questioning is the radio announcer of dcll san fernando la union without informing him his
rights that is admissible in evidence.

**People vs. andan

It was a mayot on bulacan who made the questioning threateb the accused without the assistance of counsel and
without imforming him of his rights.

The sc said that is admissible in evidence especially so that the custodial investigation made by the mayor was recorded
by a camera man of GMA with Soho.

TAKE NOTE: if you are not one of the officers uathorized to conduct custodial investigation YOU HAVE NO OBLIGATION
TO INFORM the suspect of their 11 rights and even though you do not inform them of your rights whatever admission
made by them that will be admissible in evidence.

**People vs. indino

The accused, the suspect was interviewed in TV patrol he made confession. That confession is admissible in evidence

Custodial investigation (3) section 12

TAKE NOTE: There are instances when the policemen are not required to inform a person his rights during custodial
investigation and the testimonies will be admissible in evidence.

**People vs. Taylaran

Taylaran killed his mother in law because he suspected he to be a barang (she is a witch). This one happened in bohol.
He went to the police station holding the bloody bolo that he used in killing his mother in law.

He met a police, im here to surrender. I killed my mother in law because he is a barang. The policeman did not inform
him his rights because the person IS NOT YET A SUSPECT. You are required to inform the suspect of his right if he is really
a suspect.

But in this case, no one suspects Taylara who committed the crime and upon reaching the police station he said I killed
my mother in law because she is a barang, that is why I am here. Naturally, there was already an admission, admission
without informing of his rights because you will inform the person his rights if you know already or you treat him already
as a suspect.In this case he was not threaten as suspect. Therefore, what ever confession or admission made by him is
admissible in evidence.

**People vs. Tampos

Tampos is serving a life sentence in munting lupa new bilibid prison for murder. While he is already serving his sentence
he committed murder again. He belongs to a gang, among the members of the inmate. A good friend of him, member of
akso gang was killed by the member of the rival batang mindanao gang.
Tampos and avilla his companions chance a gang, a members of the batang mindao gang inside the cr of the new bilibid
prison. The 2, avilla and tampos stabbed 8 and 9 times resulting of his death.

At the early part that he was being stopped the victim was able to shout for help. The two went out to the cr and facing
the jail guard pointing armalites to them and they shouted bumabawi lang kami. Pinatay nila yung kaibigan namin last
week, they admitted having killed the man inside the cr. IS THERE ADMISSION? SUKO NA KAMI, pinatay namin kc
bumabawi lang kami.

IS THAT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE? Despite the fact that there was no recital of their 11 rights under mahinay
doctrine.

=YES, because these are voluntary confession who are not considered suspects. Here, there is no need [time] relay to
their 11 rights under mahinay doctrine. Therefore, it is admissible in evidence.

**RIGHT OF A SUSPECT TO COUNSEL

If this right have not complied with base on section 12 par 3. this a right found in the 2st par in sec 12. then any
confession obtained SAHLL BE INADMISSIBLE in evidence even if voluntarily given but the right to counsel was not
satisfied that still be considered involuntary conffession.

OR, if the confession was obtained through forced and intimidation that would be considered as involuntary confession
therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence. Even if the confession was done voluntarily you were not threatened and so on
but you were not informed of your under par 1 of section 12 the result, the description still involuntary confession.

**PEOPLE VS. PATUNGAN

2 days under continuous interrogation after that he confessed and they prepared his extra-judicial confession. He was
brought to the office of the integrated bar of the philippines there is now lawyer there. And the lawyer [the ibp officer]
there asked him is this your signature?are your statement here given voluntarily?=and he said YES and because of that
the IBP lawyer also affixed his signature in the extra-judicial confession.

Is the extra-judicial confession admissible in evidence?

= NO, because when the confession was taken there was no lawyer assisting him.

That is the same doctrine in the PEOPLE VS, ORDONIO. The accuse confessed in the santo la union police station. He is
responsible for killing and raping a 15 yr old girl. The extra-judicial confession was prepared in the police station of santo
la union and then he was brought to the PAO office in balawan la union the adjacent town of santo la union. The PAO
lawyer asked him, did you signed this?did you give this voluntarily? And he said yes. After ordonio said yes even atty.
Oscar corpuz signed it. They brought again ordonio to judge fabian bautista of balawan la union mtc judge and before
subscribing or notarizing his extra-judicial confession also, judge bautista asked him, did you signed this voluntarily ?did
you give this voluntarily?And he said yes.

The SC said, that is inadmissible in evidence because when the extra-judicial confession was prepared, when he made
admission there was no lawyer assisting him and the right to counsel must be complied with the 1 st question was asked
of the suspect.

=in ordonio, it is HELD that he can still be convicted because there are still evidence enough to convict him, to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt because he confessed to a radio announcer of dzll san fernando la union which is
admissible in evidence regardless of of the inadmissibility of the of the extra-judicial confession he was still CONVICTED.

**PEOPLE VS. JUANERIO, 267 SCRA 608 [very important case_right to counsel]
Juanerioi was arrested by the NBI agents in Manila, He was brought to investigation inside the investigation room of NBI
tub. While inside before asking questions to him, he was asked, do you have a lawyer to assist you,none. The police
investigator, the NBI investigator said we will give a lawyer, atty carlos saonar, he is an atty inside the NBI office in tub
aveneo because he just filed his application to be admitted as a member of the NBI. Atty. Saonar assisted him during
the investigation and he confessed.

Is the confession or extra-judicial admission or confession admissible in evidence?

=the SC said NO, because atty. Saonar is not a competent and independent counsel. He was there applying to be a
member of the NBI which is the agency conducting the custodial investigation. He therefore not considered independent
counsel. Later on, 2 days after he was admitted as a member of NBI, atty. Saonar is a deputy director commissioner of
the national bureau of investigation. Therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence and he was acquitted.
**People vs. Agustin
Murder case in baguio city

=it involves the murder of the late doctor Bayquen a very popular physician in baguio city. Agustin was arrested and he
was brought before the police station together with city prosecutor Balahaja assisting in the custodial investigation
because this is a a very high profile case, a very popular doctor physician in baguio city was murdered and they GAVE
HIM A LAWYER atty. Reynado Cajucom. Atty. Cajucom assisted him and he executed an extra-judicial confession.

Is the extra-judicial confession admissible?= the SC said NO because Agustin is illiterate he could understand only
ilocano, he does not understand tagalog. Atty. Cajucom he can only speak english and tagalog he does not understand
ilocano. The SC said, how can this lawyer who does not speak ilocano relay to agustin his rights or how could he assist
him when they do not understand each other

=the extra-judicial confession was declared inadmissible by the SC and Agustin was even acquitted of murder. [takenote
here how important the right to counsel]

**People vs. Espiritu

=he was arrested and detained at the pacdal police station before conducting custodial investigation he was asked? Do
you have a lawyer?he is inside the police station he cannot engage a lawyer to assist him. His relatives engaged the
services of Atty. Daniel Mangallay to represent him. Atty. Daniel went to the police station he assisted Espiritu who
confessed to the murder. But later on, during the trial in the SC Atty. Daniel is not a competent and independent counsel
he is not the lawyer of my own choice therefore, my extra-judicial confession should be inadmissible and I should be
acquitted.

=the SC said, Atty. Daniel really was not chosen by Espiritu because he was inside the police station he cannot go to the
different law offices in baguio or LTB to engage the services of the Lawyer that he wants. In this case, his relatives, his
parents of course they want to have him the best lawyer to assist him, they were the one who engage the services of
Atty. Daniel [pero balisong ang sinabi niya] wh is not considered competent because he was a very bright law student, he
was the chancellor of baristas club of UC, and then he became IBP president for baguio-benguet. And now he is the
regional trial court judge rtc branch in buguias benguet.

=the SC said, atty. Daniel was a competent and independent counsel and therefore, your confession is evidence. The fact
that your parents or relatives were the ones to engage his services that is still CONSIDERED COUNSEL OF YOUR OWN
CHOICE because detained at that time and you cannot personally go out and look for a lawyer to present you. The
parents are always looking for the best lawyer to represent you.

**P. vs. Matos-Viduaya, September 11, 1990

Mviduya allegedly killed he husband Atty. Viduya, she is inside the investigation room for the custodial investigation. She
was asked, do you have a lawyer in mind mrs. Viduya=no I don’t need any lawyer nandito naman si fiscal kaibiga ko siya,
compare ko siya, I do not need a lawyer. Custodial investigation proceeded, she confessed. Is the confession admissible
in evidence?[because there was a lawyer friend and also a compare] even if the lawyer the fisca himself?

=the SC said, not admissible in evidence because the fiscal could not be a lawyer for her even though the fiscal is
inside police station because the fiscal or the prosecutor is a lawyer for the complainant or the one to prosecute the
accused in behalf of the people of the philippines. During the conduct of the custodial investigation mrs. Mviduya was
not represented by counsel and therefore, her confession was considered involuntary and declared inadmissible in
evidence by the SC resulting in he acquittal. He was acquitted for killing lawyer husband.

**People vs. Marcos Jiminez

=Marcos Jiminez was a suspect in the killing of his father. There is a neighbor who is executed an affidavit saying I saw
Marcos Jiminez washing his t-shirt full of blood, so he was invited by the police and when he was at the police station he
was asked, do you have a lawyer to assist in you in the custodial investigation and then he said yes. Where is your lawyer
and pointed to a retired judge seated in another table inside the police station because the retired judge was assisting
another suspect in a different case.
=the investigator already started asking questions to Marcos Jiminez. About the 5 th Q the retired judge went to the table
where Marcos Jiminez was being interrogated and he was there now to assist him up to the end of the investigation
where he confessed [where he executed an extra-judicial confession].

Is the extra-judicial confession valid?= the SC said NO because there was no compliance of the right to counsel which
must be complied with when the first question will asked of the suspect. In this case that was not complied with
therefore it cannot be accept the confession of Marcos Jiminez.

**People vs. Obrero

Oberero was arrested by by elements of the western police district in manila. He was asked, before conducting the
custodial investigation, he was asked, do you have a lawyer?-NONE. The investigator said, I am giving you a very good
lawyer, Atty. Ben vinido delos angeles. Atty. Delos Angeles assisted him during the custodial investigation where he
ultimately confessed having committed the crime subject of custodial investigation.

Is the extra-judicial confession admissible in evidence?=that can be answered by the question who is Atty. Ben Vinido
Delos Angeles given to him as his lawyer during the custodial investigation that resulted in his extra judicial confession. It
turned out that Atty. Ben Vinido Delos Angeles is also same major/captain Ben Vinido Delos Angeles who is the station
commander of the western police district. Meaning, he is the chief of western police district conducting the custodial
investigation and being the station commander if the crime will solved, he will be the one to be commended by the
philippines national police.

Is Atty. Delos Angeles the chief of police of western district which is investigating the crime he allegedly committed
competent and independent counsel for him. =the SC said, NO because he is the chief of police of the western district.
Therefore, he is not independent or he was not protecting the rights of Obrero. He is after the solution of the crime so
that he will be given commendation. Therefore, as if there was no lawyer assisting him, the extra-judicial confession is
inadmissible in evidence

**People vs. Domingo Reyes

=involves the kidnapping and murder of 2 young children of Chinese millionaires in San Francisco Del Monte Bulacan.
These 2 kids kidnapped, there is a call, give us a 5 million pesos in order to release your sons, do not call the police
otherwise you will not see your children again. The father was willing to pay 5 million. You bring the 5million at San
Francisco Del Monte Quezon City, the kidnapping happened in San Francisco Del Monte Bulacan but the pay off or
exchange area shall be at the San Francisco Sel Monte Qc. It appears that the wife contacted the police against the
advice of the kidnappers and her husband. The husband still proceeded to San F Del Monte Qc in the next morning
holding with him the 5 million to pay as ransom. The children there agreed upon are there, unfortunately his 2 children
are already dead. They were struggled by the kidnappers.

=is there NO any witness to the killing however after several days one of the kidnappers surrendered to PAOCTF. One by
one the he enumerating the names of his companions they are numbering about 8 to 10. Since the names of the
companions were mentioned they were arrested and they are now in front of the investigator of PAOCTF. The
investigator asked them, do you have lawyers to assist you, none.

The investigator said, I am giving you not only one but 2 lawyers, Atty. Uminga and Rous, and Assisted them for several
hours during the investigation. Later on, they confessed that they killed the 2 children.

=are there confessions admissible in evidence?

Who are the lawyers given to them and to assist them in there extra-judicial confession and custodial investigation. It
turned out that Atty. Rouos and Uminga were lawyers of PAOCTF. Therefore, you cannot say that they are independent
counsel because they are the lawyers of the agency conducting custodial investigation and that should not be admissible
in evidence.

=the SC said, YES

TAKENOTE: NORMALLY that should have been inadmissible using the doctrine in Juanerio, Patungan, Marcos Jiminez,
Matos-Viduya, Obrero because the lawyers cannot be independent counsel.
In this case I want the decision admitting it not because of constitutional law but because I want it so that they will
answer their crime without that confession they will be acquitted and there will no justice for the death of the 2 young
children. There are no eye witnesses, only their confession is the only evidence to convict them.

=The SC gave a justification, as long as the confession is voluntary, there was no threat, intimidation, or any act to
force them to confess that is considered extra-judicial confession validly admissible in court. What is important is the
voluntariness of the confession. In fact you were not able to show that the lawyers were not protecting your rights, in
order to justify their act of seemingly reversing former doctrines laid down by him the SC said,

We admit the extra-judicial confession as long as it is VOLUNTARY and it is considered voluntary if the accused failed
to present any of the Following things:

1. They failed to submit evidence of compulsion [compelling evidence, that there was complusion]

Was there evidence submitted by the accused in this case-NO. Therefore, that is presumed to be voluntary.

2. The accused failed to complain to the officer or the judge who administer the oath.

TAKE NOTE: you execute an extra-judicial confession signed by you and your lawyer. Is that a complete extra-judicial
confession?=NO because the accused must appear still to a prosecutor or a judge to swear under oath that the extra-
judicial confessions are true and correct and voluntarily executed.

When the Accused appear before a prosecutor or a judge. The judge will ask him, did you signed this voluntarily?-yes,
did you execute this because you were tutored or you voluntarily gave the statement-voluntary.
The SC, if you really was maltreated and you were forced to execute that because of torture, threats intimidation or
violence then you should have complain to the judge or to the prosecutor so that he will be one to order the arrest of
the policemen for violating of your rights.

TAKE NOTE: 4rth par of sec. 12 that the policemen who violates your rights under section 12 are liable criminally,
civilly and administratively. But if when you appeared before a judge, and he asked you, did you torture you and you
failed to complain instead you said I voluntarily gave and signed that extra-judicial confession that means it was really
VOLUNTARILLY GIVEN.

3. You failed to file any criminal, civil, or administrative cases against the policemen, what was that imply?= it means
that your statement was voluntarily given, signatures was not forced. If you were tortured then you have filed criminal,
civil, 0r administrative cases which are your rights under the 4 th par sec 12 article 3 of the constitution but by failing to
do so it means that YOUS STATEMENT WAS VOLUNTARILY GIVEN.

4. There was no mark of violence on your person. Meaning, you were not tortured if you are really tortured you
should have complain

5. You should have been examined by a reputable physician to show that there are injuries in your persons. When you
failed to do that it means the statement was voluntarily given. Therefore, admissible in evidence. =the SC has
becoming more liberal in their interpretation on the right to counsel [before they were very strict]. if it was not
complied with, no counsel from the 1 st question or the counsel or the lawyer is not independent, inadmissible in
evidence. But the SC made a palusot kanu, since you failed to do any of the 5 meaning you voluntarily give your
statement therefore IT IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.

=THE SC added that you already said in People vs. Sia that the presence of your lawyer who is competent and
independent that lawyer has no right to stop you from confessing to the commission of the crime if it is true that you
committed the crime you are being investigated [very bad kanu haha]. The lawyer assisting under custodial
investigation should not stop his client from confessing.

Take note: if your client will confess you will lose atty’s fees because you do not have anymore try protracted trial where
you will be earning hundreds of thousands in atty’s fees. The SC said that lawyer should not stop client from confessing if
that is truth. And he confessed without being tortured or threatened, or violence inflicted on his persons.

=another case where the SC is now being very lenient in so far as the right to counsel
**PEOPLE VS. TUNIACO[Requisites of a valid confession]
Several arrested for murder and they were brought to the police station in General Santos City. They were asked by the
investigator, do you have a lawyer in mind to assist you-NONE. The investigator pointed Atty. Visinga a PAO lawyer who
was inside the police station at that time securing some documents and then the police investigator Atty. Visinga
requested to assist the murder suspect. Atty. Visinga assisted them and they confessed, later on they said Atty. Visinga
was not a competent and independent counsel because he suggested by the police investigator they are implying that
Atty. Visinga is a friend of the police investigator.

Assuming that Atty. Visinga friend of the police investigator does that disqualify him, does not make the judicial
confession inadmissible the SC said NO that still admissible. Even assuming that Atty. Visinga was the one
recommended or suggested by the Police or Atty. Visinga is a friend of the investigator. Those facts do not make the
extra-judicial confession inadmissible. It becomes inadmissible only if you can prove that Atty. Visinga is beholden to
the police, in that case we can say that it is not independent counsel. Without evidence that he is beholden to the
police then any confession obtained with the assistance of the lawyer not beholden to the police shall be ADMISSIBLE
IN EVIDENCE.

**POLICE LINE UP

=US, police line up where the suspect is one among the 10 men among the police line up

**what is the purpose why still conduct police line up

1. Very import so that we are very sure that the witness could identify or recognized the suspect even if he is with
other 9 other men of similar height build in color [for example]

=INDENTIFICATION is the most important before you can convict an accused. Otherwise, if you are not sure of that
person inside the court room as the one you saw stabbing or shooting at the victim he can be acquitted. So that the
witness will not be confused by a brilliant lawyer the accused during the cross examination he should be made to aware
very sure that the accused is really the person he saw committing the crime.

**People vs. Usman Hassan

=in police line up the suspect what will be made to stand behind a one way mirror together with other people similar
build and height and color. At the other side of the one way mirror you have the police investigator and the witness saw
the people standing at the other side of the one way mirror together with the accused they could not see the police
investigator will ask the witness. Mr. Witness, you look at the 10 men standing there who are the person that you saw
stab the witness?that man number 1 at the right….. with that you are assured that the witness could identify the killer
for example so that during the trial he will have convincing identification.

During police line shall there be a lawyer assisting the suspect. The SC said NO because he is not under custodial
investigator he will not be asked a single question where his answered could incriminate him. Therefore, since there is
no chance that he will be incriminating himself there is no need for a lawyer to assist him. You just stand behind the one
way mirror, you laugh, you smile, you are not answering any question and therefore you could not be under risk of
incriminating your self. Therefore, since you are not under custodial investigation YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to have A
LAWYER TO ASSIST YOU.

** Gamboa vs. JudgeCruz[the same question was asked]

Shall there be a lawyer assisting him, the SC said that while he not yet under custodial investigation there SHOULD BE
A LAWYER NASSISTING HIM. The lawyer of the suspect stay beside the investigator and the witness because to avoid
the possibility of improper suggestion by the police investigator.

Example: x was arrested for rubbery[akyat bahay], the witness said, I saw the person climbing up of the house of mr. X
and I can identify that person if I will see him again. The police allegedly arrested mr. A he is now in the police line up
with 9 other men. The witness was being asked by the police investigator, who is the person you saw climbing up of the
house of mr. X who among the 10. The witness say, ay wala atah wala atah, they keep on saying look up them properly
and then he is there already for several hours. They will nor allow them to leave the police station until he will MAKE
AN INDENTIFICATION.
POLICE INVESTIGATION, look at number at the right, there are so many cases of rubbery, tignan mo. The witness
wanting to go home already or he was hungry, he say yan atah, sha atah. Your client now even with questionable
identification he will now be the one to charge of rubbery.

The SC said, in order to prevent improper suggestion by the investigators at that time there should be a lawyer of the
suspect so that he can see whether the investigator is making improper suggestion to the witness.