Custodial rights UPDATES: Pp v. Lugod, G.R. 136253, Feb 21, 2001 Crime is Rape with homicide.

Records reveal that accused-appellant was not informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel, and that if he cannot afford to have counsel of his choice, he would be provided with one. Moreover, there is no evidence to indicate that he intended to waive these rights. Besides, even if he did waive these rights, in order to be valid, the waiver must be made in writing and with the assistance of counsel. The accused-appellants act of confessing to SPO2 Gallardo that he raped and killed the victim wit hout the assistance of counsel cannot be used against him for having transgressed accused-appellants rights under the Bill of Rights. This is a basic tenet of our Constitution which cannot be disregarded or ignored no matter how brutal the crime committed may be. In the same vein, the accused-appellants act in pointing out the location of the body of the victim was also elicited in violation of the accused-appellants right to remain silent and is considered a fruit of poisonous tree.

Pp v. Uy, G.R. No. 157399, Nov 17, 2005 Crime is malversation of public funds through falsification of commercial documents. Uy is a public accountable officer, being the treasurer of national power corporation (NAPOCOR). Together with others, they wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify or cause to be falsified the NPCs application for managers checks with the PNB in the amount of 183,805,291.25 Upon arraignment, they pleaded not guilty. Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution refers to a custodial investigation where a suspect has already been taken into police custody and the investigating officers have begun to ask questions to elicit information and confessions or admissions from the suspect; Custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the investigation ceases to be general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular person as a suspect. More specifically Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner. And, the rule begins to operate at once as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and direction is then aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory question which tend to elicit incriminating statements. Pp v. Escordial, G.R. 138934, Jan 16, 2002 Crime committed is robbery with rape. Accused-appellant further testified that on the way to Bacolod, PO3 Tancinco began beating him and hitting him with the butt of a shotgun to force him to admit liability for the crime. But the accused-appellant refused so he was tortured. PO3 promised to help him if he would confess the crime, but the accused-appellant refused because he was not the one who committed the crime. PO3 Tancinco burnt accused-appellants tongue and lips with a lighted cigarette. While it cannot be denied that the accused-appellant was deprived of his right to be informed of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, he has not shown that, as a result of his custodial interrogation, the police obtained any statement from him-whether inculpatory-which was used in evidence against him. The records do not show that he had given one or that, in finding him guilty, the trial court relied on such statement. In fact, accused-appellant testified that at no point, even when subjected to physical torture, did he ever admit committing the crime with which he was charged. In other words, No counselled statement was obtain from accused-appellant which should have been excluded as evidence against him.

Note: the Constitution abhors an uncounselled confession or admission and whatever information is derived therefrom shall be regarded as inadmissible. Pp v. Piedad, G.R. No. 131923, Dec 5, 2002 Pp v. Samus, G.R. 135957-58, Sep 17, 2002 Custodial Investigations; Extrajudicial Confessions; While uncounselled admission per se may be inadmissible, under the present circumstances, the Court cannot rule it out because of the accuseds failure to make it timely. In the absence of testimony from any of the media persons who allegedly interviewed appellant, the uncertainties and vagueness about how they questioned and led him to his confession lead us to believe that they themselves investigated appellant and elicited from him uncounselled admissions. This fact is clearly shown by the affidavits they executed on Sep. 11, 1997, as well as by their testimonies on cross-examination. Nonetheless, even if the uncounselled admission per se may be inadmissible, under the present circumstances, we cannot rule it out because of appellants failure to make timely objections. Indeed, the admission is inadmissible in evidence under Art. 3, Sec. 12(1) and (3) of the Constitution, because it was given under custodial investigation and was made without the assistance of counsel. However, the defense failed to object to its presentation during the trial, with the result that the defense deemed to have waived objection to its admissibility. Pp v. Tomaquin, G.R. No. 133138, July 23, 2004 Pp v. Bagnate, G.R. No. 133685-86 May 20, 2004 Pp v. Gallardo, G.R. No. 113684, Jan 25, 2000 Pp v. Morial, G.R. 129295, Aug 15, 2001 Pp v. Endino, G.R. 133026, Feb 20, 2001 Pp v. Ordono, G.R. No. 132154, June 29, 2000 Pp v. Guillermo, GR. No. 147786, Jan 20, 2004 Pp v. Malngan, G.R. No. 170470, Sep 26, 2006