Sec.

12 Custodial Investigation rights

People vs Judge Ayson
G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 1987
Facts:
Felipe Ramos, a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines, was charged for the
crime of estafa for failure to remit proceeds of ticket sales amounting to P76,700.65.
Included in the evidences against him were his statement taken at PAL Baguio City
Ticket Office in an investigation conducted by the Branch Manager, in which he
admitted of the misuse of the proceeds, as well as his handwritten admission.
Respondent Judge rejected this evidence since according to him, it does not appear
that the accused was reminded of his constitutional right to remain silent and to be
assisted by counsel when he made said admission.
Issue:
Whether the constitutional rights of a person under custodial investigation comes
into play during the administrative inquiry
Ruling:
It is clear from the undisputed facts of this case that Felipe Ramos was not in any
sense under custodial interrogation, as the term should be properly understood,
prior to and during the administrative inquiry into the discovered irregularities in
ticket sales in which he appeared to have had a hand. The constitutional rights of a
person under custodial interrogation did not therefore come into play, were of no
relevance to the inquiry. It is also clear, too, that Ramos had voluntarily answered
questions posed to him on the first day of administrative investigation and agreed
that the proceedings should be recorded, just as it is obvious that the note that he
sent to his superiors on the day before the investigation (later marked as Exhibit K)
offering to compromise his liability in the alleged irregularities, was a free and even
spontaneous act on his part. They may not be excluded on the ground that the socalled Miranda rights had not been accorded to Ramos.

Sec. 12 Custodial Investigation rights

Kimpo vs Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 95604, April 29, 1994
Facts:
Luciano Kimpo, a Special Collecting Officer of the Bureau of Domestic Trade at Gen.
Santos City, was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan of malversation of public funds.
Petitioner faults Sandiganbayan for having considered Exhibits B to B-3
inclusive, which pertains to the Report of Examination, the Statement of
Accountability for Accountable Forms without Money Value, and a Reconciliation
Statement of Accountability, which are official forms prepared and accomplished in
the normal course of audit regularly conducted by the Commission on Audit.
Issue:
Whether petitioners constitutional rights under Article 3, Sec. 12 was impaired
Ruling:
The Court does not agree. Petitioner, not being at the time under investigation for
the commission of a criminal offense, let alone under custodial investigation, clearly
cannot be said to have been deprived of the constitutional prerogatives he invokes.

Sec. 12 Custodial Investigation rights

People vs Mojello
G.R. No. 145566, March 9, 2004
Facts:
Dindo Mojello was charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide of Lenlen Rayco
who is under 12 years of age and with mental deficiency. Appellant argues that he
was not knowingly and intelligently apprised of his constitutional rights before the
confession was taken from him hence, his confessions and admissions made therein
should be deemed inadmissible in evidence.
Issue:
Whether the extrajudicial confession executed by appellant is admissible in
evidence
Ruling:
The Court is not convinced with appellants contention. The records of the case
clearly reflect that the appellant freely, voluntarily, and intelligently entered into the
extrajudicial confession in full compliance with the Miranda doctrine under Art. 3,
Sec. 12 of the Constitution. SPO2 Giducos, prior to conducting his investigation,
explained to appellant his constitutional rights to remain silent and his right to
counsel in the Visayan dialect, notably Cebuano, a language known to the appellant.
Appellant was properly assisted by Atty. Giduquio and the extrajudicial confession
was subscribed and sworn to before Judge Jaca of MCTC Santa Fe. Judge Jaca
declared that he explained to the appellant the contents of the extrajudicial
confession and asked if he understood it. He subsequently acknowledged that when
appellant subscribed to his statement, Atty. Giduquio, the witness and his Clerk of
Court were present as well as other people. Thus, the confession, having strictly
complied with the constitutional requirements under Art 3, Sec 12, par 1 is deemed
admissible in evidence against appellant. It follows that the admission of culpability
made therein is admissible.

Police Power
MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc.
G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000
Facts:
On Dec. 30, 1995, respondent Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. who owns Neptune
Street, which is a private road inside Bel-Air Village, received from petitioner a
notice requesting respondent to open Neptune St. to public vehicular traffic starting
January 2, 1996. On the same day, respondent was apprised that the perimeter wall
separating the subdivision from the adjacent Kalayaan Avenue would be
demolished. On Jan. 28, 1997, the appellate court rendered a decision finding that
the MMDA has no authority to order the opening of Neptune St and cause the
demolition of its perimeter walls.
Issue:
Has the MMDA the mandate to open Neptune St. to public traffic pursuant to its
regulatory and police powers?
Held:
No, it has not. It will be noted that the powers of the MMDA are limited to the
following acts: formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation,
management, monitoring, setting of policies, installation of a system and
administration. There is no syllable in R.A. 7924 that grants the MMDA police power,
let alone legislative power. Unlike the legislative bodies of the local government
units, there is no provision in R.A.7924 that empowers the MMDA or its Council to
enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general
welfare of the inhabitants of Metro Manila. In the case at bar, the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Makati City did not pass any ordinance or resolution ordering the
opening of Neptune St., hence its proposed opening by petitioner MMDA is illegal.

Substantive due process

City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio
G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005
Facts:
Private respondent Malate Tourist Development Corp. filed a petition to declare the
unconstitutionality of Ordinance No. 7783 of the City of Manila which prohibits
certain establishments and businesses that provide certain forms of services where
women are used as tools and which tend to disturb and adversely affect the moral
welfare of the community.
Issue:
The pivotal issue in this petition is the validity of Ordinance No. 7783. The inquiry is
concerned with the validity of the exercise of such delegated power.
Ruling:

The ordinance contravenes the Constitution

The police power of the City Council, however broad and far reaching, is
subordinate to the constitutional limitations thereon; and is subject to the
limitation that its exercise must be reasonable and for the public good. In the
case at bar, the enactment of the ordinance was an invalid exercise of
delegated power as it is unconstitutional and repugnant to general laws
(sections 1, 5, 9, and 14 of the Constitution).

The ordinance infringes the due process clause- the requisites for the valid
exercise of police power are not met.
To successfully invoke the exercise of police power as the rationale for the
enactment of the Ordinance:

1. It must appear that the interests of the public generally, as

distinguished from those of a particular class, require an interference
with private rights.
2. The means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals.
A reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the police measure
and the means employed for its accomplishment , for even under the guise of
protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private
property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. Lacking a
concurrence of these two requisites, the police measure shall be struck down
as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights a violation of the due process
clause.
In the instant case, there is a clear invasion of personal or property rights,
personal in the case of those individuals desirous of owning, operating and
patronizing those motels and property in terms of the investments made and
the salaries to be paid to those therein employed. If the City of Manila so
desires to put an end to prostitution and other social ills, it can instead
impose reasonable regulations such as daily inspections of the
establishments for any violations of the conditions of their licenses and it may
even impose increased license fee. In other words, there are other means to
reasonably accomplish the desired end.

Procedural due process

Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
G.R. No. 74457, March 20,1987
Facts:
Petitioner Restituto Ynot had transported 6 carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate
to Iloilo on Jan. 13, 1984, when they were confiscated by the police station
commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo,for violation of EO No. 626-A which prohibits the
transportation of carabaos and carabeef from one province to another. The
corresponding penalty for the violation of said executive order is the confiscation
and forfeiture by the government of the carabao and carabeef, which is to be
distributed to charitable institutions as the Chairman of the National Meat
Inspection Commission may see fit, in the case of carabeef, and to deserving
farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case
of carabaos.
Issue:
The thrust of this petition is that the executive order is unconstitutional insofar as it
authorizes outright confiscation of the carabao or carabeef being transported across
provincial boundaries. Petitioners claim is that the penalty is invalid because it is
imposed without according the owner a right to be heard before a competent and
impartial court as guaranteed by due process.
Held:
The Court ruled that Executive Order No. 626-A is unconstitutional. The challenged
measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the method employed to
conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and
worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is violated because the owner of the
property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is
immediately condemned and punished. The conferment on the administrative

authorities of the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear
encroachment on judicial functions and militates against the doctrine of separation
of powers. There is, finally, also an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the
officers mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution
of the properties arbitrarily taken.