MIRANDA RIGHTS

Miranda v. Arizona
Brief Fact Summary. The defendants offered incriminating evidence during police interrogations
without prior notification of their rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution
(the
Constitution).
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Government authorities need to inform individuals of their Fifth
Amendment constitutional rights prior to an interrogation following an arrest.
Facts. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) consolidated four separate
cases with issues regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogations.
The first Defendant, Ernesto Miranda (Mr. Miranda), was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Mr.
Miranda was an immigrant, and although the officers did not notify Mr. Miranda of his rights, he
signed a confession after two hours of investigation. The signed statement included a statement
that Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights.
The second Defendant, Michael Vignera (Mr. Vignera), was arrested for robbery. Mr. Vignera
orally admitted to the robbery to the first officer after the arrest, and he was held in detention for
eight hours before he made an admission to an assistant district attorney. There was no evidence
that he was notified of his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights.
The third Defendant, Carl Calvin Westover (Mr. Westover), was arrested for two robberies. Mr.
Westover was questioned over fourteen hours by local police, and then was handed to Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, who were able to get signed confessions from Mr.
Westover. The authorities did not notify Mr. Westover of his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights.
The fourth Defendant, Roy Allen Stewart (Mr. Stewart), was arrested, along with members of his
family (although there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by his family) for a series of purse
snatches. There was no evidence that Mr. Stewart was notified of his rights. After nine
interrogations, Mr. Stewart admitted to the crimes.
Issue. Whether the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth
Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the
defendants?
Held. The government needs to notify arrested individuals of their Fifth Amendment constitutional
rights, specifically: their right to remain silent; an explanation that anything they say could be used
against them in court; their right to counsel; and their right to have counsel appointed to represent
them if necessary. Without this notification, anything admitted by an arrestee in an interrogation
will
not
be
admissible
in
court.
Dissent. Justice Tom Clark (J. Clark) argued that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution would apply to interrogations. There is not enough
evidence to demonstrate a need to apply a new rule as the majority finds here.
The second dissent written by Justice John Harlan (J. Harlan) also argues that the Due Process
Clauses should apply. J. Harlan further argues that the Fifth Amendment rule against selfincrimination was never intended to forbid any and all pressures against self-incrimination.
Justice Byron White (J. White) argued that there is no historical support for broadening the Fifth
Amendment of the Constitution to include the rights that the majority extends in their decision.
The majority is making new law with their holding.
Discussion. The majority notes that once an individual chooses to remain silent or asks to first
see an attorney, any interrogation should cease. Further, the individual has the right to stop the
interrogation at any time, and the government will not be allowed to argue for an exception to the
notification rule.

Case Digest on PEOPLE v. ENDINO GR. No. 133026; Feb 20, 2001

The crime of murder was charged against accused Endino and accused-appellant
Galgarin. Galgarin was arrested and convicted for the crime of murder qualified by treachery,
while on the other hand Endino remained at large.

HELD: Admission of videotaped confessions is proper. The interview was recorded on video and
it showed accused-appellant unburdening his guilt willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of
newsmen. Such confession does not form part of custodial investigation, as it was not given to
police officers but to media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public.

Gamboa v Cruz 162 SCRA 642 (1988)

Facts: Petitioner was arrested for vagrancy without a warrant. During a line-up of 5 detainees
including petitioner, he was identified by a complainant to be a companion in a robbery, thereafter
he was charged. Petitioner filed a Motion to Acquit on the ground that the conduct of the line-up,
without notice and in the absence of his counsel violated his constitutional rights to counsel and
to due process. The court denied said motion. Hearing was set, hence the petition.
Issue: Whether

or

Not

petitioners right

to

counsel and

due

process

violated.

Held: No. The police line-up was not part of the custodial inquest, hence, petitioner was not yet
entitled, at such stage, to counsel. He had not been held yet to answer for a criminal offense. The
moment there is a move or even an urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions
or even plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, from said suspect,
he should then and there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall
be
made
in
writing
and
in
the
presence
of
counsel.
On the right to due process, petitioner was not, in any way, deprived of this substantive and
constitutional right, as he was duly represented by a counsel. He was accorded all the
opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense; only that he chose
not to, and instead opted to file a Motion to Acquit after the prosecution had rested its case. What
due process abhors is the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.
People v. Base
G.R. No. 109773 (March 30, 2000)
HELD: While the initial choice in cases where a person under custodial investigation cannot
afford the services of a lawyer is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the accused really
has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. A
lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised
any objection against the formers appointment during the course of the investigation.
Magtoto vs. Manguera [GR L-37201-02, 3 March 1975]; also Simeon vs. Villaluz [GR L37424] and People vs. Isnani [GR L-38929] En Banc, Fernandez (J): 6 concur
Facts: No preliminary facts are available in the body of the case. Judge Miguel M. Manguera of
the Court of First Instance (Branch II) of Occidental Mindoro (in GR L-37201-02) and Judge
Judge Onoftre A. Villaluz of the Criminal Circuit Court of Pasig, Rizal (in GR L-37424) declarede
admissible the confessions of the accused in said cases (Clemente Magtoto in GR L-37201-02;
and Maximo Simeon, Louis Mednatt, Inocentes De Luna, Ruben Miranda, Alfonso Ballesteros,
Rudolfo Suarez, Manuel Manalo, Alberto Gabion, and Rafael Brill in GR L-37424). District Judge
Asaali S. Isnani of Court of First Instance (Branch II) of Zamboanga de Sur (in GR L-38928), on
the other hand, declared inadmissible the confessions of the accused in said case Constitutional
Law II, 2005 ( 16 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) (Vicente Longakit and Jaime Dalion), although
they have not been informed of their right to remain silent and to counsel before they gave the
confessions, because they were given before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. Petitions for
certiorari were filed with the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the right to counsel and to be informed in such right, incorporated in Section 20,
Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, applies prospectively or retroactively.
Held: Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution granted, for the first time, to a person under
investigation for the commission of an offense, the right to counsel and to be informed of such
right. And the last sentence thereof which, in effect, means that any confession obtained in
violation of this right shall be inadmissible in evidence, can and should be given effect only when
the right already existed and had been violated. Consequently, because the confessions of the
accused in GRs L-37201-02, 37424 and 38929 were taken before the effectivity of the 1973
Constitution in accordance with the rules then in force, no right had been violated as to render
them inadmissible in evidence although they were not informed of "their right to remain silent and

to counsel," "and to be informed of such right," because, no such right existed at the time. The
argument that the second paragraph of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, which was added
by Republic Act 1083 enacted in 1954, which reads that "In every case, the person detained shall
be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed, upon his request, to communicate
and confer at anytime with his attorney or counsel," impliedly granted to a detained person the
right to counsel and to be informed of such right, is untenable. The only right granted by said
paragraph to a detained person was to be informed of the cause of his detention. But he must
make a request for him to be able to claim the right to communicate and confer with counsel at
any time. The historical background of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution shows that
the new right granted therein to a detained person to counsel and to be informed of such right
under pain of his confession being declared inadmissible in evidence, has and should be given a
prospective and not a retroactive effect. Furthermore, to give a retroactive effect to this
constitutional guarantee to counsel would have a great unsettling effect on the administration of
justice in this country. It may lead to the acquittal of guilty individuals and thus cause injustice to
the People and the offended parties in many criminal cases where confessions were obtained
before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution and in accordance with the rules then in force
although without assistance of counsel. The Constitutional Convention could not have intended
such a disastrous consequence in the administration of justice. For if the cause of justice suffers
when an innocent person is convicted, it equally suffers when a guilty one is acquitted.
murder; admissibility of confession A confession obtained from a person under investigation
for the commission of an offense, who has not been informed of his right to silence and right to
counsel is INADMISSIBLE as evidence.

People vs. Mahinay [GR 122485, 1 February 1999] En Banc, Per Curiam: 15 concur

Facts: Larry Mahinay y Amparado started working as houseboy with Maria Isip on 20 November
1993. His task was to take care of Isip's house which was under construction adjacent to her old
residence situated inside a compound at No. 4165 Dian Street, Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzuela,
Metro Manila. mahinay stayed and slept in an apartment also owned by Isip, located 10 meters
away from the unfinished house. The victim, Ma. Victoria Chan, 12 years old, was Isip's neighbor
in Dian Street. She used to pass by Isip's house on her way to school and play inside the
compound yard, catching maya birds together with other children. On 25 June 1995, at 8:00 a.m.,
Mahinay joined Gregorio Rivera in a drinking spree. Around 10 a.m., Mahinay, who was already
drunk, left Gregorio Rivera and asked permission from Isip to go out with his friends. Sgt. Roberto
Suni, also a resident of Dian Street, went to his in-law's house between 6 to 7 p.m. met Mahinay
along Dian Street. That same evening, between 8 to 9 p.m., he saw Ma. Victoria standing in front
of the gate of the unfinished house. Later, at 9 p.m., Mahinay showed up at Norgina Rivera's
store to buy lugaw. Norgina Rivera informed Mahinay that there was none left of it. She noticed
that Mahinay appeared to be uneasy and in deep thought. She asked why he looked so worried
but he did not answer. Then he left and walked back to the compound. Meanwhile, Elvira Chan
noticed that her daughter, Ma. Victoria, was missing. She last saw her daughter wearing a pair of
white shorts, brown belt, a yellow hair ribbon, printed blue blouse, dirty white panty, white lady
sando and blue rubber slippers. Mahinay failed to show up for supper that night. On the following
day, 26 June 1995, at 2 a.m., Mahinay boarded a passenger jeepney driven by Fernando Trinidad
at the talipapa. Mahinay alighted at the top of the bridge of the North Expressway and had
thereafter disappeared. That same morning, around 7:30, a certain Boy found the dead body of
Ma. Victoria inside the septic tank. Boy immediately reported what he saw to the victim's parents,
Eduardo and Elvira Chan. With the help of the Valenzuela Police, the lifeless body of Ma. Victoria
was retrieved from the septic tank. She was wearing a printed blouse without underwear. Her
face bore bruises. Back in the compound, SPO1 Arsenio Nacis and SPO1 Arnold Alabastro were
informed by Isip that her houseboy, Mahinay, was missing. At the second floor of the house under
construction, they retrieved from one of the rooms a pair of dirty white short pants, a brown belt
and a yellow hair ribbon which was identified by Elvira Chan to belong to her daughter, Ma.
Victoria. They also found inside another room a pair of blue slippers which Isip identified as that of
Mahinay. Also found in the yard, three armslength away from the septic tank were an underwear,
a leather wallet, a pair of dirty long pants and a pliers positively identified by Isip as Mahinay's
belongings. These items were brought to the police station. A police report was subsequently
prepared including a referral slip addressed to the office of the Valenzuela Prosecutor. The next
day, SPO1 Virgilio Villano retrieved the victim's underwear from the septic tank. After a series of
follow-up operations, Mahinay was finally arrested in Barangay Obario Matala, Ibaan, Batangas.

He was brought to the Valenzuela Police Station. On 7 July 1995, with the assistance
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 8 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) of Atty. Restituto Viernes, Mahinay
executed an extra-judicial confession wherein he narrated in detail how he raped and killed the
victim. Also, when Mahinay came face to face with the victim's mother and aunt, he confided to
them that he was not alone in raping and killing the victim. He pointed to Zaldy and Boyet as his
co-conspirators. Thus, on 10 July 1995, Mahinay was charged with rape with homicide, to which
he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the lower court rendered a decision convicting Mahinay of the
crime charged, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death and to pay a total of P73,000.00 to
the victim's heirs. Hence, the automatic review.

Held: Larry Mahinay during the custodial investigation and after having been informed of his
constitutional rights with the assistance of Atty. Restituto Viernes of the Public Attorney's Office
voluntarily gave his statement admitting the commission of the crime. Said confession of Mahinay
given with the assistance of Atty. Restituto Viernes is believed to have been freely and voluntarily
given. That accused did not complain to the proper authorities of any maltreatment on his person.
He did not even inform the Inquest Prosecutor when he was sworn to the truth of his statement
on 8 July 1995 that he was forced, coerced or was promised of reward or leniency. That his
confession abound with details known only to him. The Court noted that a lawyer from the Public
Attorneys Office Atty. Restituto Viernes and as testified by said Atty. Viernes he informed and
explained to Mahinay his constitutional rights and was present all throughout the giving of the
testimony. That he signed the statement given by Mahinay. A lawyer from the Public Attorneys
Office is expected to be watchful and vigilant to notice any irregularity in the manner of the
investigation and the physical conditions of the accused. The post mortem findings show that the
cause of death Asphyxia by manual strangulation; Traumatic Head injury Contributory
substantiate. Consistent with the testimony of Mahinay that he pushed the victim and the latter's
head hit the table and the victim lost consciousness. There being no evidence presented to show
that said confession were obtained as a result of violence, torture, maltreatment, intimidation,
threat or promise of reward or leniency nor that the investigating officer could have been
motivated to concoct the facts narrated in said affidavit; the confession of the accused is held to
be true, correct and freely or voluntarily given. In his extrajudicial confession, Mahinay himself
admitted that he had sexual congress with the unconscious child. Such circumstantial evidence,
besides 8 others, established the felony of rape with homicide defined and penalized under
Section 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11, RA 7659.

People vs. Bandula [GR 89223, 27 May 1994]

Facts: On 27 January 1986, at around 10:00 p.m., 6 armed men barged into the compound of
Polo Coconut Plantation in Tanjay, Negros Oriental. The armed men were identified by Security
Guard Antonio Salva of the plantation as Aurelio Bandula, Teofilo Dionanao, Victoriano Ejan and
Pantaleon Sedigo while the two others Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 21 ) Narratives (Berne
Guerrero) who wore masks were simply referred to as "Boy Tall" and "Boy Short." At gunpoint, the
2 masked men held Salva who was manning his post, disarmed him of his shotgun and tied his
hands behind his back. They then went up the house of Leoncio Pastrano, Chief of Security and
General Foreman of the plantation, hog-tied him, and divested him of his driver's license,
goggles, wristwatch and .38 cal. snubnose revolver. From there, the 6 armed men with Salva and
Pastrano in tow proceeded to the house of Atty. Juanito Garay, Manager of the Polo Coconut
Plantation. Dionanao, Ejan and Sedigo stayed downstairs while Bandula and the two masked
men with Salva and Pastrano went up the house of Atty. Garay. After forcing their way into the
house, the masked men and Bandula ransacked the place and took with them money and other
valuables. Thereafter, the hooded men who were bringing with them Atty. Garay locked Pastrano
inside his house together with Salva. A few minutes later, Pastrano and Salva heard gunshots
coming from the direction of the gate of the compound. After succeeding in untying themselves,
Pastrano and Salva went to report the matter to the police. On their way, they found outside the
gate the lifeless body of Atty. Garay (dead with 3 gunshot wounds). On 28 January 1986,
Dionanao was "picked-up for investigation" and interrogated by Cpl. Ephraim Valles inside the
Police Station in Tanjay where he implicated accused Sedigo. The following day, on 29 January
1986, he was brought to the Office of the Municipal Attorney of Tanjay, Atty. Ruben Zerna, where
he supposedly executed his extrajudicial confession in the presence of the latter. On 4 February
1986, upon the suggestion of another investigator, Cpl. Valles took the Supplementary Sworn
Statement of Dionanao, again in the presence of Atty. Zerna. In his Sworn Statement, Dionanao
supposedly admitted that he was with Bandula when the latter, together with "Boy Short" and
"Boy Tall," shot Atty. Garay. He added that he was going to be killed if he did not join the group.

He also said that Sedigo and Ejan were with them that evening. Then, in his Supplementary
Sworn Statement, he implicated 3 more persons but they were not thereafter included in the
Information. Pn the other hand, Bandula was arrested on 28 January 1986, at around 6:00 a.m.,
brought to the Tanjay Police Station and there interrogated. He was investigated by Cpl.
Borromeo, Cpl. Esparicia, Cpl. Ebarso, Pat. Moso and Pat. Baldejera. In that investigation,
Bandula allegedly admitted that he together with 2 others shot Atty. Garay with a .38 cal. revolver.
At that time, there was no counsel present "because that (investigation) was not yet in writing."
Two weeks after his arrest, Bandula allegedly gave a sworn statement in the presence of Atty.
Zerna admitting his participation in the killing of Atty. Garay. In that statement, Bandula narrated
that after "Boy Short" and "Boy Tall" shot Atty. Garay, he (Bandula) was ordered likewise to shoot
the latter which he did. Bandula, Sedigo, Dionanao and Ejan were were charged for robbery with
homicide. On 5 May 1989, after hearing 12 prosecution and 9 defense witnesses, the trial court
rendered judgment finding Bandula guilty of the crime charged. However, his 3 co-accused were
acquitted "for insufficiency of evidence."
Issue: Whether admissions obtained during custodial interrogations requires mere counsel or
independent counsel present.
Held: Bandula and Dionanao were investigated immediately after their arrest, they had no
counsel present. If at all, counsel came in only a day after the custodial investigation with respect
to Dionanao, and two weeks later with respect to Bandula. And, counsel who supposedly assisted
both accused was Atty. Ruben Zerna, the Municipal Attorney of Tanjay. On top of this, there are
telltale signs that violence was used against Bandua. Certainly, these are blatant violations of the
Constitution which mandates in Section 12, Art. III, that (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 violation 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 of victims of torture or
similar practices, and their families. The present case is analogous to the more recent case of
People v. De Jesus, where it was held that admissions obtained during custodial interrogations
without the benefit of Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 22 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) counsel
although later reduced to writing and signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed under the
Constitution. The Constitution also requires that counsel be independent. Obviously, he cannot be
a special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney
whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused. Granting that Atty. Zerna assisted Dionanao
and Bandula when they executed their respective extrajudicial confessions, still their confessions
are inadmissible in evidence considering that Atty. Zerna does not qualify as an independent
counsel. As a legal officer of the municipality, he provides legal assistance and support to the
mayor and the municipality in carrying out the delivery of basic services to the people, including
the maintenance of peace and order. It is thus seriously doubted whether he can effectively
undertake the defense of the accused without running into conflict of interests. He is no better
than a fiscal or prosecutor who cannot represent the accused during custodial investigations.
People vs. Barasina [GR 109993, 21 January 1994] Third Division, Melo (J): 4 concur
Facts: It was around 6:40 p.m. of 17 July 1988 when Fiscal Lino Mayo of Olongapo City
succumbed to a single bullet on his side of his face fired by a gunman from an unlicensed .45
caliber firearm while the former was walking at the VIP parking lot of the Victory Liner Compound
at Caloocan City. The gun man continued walking at the same time holding his gun with two
hands trying to cock it. After walking a few meters, the gun man tucked the gun in his right waist
and began running away. Barangay Councilman Prudencio Motos Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 30
) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) and about four other men (among them, Ruel Ganiola and Michael
Estapia, both porters) chased the gun man. When the gun man was about to reach the LRT
Station, they shouted at the policeman conducting traffic in the area and pointed at the running
man. The policeman, Pfc. Napoleon Francia, shouted at the gun man, who stopped and raised
his hands. Pfc. Francia then confiscated a .45 cal. pistol from the gun man. Afterwards, Pfc.
Francia, Councilman Motos and others brought the gun man to the Kalookan City Police
Headquarters aboard a passenger jeep. The gun man was identified later as Elias Barasina y
Laynesa. Barasina was charged for violation of Preisdential Decree 1866 (illegal possession of
firearms). Barasina, "John Doe" and "Peter Doe" (true names, real identities and present
whereabouts of the last two mentioned accused, still unknown) were also charge for the crime of
murder. When haled to respond to the inculpations, Barasina was indifferent in entering any plea,
thus the plea of not guilty to the two criminal charges was entered by the trial court in his behalf.
In the course of the trial, Barasina, through counsel, filed a Motion to Quash on the ground of
double jeopardy, i.e. in jeopardy of being convicted of two offenses Murder and Illegal
Possession of Firearms. In an Order, dated 17 August 1989, the Court denied the Motion to
Quash. On trial, one of the principal defenses set up by Barasina was that he was mauled,

maltreated and forced to sign two documents by the Caloocan policemen while he was inside a
small cell inside the Caloocan City Police Headquarters. He identified those 2 documents, the
"Paalala", dated 18 July 1988, and his statement dated 18 July 1988. He further claimed that he
never read any of those documents and that he was not assisted by any lawyer during their
execution, and that he does not know of any Atty. Abelardo Torres. He signed an Affidavit of
retraction dated 22 July 1988. On 28 February 1990, the trial court found Barasina guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of (1) violation of Par. 1 of P.D. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearm); and (2)
Murder, and sentenced him (1) as a result of his conviction under PD 1866 to suffer imprisonment
of 17 Years, 4 Months and 1 Day of Reclusion Temporal as minimum to 20 Years of Reclusion
Temporal, as maximum, and to pay the costs, and (2) as a result of his conviction of Murder, to
suffer imprisonment of 10 Years and 1 Day of Prision Mayor, as minimum to 18 Years, 8 Months
and 1 Day of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, and to pay the costs. The trial court also directed
Barasina to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Fiscal Lino Mayo, the amount of P61,000.00
representing the funeral and burial expenses of the victim and the amount of P500 ,000.00
representing the moral damages suffered by his widow and the loss of income as a result of the
victim's death at the age of 50 years. On 29 December 1992, the Court of Appeals (de Pano,
Elbias, Gutierrez [P], JJ.), acting on the appeal interposed by Barasina, rendered a decision
increasing the penalties imposed on Barasina to reclusion perpetua for each of the two crimes
committed. The records do not show that the case was certified by the Court of Appeals to the
Supreme Court pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
although the records of the case were forwarded to to the Supreme Court by the Court of Appeals
on 11 May 1993 after the assailed decision was promulgated on 29 December 1992. In any
event, the appeal was later accepted by the Supreme Court and Barasina was thereupon
required to file his brief following which the Solicitor General filed a brief for the People.
Issue: Whether the admissions made in the custodial investigation attended to by Atty. Abelardo
Torres, a lawyer which Barasina did not expressly choose as counsel to assist him therein, are
inadmissible.
Held: Section 12 (1), Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution dealing with the rights of a person
undergoing investigation reads "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." The phrase "competent and independent" and "preferably of his own
choice" were explicit details which were added upon the persistence of human rights lawyers in
the 1986 Constitutional Commission who pointed out cases where, during the martial law period,
the lawyers made available to the detainee would be one appointed by the military and therefore
beholden to the military. Yet, the apprehension of the human rights advocates then along this line
hardly inspires belief in the present inasmuch as there was no indication below that Barasina did
in fact choose Atty. Romeo Mendoza to assist him while in the process of offering the inculpatory
statements, to the exclusion of other lawyers (The hiring of Atty. Romeo Mendoza as counsel by
Barasina after the custodial investigation Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 31 ) Narratives (Berne
Guerrero) appears to be an afterthought). Withal, the word "preferably" under Section 12 [1],
Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution does not convey the message that the choice of a lawyer by a
person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and independent
attorneys from handling his defense. If the rule were otherwise, then, the tempo of a custodial
investigation will be solely in the hands of the accused who can impede, nay, obstruct the
progress of the interrogation by simply selecting lawyer who for one reason or another, is not
available to protect his interest. This absurd scenario could not have been contemplated by the
framers of the charter.
People vs. Bolanos [GR 101808, 3 July 1992] Second Division, Paras (J): 4 concur
Facts: The death of the victim, Oscar Pagdalian, was communicated to the Police Station where
Patrolmen Rolando Alcantara and Francisco Dayao of the Integrated National Police (INP),
Balagtas, Bulacan, are assigned. Patrolmen Alcantara and Dayao proceeded to the scene of the
crime of Marble Supply, Balagtas, Bulacan and upon arrival they saw the deceased Pagdalian
lying on an improvised bed full of blood with stab wounds. They then inquired about the
circumstances of the incident and were informed that the deceased was with 2 companions, on
the previous night, one of whom was Ramon Bolanos who had a drinking spree with the
deceased and another companion (Claudio Magtibay) till the wee hours of the following morning,
23 June Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 5 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) 1990. When Alcantara and
Dayao apprehended Bolanos, they found the firearm of the deceased on the chair where Bolanos
was allegedly seated. They boarded Ramon Bolanos and Claudio Magtibay on the police vehicle
and brought them to the police station. In the vehicle where the suspect was riding, "Ramon
Bolanos accordingly admitted that he killed the deceased Oscar Pagdalian because he was
abusive," after he was asked by the police if he killed the victim. Bolanos was charged for murder
before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 14, under Criminal Case 1831-M-90.
The trial court, even if the alleged oral admission of Bolanos was given without the assistance of
counsel when it was made while on board the police vehicle on their way to the police station,
found Bolanos guilty of the crime charged and imposed on him the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua

(life imprisonment) and to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00. The Office of the Solicitor
General threafter filed a Manifestation (in lieu of Appellee's Brief), claiming that the lower court
erred in admitting in evidence the extra-judicial confession of Bolanos while on board the police
patrol jeep.
Issue: Whether the extra-judicial confession of Bolanos while on board the police patrol jeep may
be used to prove Bolanos guilt.
Held: Being already under custodial investigation while on board the police patrol jeep on the way
to the Police Station where formal investigation may have been conducted, Bolanos should have
been informed of his Constitutional rights under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution
which explicitly provides: (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the service 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 violation of this or the preceding section
shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil
sanctions for violation of this section as well as compensation and rehabilitation of victims of
torture or similar practices and their families. Considering the clear requirements of the
Constitution with respect to the manner by which confession can be admissible in evidence, and
the glaring fact that the alleged confession obtained while on board the police vehicle was the
only reason for the conviction, besides Bolanos's conviction was not proved beyond reasonable
doubt, the Court has no recourse but to reverse the subject judgment under review.
People vs. Galit [GR 51770, 20 March 1985]
Facts: In the morning of 23 August 1917, Mrs. Natividad Fernando, a widow, was found dead in
the bedroom of her house located at Barrio Geronimo, Montalban, Rizal, as a result of 7 wounded
inflicted upon different parts of her body by a blunt instrument. More than 2 weeks thereafter,
police authorities of Montalban picked up Francisco Galit, an ordinary construction worker (pion)
living in Marikina, Rizal, or suspicion of the murder. On the following day, however, 8 September
1977, the case was referred to the Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 20 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for further investigation in view of the alleged limited
facilities of the Montalban police station. Accordingly, Galit was brought to the NBI where he was
investigated by a team headed by NBI Agent Carlos Flores. NBI Agent Flores conducted a
preliminary interview of the suspect who allegedly gave evasive answers to his questions. But the
following day, 9 September 1977, Francisco Galit allegedly voluntarily executed a Salaysay
admitting participation in the commission of the crime. He implicated Juling Dulay and Pabling
Dulay as his companions in the crime. Actually, Galit had been obtained and interrogated almost
continuously for 5 days, to no avail as he consistently maintained his innocence. The
investigating officers began to maul him and to torture him physically. They covered his face with
a rag and pushed his face into a toilet bowl full of human waste. With Galit's will having been
broken, he admitted what the investigating officers wanted him to admit and he signed the
confession they prepared. Galit was charged with the Crime of Robbery with Homicide, in an
information filed before the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal. Trial was held, and on 11
August 1978, immediately after the accused had terminated the presentation of his evidence, the
trial judge dictated his decision on the case in open court, finding Galit guilty as charged and
sentencing him to suffer the death penalty; to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of
P110,000.00, and to pay the costs. Hence, the automatic review.
Issue: Whether a monosyllabic answer to a long question suffices as a voluntary admission that
may be used against the accused.
Held: As held in Morales vs. Ponce Enrile, "At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of
the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant
of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel,
and that any statement he might make could be used against him. The person arrested shall
have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most
expedient means by telephone if possible or by letter or messenger. It shall be the
responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. No custodial
investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person
arrested, by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the
detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver
shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation
of the procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be
inadmissible in evidence." Herein, there were no eyewitnesses, no property recovered from the
accused, no state witnesses, and not even fingerprints of the accused at the scene of the crime.
The only evidence against Galit is his alleged confession. A long question followed by a
monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the requirements of the law that the accused be informed of
his rights under the Constitution and our laws. Instead there should be several short and clear

questions and every right explained in simple words in a dialect or language known to the person
under investigation. Galit is from Samar and there is no showing that he understands Tagalog.
Moreover, at the time of his arrest, Galit was not permitted to communicate with his lawyer, a
relative, or a friend. In fact, his sisters and other relatives did not know that he had been brought
to the NBI for investigation and it was only about two weeks after he had executed the salaysay
that his relatives were allowed to visit him. His statement does not even contain any waiver of
right to counsel and yet during the investigation he was not assisted by one. At the supposed
reenactment, again Galit was not assisted by counsel of his choice. These constitute gross
violations of his rights. Trial courts are cautioned to look carefully into the circumstances
surrounding the taking of any confession, especially where the prisoner claims having been
maltreated into giving one. Where there is any doubt as to the voluntariness, the same must be
rejected in toto.
People vs. Luvendino [GR 69971, 3 July 1992] Second Division, Feliciano (J): 10 concur
Facts: On the morning of 17 January 1983, 18-year old Rowena Capcap left her home at Deva
Village, Tambak, Taguig, Metro Manila to attend classes at the University of Manila where she
was a sophomore commerce student. She would usually be home by 7:30 to 8:00 on school
evenings, but on that tragic day, she would not reach home alive. On that particular evening, her
father Panfilo Capcap arriving home from work at around 7:30 p.m., noted her absence and was
told by his wife and other children that Rowena was not yet home from school. Later, a younger
brother of Rowena, sent on an errand, arrived home carrying Rowena's bag which he had found
dropped in the middle of a street in the village. Panfilo Capcap lost no time in seeking the help of
the barangay captain of Hagonoy, Taguig. Not being satisfied with the latter's promise to send for
a "tanod" to help locate his missing daughter, Panfilo went to the Taguig Police Station to report
his daughter as missing. The desk officer there advised him that a search party would be
mounted presently. Panfilo returned home and, with the help of some neighbors, launched a
search party for the missing Rowena. The search ended in a grassy vacant lot within the Deva
Village Subdivision, only about 70 to 80 meters from the Capcap residence, where lay the
apparently lifeless body of Rowena, her pants pulled down to her knees and her blouse rolled up
to her breasts. Her underwear was blood-stained and there were bloody fingerprint marks on her
neck. Rowena, her body still warm, was rushed to a hospital in Taguig, where on arrival she was
pronounced dead. The autopsy report stated that the multiple injuries indicated the victim had
struggled vigorously with her attacker(s); that the presence of spermatozoa showed that the
victim had sexual intercourse prior to death; and that death was due to asphyxia by manual
strangulation. By 5 March 1984, an information had been filed in the trial court charging Ernesto
C. Luvendino, Cesar Borca alias "Cesar Putol" and Ricardo de Guzman alias "Ric" with the crime
of rape with murder. Warrants of arrest were issued against all the accused but only Ernesto
Luvendino was actually apprehended; the other 2 have remained at large. It appears that
Luvendino re-enacted the events that transpired in the evening of January 17 at the crime scene,
where pictures were taken by a photographer brought by the police officers. In the course of the
demonstration, Luvendino allegedly remarked: "Inaamin ko po na kasama ko si Cesar Borca sa
pag re-rape kay Rowena." At arraignment, Luvendino assisted by his counsel, Atty. Luisito
Sardillo, pleaded not guilty and then proceeded to trial. On 12 December 1984, the trial court
rendered a decision finding Luvendino guilty, sentencing him to death, and requiring him to
indemnify the heirs of the victim Rowena in the amount of P50,000.00 for the damages suffered
as a result of her death.
Issue: Whether Luvendinos re-enactment of the crime may be admitted as evidence against the
accused.
Held: The trial court took into account the testimony given by Panfilo Capcap on what had
occurred during the re-enactment of the crime by Luvendino. The re-enactment was apparently
staged promptly upon apprehension of Luvendino and even prior to his formal investigation at the
police station. The decision of the trial court found that the accused was informed of his
constitutional rights "before he was investigated by Sgt. Galang in the police headquarters" and
cited the "Salaysay" of appellant Luvendino. The decision itself, however, states that the reenactment took place before Luvendino was brought to the police station. Thus, it is not clear
from the record that before the re-enactment was staged by Luvendino, he had been informed of
his constitutional rights including, specifically, his right to counsel and that he had waived such
right before proceeding with the demonstration. Under these circumstances, the Court must
decline to uphold the admissibility of evidence relating to that re-enactment.

People vs. Andan [GR 116437, 3 March 1997] En Banc, Per Curiam: 15 concur

Facts: On 19 February 1994 at about 4:00 P.M., in Concepcion Subdivision, Baliuag, Bulacan,
Marianne Guevarra, 20 years of age and a second-year student at the Fatima School of Nursing,
left her home for her school dormitory in Valenzuela, Metro Manila. She was to prepare for her
final examinations on 21 February 1994. Marianne wore a striped blouse and faded denim pants
and brought with her two bags containing her school uniforms, some personal effects and more
than P2,000.00 in cash. Marianne was walking along the subdivision when Pablito Andan y
Hernandez invited her inside his house. He used the pretext that the blood pressure of his wife's
grandmother should be taken. Marianne agreed to take her blood pressure as the old woman was
her distant relative. She did not know that nobody was inside the house. Andan then punched her
in the abdomen, brought her to the kitchen and raped her. His lust sated, Andan dragged the
unconscious girl Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 37 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) to an old toilet at
the back of the house and left her there until dark. Night came and Andan pulled Marianne, who
was still unconscious, to their backyard. The yard had a pigpen bordered on one side by a 6-foot
high concrete fence. On the other side was a vacant lot. Andan stood on a bench beside the
pigpen and then lifted and draped the girl's body over the fence to transfer it to the vacant lot.
When the girl moved, he hit her head with a piece of concrete block. He heard her moan and hit
her again on the face. After silence reigned, he pulled her body to the other side of the fence,
dragged it towards a shallow portion of the lot and abandoned it. At 11:00 a.m. of the following
day, the body of Marianne was discovered. She was naked from the chest down with her
brassiere and T-shirt pulled toward her neck. Nearby was found a panty with a sanitary napkin.
Marianne's gruesome death drew public attention and prompted Mayor Cornelio Trinidad of
Baliuag to form a crack team of police officers to look for the criminal. Searching the place where
Marianne's body was found, the policemen recovered a broken piece of concrete block stained
with what appeared to be blood. They also found a pair of denim pants and a pair of shoes which
were identified as Marianne's. Andan's nearby house was also searched by the police who found
bloodstains on the wall of the pigpen in the backyard. They interviewed the occupants of the
house and learned from Romano Calma, the stepbrother of Andan's wife, that Andan also lived
there but that he, his wife and son left without a word. Calma surrendered to the police several
articles consisting of pornographic pictures, a pair of wet short pants with some reddish brown
stain, a towel also with the stain, and a wet T-shirt. The clothes were found in the laundry hamper
inside the house and allegedly belonged to Andan. The police tried to locate Andan and learned
that his parents live in Barangay Tangos, Baliuag, Bulacan. On February 24 at 11:00 P.M., a
police team led by Mayor Trinidad traced Andan in his parents' house. They took him aboard the
patrol jeep and brought him to the police headquarters where he was interrogated. Initially, Andan
denied any knowledge of Marianne's death. However, when the police confronted him with the
concrete block, the victim's clothes and the bloodstains found in the pigpen, Andan relented and
said that his neighbors, Gilbert Larin and Reynaldo Dizon, killed Marianne and that he was merely
a lookout. He also said that he knew where Larin and Dizon hid the two bags of Marianne.
Immediately, the police took Andan to his house. Larin and Dizon, who were rounded up earlier,
were likewise brought there by the police. Andan went to an old toilet at the back of the house,
leaned over a flower pot and retrieved from a canal under the pot, two bags which were later
identified as belonging to Marianne. Thereafter, photographs were taken of Andan and the two
other suspects holding the bags. By this time, people and media representatives were already
gathered at the police headquarters awaiting the results of the investigation. Mayor Trinidad
arrived and proceeded to the investigation room. Upon seeing the mayor, Andan approached him
and whispered a request that they talk privately. The mayor led Andan to the office of the Chief of
Police and there, Andan broke down and said "Mayor, patawarin mo ako! I will tell you the truth. I
am the one who killed Marianne." The mayor opened the door of the room to let the public and
media representatives witness the confession. The mayor first asked for a lawyer to assist Andan
but since no lawyer was available he ordered the proceedings photographed and videotaped. In
the presence of the mayor, the police, representatives of the media and Andan's own wife and
son, Andan confessed his guilt. He disclosed how he killed Marianne and volunteered to show
them the place where he hid her bags. He asked for forgiveness from Larin and Dizon whom he
falsely implicated saying he did it because of ill-feelings against them. He also said that the devil
entered his mind because of the pornographic magazines and tabloid he read almost everyday.
After his confession, Andan hugged his wife and son and asked the mayor to help him. His
confession was captured on videotape and covered by the media nationwide. Andan was
detained at the police headquarters. The next two days, February 26 and 27, more newspaper,
radio and television reporters came. Andan was again interviewed and he affirmed his confession
to the mayor and reenacted the crime. Pablito Andan y Hernandez alias "Bobby" was charged
with rape with homicide. On arraignment, however, Andan entered a plea of "not guilty." In a
decision dated 4 August 1994, the trial court convicted Andan and sentenced him to death

pursuant to Republic Act 7659. The trial court also ordered Andan to pay the victim's heirs
P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P71,000.00 as actual burial expenses and P100,000.00 as moral
damages. Hence, the automatic review.

Issue: Whether Andans confession to the police, the mayor, and the newsmen may be admitted
as evidence against Andan. Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 38 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Held: Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right (1) to
remain silent; (2) to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice; and
(3) to be informed of such rights. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this provision is
inadmissible in evidence against him. The exclusionary rule is premised on the presumption that
the defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs through menacing police
interrogation procedures where the potentiality for compulsion, physical and psychological, is
forcefully apparent. The incommunicado character of custodial interrogation or investigation also
obscures a later judicial determination of what really transpired. When the police arrested Andan,
they were no longer engaged in a general inquiry about the death of Marianne. Indeed, Andan
was already a prime suspect even before the police found him at his parents' house. Andan was
already under custodial investigation when he confessed to the police. It is admitted that the
police failed to inform appellant of his constitutional rights when he was investigated and
interrogated. His confession is therefore inadmissible in evidence. So too were the two bags
recovered from Andan's house. The victim's bags were the fruits of Andan's uncounselled
confession to the police. They are tainted evidence, hence also inadmissible. On the other hand,
however, Andan's confession to the mayor was not made in response to any interrogation by the
latter. In fact, the mayor did not question Andan at all. No police authority ordered Andan to talk to
the mayor. It was Andan himself who spontaneously, freely and voluntarily sought the mayor for a
private meeting. The mayor did not know that Andan was going to confess his guilt to him. When
Andan talked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his
uncounselled confession to him did not violate his constitutional rights. Andan's confessions to the
media were properly admitted. The confessions were made in response to questions by news
reporters, not by the police or any other investigating officer. Statements spontaneously made by
a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in
evidence. The records show that Alex Marcelino, a television reporter for "Eye to Eye" on Channel
7, interviewed Andan on 27 February 1994. The interview was recorded on video and showed
that Andan made his confession willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of his wife, child
and other relatives. Orlan Mauricio, a reporter for "Tell the People" on Channel 9 also interviewed
appellant on 25 February 1994. Andan's confessions to the news reporters were given free from
any undue influence from the police authorities. The news reporters acted as news reporters
when they interviewed Andan. They were not acting under the direction and control of the police.
They were there to check Andan's confession to the mayor. They did not force Andan to grant
them an interview and reenact the commission of the crime. In fact, they asked his permission
before interviewing him. They interviewed him on separate days not once did Andan protest his
innocence. Instead, he repeatedly confessed his guilt to them. He even supplied all the details in
the commission of the crime, and consented to its reenactment. All his confessions to the news
reporters were witnessed by his family and other relatives. There was no coercive atmosphere in
the interview of Andan by the news reporters. Thus, Andan's verbal confessions to the newsmen
are not covered by Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does
not concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another individual. It governs
the relationship between the individual and the State. The prohibitions therein are primarily
addressed to the State and its agents. They confirm that certain rights of the individual exist
without need of any governmental grant, rights that may not be taken away by government, rights
that government has the duty to protect. Governmental power is not unlimited and the Bill of
Rights lays down these limitations to protect the individual against aggression and unwarranted
interference by any department of government and its agencies.