Place of Interrogation Is Not Determinative of The Existence
Place of Interrogation Is Not Determinative of The Existence
Place of Interrogation Is Not Determinative of The Existence
R.A 7438
Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel
or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents,
elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district
school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such
extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding. (R.A 7438)
People v. Ayson
The precept set out in that first sentence has a settled meaning. 15 It prescribes an
"option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry." 16
It simply secures to a witness, whether he be a party or not, the right to refue to answer
any particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the answer to which has a tendency to
incriminate him for some crime. However, the right can be claimed only when the
specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be
claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena,
to decline to appear before the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify
altogether. The witness receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as required, take the
stand, be sworn and answer questions. It is only when a particular question is addressed
to him, the answer to which may incriminate him for some offense, that he may refuse
to answer on the strength of the constitutional guaranty.
That first sentence of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution does not impose on
the judge, or other officer presiding over a trial, hearing or investigation, any affirmative
obligation to advise a witness of his right against self-incrimination. It is a right that a
witness knows or should know, in accordance with the well known axiom that every one
is presumed to know the law, that ignorance of the law excuses no one. Furthermore, in
the very nature of things, neither the judge nor the witness can be expected to know in
advance the character or effect of a question to be put to the latter. 17
Thus, in one case, 29 where a person went to a police precinct and before any sort of investigation
could be initiated, declared that he was giving himself up for the killing of an old woman because she
was threatening to kill him by barang, or witchcraft, this Court ruled that such a statement was
admissible, compliance with the constitutional procedure on custodial interrogation not being exigible
under the circumstances. (Peo. v. Taylaran)
The confession has details that only the person who committed the crime could
have possibly known. (People v. aleman)