Custodial Investigation Bar Qs
Custodial Investigation Bar Qs
Custodial Investigation Bar Qs
No IX – Rafael, Carlos and Joseph were accused of murder before the Regional Trial
Court of Manila. Accused Joseph turned state witness against his co-accused Rafael and
Carlos, and was accordingly discharged from the information. Among
the evidence presented by the prosecution was an extrajudicial confession made by
Joseph during the custodial Investigation, implicating Rafael and Carlos who, he
said, together with him (Joseph), committed the crime. The extrajudicial
confession was executed without the assistance of counsel.
Accused Rafael and Carlos vehemently objected on the ground that said extrajudicial
confession was inadmissible in evidence against them.
Rule on whether the said extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence or not.
(5%)
According to People vs. Balisteros, 237 SCRA 499 (1994), the confession is admissible.
Under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, the confession is inadmissible only
against the one who confessed. Only the one whose rights were violated can raise the
objection as his right is personal.
According to People us. Jara, 144 SCRA 516(1986), the confession is inadmissible. If
it is inadmissible against the one who confessed, with more reason it should be
inadmissible against others.
No. 10: An information for parricide was filed against Danny. After the NBI found an
eyewitness to the commission of the crime. Danny was placed in a police line-up where
he was identified as the one who shot the victim. After the line-up, Danny made a
confession to a newspaper reporter who interviewed him.
1) Can Danny claim that his identification by the eyewitness be excluded on the
ground that the line-up was made without benefit of his counsel?
2) Can Danny claim that his confession be excluded on the ground that he was
not afforded his “Miranda” rights?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) No, the identification of Danny, a private person, by an eyewitness during the line-
up cannot be excluded in evidence. In accordance with the ruling in People vs. Hatton,
210 SCRA 1, the accused is not entitled to be assisted by counsel during a police line-up,
because it is not part of custodial investigation.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;
Yes, in United States v. Wade, 338 U.S. 218 (1967) and Gilbert v. California, 338 U.S.
263 (1967). it was held that on the basis of the Sixth, rather than the Fifth
Amendment (equivalent to Art. III, Sec. 14 (2) rather than Sec. 12(1)), the police line-up
is such a critical stage that it carries “potential substantial prejudice” for which reason
the accused is entitled to the assistance of Counsel.
2) No. Danny cannot ask that his confession to a newspaper reporter should be
excluded in evidence. As held in People vs. Bernardo, 220 SCRA 31, such
an admission was not made during a custodial interrogation but a voluntary statement
made to the media.
No. 10: A, while on board a passenger jeep one night, was held up by a group of
three teenagers who forcibly divested her of her watch, necklace and wallet containing
P100.00. That done, the trio jumped off the passenger jeep and fled. B, the jeep driver,
and A complained to the police to whom they gave description of the culprits. According
to the jeep driver, he would be able to identify the culprits if presented to him. Next
morning A and B were summoned to the police station where five persons were lined up
before them for identification. A and B positively identified C and D as the culprits.
After preliminary investigation. C and D and one John Doe were charged with robbery
in an information filed against them in court. C and D set up, in defense, the illegality of
their apprehension, arrest and confinement based on the identification made of them by
A and B at a police line-up at which they were not assisted by counsel. How would you
resolve the issues raised by C and D?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The arguments of the accused are untenable. As held in People vs. Acot, 232 SCRA 406,
the warrantless arrest of accused robbers Immediately after their commission of the
crime by police officers sent to look for them on the basis of the information related by
the victims is valid under Section 5(b).Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
According to People vs. Lamsing, 248 SCRA 471, the right to counsel does not extend
to police line-ups, because they are not part of custodial investigations. However,
according to People vs. Macan 238 SCRA 306, after the start of custodial investigation,
if the accused was not assisted by counsel, any identification of the accused in a police
line-up is inadmissible.
He thanked the police investigators, and declared that he fully understands the rights
enumerated to him, but that, he is voluntarily waiving them. Claiming that he
sincerely desires to atone for his misdeeds, he gave a written statement on his
participation in the crime under investigation.
In the course of the trial of the criminal case for the same robbery, the written
admission of Salamanca which he gave during the custodial investigation, was
presented as the only evidence of his guilt. If you were his counsel, what would you
do? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would object to it on the ground that the waiver of the rights to silence and to counsel
is void, having been made without the presence of counsel. (Art. III, sec. 12(1); People
v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1980). The waiver must also be in writing, although this
requirement might possibly have been complied with in this case by embodying the
waiver in the written confession. It should also be noted that under Rule 134, sec. 3,
even if the extrajudicial confession is valid, it is not a sufficient ground for conviction
if it is not corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
During the trial. Jose Walangtakot repudiated his confession contending that it was
made without the assistance of counsel and therefore Inadmissible in evidence. Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1985 and the 1987 Constitution providing for the right to counsel of choice and
opportunity to retain, took effect only on February 2, 1987 and cannot be given
retroactive effect. Rule on this. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The confession of Ramos is not admissible, since the counsel assigned to him did not
advise him of his rights. The fact that his confession was taken before the effectivity of
the 1987 Constitution is of no moment. Even prior to the effectivity of the 1987
Constitution, the Supreme Court already laid down strict rules on waiver of the rights
during investigation in the case of People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985).
No VIII. One day a passenger bus conductor found a man’s handbag left in the bus.
When the conductor opened the bag, he found inside a catling card with the owner’s
name (Dante Galang) and address, a few hundred peso bills, and a small plastic bag
containing a white powdery substance. He brought the powdery substance to the
National Bureau of Investigation for laboratory examination and it was determined to
be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a prohibited drug. Dante Galang was
subsequently traced and found and brought to the NBI Office where he admitted
ownership of the handbag and its contents. In the course of the interrogation by NBI
agents, and without the presence and assistance of counsel, Galang was made to sign
a receipt for the plastic bag and its shabu contents. Galang was charged with illegal
possession of prohibited drugs and was convicted.
A. The plastic bag and its contents are inadmissible in evidence being the product of an
illegal search and seizure; (3%) and
B. The receipt he signed is also inadmissible as his rights under custodial
investigation were not observed. (2%) Decide the case with reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. The receipt which Galang signed without the assistance of counsel is not admissible
in evidence. As held in People v. Castro, 274 SCRA 115 {1997), since the receipt is a
document admitting the offense charged, Galang should have been assisted by
counsel as required by Article III, Section 11 of the Constitution.
Custodial Investigation; Police Line-up (1993)
No. 9: Johann learned that the police were looking for him in connection with the rape
of an 18-year old girl, a neighbor. He went to the police station a week later and
presented himself to the desk sergeant. Coincidentally, the rape victim was in the
premises executing an extrajudicial statement. Johann, along with six (6) other
suspects, were placed in a police line- up and the girl pointed to him as the rapist.
Johann was arrested and locked up in a cell. Johann was charged with rape in court but
prior to arraignment invoked his right to preliminary investigation. This was denied
by the judge, and thus, trial proceeded. After the prosecution presented several
witnesses, Johann through counsel, invoked the right to bail and filed a motion therefor,
which was denied outright by the Judge. Johann now files a petition for certiorari before
the Court of Appeals arguing that:
2) He should have been informed of his right to be represented by counsel prior to
his identification via the police line up. Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2} Pursuant to the decision in People us. Castmillo. 213. SCRA 777, Johann need not
be informed of his right to counsel prior to his identification during the police line-
up. The police line-up is not part of custodial investigation, since Johann was not
being
questioned but was merely being asked to exhibit his body for identification by a
witness.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
It may be argued that in United States vs. Wade. 388 U.S. 218 (1967) and Gilbert
vs. California. 388 U.S. 263 (1967) It was held that on the basis of the Sixth, rather than
the Fifth Amendment (equivalent to Art. III. sec. 14 (2) rather than sec. 12 (1)), the
police lineup is such a “critical stage” that it carries “potential substantial prejudice” for
which reason the accused is entitled to the assistance of counsel.
No. 9; Some police operatives, acting under a lawfully issued warrant for the purpose of
searching for firearms in the House of X located at No. 10 Shaw Boulevard, Pasig,
Metro Manila, found, instead of firearms, ten kilograms of cocaine.
(1) May the said police operatives lawfully seize the cocaine? Explain your answer.
(2) May X successfully challenge the legality of the search on the ground that the
peace officers did not inform him about his right to remain silent and his right to
counsel? Explain your answer.
(3) Suppose the peace officers were able to find unlicensed firearms in the house in
an adjacent lot, that is. No, 12 Shaw Boulevard, which is also owned by X. May
they lawfully seize the said unlicensed firearms? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) Yes, the police operatives may lawfully seize the cocaine, ….
(2) No, X cannot successfully challenge the legality of the search simply because the
peace officers did not inform him about his right to remain silent and his right to
counsel. Section
“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.”
As held in People v. Dy, 158 SCRA 111. for this provision to apply, a suspect must be
under investigation. There was no investigation involved in this case.
No. 4: Larry was an overnight guest in a motel. After he checked out the following day,
the chambermaid found an attache case which she surmised was left behind by Larry.
She turned it over to the manager who, to determine the name and address of the
owner, opened the attache case and saw packages which had a peculiar smell and
upon squeezing felt like dried leaves. His curiosity aroused, the manager made
an opening on one of the packages and took several grams of the contents thereof. He
took the packages to the NBI, and in the presence of agents, opened the packages, the
contents of which upon laboratory examination, turned out to be marijuana flowering
tops, Larry was subsequently found, brought to the NBI Office where he admitted
ownership of the attache case and the packages. He was made to sign a receipt for the
packages. Larry was charged in court for possession of prohibited drugs. He was
convicted. On appeal, he now poses the following issues:
1) The packages are inadmissible in evidence being the product of an illegal search and
seizure;
2) Neither is the receipt he signed admissible, his rights under custodial investigation
not having been observed. Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
On the assumption that the issues were timely raised the answers are as follows:
2) The receipt is not admissible in evidence. According to the ruling in People vs.
Mirantes, 209 SCRA 179, such receipt is in effect an extrajudicial confession of the
commission of an offense. Hence, if it was signed without the assistance of counsel, in
accordance with Section 12(3), Article IV of the Constitution, it is inadmissible in
evidence. [People v. Duhan, 142 SCRA 100 (1986)].
No. 3: 1) A, who was arrested as a suspect in a murder case was not represented by
counsel during the “question and answer” stage. However, before he was asked to sign
his statements to the police investigator, the latter provided A with a counsel, who
happened to be at the police station. After conferring with A, the counsel told the police
investigator that A was ready to sign the statements.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) No, the statements of A cannot be presented in court as his confession. He was not
assisted by counsel during the actual questioning. There is no showing that the lawyer
who belatedly conferred with him fully explained to him the nature and consequences of
his confession. In People vs. Compil 244 SCRA 135, the Supreme Court held that
the accused must be assisted by counsel during the actual questioning and the belated
assistance of counsel before he signed the confession does not cure the defect.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, the statements of A can be presented in court as his confession. As held in People
vs. Rous, 242 SCRA 732, even if the accused was not assisted by counsel during the
questioning, his confession is admissible if he was able to consult a lawyer before he
signed.
(2) Before interrogation, the policeman on duty informed the boy in English that he
does “have a right to remain silent and the right to counsel.” However, there was no
counsel available as it was midnight. He declared orally that he did not need any lawyer
as he was innocent, since he was only bringing the marijuana leaves to his employer in
Quezon City and was not a drug user. He was charged with illegal possession of
prohibited drugs. Is his waiver of the right to counsel valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) No, the search was not valid, because there was no probable cause ….
(2) No, the waiver of the right to counsel is not valid, since it was not reduced in writing
and made in the presence of counsel. Under Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987
Constitution to be valid, the waiver must be made in writing and in the presence of
counsel.