CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

Why are the Miranda rights created?

-

To give Balance between the individual right and vast power of government

MIRANDA RIGHTS
Right of a person under investigation to:
a. Have an independent and competent counsel
b. Right to remain silent
c. Right to be informed of these rights
Originally, these rights are available only during custodial investigation. Thats why
these are called rights of persons under custodial investigation.
However, jurisprudence will teach us that this principle over the years have
broadened the concept.

WHEN IS THERE CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION?

-

When there is an inquiry

initiated by law enforcement agents
after a person is taken in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any
significant way

this refers to a stage which is no longer a general exploratory investigation

but focuses on a particular suspect after a person is arrested or taken into
custody

process where a police elici statement frm suspect about hs participation,

involvement, knowledge of the commission of the crime

it starts the moment the person is taken into custody, either because he was
arrested or voluntarily surrendered himself

TAKE NOTE, HOWEVER:

Before RA 7834 which is an act that defines a person arrested under custody, 7438
has expanded the concept of custodial investigation to practice of police INVITING
persons who are suspected to be involved in the commission of a crime.
In this case, there is no actual custody or deprivation of liberty but made under the
guise of invitation. That is already a custodial investigation and therefore, the

Miranda warnings should start to operate. He is now entitled to be informed of those

rights.
PP VS DEL ROSARIO:
This involves a robbery. 2 men robbed a woman in the street and the whole incident
was witnessed by a tricycle driven. In the process, one of the robbers shot the
victim to death. The robbers took the bag of the victim and ran away, proceeded to
and boarded the tricycle driven by accused Del Rosario. The witness was also a
tricycle driver and gave chase and took note of the plate number and identified the
driver. The witness reported o the police and upon investigation, the police was able
to identify the owner of the tricycle. They went to office of brgy where the owner of
the tricycle resides and the Accused was invited to the office of the brgy captain
where he made some admissions a day after the incident. He was accused of acting
as a lookout of the getaway tricycle. His defense was that he was acting under the
two instructions of the robber, he was threatened.
Issue: admissibility of confession made by accused at the office of brgy captain
where he was invited
Accuseds argument: argued that the evidence is inadmissible because at the time
of the admission he was not assisted by counsel and therefore the Miranda rights
were violated.
Prosecutors argument: Miranda rights do not apply because he was not under
custodial investigation. He was not detained or taken into custody.

SC: Applied RA 7438 which says, the concept of C.I. is now broadened to include the
practice of police in issuing invitation to suspect for questioning. The moment he
was invited, he is deemed to be under C.I. From this moment, he is entitled to his
Miranda rights.

Since there was a violation of Miranda rights in this case, the admission is
inadmissible.
WHEN ARE MIRANDA RIGHTS AVAILABLE?
1. During custodial investigation
2. Suspect is taken into custody brought to a judge and the latter asks hij
incrimination questions and the accused made incrimination admission
- Not your normal C.I. because not initiated by police.

PP VS BALOLOY
Rape and killing of 9 year old. His father asked her to borrow rice from a neighbour
but she never came back. After a prolonged search, the accused went to the house
and talked to the father and told the father that there was a dead body of a girl
floating at the waterfalls. This incident was reported to the police and brgy captain.
During the ensuing night, a vigil/wake was held where the accused attended and he
partook the snacks! Bagag face!
The wake was attended by brgy captain Ceniza. Someone turned over a black rope
found where the victims body was found. With all his stupidity, the accused
volunteered hat the black rope belonged to him. The brgy captain ceniza, who all
along suspected him as the accused, asked him aside and talked privately where
accused admitted to the commission of the crime. The brgy captain brought the
accused to police and the latter gathered the testimony of the witnesses. One
witness was the brgy captain.
Because of the identification by the barangay captain, the judge asked the accused
if he committed the crime and he said yes.
ISSUE: admissibility made by accused to brgy captain AND judge
SC:
Admission made before judge is INADMISSIBLE. Once taken into custody, C.I. is
deemed to have started. At the time he made a confession to the judge, he is
deemed to be under custody. Thus, under the Miranda doctrine, he should not have
been interrogated. So the interrogations made by the judge is already covered by
the Miranda warnings.

3. Preliminary investigation
- Stage in a crim process here suspect is already identified and the compliant is
already filed against him and filed with the office of the prosecutor.
- Any admission made by (respondent) is already covered by Miranda warning

BONGKIKO:
Murder of an employer who allegedly mistreated his workers
There was a construction of an apartment and hired services of accused to do
construction. Because of failure to pay the employees on time, he was murdered.
There was an eyewitness. Accused was arrested. Accused made 2 extra judicial
confessions:

a. Preliminary investigation- he admitted how he murdered the victim

b. During the trail, he made a contrary to the admission made during the PI
WON admission made during PI is admissible?
SC: Miranda rights may be invoked in pre-trial stages where they partake the
nature of custodial investigation characterized by intimidating and relentless
process which is exactly the nature of PI. The public prosecutor pursues those to be
prosecuted of the crime.
SO MIRANDRA RIGHTS MAY EQUALLY BE INVOKED DURING PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION. The atmosphere in PI is akin to that during CI and there is no
reason why Miranda warnings should not be applied.
INSTANCES WHERE MIRANDA RIGHTS MAY NOT BE INVOKED:
1. Spontaneous statements not elicited by police questioning but given in an
ordinary manner
-

So admissible even if not assisted with counsel

Even if the person is under police custody, any spontaneous statement is not
covered.

PP VS GUILLERMO
-

Employers body was chopped off. Accused made admissions to media

reporters during the interview. During trail, prosecution presented these
admissions. Accused sought exclusion of the evidence because it was not
made with the assistance of counsel

SC: Miranda warnings or rights of person under CI do not cover spontaneous

statement not elicit through police questioning. In this case, the confession made
was in response to media reporters who are not agents of the state but mere
civilians. There Is no violation of the Miranda rights.

PP VS PABLITO ANDAN
Rape and killing of 19 yo HS student.
There is Evidence gathered in crime scene which was traced to be connected to the
accused, so the accused got arrested. The mayor of the town where the crime was
committed went to the police station because he took lead in the apprehension of
the suspect. When mayor arrived at police station where accused was detained,
Andan had a private talk with the mayor where accused admitted to the rape and
killing. He was prosecuted on basis of oral confession made to mayor. He contested

the legality of the admissibility because it was not made with the assistance of
counsel.

Sc: Miranda rights do not cover spontaneous statements not elicited through police
questioning. When he made such confession, he did not do it IN RESPONSE to police
questioning. He was not even asked by anyone at all. He was the one who
volunteered the commission to the mayor.
Miranda warnings are intended to avoid slightest coercion but it is not intended to
prevent persons from being truthful. So long as admission is made voluntarily and
not in response to a police questioning, even if person is under detention or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action, the admission is admissibile.

The operative fact is WON it is in response to police questioning.

2. Spontaneous statements made by suspect BEFORE he is taken into custody

Because CI starts the moment he is taken into custody. The critical factor to
determine is WHEN the statement is made.
PP VS BALOLOY
Accused assailed the admissibility of the confession made before the barangay
captain under Miranda rights doctrine.
SC: Miranda rights were not yet operative when admission is made because he was
not yet arrested. Therefore, it cannot be deemed part under C.I.

3. Object evidence
- The rule applies only to testimonial compulsion
PP VS PAYNOR
Paynor killed a HS teacher whose killing was witnessed by the pupil. When the pupil
was interviewed by the police, he said he saw someone with blue maong pants,
white shirt with print in front, green handkerchief wrapped around neck and brown
hat on his neck. Accused arrested and police officer forcibly stripped him of the
pants, hat, and handkerchief. These were presented in evidence to corroborate the
testimony of the eyewitness. The admission was objected to under Miranda warning
because when these items were taken out of the body of the accused, he was not
assisted with counsel.

SC: the rule on exclusion based on Miranda warnings doesnt intend to exclude body
of accused especially when it is material in evidence. So there is no violation of the
rights when the accused was stripped off of his clothing even if forcibly done.

PP VS MALIMIT
Robbery with homicide
On the basis of evidence gathered in the crime scene, the suspect was arrested
during police investigation, the suspect led the police to place where accused hid
the items (Wallet, residence cert, ID, keys). These were presented in evidence to
prove that these are the items recovered by the police and taken by the accused.
SC: what can be excluded by the Miranda warning was only the statement made by
the suspect but not the wallet, id, cedula and keys because these are object
evidence not covered by Miranda warnings.

(QUESTION NI AIKS 30:10s)

4. Rights against self incrimination