Political Law Bar Exam Answers: Custodial Investigation

Custodial       Investigation;       Extrajudicial Confession (2001)

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%)

FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

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.

SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;

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.

Custodial       Investigation;       Extrajudicial Confession; Police Line-Up (1994)

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.

Custodial    Investigation;    Police    Line-Up (1997)

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.

Custodial  Investigation;  Right  to  Counsel (1988)

No. 15: Armando Salamanca, a notorious police character,  came  under  custodial  investigation for a robbery in Caloocan City. From the outset, the police officers informed him of his right to remain silent, and also his right to have a counsel of his choice, if he could afford one or if not,  the  government  would  provide  him  with such counsel.

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.

Custodial  Investigation;  Right  to  Counsel (1993)

No. 17; In his extrajudicial confession executed before the police authorities, Jose Walangtakot admitted killing his girlfriend in a fit of jealousy. This admission was made after  the  following answer and question to wit:

“S – Nandiyan naman po si Fiscal (point to Assistant Fiscal Aniceto Malaputo) kaya hindi ko na kinakailanganang abogado.”

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:

The confession of Jose Walangtakot is inadmissible in evidence. The warning given to him is insufficient in accordance with the ruling in People v. Duero, 104 SCRA 379, he should have been warned also that he has the right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him. Besides, under Art. III, Sec. 12(1) of the Constitution, the counsel assisting a person being investigated must be independent. Assistant Fiscal Aniceto Malaputo could not assist Jose Walangtakot. As held in People v. Viduya, 189 SCRA 403, his function is to prosecute criminal cases. To allow him to act as defense counsel during custodial investigations would render nugatory the constitutional rights of the accused during custodial investigation. What the Constitution requires is a counsel who will effectively undertake the defense of his client without any conflict of interest. The answer of Jose Walangtakot indicates that he did not fully understand his rights. Hence, it cannot be said that he knowingly and intelligently waived those rights.

Custodial  Investigation;  Right  to  Counsel (2000)

No XI. On October 1, 1985,     Ramos was arrested by a security guard because he appeared to be “suspicious” and brought to a police precinct where in the course of the investigation he admitted he was the killer in an unsolved homicide committed a week earlier. The proceedings of his investigation were put in writing and dated October 1, 1985, and the only participation of counsel assigned to him was his mere presence and signature on the statement. The  admissibility  of  the  statement  of  Ramos was placed in issue but the prosecution claims that the confession was taken on October 1,

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).

Custodial Investigation; Right to Counsel; Receipt of Property Seized (2002)

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.

On appeal he contends that –

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:

A.     It is admissible…

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.

Custodial Investigation; Rights (1990)

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

12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:

“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.

(3)  The unlicensed firearms stored at 12 Shaw Boulevard may lawfully be seized …

Custodial Investigation; Rights (1993)

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;