Facts: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines and was allegedly

involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. The PAL management notified him of
an investigation to be conducted. That investigation was scheduled in accordance with PAL's
Code of Conduct and Discipline, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the
Philippine Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. A letter was
sent by Ramos stating his willingness to settle the amount of P76,000. The findings of the
Audit team were given to him, and he refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets also stating that
he was prevented from settling said amounts. He proffered a compromise however this did not
ensue. Two months after a crime of estafa was charged against Ramos. Ramos pleaded not guilty.
Evidence by the prosecution contained Ramos written admission and statement, to which
defendants argued that the confession was taken without the accused being represented by a
lawyer. Respondent Judge did not admit those stating that accused was not reminded of his
constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel. A motion for reconsideration
filed by the prosecutors was denied. Hence this appeal.
Issue: Whether or Not the respondent Judge correct in making inadmissible as evidence the
admission and statement of accused.

Held: No. The judge should admit the evidence in court as the accused was not under
custodial investigation when his statements were taken. One cannot invoke violation of the
right to counsel in administrative proceeding. The right to self incrimination and custodial
investigation are accorded only when the accused is subjected to custodial inquest which
involves the questioning initiated by police authorities after a person is taken in custody or
deprived of his freedom in any way. Because the statements were obtained beyond the
purview of custodial investigation the evidence should be admitted in court.
Rights in custodial interrogation as laid down in miranda v. Arizona: the rights of the accused
include:
1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right.
2) nor force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will
shall be used against him.
3) any confession obtained in violation of these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence.
He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything
he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an
attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any
questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise those rights must be afforded to him
throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, such opportunity afforded

MDREYES.

him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or
make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waivers are demonstrated by the
prosecution at the trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used
against him.
The objective is to prohibit "incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a policedominated atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statement without full warnings of
constitutional rights."

MDREYES.