Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Custodial investigation refers to “any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody
or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”
This presupposes that he is suspected of having committed a crime and that the investigator is trying to elicit information or a
confession from him.
The rule begins to operate at once, as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, and
direction is aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct
interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements.
SUPPOSE THE SUSPECT WENT TO THE POLICE STATION AND NARRATED EVENTS FREELY? IS HE
CONSIDERED UNDER POLICE INVESTIGATION?
No.
The assailed statements herein were spontaneously made by petitioner and were not at all elicited through questioning. It was
established that petitioner, together with his cousin Fiscal Jayona, personally went to the police station and voluntarily made the
statement that Leticia jumped out of his vehicle at around 12:30 a.m. of September 9, 1992. The RTC and the CA did not,
therefore, err in holding that the constitutional procedure for custodial investigation is not applicable in the instant case.
RIGHTS
(1) The rights of an accused person under in-custody investigation are expressly enumerated in Sec. 12, Art. III of the
Constitution, viz:
(a)Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his rights to remain
silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel;
(b)No torture, force, violence, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited;
(c)Any confession or admission in violation of this or Sec. 17 (Self-Incrimination Clause) hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him;
(d)The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violation of this section as well as compensation to aid rehabilitation of
victims of torture or similar practice, and their families.
(2) Under RA 7834, the following are the rights of persons arrested, detained or under custodial investigation:
(a)Any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel;
(b)Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or in his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any
person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his right to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to
confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of
his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer;
(c)The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by investigating officer, provided that before such report is
signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately
explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or dialect known
to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever;
(d)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, older 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;
(e)Any waiver by person arrested or detained under the provisions of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code or under custodial
investigation, shall be in writing signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise such waiver shall be null and
void and of no effect;
(f)Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by his or conferences with any member
of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by his counsel, or by any national
NGO duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person‘s ―immediate family‖ shall include his or her spouse, fiancé or
fiancée, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece and guardian or ward.
(a)The right to remain silent — Under the right against self-incrimination in Sec. 17, only an accused has the absolute right to
remain silent. A person who is not an accused may assume the stance of silence only when asked an incriminatory question. Under
Sec. 12, however, a person under investigation has the right to refuse to answer any question. His silence, moreover, may not be
used against him (People vs. Alegre and Gordoncillo, 94 SCRA 109);
(b)The right to counsel — Example of those who are not impartial counsel are (1) Special counsel, private or public prosecutor,
counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is adverse to that of the accused; (2) a mayor, unless the accused
approaches him as counselor or adviser; (3) a barangay captain; (4) any other whose interest may be adverse to that of the accused
(People vs. Tomaquin, GR 133188, July 23, 2004);
(c)The right to be informed o his rights — the right guaranteed here is more than what is shown in television shows where the
police routinely reads out the rights from a note card; he must also explain their effects in practical terms (People vs. Rojas, 147
SCRA 169). Short of this, there is a denial of the right, as it cannot then truly be said that the person has been informed of his rights
(People vs. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289).
(4) Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. The right to custodial investigation begins only when the
investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has
been taken into police custody, the police carry out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements
(Escobedo vs. Illinois, 378 US 478; People vs. Marra, 236 SCRA 565). It should be noted however, however, that although the
scope of the constitutional right is limited to the situation in Escobedo and Marra, RA 7438 has extended the guarantee to situations
in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been ―invited‖ for questioning (People vs. Dumantay, GR
130612, May 11, 1999; People vs. Principe, GR 135862, May 2, 2002).
DEAN RIANO EVIDENCE FINALS REVIEWER and LAST MINUTE TIPS
by Bimby and Klowee
6. Testimonial Evidence Adverse party Read Sec. 6. Loss, Destroyed, Unavailable Originals (Sec 5)
*Showing that the original document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party does not
ipso facto authorize the introduction of secondary evidence to prove its contents. The party who seeks to
present secondary evidence must lay a basis for its introduction.
Laying the basis:
After the foundational requirement for the introduction of secondary evidence have been complied with,
secondarily evidence may now be presented as in the case of loss. This mean that the contents of the
document may now be proven by
a copy of the document a recital of its contents in some authentic document
By testimony of a witness in the order stated (Sec. 5 Rule 130)
i. Are the rights of the accused violated in case of compulsory HIV testing? No. There is no
testimonial compulsion involved by extracting blood from the accused for testing purposes. Thus, there is
no violation of the right to privacy and the right to be presumed innocent.
ii. Should DNA evidence be admitted? Yes. The right against self incrimination applies only to
testimonial evidence. Extracting blood samples and cutting strands of hair do not involve testimonial
compulsion but purely mechanical acts which neither requires discretion or reasoning. (Tijing v. Court of
Appeals.
iii. The right against self incrimination does not apply to physical and mechanical act. It applies only to
testimonial compulsion which is not the case under the facts.
iv. Degrading questions although degrading a witness must answer the question if the degrading
answer a) is the very fact in issue; or b) refers to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed.
(Rule 132)
8. What are the elements of a dying declaration? #3 exam
*Must comply with the following foundational elements
1. That the declaration is one made by a dying person;
2. That the declaration was made by said dying person under the consciousness
Of impending death
3. That the declaration refers to the cause and circumstances surrounding the death of the
declarant and not of anyone else;
4. That the declaration is offered in a case where the declarant’s death is the subject of inquiry;
5. The declarant is competent as a witness had he survived;
6. The declarant should have died.
Note: must refer to the death of the declarant, not merely injuries.
*If the declarant survives HIS DECLARATION MAY BE ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF THE RES GESTAE.
*The former rule embodied in Supreme Court decisions, which declared that a dying declaration is offered
in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide wherein the declarant is the victim, no longer holds
true. As amended
9. Exceptions to the hearsay rule, are all hearsay, but are admissible Sec. 36 of Rule 130 ex.
Which of the following is hearsay?
Hearsay vs. Opinion
Hearsay evidence is one that is not based on An opinion evidence is based on the
one’s personal knowledge of others to prove the personal knowledge or personal
truth of the matter asserted in an out-or-court conclusion of the witness based on his
skill, training, or experience.
Independent relevant statement: “The newspaper clipping is admissible as non-hearsay if offered for the
purpose of showing that the statement of X was made to a reporter regardless of the truth or falsityof the
statement. If it is relevant, it is admissible as an independent relevant statement (non hearsay) It would be
hearsay if offered to prove the truth that x was the robber.
Exception to the Hearsay Rule:
1. Dying Declarations
2. Declaration against interest
3. Act or declaration about pedigree
4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
5. Common reputation
6. Parts of the res Gestae
7. Entries in the course of business
8. Entries in official records
9. Commercial lists
10. Learned treatises
11. Testimony or deposition at a former trial
Dying Declarations
*must be impending, near, and certain.
Common reputation
While common reputation in the community may establish a matter of public or general interest, marriage
or moral character, it CANNOT establish pedigree. This is established by reputation in the family and not
in the community.
Learned Treaties.
History books, published finding of scientists fall within this exception IF the subject testifies to the
expertise of the writer of if the court takes judicial notice of such fact.
Waiver
The rules of evidence may be waived. The rules are established for the protection of the parties. Except if
the rule waived by the parties has been established by law on grounds of public policy.
Judicial admissions are always conclusive upon the admitter and do not require formal offer as evidence,
unlike in the case of extra-judicial admissions.
Rule on dismissed pleadings
Admissions made in pleadings that have been dismissed are merely extrajudicial admission.
Can be invoke only if one of the spouses is a Can be claimed whether or not the other
party to the action spouse is a party to the action
Applies only if the marriage is existing at the Can be claimed even after the marriage is
time the testimony is offered dissolved
Constitutes a total prohibition for or against Applies only to confidential communications
the spouse of the witness between the spouses
The objection would be raisedon the ground The married person is on the stand but the
of marriage. The married witness would not objection of privilege is raised when
be allowed to take the stand at all because of confidential marital communication is inquired
the disqualification. Even if the testimony is into.
for or against the objecting spouse, the
spouse-witness cannot testify.