The police got a report about a shooting incident during a town fiesta. One person was killed. The police immediately went to the scene and started asking the people about what they witnessed. In due time, they were pointed to Edward Gunman, a security guard, as the possible malefactor. Edward was then having refreshment in one of the eateries when the police approached him. They asked him if he had a gun to which question he answered yes. Then they asked if he had seen anybody shot in the vicinity just a few minutes earlier and this time he said he did not know about it. After a few more questions, one of the policemen asked Edward if he was the shooter. He said no, but then the policeman who asked him told him that several witnesses pointed to hi m as the shooter. Whereupon Edward broke down and started explaining that it was a matter of self-defense. Edwardwas eventually charged with murder. During his trial, the statements he made to the police were introduced as evidence against him. He obj ected claiming that they were inadmissible since he was not given his Miranda rights. On the other hand, the prosecution countered that there was no need for such rights to be given since he was not yet arrested at the time of the questioning. If you wer e the judge, how would you rule on the issue? (4%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
If I were the judge, I would rule that Edward's statements to the police are inadmissible. Under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution and People vs Marra, custodial investigation begins when questioning ceases to be a general
Unlock the full Political Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
When does custodial investigation begin under Philippine constitutional jurisprudence?
Custodial investigation attaches as soon as police questioning focuses on a specific suspect.
Under People v. Marra, what requirement must be satisfied for an extrajudicial confession during custodial investigation to be admissible?
Extrajudicial confessions are admissible only if preceded by Miranda warnings and assisted by independent counsel.
What is the legal consequence under Article III, Section 12(3) of an extrajudicial admission obtained without Miranda warnings?
Any admission obtained in violation of Miranda rights is strictly inadmissible under the exclusionary rule.
Can a suspect validly waive the right to counsel during a custodial investigation?
Choices available with full access.
Why is an extrajudicial confession of self-defense made during an unadvised police interrogation inadmissible?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Custodial Investigation Stage
Under Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and People v. Marra, custodial investigation commences as soon as police questioning ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect. Once an individual is singled out, law enforcement officers are constitutionally required to inform the suspect of their Miranda rights. Questioning conducted after focus has attached without these procedural safeguards constitutes an illegal custodial interrogation, rendering any confession or admission obtained during such questioning unconstitutional.
2. Miranda Rights Scope
The constitutional rights under custodial investigation include the right to remain silent, the right to competent and independent counsel preferably of the suspect's choice, and the right to be informed of these rights. These guarantees cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of these rights is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose under the exclusionary rule. Consequently, statements elicited through unadvised custodial interrogation cannot support a judgment of conviction.
3. Exclusionary Rule Principle
Under Section 12(3), Article III of the Constitution, any confession or admission extracted in violation of custodial rights is completely inadmissible in evidence against the accused. Known as the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine or exclusionary rule, this prohibition seeks to deter police lawlessness and safeguard individual liberty. Even if an extrajudicial admission or confession is made voluntarily or spontaneously, the failure of law enforcement to administer Miranda warnings prior to focused interrogation mandates its total exclusion from court proceedings.