216 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Peoplevs.Ayson
*
G.R.No.85215.July7,1989.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON.

JUDGERUBENAYSON,PresidingoverBranch6,RegionalTrial
Court, First Judicial Region, Baguio City, and FELIPE RAMOS,
respondents.

ConstitutionalLawBillofRights2setsofRightsunderSec.20,Art.
IVof1973Constitution.Itshouldatoncebeapparentthattherearetwo(2)
rights, or sets of rights, dealt with in the section, namely: 1) the right
againstselfincriminationi.e.,therightofapersonnottobecompelledto
be a witness against himselfset out in the first sentence, which is a
verbatim reproduction of Section 18, Article III of the 1935 Constitution,
and is similar to that accorded by the Fifth Amendment of the American
Constitution, and 2) the rights of a person in custodial interrogation, i.e.,
the rights of every suspect under investigation for the commission of an
offense.
Same Same Same Right against selfincrimination Rights in
custodial interrogation The 1987 Constitution more clearly indicates the
disparatenessoftheserights.Parenthetically,the1987Consti

______________

*FIRSTDIVISION.

217

VOL.175,JULY7,1989 217

Peoplevs.Ayson

tution indicates much more clearly the individuality and disparateness of

these rights. It has placed the rights in separate sections. The right against
selfincrimination, No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself, is now embodied in Section 17, Article III of the 1987
Constitution. The rights of a person in custodial interrogation, which have
beenmademoreexplicit,arenowcontainedinSection12ofthesameArticle
III.
SameSameSameSame Subpoena Meaning of rights against self
incrimination.The first right, against selfincrimination, mentioned in
Section20,ArticleIVofthe1973Constitution,isaccordedtoeveryperson
who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena,
inanycivil,criminal,oradministrativeproceeding.TherightisNOTtobe
compelledtobeawitnessagainsthimself.Thepreceptsetoutinthatfirst
sentencehasasettledmeaning.Itprescribesanoptionofrefusaltoanswer
incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry. It simply secures
toawitness,whetherhebeapartyornot,therighttorefusetoanswerany
particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the answer to which has a
tendency to incriminate him for some crime. However, the right can be
claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is
actuallyputtothewitness.Itcannotbeclaimedatanyothertime.Itdoesnot
giveawitnesstherighttodisregardasubpoena,todeclinetoappearbefore
thecourtatthetimeappointed,ortorefusetotestifyaltogether.Thewitness
receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as required, take the stand, be
sworn and answer questions. It is only when a particular question is
addressed to him, the answer to which may incriminate him for some
offense, that he may refuse to answer on the strength of the constitutional
guaranty.
SameSameSameSame Nature of right against selfincrimination
Must be claimed by or in behalf of the witness.The right against self
incrimination is not selfexecuting or automatically operational. It must be
claimed.Ifnotclaimedbyorinbehalfofthewitness,theprotectiondoesnot
come into play. It follows that the right may be waived, expressly, or
impliedly,asbyafailuretoclaimitattheappropriatetime.
Same Same Same Same Right in custodial investigation Miranda
rule summarized the procedural safeguards laid down for a person in
custody interrogation, Objectives of.In Miranda, Chief Justice Warren
summarized the procedural safeguards laid down for a person in police
custody,incustodyinterrogationbeingregardedas

218

218 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Peoplevs.Ayson

thecommencementofanadversaryproceedingagainstthesuspect.Hemust
bewarnedpriortoanyquestioningthathehastherighttoremainsilent,that
anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the
righttothepresenceofanattorney,andthatifhecannotaffordanattorney
one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.
Opportunitytoexercisethoserightsmustbeaffordedtohimthroughoutthe
interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity
afforded 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 selfincriminating statements
withoutfullwarningsofconstitutionalrights.
SameSameSameSame Custodial interrogation, meaning of.The
rights above specified, to repeat, exist only in custodial interrogations, or
incustody interrogation of accused persons. And, as this Court has
already stated, by custodial interrogation is meant 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. The
situationcontemplatedhasalsobeenmorepreciselydescribedbythisCourt.
x x After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation begins a
confrontation arises which at best may be termed unequal. The detainee is
brought to an army camp or police headquarters and there questioned and
crossexamined not only by one but as many investigators as may be
necessary to break down his morale. He finds himself in strange and
unfamiliar surroundings, and every person he meets he considers hostile to
him. The investigators are welltrained and seasoned in their work. They
employ all the methods and means that experience and study have taught
themtoextractthetruth,orwhatmaypassforit,outofthedetainee.Most
detaineesareunletteredandarenotawareoftheirconstitutionalrights.And
even if they were, the intimidating and coercive presence of the officers of
thelawinsuchanatmosphereoverwhelmsthemintosilence.Section20of
theBillofRightsseekstoremedythisimbalance.
SameSameSameSame A defendant on trial or under preliminary
investigationisnotundercustodialinterrogation.Itseems

219

VOL.175,JULY7,1989 219

Peoplevs.Ayson

quite evident that a defendant on trial or under preliminary investigation is

notundercustodialinterrogation.Hisinterrogationbythepolice,ifanythere
had been, would already have been ended at the time of the filing of the
criminalcaseincourt(orthepublicprosecutorsoffice).Hence,withrespect
to a defendant in a criminal case already pending in court (or the public
prosecutorsoffice),thereisnooccasiontospeakofhisrightswhileunder
custodial interrogation laid down by the second and subsequent sentences
of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, for the obvious reason
thatheisnolongerundercustodialinterrogation.
SameSameSameSameRightofanaccusedincourtorundergoing
preliminaryinvestigationbeforethepublicprosecutor.Butunquestionably,
the accused in court (or undergoing preliminary investigation before the
public prosecutor), in common with all other persons, possesses the right
against selfincrimination set out in the first sentence of Section 20 Article
IV of the 1973 Constitution, i.e., the right to refuse to answer a specific
incriminatory question at the time that it is put to him. Additionally, the
accused in a criminal case in court has other rights in the matter of giving
testimony or refusing to do so. An accused occupies a different tier of
protection from an ordinary witness. Under the Rules of Court, in all
criminal prosecutions the defendant is entitled, among others1) to be
exemptfrombeingawitnessagainsthimself,and2)totestifyaswitnessin
his own behalf but if he offers himself as a witness he may be cross
examined as any other witness however, his neglect or refusal to be a
witnessshallnotinanymannerprejudiceorbeusedagainsthim.
SameSameSameSameWitnessesAccused cannot be compelled to
testify or produce evidence in the criminal case against him.The right of
thedefendantinacriminalcasetobeexemptfrombeingawitnessagainst
himselfsignifiesthathecannotbecompelledtotestifyorproduceevidence
in the criminal case in which he is the accused, or one of the accused. He
cannotbecompelledtodosoevenbysubpoenaorotherprocessororderof
thecourt.Hecannotberequiredtobeawitnesseitherfortheprosecution,or
for a coaccused, or even for himself. In other wordsunlike an ordinary
witness (or a party in a civil action) who may be compelled to testify by
subpoena, having only the right to refuse to answer a particular
incriminatory question at the time it is put to himthe defendant in a
criminal action can refuse to testify altogether. He can refuse to take the
witnesssstand,besworn,answeranyquestion.And,asthelawcategorically
states,

220

220 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Peoplevs.Ayson

hisneglectorrefusaltobeawitnessshallnotinanymannerprejudiceorbe
usedagainsthim.
Same Same Same Same Rights of a person suspected of having
committedacrimeandsubsequentlychargedwithitscommissionincourt.
In fine, a person suspected of having committed a crime and subsequently
chargedwithitscommissionincourt,hasthefollowingrightsinthematter
ofhistestifyingorproducingeveidence,towit:1)BEFORETHECASEIS
FILED IN COURT (or with the public prosecutor, for preliminary
investigation),butafterhavingbeentakenintocustodyorotherwisedeprived
of his liberty in some significant way, and on being interrogated by the
police: the continuing right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be
informed thereof, not to be subjected to force, violence, threat, intimidation
or any other means which vitiates, the free will and to have evidence
obtainedinviolationoftheserightsrejectedand2)AFTERTHECASEIS
FILED IN COURTa) to refuse to be a witness b) not to have any
prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal c) to testify in his own
behalf, subject to crossexamination by the prosecution d) WHILE
TESTIFYING, to refuse to an answer a specific question which tends to
incriminate him for some crime othen than that for which he is then
prosecuted.
SameSameSameSame Judges Respondent judge misapprehended
thenatureandimportofthedisparaterightssetforthinSec.20,Art.IVof
the 1973 Constitution Case at bar.It should by now be abundantly
apparentthatrespondentJudgehasmisapprehendedthenatureandimportof
the disparate rights set forth in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973
Constitution. He has taken them as applying to the same juridical situation,
equating one with the other. In so doing, he has grossly erred. To be sure,
His Honor sought to substantiate his thesis by arguments he took to be
cogent and logical. The thesis was however so far divorced from the actual
and correct state of the constitutional and legal principles involved as to
make application of said thesis to the case before him tantamount to totally
unfounded,whimsicalorcapriciousexerciseofpower.Hisorderswerethus,
renderedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion.Theyshouldbeastheyarehereby,
annulledandsetaside.

PETITIONtoreviewtheordersoftheRegionalTrialCourtof
BaguioCity,Br.6.Ayson,J.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
NelsonLiduaforprivaterespondent.

221

VOL.175,JULY7,1989 221
Peoplevs.Ayson

NARVASA,J.:

Whathasgivenrisetothecontroversyatbaristheequationbythe
respondentJudgeoftherightofanindividualnottobecompelled
tobeawitnessagainsthimselfaccordedbySection20,ArticleIII
of the Constitution, with the right of any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense x x to remain silent
and to counsel, and to be informed of such right, granted by the
sameprovision.Therelevantfactsarenotdisputed.
 PrivaterespondentFelipeRamoswasaticketfreightclerkofthe
Philippine Airlines (PAL), assigned at its Baguio City station. It
havingallegedlycometolightthathewasinvolvedinirregularities
1
inthesalesofplanetickets, thePALmanagementnotifiedhimofan
investigation to be conducted into the matter of February 9, 1986.
ThatinvestigationwasscheduledinaccordancewithPALsCodeof
Conduct and Discipline, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement
signed by it with the Philippine Airlines
2
Employees Association
(PALEA)towhichRamospertained.
On the day before the investigation,
3
February 8, 1986, Ramos
gavetohissuperiorsahandwrittennote readingasfollows:

2886

TOWHOMITMAYCONCERN:

THEUNDERSIGNEDWOULDLIKETOSTATETHATHEIS
WILLINGTOSETTLEIRREGULARITIESALLEGEDLYCHARGED
VS.HIMINTHEAMT.OFP76,000(APPROX.)SUBJECTTO
CONDITIONSASMAYBEIMPOSEDBYPALONORBEFORE1700/9
FEB86.

(s)FelipeRamos
(Printed)F.Ramos

_______________

1Rollo,P.21,34.

2Id.,p.13.

3Id.,p.29.

222

222 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Ayson

At the investigation of February 9, 1986, conducted by the PAL

BranchManagerinBaguioCity,EdgardoR.Cruz,inthepresenceof
Station Agent Antonio Ocampo, Ticket Freight Clerk Rodolfo
Quitasol, and PALEA Shop Steward Cristeta Domingo, Felipe
RamoswasinformedofthefindingoftheAuditTeam.Thereafter,
his answers in response to questions by Cruz, were taken down in
writing.Ramosanswersweretotheeffectinteraliathathehadnot
indeedmadedisclosureoftheticketsmentionedintheAuditTeams
findings,thattheproceedshadbeenmisusedbyhim,thatalthough
he had planned on paying back the money, he had been prevented
from doing so, perhaps (by) shame, that he was still willing to
settle his obligation, and proferred a compromise x x to pay on
staggered basis, (and) the amount would be known in the next
investigation that he desired the next investigation to be at the
same place, Baguio CTO, and that he should be represented
therein by Shop stewardees ITR Nieves Blanco and that 4
he was
willingtosignhisstatement(asheinfactafterwardsdid). Howthe
investigation turned out is not dealt with the parties at all but it
wouldseemthatnocompromiseagreementwasreachedmuchless
consummated.
About two (2) months later, an information was filed against
Felipe Ramos charging him with the crime of estafa allegedly
committedinBaguioCityduringtheperiodfromMarch12,1986to
January29,1987.Inthatplaceandduringthattime,accordingtothe
5
indictment, he(Ramos)

x x with unfaithfulness and/or abuse of confidence, did then and there

willfullyxxdefraudthePhilippineAirlines,Inc.,BaguioBranch,xxinthe
following manner, to wit: said accused x x having been entrusted with and
receivedintrustfareticketsofpassengersforonewaytripandroundtripin
the total amount of P76,700.65, with the express obligation to remit all the
proceedsofthesale,accountforitand/ortoreturnthoseunsold,xxoncein
possessionthereofandinsteadofcomplyingwithhisobligation,withintent
todefraud,didthenandtherexxmisappropriate,misapplyandconvertthe
valueof

_______________

4Rollo,pp.6,28.

5Id.,p.19.

223

VOL.175,JULY7,1989 223
Peoplevs.Ayson

the tickets in the sum of P76,700.65 and in spite of repeated demands, x x

failedandrefusedtomakegoodhisobligation,tothedamageandprejudice
oftheoffendedpartyxx.

Onarraignmentonthischarge,FelipeRamosenteredapleaofNot
Guilty,andtrialthereafterensued.Theprosecutionofthecasewas
undertakenbylawyersofPALunderthedirectionandsupervisionof
theFiscal.
Atthecloseofthepeoplescase,theprivateprosecutorsmadea
6
writtenofferofevidencedatedJune21,1988, whichincludedthe
(above mentioned) statement of accused Felipe J. Ramos taken on
February 9, 1986 at PAL Baguio City Ticket Office, which had
beenmarkedasExhibitA,aswellashishandwrittenadmissionxx
givenonFebruary8,1986,alsoabovereferredto,whichhadbeen
markedasExhibitK.
 The defendants 7 attorneys filed Objections/Comments to
PlaintiffsEvidence. ParticularlyasregardsthepeoplesExhibitA,
the objection was that said document, which appears to be a
confession, was taken without the accused being represented by a
lawyer.ExhibitKwasobjectedtoforthesamereasonsinterposed
underExhibitsAandJ. 8
By OrderdatedAugust 9, 1988, the respondent judge admitted
all the exhibits as part of the testimony of the witnesses who
testified in connection therewith and for whatever they are worth,
except Exhibits A and K, which it rejected. His Honor declared
Exhibit A inadmissible in evidence, it appearing that it is the
statement of accused Felipe Ramos taken on February 9, 1986 at
PALBaguioCityTicketOffice,inaninvestigationconductedbythe
Branch Manager x x since it does not appear that the accused was
reminded of this constitutional rights to remain silent and to have
counsel,andthatwhenhewaivedthesameandgavehisstatement,
it was with the assistance actually of a counsel. He also declared
inadmissible Exhibit K, the handwritten admission made by
accusedFelipeJ.Ramos,givenonFebruary8,1986xxforthesame
reasonstatedinthe

_______________

6Rollo,pp.8,2127.

7Id.,pp.3032.

8Id.,pp.89,33.

224

224 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Ayson

exclusion of Exhibit A since it does not appear that the accused

wasassistedbycounselwhenhemadesaidadmission. 9
Theprivateprosecutorsfiledamotionforreconsideration.
10
Itwas
denied,byOrderdatedSeptember14,1988. Injustificationofsaid
Order,respondentJudgeinvokedthisCourtsrulingsinMorales,Jr.
v.JuanPonceEnrile,etal.,121SCRA538,Peo.v.Galit,135SCRA
467,Peo.v.Sison,142SCRA219,andPeo.v.Decierdo,149SCRA
496,amongothers,totheeffectthatincustodialinvestigationsthe
right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid
unlessmadewiththeassistanceofcounsel,andtheexplicitprecept
in the present Constitution that the rights in custodial investigation
cannotbewaivedexceptinwritingandinthepresenceofcounsel.
He pointed out that the investigation of Felipe Ramos at the PAL
Baguio Station was one for the offense of allegedly
misappropriating the proceeds of the tickets issued to him and
therefore clearly fell within the coverage of the constitutional
provisionsandthefactthatRamoswasnotdetainedatthetime,or
theinvestigationwasadministrativeincharactercouldnotoperateto
except the case from the ambit of the constitutional provision
cited.
These Orders, of August 9, 1988 and September 14, 1988 are
now assailed in the petition for certiorari and prohibition at bar,
filed in this Court by the private prosecutors in the name of the
People of the Philippines. By Resolution dated October 26, 1988,
the Court required Judge Ayson and Felipe Ramos to comment on
the petition, and directed issuance of a TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER x x ENJOINING the respondents from
proceeding further with the trial and/or hearing of Criminal Case
No.3488R(Peoplexxvs.FelipeRamos),includingtheissuanceof
any order, decision or judgment in the aforesaid case or on any
matterinrelationtothesamecase,nowpendingbeforetheRegional
TrialCourtofBaguioCity,Br.6,FirstJudicialRegion.TheCourt
alsosubsequentlyrequiredtheSolicitorGeneraltocommentonthe
petition.Thecom

_______________

9Id.,pp.3444.

10Id.,pp.4855.

225

VOL.175,JULY7,1989 225
Peoplevs.Ayson

mentsofJudgeAyson,FelipeRamos,andtheSolicitorGeneralhave
allbeenfiled.TheSolicitorGeneralhasmadecommoncausewith
the petitioner and prays that the petition be given due course and
thereafter judgment be rendered setting aside respondent Judges
Orders x x and ordering him to admit Exhibits A and K of the
prosecution. The Solicitor General has thereby removed whatever
improprietymighthaveattendedtheinstitutionoftheinstantaction
inthenameofthePeopleofthePhilippinesbylawyersdeparte of
theoffendedpartyinthecriminalactioninquestion.
TheCourtdeemsthattherehasbeenfullventilationoftheissue
ofwhetherornotitwasgraveabuseofdiscretionforrespondent
JudgetohaveexcludedthePeoplesExhibitsAandK.Itwillnow
proceedtoresolveit.
At the core of the
11
controversy is Section 20, Article IV of the
1973 Constitution, to which respondent Judge has given a
construction that is disputed by the People. The section reads as
follows:
SEC.20.Nopersonshallbecompelledtobeawitnessagainsthimself.Any
person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No
force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the
freewillshallbeusedagainsthim.Anyconfessionobtainedinviolationof
thissectionshallbeinadmissibleinevidence.

Itshouldatoncebeapparentthattherearetwo(2)rights,orsetsof
rights,dealtwithinthesection,namely:

1) the right against selfincriminationi.e., the right of a

personnottobecompelledtobeawitnessagainsthimself
set out in the first sentence, which is a verbatim
reproduction of Section 18, Article III of the 1935
Constitution, and is similar to that accorded
12
by the Fifth
AmendmentoftheAmericanConstitution, and

_______________

11TheadmissionswereallegedlymadeonFebruary8and9,1986,atwhichtime

the 1987 Constitution was not yet in effect, indeed had not yet been conceived or
drafted.
12SEE,e.g.,Taada&Fernando,ConstitutionofthePhil.,Anno.,2ded.,pp.378

379.

226

226 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Ayson

2) the rights of a person in custodial interrogation, i.e., the

rights of every suspect under investigation for the
commissionofanoffense.

Parenthetically, the 1987 Constitution indicates much more clearly

theindividualityanddisparatenessoftheserights.Ithasplacedthe
rightsinseparatesections.Therightagainstselfincrimination,No
person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself, is now
embodied in Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The
rightsofapersonincustodialinterrogation,whichhavebeenmade
moreexplicit,arenowcontainedinSection12ofthesameArticle
13
III.

RightAgainstSelfIncrimination
The first right, against selfincrimination, mentioned in Section 20,
ArticleIVofthe1973Constitution,isaccordedtoeverypersonwho
gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under compulsion of
subpoena,inanycivil,criminal,oradministrative
_______________

13Theprovisionreadsasfollows:

SEC.12.(1)Anypersonunderinvestigationforthecommissionofanoffenseshallhavethe
right to be informed of his right 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
presenceofcounsel.

(2) Notorture,force,violence,threat,intimidation,oranyothermeanswhichvitiatethe
free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado,
orothersimilarformsofdetentionareprohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding section
shallbeinadmissibleinevidenceagainsthim.
(4) Thelawshallprovideforpenalandcivilsanctionsforviolationsofthissectionaswell
as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and
theirfamilies.

227

VOL.175,JULY7,1989 227
Peoplevs.Ayson
14
proceeding. The right is NOT to be compelled to be a witness
againsthimself. 15
Thepreceptsetoutinthatfirstsentencehasasettledmeaning.
Itprescribesanoptionofrefusaltoanswerincriminatingquestions
16
and not a prohibition of inquiry. It simply secures to a witness,
whether he be a party or not, the right to refuse to answer any
particularincriminatoryquestion,i.e.,onetheanswertowhichhasa
tendencytoincriminatehimforsomecrime.However,therightcan
be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in
character,isactuallyputtothewitness.Itcannotbeclaimedatany
other time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a
subpoena, to decline to appear before the court at the time
appointed,ortorefusetotestifyaltogether.Thewitnessreceivinga
subpoenamustobeyit,appearasrequired,takethestand,besworn
and answer questions. It is only when a particular question is
addressed to him, the answer to which may incriminate him for
some offense, that he may refuse to answer on the strenght of the
constitutionalguaranty.
That first sentence of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973
Constitutiondoesnotimposeonthejudge,orotherofficerpresiding
over a trial, hearing or investigation, any affirmative obligation to
advise a witness of his right against selfincrimination. It is a right
that a witness knows or should know, in accordance with the well
known axiom that every one is presumed to know the law, that
ignoranceofthelawexcusesnoone.Furthermore,intheverynature
ofthings,neitherthejudgenorthewitnesscanbeexpectedtoknow
in advance
17
the character or effect of a question to be put to the
latter.

_______________

14Bermudezv.Castillo,64Phil.483Gonzalesv.SecretaryofLabor,94Phil.325

Suarezv.Tengco,2SCRA71Pascualv.BoardofMedicalExaminers,28SCRA344.
15 SEE Chavez v. C.A., 24 SCRA 663 Suarez v. Tengco, supra, 2 SCRA 71
Gonzalesv.SecretaryofLabor,supra,94Phil.325,citingJonesonEvidence,Vol.6,
pp.49267.
16Suarezv.Tengco,supra,atp.73.

17SEECruz,I.A.,ConstitutionalLaw,1987ed.,p.275.

228

228 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Ayson

The right against selfincrimination is not selfexecuting or

automaticallyoperational.Itmustbeclaimed.Ifnotclaimedbyorin
behalf of the witness, the protection does not come into play. It
followsthattherightmaybewaived,expressly,orimpliedly,asbya
18
failuretoclaimitattheappropriatetime.

RightsinCustodialInterrogation
Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution also treats of a
second right, or better said, group of rights. These rights apply to
persons under investigation for the commission of an offense,
i.e.,suspectsunderinvestigationbypoliceauthoritiesandthisis
what makes these rights different from that embodied in the first
sentence, that against selfincrimination which, as aforestated,
indiscriminatelyappliestoanypersontestifyinginanyproceeding,
civil, criminal, or administrative. This provision granting explicit
rights to persons under investigation for an offense was not in the
1935 Constitution. It is avowedly derived 19from the decision of the
U.S.SupremeCourtinMirandav.Arizona, adecisiondescribedas
20
anearthquakeintheworldoflawenforcement.
Section 20 states that whenever any person is under
investigationforthecommissionofanoffense

1) heshallhavetherighttoremainsilentandtocounsel,and
21
tobeinformedofsuchright,
2) norforce,violence,threat,intimidation,oranyothermeans

_______________
 18U.S.v.Molina,317U.S.,424U.S.v.Binayoh,35Phil.23SEEalsoTaada&

Fernando,op.cit.,p.379.
19384U.S.436,16L.Ed.694.10A.L.R.3d,974.

20Peo.v.Duero,104SCRA379.

21The1987Constitution(Sec.12,ART.III)makesclearthatthepersonsrightto

counsel refers to competent and independent counsel preferably of his own

choice,thatifthepersoncannotaffordtheservicesof(such)counsel,hemustbe
providedwithone,and,assuggestedinPeo.v.Galit,135SCRA465,thattherights
tosilenceandtocounselcannotbewaivedexceptinwritingandinthepresenceof
counsel(SEECruz,op.cit.,p.282).

229

VOL.175,JULY7,1989 229
Peoplevs.Ayson
22
whichvitiatesthefreewillshallbeusedagainsthim and
3) any confession obtained in violation
23
of x x (these rights
shallbeinadmissibleinevidence.

In Miranda, Chief Justice Warren summarized the procedural

safeguards laid down for a person in police custody, incustody
interrogationbeingregardedasthecommencementofanadversary
24
proceedingagainstthesuspect.

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
hehastherighttothepresenceofanattorney,andthatifhecannotaffordan
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 him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently
waivetheserightsandagreetoanswerormakeastatement.Butunlessand
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
incriminatingstatementwithoutfullwarningsofconstitutional

_______________

22 The 1987 Constitution adds that Secret detention places, solitary,

incommunicado,orothersimilarformsofdetentionareprohibited.
23 The proviso, as now found in the 1987 Constitution, makes inadmissible in
evidenceanyconfessionoradmissionobtainednotonlyininfringementoftherights
mentioned(tosilence,tocounsel,etc.)butalsoinviolationofSec.11,Art.III,tothe
effect that Free access to the courts and quasijudicial bodies and adequate legal
assistanceshallnotbedeniedtoanypersonbyreasonofpoverty.Thenewcharter
alsorequiresthatThelawshallprovideforpenalandcivilsanctionsforviolationsof
this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or
similarpractices,andtheirfamilies.
24SEEPeo.v.Duero,supra,104SCRA379Peo.v.Jimenez,71SCRA186Peo.v.

Robles,104SCRA450Peo.v.Caguioa,95SCRA2.

230

230 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Ayson
25
rights.
The rights above specified, to repeat, exist only in custodial 26
interrogations, or incustody interrogation of accused persons.
And, as this Court has already stated, by custodial interrogation is
meant questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a
person has been taken into custody or otherwise 27
deprived of his
freedom of action in any significant way. The situation 28
contemplatedhasalsobeenmorepreciselydescribedbythisCourt.

x x. After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation begins a

confrontation arises which at best may be termed unequal. The detainee is
brought to an army camp or police headquarters and there questioned and
crossexamined not only by one but as many investigators as may be
necessary to break down his morale. He finds himself in strange and
unfamiliarsurroundings,andeverypersonhemeets

_______________

25Peo.v.Duero,supra,atp.388.

26Peo.v.Duero,supra,atp.386.

The Solicitor Generals Comment, rollo, pp. 95, 102103, states that the 1971
Constitutional Convention defined investigation as investigation conducted by the police
authoritieswhichwillincludeinvestigationsconductedbythemunicipalpolice,thePCandthe
NBIandsuchotherpoliceagenciesinourgovernment(Session,November25,1972).
27Peo.v.Caguioa,95SCRA2,9,quotingMiranda.

TheSolicitorGeneralsComment(rollo,p.103)statesthataccordingtoEscobedov.Illinois,
378U.S.478,whichprecededMiranda,384U.S.436,therighttocounselattacheswhenthe
investigationisnolongerageneralinquiryintoanunsolvedcrimebuthasbeguntofocusona
particularsuspect,thesuspecthasbeentakenintopolicecustody,thepolicecarryoutaprocess
ofinterrogationsthatlendsitselftoelicitingincriminatingstatements.TheComment(rollo,
p. 108) also draws attention to Gamboav.Cruz,G.R. No. 56292, June 27, 1988 where this
CourtdeclaredthatTherighttocounselattachesonlyuponthestartofaninvestigation,when
the police officer starts to ask questions designed to elicit information and/or confessions or
admissionsfromtheaccused.
28Moralesv.Enrile,etalMoncupa,Jr.v.Enrile,etal.,121SCRA538,553.
 231

VOL.175,JULY7,1989 231
Peoplevs.Ayson

heconsidershostiletohim.Theinvestigatorsarewelltrainedandseasoned
in their work. They employ all the methods and means that experience and
study have taught them to extract the truth, or what may pass for it, out of
the detainee. Most detainees are unlettered and are not aware of their
constitutional rights. And even if they were, the intimidating and coercive
presenceoftheofficersofthelawinsuchanatmosphereoverwhelmsthem
into silence. Section 20 of the Bill of Rights seeks to remedy this
imbalance.

Not every statement made to the police by a person involved in

somecrimeiswithinthescopeoftheconstitutionalprotection.Ifnot
madeundercustodialinterrogation,orunderinvestigationforthe
commissionofanoffense,thestatementisnotprotected.Thus,in
29
onecase, where a person went to a police precint and before any
sortofinvestigationcouldbeinitiated,declaredthathewasgiving
himself up for the killing of an old woman because she was
threateningtokillhimbybarang,orwitchcraft,thisCourtruledthat
suchastatementwasadmissible,compliancewiththeconstitutional
procedure on custodial interrogation not being exigible under the
circumstances.

RightsofDefendantinCriminalCase
AsRegardsGivingofTestimony
It is pertinent at this point to inquire whether the rights just
discussed,i.e.,(1)thatagainstselfincriminationand(2)those

_______________

29Peo.v.Taylaran,108SCRA373.

In this connection, the Solicitor General opines that socalled onthescene

questioningofcitizensbypoliceofficersinthefactfindingprocessareundoubtedly
admissible,for,asdistinguishedfromallquestioningofasuspect,inxx(sucha)
situation the compelling atmosphere inherent in the process of incustody
interrogation is not necessarily present. According to him, when investigating
crimes, an officer may inquire of persons not under restraint (Constitutional Law,
Klotter/Kanovitz,4thed.,1984)xxxandsuchgeneralonthescenequestionsarenot
thoughttobeaccusatorybecausetheylackthecompellingatmosphereinherentinthe
process of incustody interrogation (Civil Rights and Liberties, A.L. Bonnicksen,
1982ed.).

232

232 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 Peoplevs.Ayson

during custodial interrogation apply to persons under preliminary

investigationoralreadychargedincourtforacrime.
It seems quite evident that a defendant on trial or under
preliminary investigation is not under custodial interrogation. His
interrogationbythepolice,ifanytherehadbeenwouldalreadyhave
beenendedatthetimeofthefilingofthecriminalcaseincourt(or
thepublicprosecutorsoffice).Hence,withrespecttoadefendantin
acriminalcasealreadypendingincourt(orthepublicprosecutors
office), there is no occasion to speak of his right while under
custodial interrogation laid down by the second and subsequent
sentencesofSection20,ArticleIVofthe1973Constitution,forthe
obviousreasonthatheisnolongerundercustodialinterrogation.
But unquestionably, the accused in court (or undergoing
preliminaryinvestigationbeforethepublicprosecutor),incommon
withallotherpersons,possessestherightagainstselfincrimination
set out in the first sentence of Section 20 Article IV of the 1973
Constitution, i.e., the right to refuse to answer 30
a specific
incriminatoryquestionatthetimethatitisputtohim.
Additionally, the accused in a criminal case in court has other
rights in the matter of giving testimony or refusing to do so. An
accused occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary
witness.UndertheRulesofCourt,inallcriminalprosecutionsthe
defendantisentitledamongothers 31
1)tobeexemptfrombeingawitnessagainsthimself, and2)to
testify as witness in his own behalf but if he offers himself as a
witness he may be crossexamined as any other witness however,
his neglect or refusal to be a32witness shall not in any manner
prejudiceorbeusedagainsthim.

_______________

30Seefootnotes2to5andrelatedtext,atp.5,supra.

31 Sec. 1 (e), Rule 115 of the 1964 Rules of Court. The 1985 Rules on Criminal

Procedurehaveamendedtheprovisiontoread,tobeexemptfrombeingcompelledto
beawitnessagainsthimself.
32 Sec. 1 (d), Rule 115. The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure amended the
provision to read: To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross
examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silenceinstead of
merely his neglect or refusal to be a witnessshall not in any manner prejudice
him.

233

VOL.175,JULY7,1989 233
Peoplevs.Ayson
The right of the defendant in a criminal case to be exempt from
being a witness against himself signifies that he cannot be
compelled to testify or produce evidence in the criminal case in
which he is the accused, or one of the accused. He cannot be
compelled to do so even by subpoena or other process or order of
the Court. He cannot be required to be a witness either33
for the
prosecution, or for a coaccused, or even for himself. In other
wordsunlikeanordinarywitness(orapartyinacivilaction)who
may be compelled to testify by subpoena, having only the right to
refusetoansweraparticularincriminatoryquestionatthetimeitis
puttohimthedefendantinacriminalactioncanrefusetotestify
altogether.Hecanrefusetotakethewitnessstand,besworn,answer
34
anyquestion. And, as the law categorically states, his neglect or
refusaltobeawitnessshallnotinanymannerprejudiceorbeused
35
againsthim.
Ifheshouldwishtotestifyinhisownbehalf,however,hemay
doso.Thisishisright.Butifhedoestestify,thenhemaybecross
examined as any other witness. He may be crossexamined as to
any matters
36
stated in his direct examination, or connected
therewith. Hemaynotoncrossexaminationrefusetoanswerany
question on the ground that the answer that he will give, or the
evidencehewillproduce,wouldhaveatendencytoincriminatehim
forthecrimewithwhichheischarged.
Itmusthoweverbemadeclearthatifthedefendantinacriminal
actionbeaskedaquestionwhichmightincriminatehim,notforthe
crime with which he is charged, but for someothercrime, distinct
from that of which he is accused, he may decline to answer that
specificquestion,onthestrengthofthe

_______________

33Chavezv.C.A.,supra,24SCRA663.

34Id.,atpp.677678,citingCabalv.Kapunan,L19052,Dec.29,196221Am.Jur.

2d., p. 383 98 C.J.S., p. 265 Wigmore, Evidence, 1961 ed., p. 406 3 Whartons
CriminalEvidence,11thed.,pp.19591960,allcitedinGupit,Jr.,RulesofCriminal
Procedure,1986ed.,p.240.
35SeePeoplev.Gargoles,83SCRA282.

36 However, as already pointed out, the rule now limits crossexamination of an

accusedonlytomatterscoveredbydirectexamination.

234

234 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Ayson

right against selfincrimination granted by the first sentence of

Section20,ArticleIVofthe1973Constitution(nowSection17of
the 1987 Constitution). Thus, assuming that in a prosecution for
murder,theaccusedshouldtestifyinhisbehalf,hemaynotoncross
examination refuse to answer any question on the ground that he
mightbeimplicatedinthatcrimeofmurderbuthemaydeclineto
answer any particular question which might implicate him for a
differentanddistinctoffense,say,estafa.
In fine, a person suspected of having committed a crime and
subsequently charged with its commission in court, has the
following rights in the matter of his testifying or producing
evidence,towit:

1) BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT (or with the

public prosecutor, for preliminary investigation), but after
havingbeentakenintocustodyorotherwisedeprivedofhis
liberty in some significant way, and on being interrogated
by the police: the continuing right to remain silent and to
counsel,andtobeinformedthereof,nottobesubjectedto
force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means
whichvitiatesthefreewillandtohaveevidenceobtained
inviolationoftheserightsrejectedand
37
2) AFTERTHECASEISFILEDINCOURT

a) torefusetobeawitness
b) nottohaveanyprejudicewhatsoeverresulttohimbysuch
refusal
c) totestifyinhisownbehalf,subjecttocrossexaminationby
theprosecution
d) WHILE TESTIFYING, to refuse to answer a specific
question which tends to incriminate him for some crime
otherthanthatforwhichheisthenprosecuted.

ItshouldbynowbeabundantlyapparentthatrespondentJudgehas
misapprehended the nature and import of the disparate rights set
forth in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. He has
takenthemasapplyingtothesamejuridicalsituation,equatingone
withtheother.Insodoing,he

_______________

37OrduringpreliminaryinvestigationbeforeaJudgeorpublicprosecutor.

235

VOL.175,JULY7,1989 235
Peoplevs.Ayson

has grossly erred. To be sure, His Honor sought to substantiate his

thesisbyargumentshetooktobecogentandlogical.Thethesiswas
however so far divorced from the actual and correct state of the
constitutionalandlegalprinciplesinvolvedastomakeapplicationof
said thesistothecase before him tantamount to totally unfounded,
whimsical or capricious exercise of power. His Orders were thus
renderedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion.Theyshouldbeastheyare
hereby,annulledandsetaside.
It is clear from the undisputed facts of this case that Felipe
Ramos was not in any sense under custodial interrogation, as the
term should be properly understood, prior to and during the
administrative inquiry into the discovered irregularities in ticket
sales in which he appeared to have had a hand. The constitutional
rights of a person under custodial interrogation under Section 20,
ArticleIVofthe1973Constitutiondidnotthereforecomeintoplay,
wereofnorelevancetotheinquiry.Itisalsoclear,too,thatRamos
hadvoluntarilyansweredquestionsposedtohimonthefirstdayof
the administrative investigation, February 9, 1986 and agreed that
the proceedings should be recorded, the record having thereafter
been marked during the trial of the criminal action subsequently
filed against him as Exhibit A, just as it is obvious that the note
(latermarkedasExhibitK)thathesenttohissuperiorsonFebruary
8,1986,thedaybeforetheinvestigation,offeringtocompromisehis
liability in the alleged irregularities, was a free and even
spontaneous act on his part. They may not be excluded on the
groundthatthesocalledMirandarightshadnotbeenaccordedto
Ramos.
HisHonoradvertstowhatheperceivestobethegreaterdanger
x x (of) the violation of the right of any person against self
incrimination when the investigation is conducted by the
complaining parties, complaining companies, or complaining
employers because being interested parties, unlike the police
agencieswhohavenoproprietyorpecuniaryinteresttoprotect,they
may in their overeagerness or zealousness bear heavily on their
hapless suspects, whether employees or not, to give statements
under an atmosphere of moral coercion, undue ascendancy, and
undueinfluence.Itsufficestodrawattentiontothe

236

236 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Ayson

specific and peremptory requirement of the law that disciplinary

sanctions may not be imposed on any employee by his employer
until and unless the employee has been accorded due process, by
which is meant that the latter must be informed of the offenses
ascribed to him and afforded adequate time and opportunity to
explainhisside.Therequiremententailsthemakingofstatements,
oral or written, by the employee under such administrative
investigationinhisdefense,withopportunitytosolicittheassistance
of counsel, or his colleagues and friends. The employee may, of
course,refusetosubmitanystatementattheinvestigation,thatishis
privilege. But if he should opt to do so, in his defense to the
accusationagainsthim,itwouldbeabsurdtorejecthisstatements,
whether at the administrative investigation, or at a subsequent
criminal action brought against him, because he had not been
accorded, prior to his making and presenting them, his Miranda
rights (to silence and to counsel and to be informed thereof, etc.)
which, to repeat, are relevant only in custodial investigations.
Indeed, it is selfevident that the employees statements, whether
called position paper, answer, etc., are submitted by him
precisely so that they may be admitted and duly considered by the
investigating officer or committee, in negation or mitigation of his
liability.
Of course the possibility cannot be discounted that in certain
instancesthejudgesexpressedapprehensionsmayberealized,that
violenceorintimidation,unduepressureorinfluencebebroughtto
bear on an employee under investigationor for that matter, on a
person being interrogated by another whom he has supposedly
offended.Insuchanevent,anyadmissionorconfessionwrungfrom
the person under interrogation would be inadmissible in evidence,
on proof of the vice or defect vitiating consent, not because of a
violation of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, but
simplyonthegeneral,incontestablepropositionthatinvoluntaryor
coercedstatementsmaynotinjusticebereceivedagainstthemakers
thereof,andreallyshouldnotbeaccordedanyevidentiaryvalueat
all.
WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is granted annulling and
setting aside the Orders of the respondent Judge in Criminal Case
No.3488R,datedAugust9,1988andSeptember14,1988,

237

VOL.175,JULY7,1989 237
Artiaga,Jr.vs.Villanueva

andheisherebyorderedtoadmitinevidenceExhibitsAandK
oftheprosecutioninsaidCriminalCaseNo.3488R,andthereafter
proceed with the trial and adjudgment thereof. The temporary
restrainingorderofOctober26,1988havingbecomefunctusoficio,
isnowdeclaredofnofurtherforceandeffect.

Cruz,Gancayco,GrioAquinoandMedialdea,JJ.,concur.

Ordersannulledandsetaside.
 Notes.Waiver of rights against selfincrimination is not
effective unless made knowingly and intelligently. (People vs.
Nicandro,141SCRA289.)
Extrajudicial confession of accused obtained thru violence and
third degree measures are inadmissible in evidence. (People vs.
Burgos,144SCRA1.)

o0o

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.