Scribd
Upload
29 views1 page

People v. Policarpio

Uploaded by

fr
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
29 views1 page

People v. Policarpio

Uploaded by

fr
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

If the person under custodial investigation has not been informed of any of the above-mentioned rights, any confession

or declaration given by him during said investigation shall


be inadmissible.[65] To be valid, the information to be given to the accused regarding his rights must be more than a perfunctory recitation of such rights; it must be made in
practical terms, in a language or dialect he understands and in a manner he comprehends, the degree of explanation varying according to the person’s level of education and
[66]
intelligence. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty does not apply to in-custody confessions. The prosecution must prove compliance with the
aforementioned constitutional requirements.[67]

No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, or by any person in his behalf, or appointed by the court
upon petition either by the detainee himself or by anyone in his behalf. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of
counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of this procedure, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.[68]

[69]
In People v. Policarpio, the accused who was arrested in a buy-bust operation refused to give a statement after having been informed of his Constitutional rights; but he was
made to acknowledge in writing that six plastic bags of marijuana leaves were confiscated from him, and he was also made to sign a receipt for Php 20.00 as the purchase price
of the marijuana. The Supreme Court ruled that said receipts were in effect extra-judicial confessions given during custodial investigation and were therefore inadmissible for
having been given without the assistance of counsel.

An extra-judicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.[70] Thus, in People v. Barlis,[71] the
accused who validly gave a statement during custodial investigation confessing to the commission of homicide and robbery was convicted of homicide only and acquitted of the
robbery charge in the absence of evidence establishing the corpus delicti of robbery.

The rights guaranteed a person under Art. III, Sec. 12 of the Constitution are not available when he is not under custodial investigation. Thus, a statement or confession
voluntarily given by an employee during an administrative investigation that he had malversed his employer’s funds is admissible although without a prior information of said
rights and without the assistance of counsel.[72]

You might also like