I

PAGE 28

Rights of Person under Custodial Investigation

1.Introduction The Philippines is one of the countries in Asia that values human dignity and advocates human rights to all its constituents. The Bill of Rights is incorporated in the constitution and special laws to safeguard human rights. In this context, an independent Commission on Human Rights was created, the first in Asia. The Philippines has acceded to the major international human right treaties. The Bill of Rights contains provisions, which guarantee the rights of person against self-incrimination, torture, and other abuses while under custodial investigation. This report presents the rights of person under custodial investigation as embodied in the Philippine constitution and as defined and penalized under RA 7438. It covers the basis and source of custodial rights, the principle in custodial investigation and the duties of public employees and/or investigating officers in protecting the rights of person under investigation. It also discusses confession and admission, the rules on waiver of right to counsel, the requirements of independent and competent counsel and the law that provides compensation for the victim of torture and violation of persons rights under custodial investigation2.Historical ContextIn 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the precedent-setting case of Miranda vs. Arizona, established the rules to protect a criminal defendants privilege against self-incrimination from the pressures arising during custodial investigation by the police. Thus, to provide practical reinforcement of the right against compulsory self-incrimination, the court held that:

the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from the custodial interrogation of the dependant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.

It was suggested therein that:

Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.

As explained in Miranda,

The need for counsel in order to protect the privilege against self incrimination exists for the indigent as well as the affluent. While the authorities do not require to relieve the accused of his poverty, they have the obligation not to take advantage of indigence in the administration of justice. In order to fully apprise a person interrogated of the extent of his rights under this system then, it is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult an attorney, but also that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.It was, therefore, because of the greater concern of the framer of the Philippine Constitution that this principle was incorporated in the Bill of Rights, first in 1973 constitution then in the 1987 constitution.

The purpose of Miranda rights is to guarantee full effectuation of the privilege against self-incrimination, upon the theory that custodial investigation is inherently coercive. To counter the coercive atmosphere, the suspect is then advised of his right to remain silent and the right to counsel. This is guaranteed under Sec. 12 in relation to Sec. 17 of the 1987 Constitution. 3. Custodial Investigation, DefinedCustodial Investigation and/or interrogation is the 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. (People vs. Ayson, 175 SCRA 216, 230 [1989]; People vs. Logronio, 214 SCRA 519; People vs. Marra, September 20, 1994, 55 SCAD 418; People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 11731, Feb. 11, 1998, 91 SCAD 606)

xxx shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for any violation of the law. (Sec. 2(f), RA 7438) It is the stage where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who has been taken into custody by the police who carry out a process of interrogation that leads itself to elicit incriminating statements (People vs. Bandula, 232 SCRA 566, 576)A person is in custody when he has been arrested in connection with the commission of an offense. Arrest is made by the actual restraint of a person to be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest (Sec. 1 & 2, Rule 113, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure). The moment a person is arrested by or has voluntarily surrendered to the police investigators, the custodial investigation is deemed to have been started (People vs. Lim, 196 SCRA 809)A person under custodial investigation has constitutional rights provided for in 1987 Constitution under Section 12, Article III of the Bill of Rights. To guarantee full respect for and protection of these rights, Congress enacted on April 27, 1992 Republic Act 7428, entitled An Act Defining Certain Rights of the Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation As well As the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining, And Investigating Officers and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof.

4.Custodial Right of Person, EnumeratedSection 12, Article III of the Bill of Rights in the 1987 Constitution provides the right of the person under investigation, as follow:

Section 12. (1)Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. This right cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which violate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violation of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitations of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

These rights are guaranteed protection under Section 2 of RA 7438, which provides:

Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation: Duties of Public Officers.(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 rights 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 the 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 investigating officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and no effect whatsoever.(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigations shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latters 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 judges, 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 a person arrested or detained under the provision of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and 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 or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights or by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The persons immediate family shall include his or her spouse, fianc or fiance, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.As used in this act, custodial investigation shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for any violation of the law.5.Duties of the Investigating Officer

The public officer or employee (investigating officer) must safeguard the rights of a person arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation and shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood that:

1. He has the right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him;

2. He has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice;

3. If he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him, and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf or may be appointed by the court upon his petition or of one acting in his behalf;

4. No custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the presence of his counsel or after a valid waiver has been made;

5. At any time, he has the right to communicate or confer by the most expedient means---telephone, radio, letter or messenger---with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or any one from his immediate family of by his counsel, or be visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international non governmental organization. It shall be the responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is accomplished;

6. He has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently;

7. If he waives his right to a lawyer, it must be done in writing and in the presence of counsel; otherwise, the waiver is void even if he insists on his waiver and chooses to speak;

8. He may indicate in any manner, at any stages of the process, that he does not wish to be questioned, with warning that once he makes such indication, the police may not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced, and the interrogation must cease if it has already begun;

9. His initial waiver of his right to remain silent, to counsel or any of his right does not bar him from invoking it at any time during the process regardless of whether he has answered some questions or volunteered some statement;

10. Any statement or evidence, as the case may be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or exculpatory in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence; (People vs. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455)

In addition he should be asked whether he wanted to exercise and avail of these rights. (People vs. Velasco 110 SCRA 319, 336)

11. If he decides not to retain a counsel of his choice or avail of one to be provided for him, and, therefore, chooses to waive his right to counsel, such waiver to be valid and effective must be made with the assistance of counsel. (People vs. Agustin, 240 SCRA 541; People vs. Salcedo, 273 SCRA 473)

The rights of a person as provided under RA 7438 are available to all persons, Filipino or foreign national. The guarantees embodied in Bill of Rights of the 1987 Philippine Constitution extend to all persons, both Filipino and aliens. (People vs. Wong Chuen Ming, 256 SCRA 182)

It is not enough for the investigator to merely repeat to the person under investigation the provisions of the Constitution. It should not just be a ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. The investigation must also explain the effects of the constitutional provisions in practical terms, e.g. what the person under investigation may do or may not do, and in a language the subject fairly understands. The right to be informed carries with it a correlative obligation on the part of the investigator to explain, and contemplates effective communication which results in the subject understanding what is conveyed. Since it is comprehension that is sought to be attained, the degree of explanation required will necessarily vary and depend on the education, intelligence, and other relevant personal circumstances of the person undergoing investigation. (People vs. Newman, 163 SCRA 496; People vs. Lorenzo, January 26, 1995, 58 SCAD 509; People vs. Muleta, G.R. No. 130189, June 25, 1999, 108 SCAD 74)

A simpler and more lucid explanation is needed where the subject is unlettered. Stereotyped information is not sufficient. (People vs. Olapani, 179 SCRA 495 [1987]; People vs. Basay, 219 SCRA 404)The right to be informed of ones constitutional rights during custodial investigation, therefore, refers to an effective communication between the investigating officer and the suspected individual, with the purpose of making the latter understand these rights. Understanding would mean that the information transmitted was effectively received and comprehended. The constitution does not merely require the investigating officer to inform the person under investigation of his rights; rather, it requires that the latter be informed. (People vs. Muleta, 309 SCRA 148)

6.Effect of the Absence of an Assisting Counsel

Section 3 or RA 7438 requires the presence of an assisting counsel during custodial investigation. Section 3 of RA 7438 provides:

Section 3. Assisting Counsel Assisting counsel is any lawyer, except those directly affected by the case, those charged with conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with the prosecution of crimes. The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city or municipality where the custodial investigation is conducted, provided that if the municipality or city cannot pay such fee, the province comprising such municipality or city shall pay the fee: Provided, that the Municipal or City Treasurer must certify that no funds are available to pay the fee of assisting counsel before the province pays said fee.

In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be concluded and the suspected person can only be detained by the investigating officer in accordance with the provision of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

Any public officer or employee, or anyone who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense is charged or duty bound to safeguard the rights of a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. 7. Qualification of a Counsel, Chosen or AppointedBoth the Constitution and RA 7438 explicitly provide that the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation has the right to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If he cannot afford the services of his own counsel, RA 7438 stresses that he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating office.

Thus, the counsel must be competent and independent.

An independent counsel is one who does not have an interest adverse to the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. (People vs. Bandula, 51 SCRA 416) The counsel must be, as far as reasonably possible, be the choice of or engaged by the person undergoing investigation or by one who is acting in his behalf, or appointed by the court upon proper petition by him or a person acting in his behalf such as a relative. The counsel must be one willing to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the person under investigation, as distinguished from one who would merely be giving a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital of the individuals constitutional rights. (People vs. Esperitu, 103 SCRA 103; People vs. Denuya, 66 SCRA 888) One appearing as public attorney is not enough. (People vs. Saludar; 188 SCRA 189) A member of the police force, a legal officer of the city or municipality, a special counsel, public or private prosecutor cannot qualify as an independent counsel. (People vs. Alegria, 190 SCRA 122; People vs. Bandula, 51 SCRA 416) On the other hand, a competent counsel is one who can reasonably protect and provide effective legal assistance. When the constitution provides for the right to counsel, it did not mean any kind of counsel but an effective and vigilant counsel. The term effective and vigilant counsel necessarily and logically requires that the lawyer be present and able to advise and assist his client from the time the latter answers the first question asked by the investigator until the end of the investigation (Herrera, 2003)

It is then the duty of the competent and independent counsel so engaged in assisting a person undergoing custodial investigation to be present from beginning to end, i.e., at all stages of the interview, counseling and advising caution reasonably and at every turn of the investigation, and stopping the interrogation once in a while either to give advice to the client that he may either continue, choose to remain silent or terminate the interview. (People vs. Espiritu, 103 SCRA 103) If the client gives a confession, the counsel should ascertain that the confession is made voluntarily and that the person under investigation fully understands the nature and consequence of the confession in relation to his constitutional rights. (People vs. Bacamante, 248 SCRA 47; People vs. Habtan, 320 SCRA 140; People vs. Suela, G.R. Nos. 133570-71, January 15, 2002; People vs. Patungan, 354 SCRA 413)In this regard, the investigator should proceed with the investigation in the presence of the counsel. He must see to it that the counsel of the person under investigation is present in all stages of the process unless there is valid waiver.

8.Waiver of Constitutional Right, Explained The custodial right during custodial investigation may be broken down into two categories, viz,: (a) the right to be informed; and (b) the right to remain silent and be assisted by competent and independent counsel (Herrera, 2003)

The right to be informed of these constitutional rights cannot be waived. A person cannot be waived a right that is not known to him. To constitute a waiver, it must appear first that the right exists; secondly, that the person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of existence of such a right; and lastly, that the person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. (Pasion Vda de Garcia vs. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689) A person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation must first be informed of his rights before there could be a valid waiver.

What may be waived is the exercise of the rights to remain silent and to assistance of a competent and independent counsel. But even then, the waiver must be in writing and with the assistance of counsel. (Part 1, p. 371, EVIDENCE, Francisco 1990 Edition, citing the Bill of Rights of Accused Person by Justice Vicente Mendoza; People vs. Domantay, 106 SCRA 400).The waiver of rights to counsel is not the waiver of right to have confession signed in the presence of Relatives. Under Sec. 2(d) RA 7438, any extrajudicial confession made by a person, arrested detained or under custodial investigation (which shall include an invitation for investigation) shall be in writing and signed by such person in the absence of his counsel or in the latters absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brother, sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judges, 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.Under Sec. 2 (e), any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provision of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise such waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.

It is the extrajudicial confession that must be signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latters absence, because of a valid waiver, in the presence of any of the parents, elder brother, sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judges, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him.

Equally noted, for a waiver of the right to counsel or of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to be valid the lawyers presence is mandatory.If in the signing of the confession, the counsel is not present because of a valid waiver---- the confession must still be signed by the accused in the presence of any of the parents, elder brother, sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judges, 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.

What is waived is only the presence of a lawyer, if there is a valid waiver but not the presence of the persons enumerated above. The presence, however, of the lawyer will not validate the confession if the waiver is invalid if the confessant was not fully informed of his constitutional right. 9. Voluntariness of Confession

No torture, force, violence or 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.

Thus a voluntary confession is taken to mean a confession made of the free will and accord of the defendant without coercion induced by fear or threat of harm and without inducement by promising or holding out hope of reward or immunity. (Wilson vs. United States, 162 U.S. 613, 400 L. Ed. 1090, 16 S. Ct. 895; 4 Martin, REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE, p. 262)

To be considered voluntary, the confession must have been made without hope of benefit, without fear or duress and without the use of threat, torture, violence, artifice or deception. (U.S vs. Agatea, 40 Phil. 596; 600 Malcolm 1919) To be free and voluntary it must be the deliberate act of the accused with a full comprehension of its significance. (U.S. vs. De los Santos, 24 Phil. 358,359; People vs. Crisostomo, 108 SCRA 288)

A confession is voluntary in law if in fact it was voluntarily made. Confessions obtained by compulsion of whatever nature are involuntary.There are two involuntary or coerced confession treated under the Constitution: 1) those which are the product of third degree methods such as torture, force violence, threat, intimidation, which are dealt with in par. 2 of Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution, and 2) those which are given without the benefit of Miranda warnings, which are the subject of par. 1 of Sec. 12. (People vs. Obrero, G.R. No 122142, May 17, 2000, 126 SCAD 525)

10. Confession and Admission, Differentiate Confession is the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged or of any offense necessarily included therein. (Sec. 33, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court). On the other hand, admission is a statement of the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to other facts, to prove his guilt. (U.S. vs. Rason, 37 Phil. 307) In other words, an admission is something less than a confession. It is but an acknowledgement of some facts or circumstances which in itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction, and which tends only to establish the ultimate fact of guilt.A confession to be admissible must be:

1. Express and categorical (Section 33, Rule 130, Rules on Evidence; U.S. vs. Corales, 28 Phil. 362; U.S. vs. Lio Team, 23 Phil. 64);

2. Given voluntarily (Section 12[1], Art. III, 1987 Constitution; People vs. Nishima, 57 Phil. 26) and intelligently where the confessant realizes the legal significance of his act (Bilaan vs. Cusi, 5 SCRA 451, 115 Phil. 449; U.S. vs. Agatea, 40 Phil. 596);

3. Given with the assistance of competent and independent counsel (Section 12[1], Article III, 1987 Constitution)4. Reduced into writing and in the language known to and understood by the confessant (Section 2[b], R.A. 7438);

5. Signed, or if the confessant does not know how to read and write, thumbmarked by him, (Section 2[b], R.A. 7438; People vs. Olivarez, 299 SCRA 635) in the presence of his counsel or, in the latters absence, upon a valid waiver in the presence of any of the parents, elder 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. (Section 2[d], R.A. 7438) 11.Violation of Custodial Rights of a Person, PenaltyViolation of the custodial rights of person is penalized under Sec. 4, of RA 7438 (approved on April 27, 1992) which provides that:

a) any arresting public officer or employees, or any investigating officer, who fails to inform any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his rights to remain silent and to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice, shall suffer a fine of six thousand pesos (P6, 000.00) or a penalty of imprisonment of not less than eight (8) years but not more than ten (10) years, or both. The penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification shall also be imposed upon the investigating officer who has been previously convicted of a similar offense.The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee, or anyone acting upon orders of such investigating officer or in his place, who fails to provide a competent and independent counsel to a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense if the latter cannot afford the services of his counsel.b) Any person who obstructs, prevents or prohibits any lawyer, any member of the immediate family of a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or his counsel, from visiting and conferring privately with him or from examining and treating him, or from ministering to his spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four (4) years nor more than six (6) years, and a fine of four thousand pesos (P4, 000.00).The provision of the above Section notwithstanding, any security officer with custodial responsibility over any detainee or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may be necessary to secure his safety and prevent escape.

12.Compensation for Victims of TortureThe compensation for victims of torture or similar practices, and their families is provided under the law. Republic Act 7309, an Act creating a Board of Claims for victims of unjust imprisonment or detention and victims of violent crime' which covers those who are unjustly accused, convicted then acquitted; those unjustly detained and released without charge; those victims of arbitrary or illegal detention by the authorities as defined in the Revised Penal Code under a final judgment of the Court; and victims of violent crime.

13.ConclusionThe constitutional rights of person under custodial investigation have provided safeguard to the accused against inhuman treatment. It sets the standard among law enforcement officers in the proper conduct of investigation. Confessions that were acquired before through torture or similar activities were now being assailed in the court of law and resulted to the acquittal of subsequent case filed against them. The government in its effort to value human dignity has also provided rewards and redress to the victims of injustices.

14. Recommendations

In spite of the governments endeavor to protect the rights of its citizens from abuses through legal and institutional human rights protection, the practice of torture in extracting confession still persists in our midst. On paper, many of the critical elements necessary for the prevention of torture and violation of custodial rights are already in place. Yet, implementation of what is in scroll has become a prevailing problem in this country. In this regard, the following recommendation would be in order:

The government should conduct ongoing lectures/seminars in human rights to the personnel of criminal justice system particularly in law enforcement in recognition of human dignity.

The government in the conduct of trainings should incorporate the meticulous study of Bill of Rights particularly the rights of person under custodial investigation. The government through the Commission of Human Rights, should empower people by launching a continuing IEC (Information, Education Campaign) program on basic human rights in every province.

The government through Public Assistance Office, Prosecutors office and Commission on Human Rights should closely monitor the implementation of custodial rights and lead the vigor prosecution of those found to have wantonly violated such rights. Table of Cases CitedBilaan vs. Cusi, 5 SCRA 451, 115 Phil. 449Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)

Passion Vda de Garcia vs. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689

People vs. Agustin, 240 SCRA 541People vs. Alegria, 190 SCRA 122People vs. Ayson, 175 SCRA 216, 230 [1989]People vs. Bacamante, 248 SCRA 47People vs. Bandula, 232 SCRA 566,577; 51 SCRA 416People vs. Basay, 219 SCRA 404People vs. Crisostomo, 108 SCRA 288People vs. Denuya, 66 SCRA 888People vs. Domantay, 106 SCRA 400

People vs. Esperitu, 103 SCRA 103People vs. Habtan, 320 SCRA 140People vs. Lim, 196 SCRA 809

People vs. Logronio, 214 SCRA 519People vs. Lorenzo, January 26, 1995, 58 SCAD 509People vs. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455

People vs. Marra, September 20, 1994, 55 SCAD 418People vs. Muleta, G.R. No. 130189, 25 June 1999, 108 SCAD 74; 309 SCRA 148People vs. Newman, 163 SCRA 496People vs. Obrero, G.R. No 122142, May 17, 2000, 126 SCAD 525People vs. Olapani, 179 SCRA 495 [1987]

People vs. Patungan, 354 SCRA 413People vs. Salcedo, 273 SCRA 473

People vs. Saludar; 188 SCRA 189People vs. Suela, G.R. Nos. 133570-71, January 15, 2002People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 11731, Feb. 11, 1998, 91 SCAD 606

People vs. Velasco, 110 SCRA 319, 366People vs. Wong Chuen Ming, 256 SCRA 182

U.S vs. Agatea, 40 Phil. 596; 600 Malcolm 1919U.S. vs. Corales, 28 Phil. 362U.S. vs. Lio Team, 23 Phil. 64U.S. vs. De los Santos, 24 Phil. 358,359U.S. vs. Rason, 37 Phil. 307Wilson vs. United States, 162 U.S. 613, 400 L. Ed. 1090 S. Ct. 895

Bibliography

Jose N. Nolledo; The New Constitution of the Philippines ANNOTATED, 1990 ed. (Calookan City, Philippines: Philippine Graphic Arts, Inc., 1990)

Jose N. Nolledo; Handbook on Criminal Procedure, 1994 ed. (Calookan City, Philippines: Philippine Graphic Arts, Inc., 1994)

Levy D. Macasiano; Trichotomy of Investigation, (M-7 Marketing International)

Oscar M. Herrera: Handbook on Custodial Investigation, 2003 ed. (Quezon City, Philippines: Rex Printing Company, Inc.)CBSI EDITORIAL STAFF: Revised Penal Code, Twenty-First (1996) ed. (Manila, Philippines: Central Book Supply Inc.)Peter Baehr: Human Rights in Developing Countries, Year Book 1995, (Oslo, Norway: Graham and Trotman Ltd. Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers)

Web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA 3500919997/open & of = ENG-PHL, PHILIPPINES: THE DEATH PENALTY; PHILIPPINES Torture persists: appearance and reality within the criminal justice system