RIGHTS INVOLVED AND CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATION1. RIGHTS INVOLVED1987 CONSTITUTIONSection 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 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.(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, 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.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 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.lawphi1(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 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, 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.(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions 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 the 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 of by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's "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.PEOPLE v. OBREROJ. MendozaMay 17, 2000Comment by Polly Pineda: GENERAL RULE UNDER THE ROCconsequenxe of the violationinadmissible to evidence on the certain case.but admissible to other cases. eg. int he case of harris vs new york.his statements were used for the case of perjury.Appeal from a decision of the RTC of ManilaRATIO: Perfunctory reading of the Miranda rights to the accused without any effort to find out from him whether he wanted to have counsel and, if so, whether he had his own counsel or he wanted the police to appoint one for him is merely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect.QUICK FACTS: Accused is charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. He was apprehended and brought to the police station where he was provided with a lawyer who is a station commander of another police station, and interrogated.FACTS:Accused: Jimmy ObreroVictim: Emma Cabrera robbery victim. Nena Berjuega and Remedios Hitta (the two maids of Emma) murder victimsJimmy Obrero is a delivery boy employed by Angie Cabosas whose business was selling chickens to customers. Jimmy was asked to deliver chickens to Emma Cabrera, a regular customer.In Jimmys extrajudicial confession, he stated that the day before the robbery, his fellow employee, Ronnie Liwanag, proposed that they rob Emma in order to be able to go to La Union to visit his family. On the day of the robbery, they learned that only two helpers were then at the residence of Emma Cabrera, thus they decided to pull the heist. Ronnie covered the mouth of one Nena Berjuega to prevent her from shouting but, as she tried to run away, Ronnie stabbed and killed her. Ronnie then gave the knife to Jimmy who stabbed the younger maid, Remedios Hitta from which she died. Thereafter, they divided the money.This extrajudicial confession is in Tagalog and signed by Jimmy in the presence of Atty. De los Reyes. Atty. De los Reyes is a PC Captain of the WPD Headquarters in UN Avenue. He was at Station 7 of the WPD because he was representing a client accused of illegal recruitment. He was asked by Lt. Javier of the WPD Homicide Section to assist Jimmy Obrero in executing an extrajudicial confession.At the trial, Jimmy Obrero pleaded not guilty of the crime charged. He said that he came back from his errand and remitted the amount of P2000 which had been paid to him. He also claimed that after being informed of the charges against him, he was beaten up and detained for a week and made to execute an extrajudicial confession. He denied having known or seen Atty. De los Reyes before and stated that he did not understand the contents of the extrajudicial confession which he signed because he did not know how to read.Trial court found Jimmy Obrero guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the accused consented to giving his extrajudicial confession and that absent any showing that the assisting lawyer, though a station commander but of another police station, was remiss in his duty as a lawyer, the Court will hold that the proceedings were regularly conducted.ISSUE: WON Jimmy Obreros extrajudicial confession is valid and admissible in evidence NO. Jimmy Obrero won.HELD:There was no proof that his confession was obtained by force and threat. He did not seek medical treatment nor even a physical examination.The confession contains details that only the perpetrator of the crime could have given, details which are consistent with the medico-legal findings.Extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary, and, in the absence of conclusive evidence showing the declarants consent in the executing the same has been vitiated, such confession will be sustained. What renders the confession of Jimmy inadmissible is the fact that he was not given the Miranda warnings effectively. There was only a perfunctory reading of the Miranda rights to Jimmy without any effort to find out from him whether he wanted to have counsel and, if so, whether he had his own counsel or he wanted the police to appoint one for him. This kind of giving of warnings has been found to be merely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect. Especially in this case, care should have been scrupulously observed by the police investigator that Jimmy was specifically asked these questions considering he only finished the fourth grade of the elementary school.Moreover, the Constitution requires that counsel assisting suspects in custodial interrogations be competent and independent. In the case at bar, he cannot be considered an independent counsel as contemplated by the law because he was station commander of the WPD at the time he assisted Jimmy. As PC Captain and Station Commander of the WPD, Atty. De los Reyes was part of the police force who could not be expected to have effectively and scrupulously assisted accused in the investigation.

CONSTI ART III SEC 12 (3)(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.PEOPLE VS QUARLES 104 SCRA 379 how is the weapon came into possession of the police?