M. Rights under custodial investigation

Atty. Jericho Del Puerto

Atty. Jericho Del Puerto

Lawyer, Author, Mentor
The guarantees of Sec. 12 (1), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, or the so-called Miranda rights, may be invoked only by a person while he is under custodial investigation. (People v. Amestuzo, G.R. No. 104383, 12 July 2001)

Frequency: ★★★☆☆

1. Meaning of custodial investigation

Miranda rights. The guarantees of Sec. 12 (1), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, or the so-called Miranda rights, may be invoked only by a person while he is under custodial investigation. (People v. Amestuzo, G.R. No. 104383, 12 July 2001)

Concept: Custodial investigation. Custodial investigation – involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner. (People v. Tan, G.R. No. 117321, 11 February 1998)

Same. It refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular person as a suspect. (People v. Rapeza, G.R. No. 169431, 03 April 2007)

Same. Custodial investigation – 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 law. (Last paragraph, Section 2, R.A. 7438)

Same; When it starts. Custodial investigation starts when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who starts the interrogation and propounds questions to the person to elicit incriminating statements. (People v. Amestuzo, supra.)

Same; Same; Focus on a particular suspect who is taken into custody. The rules on custodial investigation begin to operate as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that tends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate. (People v. Tan, supra.)

Same; Same; Police line-up. Police line-up is not part of the custodial investigation; hence, the right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage. (People v. Amestuzo, supra.)

Same; Right to counsel. The right to be assisted by counsel attaches only during custodial investigation and cannot be claimed by the accused during identification in a police line-up because it is not part of the custodial investigation process. This is because during a police line-up, the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory and it is usually the witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a statement in the course of the line-up. (Ibid.)

2. Rights of a person under custodial investigation

The following are the rights of persons arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation and the coresponding duties of public officers:

Rights of a person under custodial investigation:
1) Right to be informed of their rights (Miranda Rights)
2) Right to remain silent
3) Right to competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice
4) Right against torture, violence, threat, etc.
5) Right against secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, etc.
6) Right against void extrajudicial confession without counsel
7) Right to visits or conferences with family, doctor, priest, counsel, etc.

a. Right to be informed of their rights (Miranda Rights)

Right to be informed. The right to be informed of one’s constitutional rights during custodial investigation 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. Hence, the Constitution does not merely require the investigating officers to “inform” the person under investigation; rather, it requires that the latter be “informed.” (People v. Muleta, G.R. No. 130189, 25 June 1999)

It must appear clearly that the accused have been beforehand accorded his right to be informed of such rights. Let it be underscored that law enforcement agencies are required to genuinely and concretely communicate the rights of a person under investigation and to insure that it is fully understood by him. The right of a person under custodial investigation to be informed of his rights entails an effective communication that results in an understanding thereof. Any effort falling short of this standard is a denial of such right. (People v. Agustin, G.R. No. 247718 03 March 2021)

b. Right to remain silent

Miranda rights – Right to remain silent, right to competent and independent counsel. 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. (Section 12[1], Article III, 1987 Constitution cf. Section 2[b], R.A. 7438)

c. Right to be assisted by competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice

Right to competent and independent counsel. Any person arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. (Section 2[a], R.A. 7438 cf. Section 12[1], Article III, 1987 Constitution)

Same; At all stages. The right to counsel is a fundamental right and contemplates not just the mere presence of a lawyer beside the accused. The competent and independent lawyer so engaged should be present “at all stages of the interview, counseling or advising caution reasonably at every turn of the investigation, and stopping the interrogation once in a while either to give advice to the accused that he may either continue, choose to remain silent or terminate the interview. The desired role of counsel in the process of custodial investigation is rendered meaningless if the lawyer merely gives perfunctory advice as opposed to a meaningful advocacy of the rights of the person undergoing questioning. If the advice given is so cursory as to be useless, voluntariness is impaired.” (People v. Velarde, En Banc, G.R. No. 139333, 18 July 2002)

People v. Augustin (2021)
The words “competent and independent counsel” in the constitutional provision is not an empty rhetoric. It emphasizes the need to provide the accused with a diligent and capable lawyer who will fully safeguard his constitutional rights while under the uniquely stressful conditions of a custodial investigation. Swept into a strange and unfamiliar environment and surrounded by intimidating police officers, the suspect really needs the guiding hand of an effective and vigilant counsel.
In the case at bench, Atty. Donato, Jr. did not provide effective and adequate legal assistance to Agustin. He did not display any measure of zeal commensurate to the magnitude of his responsibility. He made no effort to determine whether Agustin was treated well upon conferring with the latter to rule out any possibility that he was coerced, intimidated or forced to give a statement. There was no showing that Atty. Donato, Jr. warned Agustin the possible consequences of his confession that he allegedly intends to give freely and voluntarily. Neither did Atty. Donato, Jr advise Agustin not to give any statement if he was in doubt and to think things over. He never advised appellant that the latter has the right not to affix his thumbmark on the extrajudicial confession if he thinks that it may incriminate him. Knowing the gravity of the offense, Atty. Donato, Jr. did not explain to Agustin that he was being investigated for a grave crime punishable by a long period of imprisonment and that by his confession, he would be admitting to the commission of the crime.

Same; Mayor – not a counsel. A municipal mayor, who was also a lawyer, cannot be considered a competent and independent counsel qualified to assist a person under custodial investigation. Hence, the extrajudicial confession taken from the accused with the Mayor as counsel is inadmissible in evidence… A mayor exercises “operational supervision and control” over the PNP unit in a municipality. His powers included the utilization of the elements thereof for the maintenance of peace and order, the prevention of crimes, the arrest of criminal offenders and the bringing of offenders to justice. (Ibid.)

People v. Velarde, En Banc (July 2002)
The Mayor performs duties were inconsistent with those of his responsibilities to accused-appellant, who was already incarcerated and tagged as the main suspect in the rape-slay case. Serving as counsel of appellant placed him in direct conflict with his duty of “operational supervision and control” over the police. “What the Constitution requires in Article III Section 12 (1) is the presence of competent and independent counsel, one who will effectively undertake his client’s defense without any intervening conflict of interest.” Evidently Atty. Domingo, being the mayor of the place where the investigation was taken, could not act as counsel, independent or otherwise, of appellant.

d. Right against torture, violence, threat, etc.

No torture, violence, threat, etc. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Any confession or admission obtained in violation hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (Section 12[2], Article III, Ibid. cf. Section 12[3], Article III, 1987 Constitution)

e. Right against secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, etc.

No secret detention places, etc. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (Ibid.)

f. Right against void extrajudicial confession without counsel

Extrajudicial confession – in writing and signed in the presence of counsel. 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. (Section 2[d], Ibid.; Section 12[3], Ibid.)

Same; Compliant with Constitutional requirements. To be acceptable, extrajudicial confessions must conform to constitutional requirements. A confession is not valid and not admissible in evidence when it is obtained in violation of any of the following rights of persons under custodial investigation: to remain silent, to have independent and competent counsel preferably of their own choice, to be provided with counsel if they are unable to secure one, to be assisted by such counsel during the investigation, to have such counsel present when they decide to waive these rights, and to be informed of all these rights and of the fact that anything they say can and will be used against them in court. (People v. Muleta, G.R. No. 130189, 25 June 1999)

1) Private talk with a Mayor resulting in a confession

People v. Andan, En Banc (1997)
It is true that a municipal mayor has “operational supervision and control” over the local police and may arguably be deemed a law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution. However, appellant’s confession to the mayor was not made in response to any interrogation by the latter. In fact, the mayor did not question appellant at all. No police authority ordered appellant to talk to the mayor. It was appellant himself who spontaneously, freely and voluntarily sought the mayor for a private meeting. The mayor did not know that appellant was going to confess his guilt to him. When appellant talked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his uncounselled confession to him did not violate his constitutional rights. Thus, it has been held that the constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby appellant orally admitted having committed the crime. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. The rights under Section 12 are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state as would lead the accused to admit something false, not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. Hence, appellant’s confession to the mayor was correctly admitted by the trial court.

2) Confession before the Media

Confessions to the media are made in response to questions by news reporters, not by the police or any other investigating officer. Statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. (People v. Andan, En Banc, G.R. No. 116437, 03 March 1997)

•••••

BAR EXAM QUESTION

(Question XVII, Political Law, 2018 Bar Exam)

The police served a warrant of arrest on Ariston who was suspected of raping and killing a female high school student. While on the way to the police station, one of the police officers who served the warrant asked Ariston in the local dialect if he really raped and killed the student, and Ariston nodded and said, “Opo.” Upon arriving at the police station, Ariston saw the City Mayor, whom he approached and asked if they could talk privately. The Mayor led Ariston to his office and, while there in conversation with the Mayor, Ariston broke down and admitted that he raped and killed the student. The Mayor thereafter opened the door of the room to let the public and media representatives witness Ariston’s confession. In the presence of the Mayor, the police and the media, and in response to questions asked by some members of the media, Ariston sorrowfully confessed his guilt and sought forgiveness for his actions.

Which of these extrajudicial confessions, if any, would you consider as admissible in evidence against Ariston? (5%)

Suggested Answer:

1) The extrajudicial confession with police officers is not admissible. Answer

Under the 1987 Constitution and jurisprudence, a person under custodial investigation should be read his Miranda rights, including the right to remain silent and to counsel. Further, any extrajudicial confession should be with the assistance of counsel and in writing. Rule

In the case at bar, the admission to the police officers were defective as it did not comply with any of the requirements mentioned.

Thus, the extrajudicial confession with the police officers is not admissible in evidence.

2) The extrajudicial confession before the Mayor and the media are admissible. Answer

Under jurisprudence, confession to a Mayor by a suspect who asked for a private conversation and thereafter admitted to the commission of the crime is admissible. In such a case, it is the suspect himself who spontaneously, freely and voluntarily sought the mayor for a private meeting. The mayor does not know that the suspect was going to confess his guilt to him. When the suspect talked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his uncounselled confession to him did not violate his constitutional rights. Rule

Further, statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. Rule

In the case at bar, the suspect made a valid extrajudicial confession before the Mayor as the suspect was did so privately to the Mayor as a confidant and not a law enforcer. As for the media, the accused admitted to the offense voluntarily. Apply

Thus, the extrajudicial confession before the Mayor and media are admissible in evidence. Conclusion

•••••

3) Signing on an object tantamount to extrajudicial confession

People v. Wong Chuen Ming (1996)
[Background: The accused were foreigners who entered the Philippines. When cereal boxes was opend inside one of their check-in baggage were inspected, shabu was discovered. All of the boxes were bundled in a masking tape and the accused were ordered to sign on them.]
[Resolution] At the outset, the Court holds that the signatures of accused on the boxes, as well as on the plastic bags containing “shabu”, are inadmissible in evidence. A careful study of the records reveals that accused were never informed of their fundamental rights during the entire time that they were under investigation. Specifically, accused were not informed of their Miranda rights i.e. that they had the right to remain silent and to counsel and any statement they might make could be used against them, when they were made to affix their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals while they were at the NAIA and again, on the plastic bags when they were already taken in custody at Camp Crame.
By affixing their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals and on the plastic bags, accused in effect made a tacit admission of the crime charged for mere possession of “shabu” is punished by law. These signatures of accused are tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights (Section 12 [1][3], Article III, 1987 Constitution). They are, therefore, inadmissible as evidence for any admission wrung from the accused in violation of their constitutional rights is inadmissible against them. The fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not preclude application of the “exclusionary rule” because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens.

•••••

BAR EXAM QUESTION

(Question XVI, Political Law, 2018 Bar Exam)

Five foreign nationals arrived at the NAIA from Hong Kong. After retrieving their checked-in luggage, they placed all their bags in one pushcart and proceeded to Express Lane 5. They were instructed to place their luggage on the examiner’s table for inspection.

The examiner found brown-colored boxes, similar in size to powdered milk boxes, underneath the clothes inside the foreigners’ bags. The examiner discovered white crystalline substances inside the boxes that he inspected and proceeded to bundle all of the boxes by putting masking tape around them. He thereafter handed the boxes over to Bureau of Customs agents. The agents called out the names of the foreigners one by one and ordered them to sign their names on the masking tape placed on the boxes recovered from their respective bags. The contents of the boxes were thereafter subjected to tests which confirmed that the substance was shabu.

Can the shabu found inside the boxes be admitted in evidence against the five foreigners for the charge of illegal possession of drugs in violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002? (2.5%)

Suggested Answer:

No. Answer

Under jurisprudence involving a similar set of facts, it was held that by affixing their signatures on the boxes, the accused in effect made a tacit admission of the crime charged for mere possession of “shabu” is punished by law. These signatures of accused are tantamount to an un-counselled extra-judicial confession which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights (Section 12 [1][3], Article III, 1987 Constitution). They are, therefore, inadmissible as evidence for any admission wrung from the accused in violation of their constitutional rights is inadmissible against them. The fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not preclude application of the “exclusionary rule” because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens. Rule

In the case at bar, the signatures by the accused on the boxes amounted to an extrajudicial confession without the assistance of counsel in violation of their rights. Apply

Thus, the shabu cannot be admitted in evidence. Conclusion

•••••

7) Right to visits or conferences with family, doctor, priest, counsel, etc.

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, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward. (Section 2[f], R.A. 7438 Ibid.)

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. (Section 2[e], Ibid.; Section 12[1], Article III, 1987 Constitution)

•••••

BAR EXAM QUESTION

(Question IV, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 2018 Bar Exam)

(Question A.4, Political Law, 2019 Bar Exam)

Mrs. W supplies the Philippine National Police (PNP) with uniforms every year. Last month, he and two (2) other officers of the PNP conspired to execute a “ghost purchase”, covered by five (5) checks amounting to ₱200,000.00 each, or a total of ₱1,000,000.00. An investigating committee within the PNP, which was constituted to look into it, invited Mrs. W, among others, for an inquiry regarding the anomalous transaction. Mrs. W accepted the invitation but during the committee hearing, she stated that she will not answer any question unless she be provided with the assistance of a counsel. The PNP officials denied her request; hence, she no longer participated in the investigation.

(a) What is a custodial investigation? Under the 1987 Constitution, what are the rights of a person during custodial investigation? (3%)

Suggested Answer:

(a) Under jurisprudence, custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner. Custodial investigation also refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular person as a suspect.

Under the 1987 Constitution, the following are the rights of a person during custodial investigation:

1) Right to be ready their Miranda rights;

2) Right to remain silent;

3) Right to be assisted by competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice;

4) Right against torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means to vitiate the free will shall be used against him;

5)  Right against secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention;

6) Right against void extrajudicial confessions.

(b) Was the PNP’s denial of Mrs. W’s request violative of her right to counsel in the proceedings conducted before the PNP? Explain.(2%)

Suggested Answer:

No. Answer

Under the 1987 Constitution and jurisprudence, the right to counsel is mandatory in cases involving custodial investigation. Rule

In the case at bar, Mrs. W was not placed under custodial investigation. Rather, she was the subject of an administrative investigation which is not a covered or within the definition of a custodial investigation. Apply

Thus, the PNP’s denial of Mrs. W’s request is not violative of her right to counsel in the proceedings conducted before the PNP. Conclusion

•••••

3. Requisites of a valid waiver

General Rule: The right to remain silent and to counsel cannot be waived. (Section 12[1], Article III, 1987 Constitution)
Exception: … except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (Ibid.)
Requisites of a valid waiver:
1) In writing; and
2) Signed by such person in the presence of his counsel. (Sections 2[e], and 12[1], Article III, Ibid.)

4. Exclusionary doctrine

Extrajudicial confession – requisites. To be acceptable, extrajudicial confession must conform to the constitutional requirements. An extrajudicial confession is not valid and inadmissible in evidence when the same is obtained in violation of any of the following rights of an accused during custodial investigation: (1) to remain silent, (2) to have an independent and competent counsel preferably of his choice, (3) to be provided with such counsel, if unable to secure one, (4) to be assisted by one in case of waiver, which should be in writing, of the foregoing, and (5) to be informed of all such rights and of the fact that anything he says can and will be used against him. (People v. Agustin, G.R. No. 247718 03 March 2021)

Exclusionary rule. An extrajudicial confession must meet the foregoing requirements. Otherwise, it is disregarded in accordance with the cold objectivity of the exclusionary rule. This exclusionary rule sprang from the recognition that police interrogatory procedures lay fertile grounds for coercion, physical and psychological of the suspect to admit responsibility for the crime under investigation.Its purpose is not to discourage the accused from confessing guilt, if he voluntarily and intelligently so desires, but to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false.

People v. Muleta (1999)
The illegality of the alleged confession is further demonstrated by the fact that appellant exercised no satisfactory waiver of his rights. As stated in our earlier discussions, since he was not assisted by a lawyer when the waiver was made, there was no valid waiver to speak of.
Furthermore, even if we were to assume that the appellant was assisted by counsel when he waived his lights, the waiver itself was lamentably insufficient. After Atty. Daquiz was allegedly called to assist the appellant, she posited this question: “Gusto mo bang talikdan ang iyong mga karapatan na ibinibigay sa iyo ng ating Konstitusyon?” To this appellant replied: “Tinatalikdan ko na po iyon dahil gusto ko nang ipagtapat ang pangyayari kay CHARITO DELGADO na pamangkin ko.
To the Court, this was not the waiver that the Constitution clearly and strictly required. Such waiver failed to show his understanding of his rights, his waiver of those rights, and the implications of his waiver. The waiver, in order to be valid, should have been in a language that clearly manifested his desire to do so. The part of the sworn statement in which the accused “waived” his rights referred to them as “mga karapatan na ibinigay sa iyo ng ating Konstitusyon” and “iyon” — words that were utterly vague and insufficient to satisfy the Constitutional requirements. As presented, the prosecution would have us refer to the first part of the sworn statement for guidance, as if it were a footnote saying “Please see first part.” Such stratagem is woefully insufficient to constitute a waiver of rights cherished and enshrined in our basic law.
Moreover, Atty. Daquiz raised only one question: whether appellant would like to waive his rights. This was odd, because she had been called to assist appellant in making his confession, not his waiver. Atty. Daquiz made no effort to determine whether the accused was treated well, or the understood his rights. Such perfunctory, even cavalier, attempt falls short of constitutional requirements.
People v. Augustin (2021)
Agustin allegedly made an express waiver of his constitutional rights through the Certification portion of the extrajudicial confession, viz.:
CERTIFICATION
I, J. AGUSTIN Y P., do hereby certify that before taking down any sworn statement, the investigator had fully explained my constitutional right under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which I fully understood and hereby waive the aforestated right as provided by Article III, section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
To the mind of the Court, this is not the waiver that the Constitution clearly and strictly required. The waiver failed to show Agustin’s understanding of his rights, his waiver of those rights, and the implications of his waiver. The waiver was not couched in a manner clearly manifesting his desire to do so. Noteworthy is the part of the confession in which the appellant allegedly waived his rights referred to them as “the aforestated right as provided by Article III, section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.” As presented, the prosecution would have us refer to the first part of the extrajudicial confession for guidance, as if it were a footnote saying “please see first part.”
At any rate, there is no basis for declaring that Agustin knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional right, because as we discussed earlier, such rights were not properly and effectively imparted to and understood by him. It cannot be said the waiver of his rights is an informed one in all aspects. Verily, the waiver itself is lamentably insufficient to constitute a waiver of his rights cherished and enshrined in our fundamental law.

Share:

WhatsApp
Telegram
Facebook
Twitter
Subjects

Political Law, Labor Law

Question 3, 2018 Labor Law Bar Exam

III. (Question III, Labor Law, 2018 Bar Exam) Due to his employer’s dire financial situation, Nicanor was prevailed upon by his employer to voluntarily resign.

A. Common provisions

Frequency: ★★★☆☆ 1. Independent The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are: 1) The Civil Service Commission (CSC); 2) The Commission on Elections (COMELEC); and

F. Process of law-making

Frequency: ★★★★☆ 1. House of Representatives a. Rules ORIGIN OF BILLS RULE: GENERAL RULE: All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the

E. State immunity

Frequency: ★★★★☆ 1. Concept The State may not be sued without its consent. (Section 3, Article XVI, 1987 Constitution) No suit shall lie against the

H. Anti-Torture Act of 2009

Frequency: ★★★☆☆ “Torture” – refers to an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for

1. Criminal liabilities and felonies

Frequency: ★★★★★ FELONIES: Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). (Article 3, Act No. 3815, Revised Penal Code) DOLO; CULPA: Felonies are committed

M. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

Frequency: ★★★★☆ 1. Crimes a. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals 1st Mode 1)

G. Crimes against persons

Frequency: ★★★★☆ CHAPTER 1: DESTRUCTION OF LIFE SECTION 1 – PARRICIDE, MURDER, HOMICIDE 1. Parricide ELEMENTS: 1) A person is killed; 2) The deceased is

error: Content is protected.