This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-06-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| And even if they were, the intimidating and coercive presence of the officers of the law in such an atmosphere overwhelms them into silence x x x.[15] | |||||
|
2014-10-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| 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 cross-examined not only by one but as many investigators as may be necessary to break down his morale. He finds himself in a strange and unfamiliar surrounding, and every person he meets he considers hostile to him. The investigators are well-trained and seasoned in their work. They employ all the methods and means that experience and study has 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 presence of the officers of the law in such an atmosphere overwhelms them into silence xxx.[23] | |||||
|
2006-11-30 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| People v. Tin Lan Uy, Jr. [32] is similarly instructive:Clearly, therefore, the rights enumerated by the constitutional provision invoked by accused-appellant are not available before government investigators enter the picture. Thus we held in one case (People v. Ayson, [supra]) that admissions made during the course of an administrative investigation by Philippine Airlines do not come within the purview of Section 12. The protective mantle of the constitutional provision also does not extend to admissions or confessions made to a private individual, or to a verbal admission made to a radio announcer who was not part of the investigation, or even to a mayor approached as a personal confidante and not in his official capacity. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||