Dear PAO,
I have a friend (let’s just call her Alana) who got involved in a theft incident in a supermarket. She claims she did not do it. But she was taken to the security office of the store.

There she was questioned about that theft incident. Does she have the right to counsel? What are her rights? Is it proper that she be subjected to inquest proceedings immediately?
Gregorio

Dear Gregorio,
Whether your friend is already entitled to the right to counsel and the other rights guaranteed by Section 12, Article 3 of the Constitution would depend on who questioned or interrogated her while she was at the security office of the supermarket. The issue on who questioned her is relevant because it would determine if she was already under custodial investigation while she was at the security office.

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 vs. Uy; G.R. No. 157399; November 17, 2005). It is when a person is already undergoing custodial investigation that he or she is entitled to the rights guaranteed by Section 12, Article 3 of the Constitution or what is more popularly known as the Miranda Rights or Doctrine.

Based on the definition of a custodial investigation, it is necessary that it should be law enforcement officers who should have conducted the questioning so that it can be considered as a custodial investigation. Otherwise, if those who conducted the questioning were merely private citizens such as the guards of the supermarket, the said questioning could not yet be considered as custodial investigation. In the Uy case, the Supreme Court said that “[c]learly, therefore, the rights enumerated by the constitutional provision invoked by accused-appellant are not available before government investigators enter the picture.” The Court furthermore clarified that “[t]he 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.”

However, if those who conducted the questioning while your friend was detained at the security office were police officers or other law enforcement authorities, such questioning can then be considered as a custodial investigation. Hence, in such a situation your friend is clearly entitled to all the rights guaranteed by Section 12, Article 3 of the Constitution.

The following are the so-called Miranda rights under Section 12, Article 3 of the Constitution:

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.

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 violations of this Section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

An inquest proceeding is conducted when a person was the subject of a warrantless arrest. It would determine whether the said warrantless arrest was valid on the basis of the provisions of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. In the case of your friend, it would seem that she was immediately detained after the occurrence of the theft incident. It means she was arrested without a warrant. She can therefore be subjected to an inquest proceeding. During the said inquest proceeding, the inquest prosecutor would determine whether the arrest of your friend was valid and whether there is basis to charge her in court for the crime of theft. If the arrest was not valid, she would be ordered released by the prosecutor and the prosecutor can either decide to drop the complaint against her or to conduct a further investigation through the process of a preliminary investigation.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.