COMMON REASONS WHY
WITNESSESS REFUSE
TO TALK AND TESTIFY
FEAR OF REPRISAL
o The fear of reprisal is always entertained by the witnesses who lack
the courage to face the suspect, his associates or relatives. Especially
for those who do not have the means to defend themselves or no
influential person to rely on.
GREAT INCONVENIENCE
o On the part of those of hands to mouth existence, these is this real
inconvenience that will deprive them the time to earn for their living
especially during the ordeal of testifying during the trial.
HATRED AGAINST THE POLICE
o This may be due to previous bad experience with rogue members of the
PNP. The investigator must show the difference between him and the
scalawags or rogue police officers by an honest and sincere entertainment
of the complaint against these rogues’ officers. Let him know that only
very few in the organization are rogue.
BIASES OF THE WITNESS
o The witness maybe an acquaintance, friend, helper or benefactor of the
suspect/s. All of these and other relationship of the witness to the
suspect must be explored so that an intelligent approach is properly.
PUBLICITY AVOIDANCE
o There are witnesses who are shy and they shun publicity that will bring
discomfort to their ordinary or obscure way of living. The investigator
must hide this witness away from reporters and other “marites” like
individuals.
FAMILY RESTRICTION
o Some famous and respected families preserve their reputation by
instilling to the member the need to seek approval first on matters
affecting their families. The investigator must talk to the elders for
their approval for them to testify.
BIGOTRY
o Religious or racial, tribal or ethnic indifference.
CULTISH INDOCTRINATION
o Some cults or religious denominations exercise religious or moral
influence on decision of witnesses to testify. It would be more apparent
when the witness and the suspect belong to the same cult. The
investigator must use the tenets of religion which is truth, to the
religious leaders to allow their members to tell the truth and give the
required testimonial evidence. This is prevailing in our society even to
the point of career advancement.
INTERROGATION
■ Interrogation is the most serious level of questioning a
suspect, and interrogation is the process that occurs once
reasonable grounds for belief have been established, and after the
suspect has been placed under arrest for the offence being
investigated. Reasonable grounds for belief to make such an arrest
require some form of direct evidence or strong circumstantial
evidence that links the suspect to the crime.
■ The vigorous or aggressive questioning of person suspected of
having committed an offense or a person who is reluctant or
willing to make a full disclosure of information in his
possessions, which is pertinent to the investigation of a criminal
case.
■ It is the most difficult but most interesting phase of criminal
investigation and detection. It is the confrontational battle of
wits between the investigator and the suspect. It is mental combat
where the weapon is intelligence and the use of art. The proper
and effective use of art usually dictates victory and success
(Garcia, 2004).
■ Interrogation is the skillful questioning of a hostile person
suspecting of having committed an offense or of a subject who is
reluctant to make a full disclosure of information in his
possession which is pertinent to the investigation.
PURPOSES OF INTERROGATION
•On suspect/s, it is to obtain a confession of admission
•On uncooperative, reluctant or unwilling witness, it is to obtain
relevant information he/she possesses
COFFESSION DISTINGUISED TO ADMISSION
a) CONFESSION
■ It is the direct acknowledgement of guilt arising from the
commission of the crime.
b) ADMISSION
■ It is an acknowledgement of facts or circumstances without
accepting guilt. Guilt maybe inferred in admission. When the
accused confessed to the commission of a crime, he accepts the
facts constituting the offense but when he introduces self-defense
(alibi’s) or other exculpatory grounds, then his acknowledgement
is not a confession but admission.
■ It is an indirect acknowledgement of guilt.
KINDS OF CONFESSIONS
a) EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION
■ It is made by the suspect during custodial investigation. This
is simply explained as confession made outside the court of law.
b) JUDICIAL CONFESSION
■ It is made by the accused in an open court. The plea of guilt
maybe during arraignment or any stage of the proceedings where the
accused changes his plea on not guilty to guilty.
CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION OR INVESTIGATION
■ It is an investigation conducted by the investigator to a
suspect who is under police custody. This is the stage of
investigation wherein there is a strict observance of the “MIRANDA
DOCTRINE”.
REVISITING THE EMERGENCE OF “MIRANDA DOCTRINE OR MIRANDA RULE” THE
LANDMARK CASE OF Miranda v. Arizona (384 US 436).
You have the right to remain silent” is a phrase familiar to
anyone who watches police or courtroom dramas. Recited by police
before they interrogate suspects, the admonition is the direct
result of one of the best-known and most controversial decisions
in the United States Supreme Court’s history, Miranda v. Arizona
(384 US 436).
The roots of the Miranda decision go back to March 2, 1963,
when an 18-year-old Phoenix woman told police that she had been
abducted, driven to the desert and raped. Detectives questioning
her story gave her a polygraph test, but the results were
inconclusive. However, tracking the license plate number of a car
that resembled that of her attacker’s brought police to Ernesto
Miranda, who had a prior record as a peeping tom. Although the
victim did not identify Miranda in a line-up, he was brought
into police custody in Arizona police department and
interrogated exhaustively by the Arizona police officers leading
to his confession. Based from his confession, a formal complaint
is charged, he was tried, and convicted. The appeal of his case
is made at the Arizona Supreme Court but the conviction is
affirmed. Then his case is elevated to the US Supreme Court
where there was a reversal of decision resulting to his
acquittal on the grounds of constitutionality issue.
It was in this landmark case, entitled “Miranda v. Arizona”
the US Supreme Court had laid down the constitutional rights of
the accused during the custodial interrogation or investigation.
It was incorporated in our 1973 constitution and later in the
1987 Constitution of the Philippines.
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED DURING CUSTODIAL INERROGATION
Right to remain silent
Right to have his/her counsel of his/her own choice. If he
cannot afford to have one, the government must provide one for
him/her.
Note: This rights could be validly waived in writing and with
the assistance of counsel so that the “confession” made will be
admissible as evidence in the court of law. The confession must
also be in writing, signed and sworn by the suspect/s.
THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING
GROUP 4
MEMBERS:
RICARDO CORAL
RICA MAE SUBIOR
GICEL PAGPAGUITAN
GEMS ELMER LEONOR
NOREN SABALO
JEAN LYRA SALVADO
