Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
Second Regular Session

House Bill No, 5931

Introduced by Rep. MARIO VITTORIO “MARVEY” A. MARINO
5t* District, Batangas

EXPLANATORY NOTE

It has been said, time and again, that it is better to set ten guilty men free than let
an innocent man suffer. This is the bedrock of the Bill of Rights enshrined in the 1987
Constitution of the Philippines. The law and our courts have consistently and strongly
condemned the use of force, coercion or intimidation to extract confession or
influence witness testimonies. Still, police officers have continuously employed force,
coercion and intimidation to extort false confessions and testimonies.

‘There are times when law enforcement use harsh interrogation tactics with
uncooperative suspects. But some police officers, convinced of a suspect's guilt,
occasionally use tactics so persuasive that an innocent person feels compelled to
confess.' In fact, in a number of cases, it was found that physical, emotional and
mental torture were employed by the police just to get a confession. Often times, it is
through these coerced confessions that lead to their convictions. Thus, those who did
not factually and actually commit the crimes are forced to admit guilt and put to jail,
‘or worse, face the death penalty.

Extensive research and studies by the Innocence Project reveal that more than |
out of 4 people wrongfully convicted but later on exonerated by DNA evidence made
false confession or incriminating statement.* In fact, from 1989 to 2012, 15% of the
exonerations are due to false confessions.’ False confessions by the accused can be
attributed to factors during custodial interrogations, Research reveals that duress,
coercion, ignorance of the law, fear of violence, and the actual infliction of harm are
factors that can contribute to a false confession during a police interrogation. In fact,
in the Philippines, the Supreme Court has overturned convictions based on abuses of
law enforcers and prosecutors during custodial investigations.

The Supreme Court, in People v. Buscato, the accused was convicted on the basis
of extrajudicial confessions extracted through maltreatment during custodial

id.

* False Confessions or Admissions, Innocence Project. Retrieved April 27, 2017 from
https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/false-confessions-admissions/

* Exonerations in the United States, 1989-2012, Report by the National Registry of Exonerations

* Ibid.


investigation.* The Court reversed the conviction on the ground that the physical,
mental, and moral coercion exerted upon them rendered confessions inadmissible as
contrary to the right of self-incrimination.® In the case of People v. Galit,’ a prisoner
‘was arrested for killing a person on the occasion of a robbery. Notwithstanding the
fact that there was no evidence linking him to the crime, he was detained and
continuously interrogated. Galit, on the other hand, maintained his innocence. In spite
of the mauling and physical torture, the accused consistently maintained his innocence.
‘The maltreatment continued until he could no longer take it, leaving him no choice
but to admit what the investigating officers wanted him to admit and even signed the
confession they prepared. The Supreme Court in a similar case held that “appellant's
confessions having been extracted by force and violence, they stand discredited in the
eyes of the law and cannot be the basis for sustaining a judgment of conviction.”*

Taking these studies and cases into consideration, there is a clear case of
wrongful conviction by reason of coerced confession made in the hands of the police
officers. It is for this reason that civil society and legal pundits believe that electronic
recording of interrogations, from beginning to end, is the single best reform available
to prevent wrongful convictions caused by false confessions.’ The recording of
custodial interrogations will improve the credibility and reliability of authentic
confessions, while protecting the rights of innocent suspects.'” Also, the recording of
these interrogations would help deter law enforcers from using illegal or devious
tactics to secure a confession."

In view of the foregoing, the early passage of this bil is earnestly requested.
MARIO VITTORIO “MARVEY” A. MARINO

5 Cruz, |. (2007). Contstitutional Law. Manila: Rex Publishing
Ibid.
* People of the Philippines v. Francisco Galt, G.R. No, \-51770, March 20, 1985
People of the Philippines v. Ricardo Cabrera and Loreto Sipe, G.R. NO. L-51858, January 31, 1985,
* False Confessions or Admissions, Innocence Project. Retrieved April 27, 2017 from
hnttps://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/false-confessions-admissions/
Ibid.
* ibid,


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Quezon City

SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
Second Regular Session

House Bill No. 9931

Introduced by Rep. MARIO VITTORIO “MARVEY” A. MARINO
5 District, Batangas

AN ACT DIRECTING THE ELECTRONIC RECORDING OF
CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS TO PROTECT THE
CONSITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED DURING
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS!?

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Short Title ~ This Act shall be known as the “Integrity in
Interrogations Act.”

SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy ~ It is the policy of the State to protect the
rights of the accused during custodial investigations. To prevent “false confessions”
from the accused leading to wrongful convictions, it shall establish an objective
record of what transpired during the course of the interrogation process.

SECTION 3, Definitions — For the purposes of this Act, the following terms shall
be defined as follows:

a Place of Detention ~ a jail, police station, holding cell, correctional or
detention facility, or other place where persons are questioned in
connection with criminal charges or juvenile delinquency proceedings.

b. Custodial interrogation — any questioning done during custodial
investigation, involving a law enforcement officer's questioning that is
reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses and in which a
reasonable person in the subject's position would consider himself to be
in custody, beginning when a person should have been advised of his
rights as an accused and ending when the questioning has completely
finished.

©. Custodial investigation — any inquiry initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into custody otherwise deprived of
his freedom of action in any significant way. It shall include the practice

This bill was originally filed by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago in the 15" Congress


his freedom of action in any significant way. It 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.

d. Electronic recording or electronically recorded — an audio and visual
recording that is an authentic, accurate, unaltered record of a custodial
interrogation.

€. Statement ~an oral, written, sign language or nonverbal communication.
SECTION 4. Electronic Recording Procedures —

A. Alll statements made by a person during a custodial interrogation shall be
electronically recorded using equipment capable of audio-visual recording.
The recording equipment shall be simultaneously focused upon both the
interrogator and the suspect. All recording shall commence with the proper
identification of all persons involved in the interrogation.

B. If any part of the interrogation necessarily takes place outside of a place of
detention, or if audio and video equipment are not available, audio recording
maybe resorted to, provided all persons present during the interrogation shall
properly identify themselves during the recording, and provided further that a
public prosecutor certifies to the unavailability of proper equipment.

C. The interrogating officers shall inform the persons under custodial
interrogation of the recording.

SECTION 5. Presumption of Inadmissibility — Except as provided in Sections 6
of this Act, all statements made by a person during a custodial interrogation that are
not electronically recorded, and all statements made thereafter by the person during
the custodial interrogations, including but not limited to statements that are
electronically recorded, shall be inadmissible as evidence against the person in any
criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding brought against the person

SECTION 6. Overcoming the Presumption of Inadmissibility — The presumption
of inadmissibility of statements provided in Section 5 of this Act may be overcome,
and statements that were not electronically recorded may be admitted into evidence in
‘a criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding brought against the person, if the court
finds:

A. That the statements are admissible under applicable rules of evidence;

B, Before or during a custodial interrogation, after having consulted with his or
her lawyer, the person unambiguously declared on videotape that he or she
would only respond to the officer's questions if his or her statements were not
electronically recorded;

C. Exigent circumstances existed which prevented the making of, or rendered it
not feasible to make, an electronic recording of the custodial interrogation.


SECTION 7. Monitoring Requirement —

‘A. Compliance with the electronic recording requirement shall be monitored by
the Department of Justice (DOJ) through the submission of forms developed
by the DOJ to survey recorded interrogations and outcomes and identify any
patterns of noncompliance. These forms shall be submitted by the trial judge
and the prosecutor for:

1. Cases in which recorded interrogations were introduced as evidence in a

2. Cases in which interrogations were not recorded and a plea of guilty to
felony charges was entered and accepted by the court.

B. Compliance with the electronic recording requirement shall be monitored by
the Philippine National Police (PNP) through the submission of forms by the
interrogating officer(s) in each case of recorded and unrecorded interrogation.
These forms shall be developed by the PNP, with the expectation that the
reporting forms shall identify any patterns of noncompliance.

SECTION 8. Handling and Preservation of Electronic Recordings.

‘A. Every electronic recording of a custodial interrogation shall be properly
authenticated and clearly identified and catalogued by law enforcement
personnel. The DOJ shall take steps to ensure proper standards in the
process of authentication and cataloguing of electronic recordings.

B. If a criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding is brought against a
person who was the subject of an electronically recorded custodial
investigation, the electronic recording shall be preserved until all appeals,
post-conviction and habeas proceedings are final and concluded, or the
time within which such proceedings must be brought has expired.

C. If no criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding is brought against a
person who has been the subject of an electronically
 siaapeind grb acieyvriscehaebersearerry Meza yap
enforcement personnel until all applicable statutes of limitations bar
prosecution of the person.

D. The DOJ may establish regional storage facilities for electronic recordings
which shall be sufficiently protected and equipped with the proper
technology needed to preserve the recordings.

E. Should technology be developed that would preserve the data in the
electronic recording in a more effective, efficient and practical manner,
the electronic recording may be transferred to such technology. The DOJ
shall establish rules to protect the integrity of the electronic recording
proposed to be transferred.


SECTION 9. Appropriation - To carry out the provisions of this Act, such
amount as may be necessary is hereby authorized to be appropriated from the
National Treasury. Thereafter, the amount necessary for the continuous monitoring,
handling and preservation of electronic recordings shall be included in the annual
appropriation of the DOJ and the PNP.

SECTION 10, Separability Clause — If any provision or part hereof, is held
invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the law or the provision not otherwise
affected shall remain valid and subsisting.

SECTION 11. Repealing Clause — Any law, presidential decree or issuance,
executive order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary
to or is inconsistent with the provision of this Act is hereby repealed, modified, or
amended accordingly.

SECTION 12. Effectivity Clause ~ This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days
after its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved.