Republic of the Philippines 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Quezon City 
NINETEENTH CONGRESS 
First Regular Session 
House Bill No. ______ 
Introduced by Rep. MARIO VITTORIO “MARVEY” A. MARIÑO 
5th 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.1 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 1 
out of 4 people wrongfully convicted but later on exonerated by DNA evidence made 
false confession or incriminating statement.2 In fact, from 1989 to 2012, 15% of the 
exonerations are due to false confessions.3 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.4 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 
1 Ibid. 
2  False Confessions or Admissions, Innocence Project. Retrieved April 27, 2017 from 
https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/false-confessions-admissions/ 
3 Exonerations in the United States, 1989-2012, Report by the National Registry of Exonerations 
4 Ibid. 
July 1, 2022 
12:25 pm
910


investigation.5 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.6 In the case of People v. Galit,7 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.”8 
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. 9  The recording of custodial 
interrogations will improve the credibility and reliability of authentic confessions, 
while protecting the rights of innocent suspects. 10  Also, the recording of these 
interrogations would help deter law enforcers from using illegal or devious tactics to 
secure a confession.11 
In view of the foregoing, the early passage of this bill is earnestly requested. 
MARIO VITTORIO “MARVEY” A. MARIÑO 
5 Cruz, I. (2007). Contstitutional Law. Manila: Rex Publishing 
6 Ibid. 
7 People of the Philippines v. Francisco Galit, G.R. No. L-51770, March 20, 1985 
8 People of the Philippines v. Ricardo Cabrera and Loreto Sipe, G.R. No. L-51858, January 31, 1985 
9  False Confessions or Admissions, Innocence Project. Retrieved April 27, 2017 from 
https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/false-confessions-admissions/ 
10 Ibid. 
11 Ibid. 


Republic of the Philippines 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Quezon City 
NINETEENTH CONGRESS 
First Regular Session 
House Bill No. ______ 
Introduced by Rep. MARIO VITTORIO “MARVEY” A. MARIÑO 
5th District, Batangas 
AN ACT DIRECTING THE ELECTRONIC RECORDING OF 
CUSTODIAL 
INTERROGATIONS 
TO 
PROTECT 
THE 
CONSITUTIONAL 
RIGHTS 
OF 
THE 
ACCUSED 
DURING 
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS12 
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.
c.
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 of
12 This bill was originally filed by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago in the 15th Congress 
910


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. 
 
e. Statement – an oral, written, sign language or nonverbal communication. 
 
SECTION 4. Electronic Recording Procedures –  
 
A. All 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 
criminal case; 
 
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 recorded custodial 
interrogation, the related electronic recording shall be preserved by law 
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.