Voluntary Admission Not Violative of Constitutional Rights;[t]he Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another individual. It governs the relationship between the individual and the State.

Voluntary Admission Not Violative of Constitutional Rights

The voluntary admission of Yabut did not violate his constitutional rights (1) on custodial investigation, and (2) against self-incrimination.

In the first place, he was not under custodial investigation.²⁶ His Affidavit was executed in private and before private individuals.²⁷ The mantle of protection under Section 12 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution²⁸ covers only the period "from the time a person is taken into custody for investigation of his possible participation in the commission of a crime or from the time he is singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime although not yet in custody."²⁹

Therefore, to fall within the ambit of Section 12, quoted above, there must be an arrest or a deprivation of freedom, with "questions propounded on him by the police authorities for the purpose of eliciting admissions, confessions, or any information."³⁰ The said constitutional provision does "not apply to spontaneous statements made in a voluntary manner"³¹ whereby an individual orally admits to authorship of a crime.³² "What the Constitution proscribes is the compulsory or coercive disclosure of incriminating facts."³³

Moreover, the right against self-incrimination³⁴ under Section 17 of Article III³⁵ of the Constitution, which is ordinarily available only in criminal prosecutions, extends to all other government proceedings -- including civil actions, legislative investigations,³⁶ and administrative proceedings that possess a criminal or penal aspect³⁷ -- but not to private investigations done by private individuals. Even in such government proceedings, this right may be waived,³⁸ provided the waiver is certain; unequivocal; and intelligently, understandingly and willingly made.³⁹

If in these government proceedings waiver is allowed, all the more is it so in private investigations. It is of no moment that no criminal case has yet been filed against Yabut. The filing thereof is entirely up to the appropriate authorities or to the private individuals upon whom damage has been caused. As we shall also explain later, it is not mandatory for CASA -- the plaintiff below -- to implead Yabut in the civil case before the lower court.

Under these two constitutional provisions, "[t]he Bill of Rights⁴⁰ does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another individual. It governs the relationship between the individual and the State."⁴¹Moreover, the Bill of Rights "is a charter of liberties for the individual and a limitation upon the power of the [S]tate."⁴² These rights⁴³ are guaranteed to preclude the slightest coercion by the State that may lead the accused "to admit something false, not prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth."⁴⁴

Yabut is not an accused here. Besides, his mere invocation of the aforesaid rights "does not automatically entitle him to the constitutional protection."⁴⁵ When he freely and voluntarily executed⁴⁶ his Affidavit, the State was not even involved. Such Affidavit may therefore be admitted without violating his constitutional rights while under custodial investigation and against self-incrimination.

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 149454             May 28, 2004

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner,
vs.CASA MONTESSORI INTERNATIONALE LEONARDO T. YABUT, respondents.