Case Digest: Mesina vs. People, G.R. No. 162489, June 17, 2015

                            Rule 115: Rights of the Accused  | Criminal Procedure

                         Custodial Investigation

Facts:

Bernardo Mesina was charged with qualified theft, but after a reinvestigation, the charge was amended to malversation of public funds. 

The amended information stated that the petitioner, an employee of the City Treasurer's Office in Caloocan City, misappropriated and converted public funds of  "Patubig" collection amounting to P167,876.90 for personal use. 

Mesina went to the Mini City Hall of Caloocan City and collected various fees and taxes totaling P468,394.46 from Ms. Rosalinda Baclit. However, it was later discovered that the collection for the "Patubig" (local water system) amounting to P167,870.90 was not remitted, and Mesina denied receiving it.  Caloocan City Mayor Reynaldo O. Malonzo ordered an investigation into the matter. Mesina continued to deny receiving the "Patubig" collection, while Baclit insisted that it was remitted. A cash count was conducted, involving representatives from the Commission on Audit and Caloocan City officers.

The petitioner denied the charges but the statement of collection supposedly signed by him was found at Baclit's desk hidden under other documents.

During the trial, Mesina admitted collecting the total amount, including the "Patubig" collection, but denied misappropriating it. He claimed that he kept the collection in his vault due to his wife's sudden illness and believed he didn't need to remit it yet. Mesina argued that the accusation was politically motivated.

Issue:

WON the accused-appellant was not informed of his constitutional right to assistance of counsel as mandated by the Constitution.

Held:  NO. 

The petitioner bewails the deprivation of his constitutionally guaranteed rights during the investigation. He posits that a custodial investigation was what really transpired, and insists that the failure to inform him of his Miranda rights rendered the whole investigation null and void.

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. The safeguards during custodial investigation begin to operate as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into a still unsolved crime, and the interrogation is then focused on a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions that tend to elicit incriminating statements. The situation contemplated is more precisely described as one where after a person is arrested and his custodial investigation begins a confrontation arises which at best may be termed unequal. 

Contrary to the petitioner's claim, the fact that he was one of those being investigated did not by itself define the nature of the investigation as custodial. For him, the investigation was still a general inquiry to ascertain the whereabouts of the missing patubig collection. By its nature, the inquiry had to involve persons who had direct supervision over the issue, including the City Treasurer, the City Auditor, the representative from different concerned offices, and even the City Mayor. What was conducted was not an investigation that already focused on the petitioner as the culprit but an administrative inquiry into the missing city funds. Besides, he was not as of then in the custody of the police or other law enforcement office.