Miranda Rights: a Constitutional Right By: Argel Joseph C.

Cosme A lot of people has heard the term Miranda Rights, whether it be in a law class, during the course of a television show, or possibly through personal experience with their use, but what do these two words really mean, where did they come from and how to they apply to an individuals everyday life? Before having to be exposed in the legal environment as a law student and a court employee, I looked at it as something absurd and impractical for police officers to actually utter a long memorized line every time all the time before arresting a criminal. Why cant they just capture him and put him to jail instead of blabbering what I thought before were useless lines. I often got irked about it every time I watch movies. At first I thought anyway its only for movies, but, to my surprise, it is really practice in actual life, I wouldnt know about it not until I witness a real court proceeding. The answers to this question are neither simple nor fully answered today, as challenges to Miranda Rights appear in courtrooms more often than not. However, the basis for Miranda Rights can be traced back to a landmark case handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 entitled Miranda v. Arizona.1 Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico living in the Phoenix, Arizona area in 1963 when he was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman. The victim picked Miranda out of a lineup, and he was subsequently interrogated for two hours during which the police investigators failed to advise him of either his Fifth Amendment Right against self incrimination or his Sixth Amendment Right to request the assistance of an attorney. Over the course of this interrogation, Ernesto Miranda confessed and signed a written confession of his crimes. Included in his confession was acknowledgement that he had waived his right against self-incrimination. After his conviction based on his confession, Mirandas attorney appealed his sentence on the basis that his confession should be excluded because Miranda had not been informed of his rights by the interrogators. The police officers involved offered the defense that because Miranda had a past conviction, he should have been well aware of his rights. The Arizona Supreme Court denied Mirandas appeal, and his conviction was upheld. Mirandas attorney then appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court in 1965, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The Miranda v Arizona case was combined with three other similar cases. When the Supreme Court handed down the decision 5-4 in Mirandas favor, the resulting rights afforded to those being questioned or detained by police became popularly known as Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights must include the following as described by Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren:
1

384 US 436

Miranda Rights Page 2 of 7 X----------------x

1. You have the right to remain silent. 2. Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law. 3. You have the right to an attorney. 4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.

In the Philippine setting, this doctrine is enshrined in Article 3, Section 12 (1) of the Constitution, which provides: Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. Our own Supreme Court updated the Miranda Rights in People v. Mahinay,2 stating that, the court as, guardian of rights of the people lays down the procedure, guidelines and duties which the arresting, detaining, inviting or investigating officer or his companion must do. 1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investigation must be informed in a language known to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any; Every other warnings, information or communication must be in a language known to and understood by said person; 2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that anystatement he makes may be used as evidence against him; 3. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice; 4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf;

302 SCRA 455

Miranda Rights Page 3 of 7 X----------------x

5. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be informed that no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the presence of his counsel or after a valid waiver has been made; 6. The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the right to communicate or confer by the most expedient means - telephone, radio, letter or messenger - with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel, or be visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international non-government organization. It shall be the responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is accomplished; 7. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he understood the same; 8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must be informed that it must be done in writing and in the presence of counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to speak; 9. That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any manner at any time or stage of the process that he does not wish to be questioned with warning that once he makes such indication, the police may not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced, or the interrogation must ceased if it has already begun; 10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from invoking it at any time during the process, regardless of whether he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements; 11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the case may be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.

Miranda Rights are meant to be read to those being detained by police prior to an interrogation about a crime, or when a suspect is taken into custody. established rules to protect a criminal defendant's privilege against self-

Miranda Rights Page 4 of 7 X----------------x

incrimination from the pressures arising during custodial investigation by the police. Thus, to provide practical safeguards for the practical reinforcement for the right against compulsory self- incrimination, the Court held that "the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against selfincrimination. A police officer must be careful in the order in which they question the suspect and read the suspect his or her rights. If care is not given to this, the case could be dismissed due to inadmissibility of the testimonial evidence gathered from a suspect/accused during custodial investigation because of failure to inform him of his constitutional rights. Such evidence is regarded as fruit of the poisonous tree, thus, must be suppressed. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of the requirements under the Miranda rights shall be inadmissible in evidence against the accused.3 But the case wont be dismissed in instances where even the police officers didnt read the Miranda Rights of the accused and the accused did not make any statements, as such invoking his rights against self incrimination. Given the accused answers the investigating officers questions after having been informed of his rights, it is deemed that the accused waives his right. For the purpose of this argument, it is interesting to note the case of People v. Nicanor Jimenez et al.4 in analyzing how this particular doctrine works. Case Digest of People v. Jimenez(1976) Facts: Appeal from the judgment of the CFI of Misamis Occidental in Criminal Case No. OZ-542, finding appellant Nicanor Jimenez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder of one Fabiano Fuentes, and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Due to rampant trawl fishing in the area, Staff Sergeant Albino Panelo of the Constabulary, who was in charge of the Integrated Civilian Home Defense (IC-HDF) in Tangub City, together with Barrio Councilors Gaudioso Dungon, Fabiano Fuentes, Pascual Taylaran and Angel Enriquez of Barrio Bocator, constituted themselves into two or more teams to patrol Pangil Bay, for the purpose of apprehending persons engaged in trawl fishing. At about 11:00 o'clock in the evening of July 17, 1973, they sighted two pumpboats which they suspected to be engaged in trawl fishing. Allegedly manning one of the pumpboats were accused Jimenez and
3 4

Art. 3, Sec. 12 [3], Constitution G.R. No. L-40677

Miranda Rights Page 5 of 7 X----------------x

Hernando. Sergeant Panelo, instructed Fabiano Fuentes to transfer on the accuseds pump boats and follow them. After giving such instructions to Fabiano Fuentes, Sgt. Panelo and his remaining companions gave chase to the fourth pumpboat. Having apprehended the fourth pumpboat, they noticed that the third pumpboat was not following them. After conducting an intensive search of the area, they found no trace of either the third pumpboat or of Councilor Fuentes. They then returned to Tangub City to report the incident to the Chief of Police and later to the Constabulary Headquarters at Ozamis City. Two days later, or on July 19, 1973, they found the cadaver of Fabiano Fuentes floating in the vicinity of Lusno, within the Municipality of Tambulig, Zamboanga del Sur. Nicanor Jimenez was arrested, the court dismissed the case provisionally due to the repeated non-appearance of prosecution witnesses. It was only on January 17, 1974 when the case was refiled by the City Fiscal and on that occasion only appellant Nicanor Jimenez was arrested, while the other accused, Teofilo Hernando, remained at large. After trial, appellant Nicanor Jimenez was found guilty as charged because of the positive identification of the witnesses Panelo and Dungon and also the admission of the extra-judicial confession of Jimenez .(Exhibit A) Issue: Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to establish the Identity of appellant as one of the assailants of the deceased and the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession of the accused. Held: There being no eyewitnesses to the commission of the crime, the resolution of the question depends upon (a) the credibility of the testimony of Sgt. Albino Panelo and Gaudioso Dungon; and (b) the admissibility of the purported extra-judicial confession of appellant (Exhibit "A") before the City Judge on August 4, 1973. The Supreme Court held that the witnesses could not have clearly and convincingly identified the accused due to the darkness of the night. This supposition cast doubt on the requirement that the Identification of a person allegedly seen at the scene of the crime should be reasonably clear and unequivocal. The courts should exercise caution in weighing evidence of Identity. Under conditions that generally surround the commission of a crime, there is sometimes a predisposition to connect an

Miranda Rights Page 6 of 7 X----------------x

accused with a crime on the basis at times of fancied resemblances, depending upon the prejudgment or bias of the declarant. For the second issue on whether or not the Court could admit as evidence the prosecutions exhibit A, the extra-judicial confession of commission of the crime by accused Jimenez in view of the provisions of Section 20, Article IV, of the Constitution. Under the afore-mentioned section, "No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence." The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. In the case at bar, the Chief of Police admitted that prior to the police interrogation of appellant on August 4, 1973, the latter was not warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney-either retained or appointed. It is a matter of record that appellant not only repudiated the alleged extra judicial confession (Exhibit "A") as one procured thru coercion but also claimed that he was threatened by the police that if he would not affirm his signature in Exhibit "A" before the City Judge, they will further maltreat him. To show the unreliability of Exhibit "A", appellant's counsel de oficio also demonstrated that the purported statements of appellant in said declaration as to the manner in which the deceased was allegedly injured by the accused is inconsistent with the nature and character of the injuries found on the body of the deceased by Dr. del Castillo in her postmortem examination. It is because of this observation by the Supreme Court that it ruled the acquittal of accused Jimenez. Without going through the trial, naturally an ordinary person would condemn such heinous despicable crime and express intense revulsion to the one who committed it so accused in criminal cases are placed in such a disadvantageous position. In criminal cases, it is a settled principle that the proofs ought to be clearer than light. Needles to say, the task of the prosecution is to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt the particular circumstances constituting the offense charged. Where the prosecution falters miserably to meet the exacting test of moral certainty and proof beyond reasonable doubt, a judgment of acquittal is irrefutably imperative. In the case at bar, the prosecution evidence lamentably failed to establish sans doubt, the herein accuseds culpability. To elaborate further, the extrajudicial confession of

Miranda Rights Page 7 of 7 X----------------x

accused Jimenez cannot be given credence because of the failure of the investigating officer to inform the accused of his constitutional rights. The evil sought to be avoided by this doctrine has unfortunately not been evaded. In this case, the law must operate. The unmirandized narrative of Accused Jimenez cannot be used against him as it is cannot just be accorded credence by the Court because of several important and disturbing loopholes and inconsistencies that simply go against the odinary human experience. Such evidence instead of proving the guilt of the accused, gave more cloud of doubt. Although such warnings have become widely known, they have remained a source of controversy within the law-enforcement community. Truly, the law is difficult to understand for ordinary layman. Even our own Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, gives the accused a vast array of rights, that may raise a lot of peoples brows especially when a case is so drastic that all anger are against the accused and all sympathies are on the victim. This is so, so that the accused could be put on equal footing with the State, where clearly the accused is at a disadvantage in a situation where most of the people abhor him, and as such the State is very powerful to indict him. Accused that one maybe, the law affords him due process and equal protection. In the issue at hand, when an accused is arrested and questioned him without letting him know of his rights, the outcome of the case may be disposed technically in the favor of the accused, in some instances, it could be dismissed. It can be said that what is wanted to be prevented is coercion. The moment, however, there is any trace of compulsion, whether physical, mental or emotional, it becomes inadmissible. What is vital for its weight is that it directs from the free will of the person confessing. Miranda, to my mind, bolsters further the constitutional guarantee.. For a confession to be inadmissible, it is sufficient that the person under investigation is not informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel. There is a popular notion and perception that police interrogations are naturally coercive that unless the atmosphere be defuse in some manner, no individual's choice to speak could be considered as falling within the exception to the privilege against self-incrimination once its voluntariness is shown.