THE MIRANDA RIGHTS

For more than twenty eight years in the police service, I have been observed that several cases being tried in the different courts were dismissed because the Constitutional Rights of the accused has been violated by the Police authorities concerned.

THE MIRANDA RIGHTS



Inspite of continuous education being initiated from training institutions of the PNP pertaining to the respect of these rights of every suspect, still, it exist. As a result, the criminals go scot-free while the scothapless victims sagged their trust and confidence to our justice system.

THE MIRANDA RIGHTS



And the worst of it, for so many instances, when ever I interviewed rookies being assigned in our Police station and asked to narrate the Constitutional Rights of the suspect, they can not completely enumerate it and even got surprise to know its origin.

THE MIRANDA RIGHTS (ORIGIN)



The Miranda rights or Miranda warning is called because they were laid down in Miranda vs Arizona decided by the US Supreme Court in 1966, with Chief Justice Earl Warren writing in majority decision.

THE MIRANDA RIGHTS (ORIGIN)



Ernesto Miranda was an indigent Mexican who was arrested and taken to a police station on suspicion of kidnapping and rape. He was there identified by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by two policemen, who did not advise him of his right to have an attorney present. After two hours, he signed a confession that led to the filing of the criminal charges against him.

THE MIRANDA RIGHTS (ORIGIN)



After the trial, the confession was admitted over the objection of the defense. Miranda was found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 30 years imprisonment for each of the two crimes. The conviction was affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court of Arizona, which held that Miranda s constitutional rights had not been violated.

THE MIRANDA RIGHTS (ORIGIN)



The US Supreme Court reversed the decision by a 5-4 vote. It ruled that from 5the testimony of the officers and by admission of respondent, it is clear that Miranda was not in any way apprised of his right to consult with an attorney and to have one present during the interrogation, nor was his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself effectively protected in any other manner.

THE MIRANDA RIGHTS (ORIGIN)



The decision elaborated on the rights of a person under custodial investigation, which it defined as questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.

THE MIRANDA RIGHTS (ORIGIN)



Prior to any questioning, the Court stressed, the person must be 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.

THE MIRANDA RIGHTS (ORIGIN)



The Court added that although these rights could be waived provided this was done voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently, the suspect could indicate later that he wished to consult with a lawyer, in which case the questioning must stop. This must be done also when the individual is alone and he says he does not wish to be interrogated

THE MIRANDA RIGHTS (ORIGIN)



The Miranda decision was hailed by civil libertarians who had been complaining of police brutality and trickery in the custodial investigation of suspected criminals. But it was bitterly attacked by conservatives and police authorities who claimed that the campaign against criminality had been set back.

THE MIRANDA RIGHTS (ORIGIN)



on June 13, 1966. Because of this ruling, police departments around the country started to issue Miranda Warnings. Typically, they read:

THE MIRANDA RIGHTS (ORIGIN)



You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions or make any statements.

THE MIRANDA RIGHTS (ORIGIN)



Our own Supreme Court, taking its cue from Miranda, laid down similar rights in the landmark cases of Morales vs Enrile and People vs Galit, both penned by Justice Hermogenes Concepcion Jr. The Constitutional Commission of 1986 subsequently constitutionalized the two cases in Article III, Sec 12, which reads as follows;

THE MIRANDA RIGHTS (ORIGIN)

1. Any person under investigation for the commission of a crime shall have the right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to have a 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.

THE MIRANDA RIGHTS (ORIGIN)

2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado or either similar forms of detention are prohibited.

THE MIRANDA RIGHTS (ORIGIN)

3. Any confession or admission in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

THE MIRANDA RIGHTS (ORIGIN)

Implementing these provisions, RA-7438 RAlays in detail the rules to be followed in the conduct of a custodial investigation and the penalties for their violation. RARA7309 provides for the payment of damages to victims of unjust imprisonment, arbitrary o illegal detention or violent crimes.

REPUBLIC ACT 7438

An Act defining certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating Officers and Providing Penalties for Violations thereof

REPUBLIC ACT 7438

SECTION 2- Rights of Person Arrested, 2Detained or under Custodial investigation; Duties of Public Officers

REPUBLIC ACT 7438 Section 2

Any person arrested, detained of under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.

REPUBLIC ACT 7438 Section 2

Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or in his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his right to remain silent and to have a competent and independent counsel, preferably by his own choice , who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer.

REPUBLIC ACT 7438 Section 2

The custodial investigation report shall be reduced into writing , by the investigating officer, provided that before such report is signed or thumb marked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null an void, and no effect whatsoever.

REPUBLIC ACT 7438 Section 2

Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter s absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any parent, eldest brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible evidence in any proceeding.

REPUBLIC ACT 7438 Section 2

Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing or signed by such person the presence of his Counsel; otherwise such waiver shall be null and void.

REPUBLIC ACT 7438 Section 2

Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed to visits by or conferences with any member of his immediately family or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national non- government organization duly nonaccredited but the Commission of Human Rights or by any International non-governmental nonorganization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person s immediate family shall include his spouse, fianc or fiance, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece and guardian or ward.

REPUBLIC ACT 7438 Section 2

As used in this Act, custodial investigation 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..

REPUBLIC ACT 7438

SECION 4- Penalty Clause Any arresting 4public officer, or employee, or any investigating officer, who fails to inform any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation or his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice, shall suffer a fine of P6,000.00 or a penalty of imprisonment of not less that 8 years but not more than 10 years or both. Same with the failure to provide competent and independent counsel to a person arrested if the latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel.

REPUBLIC ACT 7438

Penalty Clause Any arresting public officer, or
employee, or any investigating officer, who fails to inform any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation or his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice, shall suffer a fine of P6,000.00 or a penalty of imprisonment of not less that 8 years but not more than 10 years or both. Same with the failure to provide competent and independent counsel to a person arrested if the latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel.

REPUBLIC ACT 7438 SECTION 4

Further, any person who obstruct, prevents or prohibits any lawyer or any member of the family of the person arrested at any time of the day of , in urgent cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less that 4 years nor more that 6 years and a fine of P4,000.00. This Act was approved on April 27, 1992

QUESTION
Refusal of the suspect in a Shooting incident to undergo PARRAFIN TEST is his Constitutional Right. Is it true?

ANSWER
People vs Canceran, 229 SCRA 581- Facts that the Paraffin test was conducted without the presence of Counsel did not violate the rights against self- incrimination nor right to Counsel

QUESTION
How about undergoing ULTRAVIOLET RAY examination, Is there any violation of the rights of the suspect?

ANSWER
There is no violation of the right against selfincrimination where the accused made to undergo such exam - People vs Tranca, 235 SCRA 455

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT ERNESTO MIRANDA?

ERNESTO ARTURO MIRANDA

ERNESTO ARTURO MIRANDA

Ernesto Arturo Miranda (March 9, 1941 January 31, 1976) was a laborer whose conviction on kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery charges based on his confession under police interrogation resulted in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case (Miranda v. Arizona) which ruled that a police officer upon arresting a person must read him his rights to counsel and to remain silent, called a Miranda warning.

Confession Without Rights, Start of Miranda v. Arizona

Ernesto Arturo Miranda was born in Mesa, Arizona on March 9, 1941. Miranda began getting in trouble when he was in grade school. Shortly after his mother died, his father remarried. Miranda and his father didnt get along very well; he kept his distance from his brothers and step-mother as well. Miranda's first criminal conviction was in eighth grade. The following year, he was convicted for burglary, and sentenced to a year in reform school.

Confession Without Rights, Start of Miranda v. Arizona

In 1956, about a month after his release from the reform school, Arizona State Industrial School for Boys, he fell afoul of the law once more and was returned to ASISB. Upon his second release from reform school he relocated to Los Angeles, California. Within months of his arrival in LA, Miranda was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery (but not convicted) and for some minor sex offenses. After two and a half years in custody the 18-year-old Miranda was deported back to Arizona.

Confession Without Rights, Start of Miranda v. Arizona

At that time he decided to join the army. During his army service he received many AWOL charges and charges for spying on other people's sexual activities. He also spent six months in the Fort Campbell, Kentucky stockade at hard labor. After 15 months in the service, during which time he was ordered to consult a psychiatrist but only went to one session, Miranda was dishonorably discharged.

Confession Without Rights, Start of Miranda v. Arizona

He drifted around the south for a few months, spending time in jail in Texas for living on the street without money or a place to live, and was arrested in Nashville driving a stolen car. Because he had taken the stolen vehicle across state lines, Miranda was sentenced to a year and a day in the federal prison system, serving time in Chillicothe, Ohio and later in Lompoc, California.

Confession Without Rights, Start of Miranda v. Arizona

The next couple of years Miranda kept out of jail, working at various places, until he became a laborer on the night loading dock for the Phoenix produce company. At that time he started living with Twila Hoffman, a 29-year-old mother of a boy and a girl by another man, from whom she could not afford a divorce.

Confession Without Rights, Start of Miranda v. Arizona

According to the Phoenix police, Miranda repeatedly abducted, kidnapped, raped and robbed young women during this time. His searching grounds for victims were so limited though, that in March 1963, his truck was spotted and license plates recognized by the brother of an 18 year old rape victim (the victim had given the brother a description). With his description of the car and a partial license plate number, Phoenix police officers Carroll Cooley and Wilfred Young arrested Miranda, took him to the station house and placed him in a lineup.

Confession Without Rights, Start of Miranda v. Arizona

After the lineup, when Miranda asked what he did, the police implied that he was positively identified. The police got a confession out of Miranda after two hours of interrogation, without informing him of his rights. After unburdening himself to the officers, Miranda was taken to meet the rape victim for positive voice identification. Asked by officers, in her presence, whether this was the victim, Miranda said, "That's the girl." The victim stated that the sound of Miranda's voice matched that of the culprit.

Confession Without Rights, Start of Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda then wrote his confessions down. At the top of each sheet was the printed certification that the confessor makes "this statement has been made voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion or promises of immunity and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make can and will be used against me." Despite the statement on top of the sheets that Miranda was confessing "with full knowledge of my legal right," he was not informed of his right to have an attorney present or of his right to remain silent. 73-year-old Alvin Moore was assigned to represent him at his trial. The trial took place in mid-June 1963 before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Yale McFate.

Confession Without Rights, Start of Miranda v. Arizona

Moore objected to entering the confession by Miranda as evidence during the trial but was overruled. Mostly because of the confession, Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years on both charges. Moore appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court but the charges were upheld.

Confession Without Rights, Start of Miranda v. Arizona

Filing as a pauper, Miranda submitted his plea for a writ of certiorari, or request for review of his case to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 1965. After Alvin Moore was unable to take the case because of health reasons, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney Robert J. Corcoran, asked John J. Flynn, a reputable criminal defense attorney, to do a pro bono basis case along with his partner, John P. Frank, and an associate Peter D. Baird of the law firm Lewis & Roca in Phoenix to represent Miranda. They wrote a 2,500 word petition for certiorari that argued that Miranda's Sixth Amendment rights had been violated and sent it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Miranda v. Arizona
John Flynn and John Paul Frank for Miranda outlined the case and then stated that Miranda had not been advised of his right to remain silent when he had been arrested and questioned, adding the Fifth Amendment argument to his case. Flynn contended that an emotionally disturbed man like Miranda, who had a limited education, shouldnt be expected to know his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

Miranda v. Arizona
Gary Nelson spoke for the people of Arizona, arguing that this was not a Fifth Amendment issue but just an attempt to expand the Sixth Amendment Escobedo decision. He urged the justices to clarify their position, but not to push the limits of Escobedo too far. He then told the court that forcing police to advise suspects of their rights would seriously obstruct public safety. The Miranda case was not the only case in the 1960s which had controversial issues; three similar cases were Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart.

Miranda v. Arizona
The second day had others from the other cases and some arguments. Thurgood Marshall, the former NAACP attorney, was the last to present his stand on the case.

Miranda v. Arizona
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the opinion in Miranda v. Arizona. The decision was in favor of Miranda. It stated that: The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.

Miranda v. Arizona
The opinion was released on June 13, 1966. Because of the ruling, police departments around the country started to issue Miranda Warnings. Typically, they read

Miranda v. Arizona
You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions or make any statements.

Life after Miranda v. Arizona

Only Miranda's rape charge was dropped. A robbery charge was still valid and another trial was decided to be held on the rape charge (without the confession as evidence) soon after the decision. He was quickly re-sentenced to eleven years in prison for kidnapping and rape due to a confession he had made to his wife.

Life after Miranda v. Arizona

After serving one-third of his sentence and being turned down for parole four times Miranda was paroled in December 1972. After his release, he started selling autographed Miranda Warning cards for $1.50 (American Heritage). Over the next years Miranda was arrested numerous times for minor driving offenses and eventually lost the right to drive a car. He was arrested for the possession of a gun but the charges were dropped. But because this violated his parole he was sent back to Arizona State Prison for another year.

Life after Miranda v. Arizona

After his release, Miranda spent most of his time in poorly kept bars and cheap hotels in the bad section of Phoenix. Miranda, then working as a delivery driver, participated in a card game at the La Amapola Bar. Miranda had taken on the role as a minor celebrity, passing out Miranda cards and telling his story. On January 31, 1976, a violent fight broke out and Miranda received a mortal knife wound; he was pronounced dead on arrival at Good Samaritan Hospital. He was 34 years old. Police officers apprehended a Hispanic male shortly afterwards and read him his Miranda rights from a small rectangular card. However, the suspect refused to cooperate with police, and due to a lack of evidence could not be prosecuted for Miranda's murder (Arizona State University).

Thats the end of my Presentation THANK YOU