P. 1
The Miranda Doctrine

The Miranda Doctrine

|Views: 184|Likes:
Published by Justin Torres
Consti 2
Legal Writing
Consti 2
Legal Writing

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Justin Torres on Jul 14, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/01/2013

pdf

text

original

THE MIRANDA DOCTRINE

Submitted to: Atty. Ulpiano “Ulan” Sarmiento III

Submitted by: Ong, David Bryan Torres, Justin Yumang, Cyndymhae Section 1- G

Arizona 384 U. the police officer will say. if you wish.THE MIRANDA DOCTRINE INTRODUCTION We often see in TV shows and movies that immediately upon arresting a person. These practices were abolished when the ruling on Miranda v. but no. Arizona was implemented. You have the right to speak to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. A number of cases were tried by different courts of law permitting evidences of written confessions of the suspects made through police interrogation and without the presence of an attorney. The Supreme Court of the United States‟ decision in Miranda v. “You have the right to remain silent. You can decide at any time to exercise these rights and not answer any questions or make any statements. In each of these cases.” We wonder if these are just from the brilliant writing of the writer. or a prosecuting attorney in a room . If you cannot afford an attorney. a person can be arrested without these statements of the arresting officer leaving the arrested person unaware of his rights. the defendant was questioned by police officers. Before the promulgation of the Miranda Doctrine in 1966. 436 (1966) addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. these statements are collectively known as the Miranda warning.S. Anything you say can be used against you in the court of law. one will be provided for you at government expense before any questions. detectives.

He was then taken to the 66th Detective Squad. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. in three of them. In all the cases. He was first taken to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters.in which he was cut off from the outside world. He was then taken to the 70th Precinct for detention.S. the oral confession and the transcript were presented to the jury. 384 U. Vignera was found guilty of first degree 1 Miranda v. the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. where he was questioned by an assistant district attorney in the presence of a hearing reporter who transcribed the questions and answers.1 In Vignera v. Miranda was found guilty of kidnaping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. Michael Vignera was picked up by New York police in connection with the robbery of a dress shop that had occurred three days prior. New York. On appeal. Arizona. which resulted in a signed. the questioning elicited oral admissions and. Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. signed statements that were admitted at trial. 436 (1966) . He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours. In Miranda v. At trial. where he orally admitted the robbery and was place under formal arrest. written confession. Arizona. At trial. the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda‟s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.

Roy Allen Stewart was identified as the endorser of checks stolen in one of the robberies. was interrogated on nine different occasions. FBI agents continued the interrogation at the station. Stewart‟s 2 3 Ibid. over the next five days. Westover signed separate confessions. United States: Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by local police in Kansas City as a suspect in two Kansas City robberies and taken to a local police station. Stewart was placed in a cell. Ibid. Westover was convicted of the California robberies and sentenced to 15 years‟ imprisonment on each count. which had been prepared by one of the agents during the interrogation.2 In Westover v. Then.3 In California v. Stewart was arrested at his home.robbery and sentenced to 30-60 years imprisonment. During the ninth interrogation session. At that time. Police also arrested Stewart‟s wife and three other people who were visiting him. At trial. The conviction was affirmed without opinion by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals. These statements were introduced at trial. to each of the two robberies in California. Stewart: In the course of investigating a series of purse-snatch robberies in which one of the victims died of injuries inflicted by her assailant. Stewart stated that he had robbed the deceased. police released the four other people arrested with Stewart because there was no evidence to connect any of them with the crime. Westover was interrogated the night of the arrest and the next morning by local police. A report was also received from the FBI that Westover was wanted on a felony charge in California. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. but had not meant to hurt her. and. After 2 and one-half hours of interrogation by the FBI. .

statements were introduced. a defendant “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent. holding that Stewart should have been advised of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. . The Supreme Court held that “there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves. “the prosecution may not use statements. stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Stewart was convicted of robbery and first degree murder and sentenced to death.” As such. that anything he says can be used against him in a court of 4 Ibid.” Therefore. The Supreme Court further held that “without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual‟s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freely. The Supreme Court of California reversed. 4 The issue in these cases is whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation” are admissible against him in a criminal trial and whether “procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself” are necessary.

.”5 The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in Miranda.law. the suspect is taken into custody. that he has the right to the presence of an attorney. It is only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect. reversed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals in Vignera. This landmark case changed American Justice by strengthening the protection of a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination during police interrogation. including the Philippines. Custodial investigation is defined by the Supreme Court as one which “involves any 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. MIRANDA RIGHTS The Miranda rights are available only during the stage of custodial investigation. and the police carries out a process of interrogations that lends 5 Ibid. and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in Stewart. reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Westover. and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. such change in American judicial system extensively reached and influenced other judicial systems in the world. Furthermore.

html (accessed March 20. adverse inference shall be made from his refusal to answer questions—this is based upon the presumption that the party who controls the evidence would have produced it. par.com/orig11/rounds4.8 Thus. 9 Wikipedia. “You Have The Right To Remain Silent: Fifth Amendment Explained. without prejudice to the liability of the “inviting” officer for any violation of law.10 6 7 People vs. http://www. The accused is not required to provide any evidence or testimony to prove his guilt. the accused must be set free. U.. 2013) 10 Raffel vs. The accuser has the burden to build a case against a person. if the accused. 2013). avoiding self-incriminating statements. and judgment. if the accuser fails on this point. begins cooperating with law enforcement authorities and answers questions. If the suspect refuses to give a statement. 2 8 Bill Rounds.1.S. http://en.itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate.org/wiki/Adverse_inference (accessed March 21. he or she gives up the right to remain silent and must continue to cooperate throughout his or her arrest.S. 271 U.com (2010).”6 This includes the practice of issuing an “invitation” to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed.9 However.1.7 To remain silent The right to remain silent is a fundamental principle of liberty. if it had been supportive of his/her position. 236 SCRA 565 (1994) RA 7438 sec. 494 (1926) .wikipedia. at his own will.lewrockwell. 2(f). trial.” LewRockwell. Marra.

No.13 A competent and independent counsel must be “willing to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused. Porio. 2(b) 14 People vs. peremptory and meaningless recital of the individual‟s constitutional rights”.12 If he has no means to procure the services of counsel he must be provided (by the government) with one. 14 A counsel de officio who fails to genuinely protect the interests of the accused is invalid and unacceptable. Short of this. Cruz. G.16 11 12 Gamboa vs. G. 162 SCRA 642 (1988) People vs. G.R. there is a denial of the right. 117202 (February 13. 1999) 16 People vs.R.To competent and independent counsel (preferably of his own choice) The constitution is crystal clear that any person under investigation must be assisted by counsel—this is one of the most important and cherished rights available to an accused. 2002) 15 People vs Bermas. as distinguished from one who would merely be giving a routine. Hassan 157 SCRA 261 (1988) 13 RA 7438 sec.15 To be informed of such rights This right contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.R. 120420 (April 21. No. 2004) citing People vs. 133685-86 (May 20. This implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain. Bagnate. and contemplates an effective communication that results in understanding of what is conveyed. as it cannot truly be said that the person has been “informed” of his rights. so as to prevent him/her to make self-incriminating statements. No. nicandro 141 scra 289 (1986) .11 This right is available at all stages of the investigation.

etc. detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter‟s absence. older brothers and sisters. Agustin 240 SCRA 541 (1995) 19 R. and that he understood the consequences of his action in relation to his rights.A.18 Rights cannot be waived except in writing and signed by the person in the presence of his counsel The law provides that any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested. otherwise. which vitiates the free will shall be used. upon a valid waiver. 2(d) . Force. 17 18 People vs. 7438 Sec. such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding. and in the presence of any of the parents. This categorically excludes any coercive. Secret detention places. Canela 208 SCRA 842 (1992) People vs.The burden lies on the prosecution to show that the accused understood what he read.17 In summary. are prohibited The inclusion of this statement in the rights of an accused during custodial investigation gives further emphasis on the proper manner of eliciting statements and evidences by the law enforcers... or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him. district school supervisor. it is comprehension that is sought to be obtained on the part of the accused and not merely the narration of such information on the part of the law enforcement authority.19 No torture. the municipal mayor. It gives ample protection to the accused to ensure that there will be no danger to his life and limb during such critical stage of interrogation. his spouse. the municipal judge. etc.

Vallejo. People vs. However.R. No.R. People.R. 1988). according to jurisprudence. No. but this does not exclude the inclusion of his body in evidence. 144656 (May 9. G. Andan. People vs. violence. G. The prohibitions therein 20 Gutang vs. Paynor 261 SCRA 615 (1996) People vs. 21 There are two kinds of involuntary or coerced confession namely (1) coerced confessions. 269 SCRA 45 (March 3. the product of torture. whether they be true or not. No.22 Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to the spontaneous statements not elicited through questioning by the authorities. Dy.intimidating or threatening force that might be used to coerce an accused of making admissions.23 The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relation among private individuals. force. what the constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort testimony from the accused. Guillermo. 2000) People vs. 147786 (January 20. 74517 (February 23. instead governs the relationship between the State and the individual. but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused orally admitted having committed the crime. threat and intimidation. 2002) 23 People vs. 1997). G. No. No. 2004) 21 22 . G.R. 116437. 135406 (July 11.20 Confessions/admissions obtained in violation of rights are inadmissible in evidence The rights guaranteed by this provision refer to testimonial compulsion only. and (2) uncounselled statements given without the benefit of the Miranda warning. when it may be material.R. G.

the accused must first be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made voluntarily. which is based on the presumption that the defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs through menacing police interrogation procedures where the potentially for compulsion. this waiver does not bar him from invoking it at any time during the process.26 Waiver The right to remain silent and the right to counsel but not the right to be informed of these rights may be waived—this will not be given legal effect unless it is in writing and made in the presence of counsel. for the waiver to be valid. The burden to prove that an accused waived such rights rests with the prosecution.are primarily addressed to the State and its agents.28 However. This rule is known as the „exclusionary rule‟. is forcefully apparent. the evidence derived from such confession is likewise inadmissible. 251 SCRA 293 (1995) 27 People vs. physical and psychological. confessions to the media are likewise not part of custodial investigation. Alicando. regardless whether he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements 24 25 269 SCRA 45 269 SCRA 45 26 People vs.24 Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this provision is inadmissible in evidence against him. knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he understood the same. hence.27 Further. 135 SCRA 465 (1985) 28 251 SCRA 293 . Galit.25 In addition.

and without counsel.30 In other words.IMPORTANCE OF MIRANDA DOCTRINE At first glance. 29 30 People v. Bolanos. 2001) People v. why is there such a great emphasis on these rights? Why is the accused accorded such great blanket of protection notwithstanding the possibility of his involvement in a crime? The answer is pretty simple. in People v. No. Holgado. rather. Also. 136253 (February 21.”31 This is not to say that our judicial system works in favor of the accused all the time. this right has to be understood in such a way that our judicial system exerts utmost effort in making sure that no innocent man shall be deprived of his liberty. No. 86 Phil 752 31 People v. This unequal position makes him vulnerable to “the evil of extorting from the very mouth of the person undergoing interrogation for the commission of an offense the very evidence with which to prosecute and thereafter convict him. The importance of the Miranda Doctrine cannot be undermined in the Philippine setting. Lugod. In People v.R. one may probably ask. 211 SCRA 262. The outcome of the investigation will have a great impact on the resolution of the case wherein the liberty of the accused is at stake. G. particularly in the rules of procedure.R. G. a person is placed in a seemingly powerless position as compared to the law enforcement officers. the decision of the trial court was reversed in as much as the uncounselled confession of the accused was the sole basis for conviction. Bonola.29 Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of law. Furthermore. 1997) . absent the Miranda Doctrine. the highly intimidating atmosphere in a custodial interrogation cannot be said to be conducive to a spontaneous response from an accused. 116394 (June 19. he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence.

so as to accord the victim what is due him. The right to be informed should allow the suspect to consider the effects and consequences of any waiver he might make of his rights. 141 SCRA 289. The very idea of improperly curtailing the constitutional rights makes people revolt from the inside out. In a democratic country like ours. Our hasty desire to put offenders in 32 People v. The Supreme Court said that the right of the accused to be informed of his Miranda rights contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.Peralta.32 These. the liberty of the people is given primary importance. We need not thoroughly review our history to realize that Filipinos do not look at such constitutional transgressions blindly. G. No. Thus. processes must still be observed.R. 2004) . everyone. along with a long list of cases decided by the Supreme Court. 147201 (January 15. evidences arising from such stage of custodial investigation will not be appreciated in any court of justice. especially those involved in law enforcement and administration of justice. For if it is not faithfully observed. the extra-judicial confession was held inadmissible for the lawyer merely affixed his signature to the confession as a witness and did not assist the accused during the custodial investigation. we have gone through several regimes that gave outright disrespect to the life and liberty of the people. Sabayoc. Nicandro. Thus. In People v. While we all want justice to be served the soonest possible time. unequivocally proves the importance of strictly adhering to the Constitutional mandate regarding the Miranda Doctrine. must be extra careful and vigilant in protecting the rights of the people. and so as to send a message to the society that justice is always upheld. As a nation. law enforcers themselves might deter the rightful conviction of a guilty person.

.jail will never justify any transgression of the equally important and constitutionally protected Miranda Rights of the accused.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->