XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 14 October 2013

Fundamentals of Thesis Writing I Atty. Sarah Arriola

THESIS TOPIC

The coverage of the Miranda rights as adopted in the Philippine jurisdiction.

LEGAL ISSUE

The propriety of extending the coverage of the Miranda rights to protect persons subjected to
non-custodial investigations.

THESIS STATEMENT

The Philippine Bill of Rights specifically guarantees the Miranda rights available to a person
under custodial investigation. Republic Act 7438 extended the constitutional guarantee to
situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been “invited” for
questioning in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed. Yet, both the
Philippine Constitution and the law do not provide for those situations where a person, who is
not suspected of committing an offense, is subjected to an investigation that is non-custodial in
nature. This thesis aims to redefine the right to remain silent and the applicability of the
exclusionary rule to non-custodial investigations involving a person who is not suspected of
committing any offense.

PRELIMINARY OUTLINE:

Chapter I: Introduction

A. The first chapter of the thesis will provide the concept and nature of the right to remain
silent.
1. An overview of the case of Miranda v. Arizona will provide for the basic
understanding of the right to remain silent as adopted in the Philippines.
2. The right to remain silent will then be defined, taking into consideration
international treaties and conventions, national laws, available jurisprudence, and
comments of legal authorities.
1. The right to remain silent is available to persons who are under custodial
investigation.
2. Express invocation of the right to remain silent in light of the recent ruling
made by the US Supreme Court in Salinas v. Texas.
3. Other preliminary considerations (i.e., extension of the right to remain
silent to non-custodial investigations, right against self incrimination,
exclusionary rule, etc.)
B. The problem statement is that an individual, who is not suspected of committing an
offense but is “invited” for questioning, may be incriminated for his silence.
C. The study is significant because considering that the Philippines and the US have the
same constitutional rule on the right to remain silent, the recent ruling in Salinas v. Texas
could have legal implications on the rights of a person under non-custodial investigation.
D. The right to remain silent is available to persons both in custodial and non-custodial
investigations. This thesis will be limited to the latter.
Chapter II: Looking into the developments of the right to remain silent and its application
in non-custodial investigations

A. Philippine jurisprudence.
1. Morales, Jr. v. Enrile, et al. lays down the procedure to be followed in custodial
investigations.
2. Navallo v. Sandiganbayan states that the Miranda rights are not available before
police investigators become involved.
3. People v. Taylaran deals with the situation where a person voluntarily presents
himself to the police and makes admissions without being under investigation.
4. People v. Marra, et al. defines the meaning of custodial investigation.
5. People v. Camat, et al. determines when the Miranda rights begin to be available.
6. Other relevant cases applying the right to remain silent will be discussed.
B. International law and jurisprudence.
1. US jurisprudence, especially those relevant to the Salinas ruling, will be tackled.
2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court, and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence relevant to
the right to remain silent will also be looked into.

Chapter III: The rogue decision of the US Supreme Court in Salinas v. Texas: Can silence
be used as a consideration in determining the guilt or innocence of an accused?

A. A look into the historical developments which eventually led to the Salinas ruling by the
US Supreme Court will be made.
1. Jurisprudence from the US Supreme Court will be examined.
2. Legal journals providing historical accounts will also be taken into consideration.
B. What is the rule in the Philippines?
1. A distinction between the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the accused under
investigation and the Miranda rights as enunciated in Miranda v. Arizona will be
made.
2. What are the legal implications of the Salinas ruling?
3. Philippine jurisprudence on the application of the right to remain silent to non-
custodial investigations will be discussed.

Chapter IV: A look into the constitutionally guaranteed right to remain silent and the
obligation of the Philippines to guarantee civil and political rights

A. The requirement of an express invocation of the right to remain silent for protection
against incrimination is unconstitutional.
B. An adoption of the ruling in Salinas v. Texas is contrary to the obligation of the
Philippines under International Law, i.e., International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.

Chapter V: Conclusion and Recommendation

A. Conclusion
1. There is no need for the Philippines to adopt the requirement of an express
invocation of the right to remain silent before a person under non-custodial
investigation can be protected.
2. An adoption of the rule is contrary to the obligations of the Philippines under
international law.
B. Recommendation
Republic Act No. 7438, in as much as it extends the Miranda rights to non-custodial
investigations covering persons who are suspected of committing an offense, should be
amended to cover those who are not suspected of committing any offense.
 PRELIMINARY BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTION

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.

STATUTES AND CODES

REPUBLIC ACTS

An Act to Secure the State and Protect Our People from Terrorism [HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF
2007], Republic Act No. 9372 (2007).

An Act Amending the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended, and for Other
Purposes [TAX REFORM ACT OF 1997], Republic Act No. 8424 (1997).

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 No. 7438 (1992).

An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of the Privacy of
Communication, and for Other Purposes, Republic Act No. 4200 (1965).

An Act to Ordain and Institute the Civil Code of the Philippines [CIVIL CODE], Republic
Act No. 386 (1950).

An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Laws [THE REVISED PENAL CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES], Republic Act No. 3815 (1930).

JURISPRUDENCE

Domestic

Alih v. Castro, 151 SCRA 279 (1987).

Morales, Jr. v. Enrile, 121 SCRA 538 (1983).

Navallo v. Sandiganbayan, 234 SCRA 177 (1994).

Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners, 28 SCRA 345 (1969).

People v. Bacamante, 248 SCRA 47 (1995).

People v. Basay, 219 SCRA 404 (1993).

People v. Caguioa, 95 SCRA 2 (1980),

People v. Camat, 256 SCRA 52 (1996).
People v. Fabro, 277 SCRA 19 (1997).

People v. Gamboa, 194 SCRA 372 (1991).

People v. Hon. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989).

People v. Layuso, 175 SCRA 47 (1989).

People v. Loveria, 187 SCRA 47 (1990).

People v. Lucero, 244 SCRA 425 (1995).

People v. Marra, 236 SCRA 565 (1994).

People v. Querido, 229 SCRA 745 (1994).

People v. Taliman, 342 SCRA 534 (2000).

People v. Taylaran, 108 SCRA 373 (1981).

People v. Tomaquin, G.R. No. 133188 (2004).

People v. Waggay, 218 SCRA 742 (1993).

People v. Hon. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989).

U.S. v. Luzon, 4 Phil. 343 (1905).

U.S. v. Navarro, 3 Phil. 143 (1904).

U.S. v. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 375 (1917).

Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 (1920).

Foreign

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964) (U.S.).

Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966) (U.S.).

Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York, 378 U.S. 52 (1964)

Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. __ (2013) (U.S.).

OTHERS

RECORD OF THE 1986 CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION.

SECONDARY AUTHORITIES
BOOKS

Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A
Commentary. Manila: Rex, 2009.

Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers
Manila: Rex, 1995.

R.H. Helmholz, The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: Its Origins and Development.
University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Reyes, Luis B. The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law Book One.
Manila: Rex, 2012.

Reyes, Luis B. The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law Book Two.
Manila: Rex, 2012.

Tolentino, Arturo M. Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Manila: Acme, 1956.

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Avery, Michael, “You have a Right to Remain Silent,” Fordham Urban Law Journal 30 (2002): 2.

Stein, Alex, “Right to Silence Helps the Innocent: A Response to Critics,”

Cardozo Law Review 30 (2008): 3.

Skinnider, Eileen and Gordon, “The Right to Silence – International Norms and Domestic
Realities,”
Sino Canadian International Conference and Implementation of Human Rights
Covenants Beijing, 25-26 October 2001. Accessed August 10, 2013.
http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/publications/reports/silence-beijingfinaloct15.pdfLikosky,
Michael.

NEWS ARTICLES AND OPINION COLUMNS

Gutierrez, Angelo, “Uriarte cries, invokes right vs. self incrimination,” Philippine Star, July 14,
2011. Accessed August 10, 2013. http://www.philstar.com/headlines/705718/uriarte-
cries-invokes-right-vs-self-incrimination.

Hachero, Ashzel, “GMA invokes right to remain silent,” Malaya Business Insight, Aug. 24, 2012.
Accessed August 10, 2013. http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/news/nation/11502-
gma-invokes-right-to-remain-silent.

Tabingo, Peter, “Neri invokes right to remain silent,” Malaya Business Insight, Nov. 7, 2012.
Accessed August 10, 2013. http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/news/nation/17060-
neri-invokes-right-to-remain-silent.