Research on the American case "Miranda vs Arizona" Give the facts of the

case.

What are the rights of the accused in this case?

According to the Library of Congress the case happened in 1966. Miranda v.

Arizona, in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, ruled that a person to be detained
should be given the rights to an attorney and rights against self-discrimination
based on the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution.

NAME OF CASE:

Miranda v. Arizona | 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

● Ernesto Miranda was arrested on March 13, 1963 on grounds of rape and
kidnapping after his partial license plate being identified by a witness.
● Miranda was interrogated for two hours, and was procured a confession
from the authorities without the presence of a lawyer nor did they advise
him of his rights against self-incrimination during the inquisition.
● Miranda signed a written confession on charges of rape, kidnapping, and
robbery and it was presented as evidence in court.
● Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison on June 27, 1963 by
Judge McFate.
● Defense Attorney Alvin Moore, appealed the case to the Supreme Court of
Arizona on June 12, 1965 with the reason that the process of arrest was
unconstitutional; the decision of the lower court was reaffirmed.

During Miranda v. Arizona case, the 5th and 6th amendments of the US
Constitution were violated. In an abridged version;
5. Rights of the accused (due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination,
double
jeopardy).

6. Rights of the accused (speedy trial, impartial jury, counsel representation,

nature of
accusation).

According to the 1987 Philippine Constitution under Article III Section 12; (1)
any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his rights 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 a counsel.

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

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof

shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

Based on the play-by-play scenario in Ernesto Miranda’s arrest, he was neither

informed of his rights to remain silent nor was he informed of his rights to a
lawyer or counsel. He was procured a confession by the authorities without the
presence of a lawyer, and this confession was used against him in court as
evidence, violating section 12 of Bill of Rights.

Section 14; (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until
the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to
have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and
to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.

Ernesto Miranda was presumed guilty before he was interrogated by the police
because of their primary objective to convict the suspect, hence the absence of
due process of law before, during, and after the interrogation. Just like the 5th
and 6th amendments of the US Constitution during 1963, the Philippine
Constitution supplies equal protection to all citizens under the eyes of the law.
Ernesto Miranda was arrested and convicted in an unconstitutional way, resulting
in a second trial that excluded his written confession from the court as admissible
evidence.

SOURCES:

Center, I. T. (n.d.-c). 1987 Philippine Constitution - The LawPhil Project.

https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987
Hardy, D. C. (2020b, November 25). Who Is Ernesto Miranda? - Miranda Rights.
The Hardy Law Firm Blog.
https://www.thehardylawfirm.com/blog/what-are-miranda-rights-and-who-was-ern
esto-miranda/
Research Guides: A Latinx Resource Guide: Civil Rights Cases and Events in
the United States: 1966: Miranda v. Arizona. (n.d.).
https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/miranda-v-arizona