Republic of the Philippines

Bulacan State University

College of Criminal Justice Education
Unang Antas sa Kolehiyo
Bachelor of Science In Legal Management
City of Malolos Bulacan
Tel Nr. (044) 919-7800 to 99 Local 1074

INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL PROFESSION

BSLM 2B

SUBMITTED BY
AQUINO ROJAHN KAYLE B.
Miranda Rights (Miranda v. Arizona) – Miranda rights and the Fifth Amendment's protections against
self-incrimination were central themes in this case. Miranda was questioned in police custody in Arizona
without being informed of his right to an attorney present during questioning or his right to remain silent
while in police custody. Miranda, who was described as severely mentally disturbed and whose home
country did not use English as its primary language, was questioned by police for two hours in the
"interrogation room" by a pair of officers. The officers did not inform him that he had the right to be
represented by an attorney. Miranda confessed to a crime while in custody and signed a written
confession with a printed paragraph at the top stating that his confession was voluntary and that Miranda
drafted it with "full knowledge of his legal rights" and a "understanding that any statement" he made
could be used against him. Miranda was later convicted of kidnapping and rape following a trial in which
the written confession was allowed to be used against him as evidence. The fact that Miranda did not
request counsel was critical to the Arizona Supreme Court's conclusion that the elicitation of his
confession and the use of his confession at trial were not unconstitutional. Miranda filed an appeal with
the U.S. The Arizona Supreme Court decision was appealed to the Supreme Court. Miranda's Fifth
Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was not protected by the Court because proper warnings
were not provided. The testimony of the interrogating officers, which confirmed Miranda's oral
confession, was also admitted into evidence in that same trial to use statements from custodial
interrogations in trial, prosecutors must demonstrate the use of effective procedural safeguards,
including specific warnings: the right to remain silent, the potential use of statements against the
suspect, and the right to an attorney. The Court emphasized that waiver of these rights is permissible if
it's voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and silence alone does not constitute a waiver.

Bail - Bail is the sum of money required for defendants to be released from custody until their trial. Bail
is not the same as a fine. It is not intended to be used as a form of punishment. The purpose of bail is
simply to ensure that defendants appear for trial and any pretrial hearings that they are required to
attend. Bail is returned to defendants after their trial, minus a processing fee in some states. "Bail as a
matter of right" refers to the legal principle that a defendant has an inherent or automatic right to be
released on bail while awaiting trial in certain circumstances. This means that, in certain circumstances,
a person arrested and charged with a crime has the right to be released from custody upon posting bail,
without the need for a hearing or the discretion of a judge. The precise criteria and conditions for "bail as
a matter of right" may differ depending on the jurisdiction and legal system in place. The legal principle
known as "bail as a matter of discretion" allows a judge to use their judgment and discretion in deciding
whether to grant bail to a defendant who has been arrested and charged with a crime. In cases where
bail is not mandated by law, the decision to grant bail, the amount of bail, and the conditions of release
are left to the judge's discretion. When making this decision, the judge takes into account a number of
factors. The legal principle known as "bail as a matter of discretion" allows a judge to use their judgment
and discretion in deciding whether to grant bail to a defendant who has been arrested and charged with
a crime. In cases where bail is not mandated by law, the decision to grant bail, the amount of bail, and
the conditions of release are left to the judge's discretion. When making this decision, the judge takes
into account a number of factors. The legal principle known as "bail as a matter of discretion" allows a
judge to use their judgment and discretion in deciding whether to grant bail to a defendant who has been
arrested and charged with a crime. In cases where bail is not mandated by law, the decision to grant
bail, the amount of bail, and the conditions of release are left to the judge's discretion. When making this
decision, the judge takes into account a number of factors.

BP 22 - In the Philippines, BP 22 refers to a specific legal provision, specifically Batas Pambansa Bilang
22. BP 22 is a law that makes issuing bouncing checks or checks that are dishonored upon presentation
for payment a crime. The law's official title is "An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of
a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and for Other Purposes." Individuals or entities who issue
checks as payment for goods or services but those checks bounce due to insufficient funds or a closed
account may face criminal charges under BP 22. The legislation was passed to help ensure the
credibility and dependability of checks as a form of payment in commercial transactions.

Criminal Offense: Under BP 22, it is a crime to issue a bouncing check knowing that there are
insufficient funds to cover the amount indicated on the check.
Strict Liability: BP 22 is a strict liability offense, which means that the prosecution does not need to
prove the issuer's intent to defraud. The act of issuing a bouncing check can result in criminal charges.

Penalties: Depending on the amount indicated on the check, penalties for BP 22 violations may include
fines and imprisonment. The law establishes different penalties for various check amounts.

Civil Liabilities: In addition to criminal penalties, the issuer of the bouncing check may be liable to the
payee for civil damages.

Attorney-client - relationship is a basic and confidential legal relationship that exists between an
attorney (lawyer) and their client. This relationship is governed by the legal profession's ethical rules and
professional standards. Confidentiality: One of the core principles of the attorney-client relationship is
attorney-client privilege, which ensures that communications between a client and their attorney are
confidential and cannot be disclosed without the client's consent. This privilege allows clients to speak
openly and honestly with their lawyers.

Loyalty: Attorneys have a duty of loyalty to their clients, which means they must act in their client's best
interests and avoid any conflicts of interest that could compromise their representation.

Competence: Attorneys are expected to provide competent legal representation to their clients, which
includes possessing the necessary legal knowledge and skills to handle the client's case effectively.

Zealous Advocacy: Attorneys have a duty to zealously advocate for their clients within the bounds of
the law.

Communication: Attorneys are expected to keep their clients reasonably informed about the status of
their case and to provide them with information necessary to make informed decisions.

Honesty and Candor: Attorneys are required to be honest and candid with their clients and provide
them with accurate legal advice.

Jurisprudence and landmark cases - are legal concepts that are related, but they have distinct
meanings and roles in the legal field. The philosophy or study of the fundamental principles, theories,
and philosophy of law is known as jurisprudence. It entails the examination and analysis of abstract legal
concepts as well as the legal system's underlying theoretical framework. Jurisprudence investigates the
nature of law, the relationship between law and morality, and the principles that govern legal
interpretation and application. Jurisprudence lays the groundwork for comprehending the theoretical
underpinnings of the legal system. Landmark cases are specific legal decisions or court rulings that have
a significant and long-lasting impact on legal development. These cases frequently involve significant
legal issues, novel interpretations, or contentious decisions that establish important legal precedents.
Landmark cases are notable for their contributions to the development of legal doctrines and principles.
They create new legal standards or alter existing ones, and their impact extends beyond the specific
case. Landmark cases are cited as authoritative references in subsequent legal proceedings, and they
are important sources for interpreting and applying the law.

Ethical and judicial conduct - refers to the standards of behavior, integrity, and professionalism that
are expected of members of the legal profession, particularly judges and lawyers. It is a set of principles
and rules that govern their actions, decisions, and interactions in the legal system. Ethical and judicial
behavior are critical to preserving the legal system's integrity and fairness and ensuring public trust in
the administration of justice.

Integrity: Honesty, fairness, and impartiality are required in ethical and judicial behavior. This includes
refraining from unethical practices such as bribery, corruption, or any actions that jeopardize the legal
system's integrity.
Conflicts of Interest: Judges and lawyers must avoid situations in which their personal interests or
relationships may conflict with their obligation to act in the best interests of their clients or the public. Full
disclosure and, when necessary, recusal are critical components of ethical behavior.

Confidentiality: The duty of lawyers to keep client information confidential is paramount. Judges are
also responsible for safeguarding sensitive information presented in court.

Impartiality: Judges are expected to be impartial and unbiased in their decisions, free of prejudice or
favoritism. This ensures that all parties have an equal opportunity to present their case.

Professionalism: Both judges and lawyers are expected to conduct themselves professionally in and
out of the courtroom. This includes treating all parties, witnesses, and colleagues with dignity and
courtesy.

Adherence to Codes of Conduct: Judges and lawyers are typically bound by codes of conduct and
ethics established by their respective professional organizations and regulatory bodies. These codes
provide detailed guidance on expected behavior.

Legal Ethics: Specific legal ethics rules and standards, such as those concerning the attorney-client
privilege, conflicts of interest, and diligent client representation, are applicable to lawyers and govern
their professional conduct.

Judicial ethics: Judges must abide by judicial codes of ethics that specify their duties, such as
administering justice in a fair and impartial manner, avoiding conflicts of interest, and upholding the
integrity of the judicial system.

Accountability: Those who work in the legal field are responsible for their decisions. Disciplined
actions, such as reprimands, suspensions, or disbarments for lawyers, and removals from the bench or
other judicial sanctions for judges, may follow violations of ethical and judicial conduct.

Malfeasance: Malfeasance is the commission of an unlawful or improper act, often by a public official,
that goes beyond their scope of authority or is against the law.
It entails the deliberate performance of an act that a person knows to be against the law, immoral, or in
breach of their obligation or authority. Malfeasance is usually an intentional act that causes harm,
frequently involving elements of corruption, dishonesty, or a blatant desire to cause harm or abuse one's
position for personal gain.

Misfeasance: A lawful act carried out negligently or improperly that causes someone harm or injury is
referred to as misfeasance. It involves a decision that is within the person's power but is made
carelessly or ineptly.
Misfeasance, in contrast to malfeasance, typically involves a lack of due care or skill in the performance
of a lawful duty rather than an intentional violation of the law or abuse of power.
If misbehavior results in harm or damage, it may still put a person in legal trouble and serve as the basis
for legal claims.

The Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Doctrine - is a legal principle that requires individuals or
entities to exhaust all administrative procedures and remedies before seeking judicial review of a
government action, decision, or dispute. To put it another way, before going to court, individuals must
first go through the established administrative processes, such as filing complaints, appeals, or
grievances with government agencies or administrative bodies.

The case of Larry Gadon - In a unanimous decision, all 15 judges of the Supreme Court En Banc
voted to disqualify Attorney Lorenzo "Larry" Gadon due to a widely circulated video in which he
repeatedly used profanity and offensive language against journalist Raissa Robles. The Court had taken
notice of the video on its own and had previously issued an order to suspend Gadon from practicing law
until a judgment was reached.
The Court determined that the video in question was unquestionably scandalous and brought disrepute
to the legal profession. Specifically, they cited Gadon for violating Canon II on Propriety, a part of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, which sets the standard for lawyers to act with
integrity and maintain a respectable image in both personal and professional interactions, while
upholding the dignity of the legal profession and adhering to high ethical standards. The Court
emphasized that lawyers are expected to avoid engaging in scandalous behavior, whether in their public
or private life.

Previously, Gadon had been convicted by the Court and suspended from practicing law for three months
for using offensive and intemperate language. He was warned that a repetition of such conduct would
result in a more severe penalty. There are six other pending administrative cases against Gadon within
the Office of the Bar Confidant and four before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines. The Court concluded that the sheer number of administrative complaints against
Attorney Gadon is a clear reflection of his character.

In the same decision, the Court also found Gadon in direct contempt of court for making baseless
allegations of partiality and bias against Senior Associate Justice Marvic MVF Leonen and Associate
Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa. Gadon had attempted to have these two Justices recused from the
case based on unfounded conjecture.

The unanimous verdict concluded with a stern reminder to all lawyers: "The privilege to practice law is
granted only to individuals who are intellectually and academically competent and, equally importantly,
morally upright. There is no place for misogyny and sexism in this honorable profession. The Court will
never tolerate any form of abuse, especially when committed by an officer of the court."

Moral Turpitude - A legal term known as "moral turpitude" is used to refer to conduct or actions that are
deemed to be against the moral principles of honesty, justice, and good moral character. It frequently
involves actions that are morally repugnant, dishonest, or unethical by nature. The use of dishonesty,
fraud, cruelty, or malice are frequently found in crimes or conduct that demonstrates moral turpitude.

Convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude in the legal context can have serious repercussions,
including those related to immigration, such as deportation or inadmissibility, as well as professional
repercussions for those in certain professions, like lawyers or healthcare professionals. It's important to
consult specific laws and regulations for precise guidance in a particular jurisdiction as the precise
definition and classification of crimes involving moral turpitude can vary by jurisdiction and legal system.