THE MIRANDA RIGHTS

For more than twenty four 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 hapless 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 Mirandas 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
the 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, RA7438 lays in detail the rules to be
followed in the conduct of a
custodial investigation and the
penalties for their violation. RA7309 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,
Detained 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 latters
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 nongovernment organization duly accredited but
the Commission of Human Rights or by any
International non-governmental organization
duly accredited by the Office of the
President. The persons immediate family
shall include his spouse, fianc or fiance,
parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent
or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece

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
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

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

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,

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 selfincrimination 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
self- incrimination
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,

Ernesto
Arturo
was v.
born
in
Start
of Miranda
Miranda
Arizona
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

Confession Without Rights,

In 1956,
about
month afterv.
his
release
Start
of aMiranda
Arizona
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

Confession Without Rights,

At that
timeof
he Miranda
decided to join
army.
Start
v. the
Arizona
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,

He drifted
the south v.
forArizona
a few
Startaround
of Miranda
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,

The Start
next couple
of years Miranda
kept
of Miranda
v. Arizona
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,

According
toof
theMiranda
Phoenix police,
Miranda
Start
v.
Arizona
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

Confession Without Rights,

After
the lineup,
when Miranda
asked
Start
of
Miranda
v.
Arizona
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

Confession Without Rights,

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-yearold Alvin Moore was assigned to represent him at

Start of Miranda v. Arizona

Confession Without Rights,

Moore
objected
to entering the
Start
of Miranda
v. Arizona
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,

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

Start of Miranda v. Arizona

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

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

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

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

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,

Thats the end of my

Presentation
THANK YOU