Miranda doctrine

From Legal Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Under this doctrine, prior to any questioning during custodial investigation, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he gives may be used as evidence against him, and that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.

Contents

Miranda vs. Arizona

This doctrine originated from the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). In this case, the US Supreme Court:

. . . established rules to protect a criminal defendant's privilege against self-incrimination from the pressures arising during custodial investigation by the police. Thus, to provide practical safeguards for the practical reinforcement for the right against compulsory self-incrimination, the Court held that "the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." It was suggested therein that "Prior to any questioning, the persons 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." As explained in Miranda, "The need for counsel in order to protect the privilege (against self-incrimination) exists for the indigent as well as the affluent * * * . While authorities are not required to relieve the accused of his poverty, they have the obligation not to take advantage of indigence in the administration of justice * * * . In order to fully apprise a person interrogated of the extent of his rights under this system then, it is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but also that if he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him."[1]

Constitutional basis

The Constitution even adds the more stringent requirement that the waiver must be in writing and made in the presence of counsel.[2] Section 12, Article III of the Constitution reads:

SEC. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right 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 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.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

Miranda Rights under the Rules of Court

(For editing)

Philippine cases

(For editing)

References

  1. [People vs. Jimenez, G.R. No. L-40677, 31 May 1976]
  2. [People vs. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, 30 August 2001]
Personal tools