The Miranda rights

In police and law-enforcement movies, have you noticed that whenever the police makes an arrest, they always inform the person arrested that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything said can and will be used against him in a court of law?

That is a result of the famous U.S. case of Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 l. Ed. 2nd 694. In the said case, Chief Justice Warren, who delivered the opinion of the Court, laid down the rule on admissibility of statements, i.e., 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. The heavy burden is on the prosecution because the State is responsible for establishing the isolated circumstance under which the interrogation takes place and has the only means of making available corroborated evidence of warnings given during incommunicado interrogation. Precisely, the Miranda doctrine was formulated to counteract the incommunicado police-oriented atmosphere during custodial interrogation and the evils it can bring.

*****

The Miranda Rights has been fully adopted in the Philippines (People vs. Samontañez, G.R. No. 134530, December 4, 2000). The Bill of Rights of the Philippine Constitution also provides that "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."

*****

The Supreme Court has laid down the correct procedure for peace officers to follow when making an arrest and in conducting a custodial investigation. At the time the person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must show the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might make could be used against him. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative or any one who chooses by the most expedient means — by telephone if possible — or by letter or messenger. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person in his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf.

*****

The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel.

*****

Any statement obtained in violation of the Miranda rights shall be inadmissible in evidence. This is the so-called "fruit from the poisonous tree doctrine," a phrase minted by Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter in the celebrated case of Nardone vs. United States (308 U.S. 388 [1939]). According to this rule, once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained (People vs. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 [1995]). Thus, the extrajudicial confessions of accused during custodial investigation taken in disregard of the Miranda rights are inadmissible and whatever information is derived therefrom shall be regarded as likewise inadmissible in evidence against them.

*****

It must, however, be emphasized that the Miranda rights may be invoked by a person only while he is under custodial investigation which has been defined as the "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" [People v. Caguioa, G.R. No. L-38975, January 17, 1980, 95 SCRA 2, 9 citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436]. Custodial investigation starts when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who starts the interrogation and propounds questions to the person to elicit incriminating statements. Police line-up is not part of the custodial investigation; hence, the right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage. This is because during a police line-up, the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory and it is usually the witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a statement in the course of the line-up. Too, the Miranda rights may no longer be claimed by a defendant in a criminal case already pending in court [People v. Ayson, G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 1989] because he is no longer under custodial investigation.

*****

However, only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial investigation are inadmissible. The admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not affected.

Posted in: Legal Law