Scribd
Upload
34 views

Untitled

(1) Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution outlines the rights of any person under custodial investigation, including the right to remain silent, the right to competent counsel (either of their choosing or appointed), and forbidding the use of torture, threats, or other means to overcome their free will. (2) The Miranda vs Arizona case established that prior to custodial interrogation, suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent, that any statements can be used against them, and of their right to an attorney. (3) Philippine law further requires that during arrest and custodial investigation, suspects must be informed of the reason for arrest and shown an arrest warrant. They must be informed of their right

Uploaded by

xyji mave ingosan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
34 views

Untitled

(1) Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution outlines the rights of any person under custodial investigation, including the right to remain silent, the right to competent counsel (either of their choosing or appointed), and forbidding the use of torture, threats, or other means to overcome their free will. (2) The Miranda vs Arizona case established that prior to custodial interrogation, suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent, that any statements can be used against them, and of their right to an attorney. (3) Philippine law further requires that during arrest and custodial investigation, suspects must be informed of the reason for arrest and shown an arrest warrant. They must be informed of their right

Uploaded by

xyji mave ingosan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution

Sec. 12: THE RIGHT OF PERSON UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION


(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.

(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.

Custodial Investigation is any questioning by law enforcement after a person has been taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.

Miranda vs Arizona

What is the Miranda Doctrine?


The Miranda Doctrine means that prior to questioning during custodial investigation, the person must be warned
that he has the 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.

When to invoke the Miranda rights/Miranda warnings?


- from the time he/she singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime although not yet in custody
- from the time a person is taken into custody for investigation of possible participation of a commission of
the crime

Objective of Miranda warnings


- Prohibit incommunicado interrogation of individual in a police-dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-
incriminating without full warnings of constitutional rights

What are the rights of a person during custodial investigation?


1. The right to be informed of his rights
– i.e. the reading of the Miranda Doctrine or custodial rights by police during his arrest. This carries the
correlative obligation on the part of the investigator to explain and contemplates effective communication which
results in the subject understanding what is conveyed.

2. The right to remain silent and to be reminded that anything he says can and will be used against him
– This refers not only to verbal confessions but also to acts. However, mechanical acts that does not require the
use of intelligence (such as providing DNA samples) or to answers to general questions are not protected under
this right.

3. The right to an attorney or to counsel, preferably of his own choice; if not, one will be provided for him
– This right is absolute and applies even if the accused himself is a lawyer. The right is more particularly the
right to independent and competent An independent counsel is one not hampered with any conflicts of interest,
and a competent counsel is one who is vigilant in protecting the rights of an accused.

4. Right against torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will of
the person

5. Right against secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention
- Any confession or admission obtained from the person arrested in violation of these rights are inadmissible in
evidence and cannot be used against said person. This is called the Exclusionary Rule, i.e. it is excluded from
the evidence to be considered by the court during trial. Such confession or admission is tainted and must be
suppressed under the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine.
What is the correct procedure for arresting officers to follow when making arrest and in conducting
custodial investigation?

- At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officers to inform him of the reason for the
arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, x x x. 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 anyone he 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 on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon
petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone in 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
procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory in whole or in part shall be inadmissible in
evidence. (People v. Pinlac,  249 Phil. 114)

Is the mere reading of the Miranda Warnings enough?


A perfunctory reading of the Miranda rights without any effort to find out from the suspect whether he wanted
to have counsel and, if so, whether he had his own counsel or he wanted the police to appoint one for him is
insufficient. Mere ceremonial giving of warnings is inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the
suspect.

In People v. Pinlac, 249 Phil. 114, the Court held that when the Constitution requires a person under
investigation “to be informed” of his right to remain silent and to counsel, it must be presumed to contemplate
the transmission of a meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an
abstract constitutional principle. As a rule, therefore, it would not be sufficient for a police officer just to repeat
to the person under investigation the provisions of the Constitution. He is not only duty-bound to tell the person
the rights to which the latter is entitled; he must also explain their effects in practical terms. In other words, the
right of a person under interrogation “to be informed” implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police
investigator to explain, and contemplates an effective communication that results in understanding what is
conveyed. Short of this, there is a denial of the right, as it cannot truly be said that the person has been
“informed” of his rights.

You might also like