The Miranda warnings are part of American criminal

justice and American popular culture. Where do they

come from? What do they mean?
Ernesto Miranda was the name of a 23 year old
Mexican immigrant. The United States Supreme
Court in 1966 announced a constitutional rule of
criminal procedure requiring that police must
advise a suspect of several constitutional rights
prior to Interrogation.
If the police do not, any statements made by the suspect
may not be used against him in prosecuting a crime. The
title of the case was Miranda v. Arizona.

The Standard Miranda Warning

(Miranda Rights)

Law enforcement officers carry with them a form to

advise an individual being arrested:

You have the right to remain silent.

Anything you say can and will be used
against you in a court of law. You
have the right to have an attorney
present during questioning. If you
cannot afford an attorney, one will be
appointed for you.

The Arrest and Trial of Ernesto Miranda

In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix as a

suspect for kidnapping and rape. Police questioned him
in a special interrogation room, Interrogation Room No. 2
of the detective bureau. After two hours, the officers came
out of the interrogation room with a written confession.

Miranda

had signed the confession and typed at

the top document a paragraph stated the
confession was made voluntarily, without
threats or promises of immunity and with full
knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any
statement I make may be used against me.

The

victim identified him in a line up.

 Two

weeks later at a preliminary hearing,

Miranda again was denied counsel.
At Mirandas trial the officers admitted at
that Miranda was not advised that he had a
right to have an attorney present. Mirandas
trial attorney objected to the use of the
statements. The trial judge overruled the
objection and the confession was used
against him.
Miranda was convicted. He was sentenced
to 20 to 30 years in prison. His conviction
was appealed to the Arizona Supreme
Court, which affirmed.

The Supreme Court Decision in

Miranda v. Arizona

In 1966 his case reached the United States Supreme Court.

There had been protections in place for the Fifth Amendment
right to self-incrimination when the case reached the Court. The
major protection of that right had been that a statement, to be
used in court against a defendant, had to be voluntary. The
Court determined there was no way to be sure a statement was
voluntary unless there was certainty a suspect was aware of his
rights. The only way to be sure he knew was to tell him.

The

Supreme Court found that Mirandas rights

derived from the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the
Bill of Rights had been violated overturning his
conviction. In doing that, the Court announced the
rule that suspects needed to know their rights in
order to waive them, leading to the warnings that
bear Ernesto Mirandas name.

Combining the Amendments:

The Miranda Warnings

The US Supreme Court decided that if someone was

not aware of his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination, then the right may as well not exist. The
Court also relied upon a 1963 case, Gideon v.
Wainwright which recognized the right to counsel[2]
as critical to a persons defense.

Unless someone knows that they are entitled to

have an attorney that right is practically nonexistent as well. The knowledge that there is a
right to an appointed attorney is as critical as
simply the right to consult an attorney.
Combining the two, the Miranda Warnings were
born.

How the Miranda Warnings Work in

Criminal Prosecutions

The Warnings are not needed for a criminal prosecution.

TV police have the time and script writers to see to it that
the warnings are integral to the arrest process. In real
life arrests the luxury of a script does not exist and an
arrest may take place without the delivery of the
warnings.
There is an impression from entertainment arrests that
failure to give warnings makes a real life arrest illegal.
The lack of warnings does not make an arrest invalid.

The consequence of failing to give an arrestee

Miranda warnings is that if the subject makes
any statements prior to being warned, those
statements may not be used in a criminal
prosecution.

The Warning Process to Obtain

Admissible Statements
The warning process consists of three steps before
statements of the accused can be used against him:
The

warnings must be given

The suspect must acknowledge they
were given
The suspect must freely waive his rights
Once these conditions are met, statements made and
evidence gathered as a result of the statements can be
used against him. If these three things do not happen,
the evidence is excluded, and cannot be used by the
state at trial.

What Happened to Ernesto

Miranda?

The Supreme Court overturned his conviction.

He did not go free. He was tried again. At the
new trial he was found guilty, without his
statements as evidence. He was sentenced to
eleven years in prison, and released in 1972.
In 1976 he was killed in a Phoenix bar. A
suspect was arrested in his killing. The
suspect was advised of his right to remain
silent and did so. No one was ever convicted
in the killing of Ernesto Miranda.

Summary
The Miranda rights stem from the landmark decision
of the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v.
Arizona. The Miranda doctrine requires that:
(a) any person under custodial investigation has
the right to remain silent;
(b) anything he says can and will be used
against him in a court of law;
(c) he has the right to talk to an attorney before
being questioned and to have his counsel
present when being questioned; and
(d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be
provided before any questioning if he so
desires.

This doctrine is enshrined in Article 3, Section 12 (1) of the

Constitution, which provides:

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.

On Philippine Law:

Compared to what is originally laid out in

Miranda v. Arizona, Philippine law provides for
more stringent standards where the
right to counsel was specifically qualified
to mean competent and independent
counsel preferably of the suspects own
choice. Waiver of the right to counsel likewise
provided for stricter requirements compared
to its American counterpart; it must be done
in writing, and in the presence of
counsel. Any confession or admission
obtained in violation of the requirements
under the Miranda rights shall be inadmissible
in evidence against the accused (Art. 3, Sec.

People v. Galit(GR No. L-51770, 20 March

1985)
Facts:
Francisco Galit was picked up by the Montalban police on
suspicion for the killing of Mrs. NatividadFrancisco, a
widow. After he was taken by the Montalban police, the
case was referred to the National Bureau of Investigation in
view of the alleged limited facilities of the Montalban police
station. Accordingly, Galit was brought tothe NBI where he
was investigated by a team headed by NBI Agent Carlos
Flores. The following day, Galit voluntarily executed a
Salaysay admitting participation in the commission of the
crime, also implicating Juling and PablingDulay as his
companions in its commission.

As a result, he was charged with the crime of Robbery with

Homicide before the Circuit Trial Court of Pasig.During trial, a
witness stated that he overheard Galit quarrelling with his
wife about his intention to leavetheir residence immediately
because he and his two companions robbed and killed
Natividad Fernando. On the otherhand, Galit denied
participation in the commission of the crime and also assailed
the admissibility of the extrajudicialconfession extracted from
him through torture, force and intimidation. He recounted that
he was mauled andtortured by the NBI officers by covering his
face with a rag and pushing his face into a toilet bowl full of
human waste.He had no counsel when the confession was
extracted from him. He admitted what the investigating
officers wantedhim to admit and he signed the confession
they prepared. Later, against his will, he posed for pictures as
directed by his investigators, purporting it to be a reenactment. This notwithstanding, the trial court found Galit
guilty.

Issue: W/N Francisco

Galit should be
acquitted on the
ground that his
extrajudicial
confession is

Ruling:
YES. The evidence presented by the prosecution
does not support a conviction. In fact, the
findings of the trial court relative to the acts
attributed to the accused are not supported by
competent evidence. There were no
eyewitnesses, no property recovered from the
accused, no state witnesses, and not even
fingerprints of the accused at the scene of the
crime. The only evidence against the accused is
his alleged confession. The alleged confession
and the pictures of the supposed re-enactment
are inadmissible as evidence because they were
obtained in a manner contrary to law. Galit
acquitted.

 Issue:

How is the
inadmissibility of
the extrajudicial
confession shown?

Ruling:
Through the statement itself. The first
question was a very long Tagalog
question followed by a monosyllabic
answer. It does not satisfy the
requirements of the law that the accused
be informed of his rights under the
Constitution and our laws. Instead, there
should be several short and clear
questions and every right explained in
simple words in a dialect or language
known to the person under investigation.

The accused is from Samar and there is no

showing that he understands Tagalog. Moreover,
at the time of his arrest, the accused was not
permitted to communicate with his lawyer, a
relative, or a friend. In fact, his sisters and other
relatives did not know that he had been brought
to the NBI for investigation and it was only about
two weeks after he had executed the Salaysay
that his relatives were allowed to visit him. His
statement does not even contain any waiver of
right to counsel and yet during the investigation
he was not assisted by one. At the supposed
reenactment, again accused was not assisted by
the counsel of his choice. These constitute gross
violation of his rights.

The correct procedure for peace officers to follow when making an

arrest and in conducting a custodial investigation, according to Morales
v. Ponce Enrile: At the time the person is arrested, it shall be the duty of
the arresting officer to inform him of the reason of the arrest and he
must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of his
constitutional right 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 meansby telephone if
possibleor by letter or messenger. It shall be the duty of the arresting
officer to see 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 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 procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or
inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
Trial courts are cautioned to look carefully into the circumstances
surrounding the taking of any confession, especially where the prisoner
claims having been maltreated into giving one. Where there is any
doubt as to its voluntariness, the same must be rejected in toto.