‘You have the right to remain silent” is a phrase familiar to anyone who watches police or courtroom dramas. Recited by police before they interrogate suspects, the admonition is the direct result of one of the best-known and most controversial decisions in the United States Supreme Court’s history, Miranda v. Arizona (384 US 436).
Ernesto Miranda, then 23, was arrested in 1963 in Phoenix, Arizona, after the kidnapping and rape of a young woman. He denied any involvement at first, but after two hours of police questioning, he confessed. Police did not tell Miranda that he had the right to have an attorney present, so at trial his lawyer said the confession should not be admitted into evidence. It was, and he was convicted.
Miranda’s appeal reached the Supreme Court at a time when the justices were increasingly sympathetic to the rights of criminal defendants. In siding with Miranda, the court majority invoked the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which said that no criminal suspect could be forced by government to be “a witness against himself.”
As for Miranda, he was tried and convicted again, without using the confession against him. In 1976, Miranda was murdered in a fight at a Phoenix bar. Some news reports stated that he had several “Miranda cards,” containing the police warning his case had inspired, in his pocket when he died.
Chief Justice Earl Warren, penned the Majority Opinion quoted hereunder:
“Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow, but briefly stated, it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean 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. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, 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 defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with any attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned.
The “Miranda” ruling has been adhered to by our Philippine Supreme Court in several cases (People v. Villamor, L-41493, December 14, 1981; People v. Alegria, GR 80764, September 26, 1990; etc.). This doctrine has been amplified by the New Constitution (Article III, Bill of Rights, Section 14) under which the counsel to be provided the accused must be competent and independent, and must be one preferably of his (accused’s) own choice. If the accused cannot pay his counsel because of poverty, he must be given with one (who is competent and independent) for free a case of de oficio counsel). These rights (right to be informed to remain silent and right to counsel) cannot be waived except in writing (contemplating an express waiver) and in the presence of counsel. The incompetence of counsel may be shown by the surrounding circumstances (as when he failed to take legal steps ordinarily expected of a counsel of ordinary intelligence) and when it is proven that such counsel is incompetent (or is not independent), any confession made by the accused even with the supposed assistance of such kind of counsel may be inadmissible in evidence. The counsel must assist actively the accused. Thus, it was ruled that any confession obtained from a suspect in the absence of counsel and without his assistance shall be inadmissible in evidence against him (People v. Alegria, GR 80764, September 28, 1990). The only exception is where the right to counsel is categorically waived, and such waiver is made in writing and in the presence of counsel.
At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest, and he must be shown 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 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 on his behalf. The right to counsel may be waived, and 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. Penillos, et al., GR 65673, January 30, 1992).
The Miranda doctrine has been honored more in breach than in observance by our police officers. We live in dangerous times when the suspect is shot/killed even before arrest.
Sadly, “the right to remain silent,” these days, is taken literally and to its extreme—silenced forever has become the norm!