Miranda Rights & Obstruction of Justice

Posted by Rey Cartojano - 2009/04/18 04:13 _____________________________________

In the past week, we witnessed the arbitrary and illegal arrests made by policemen on kins of popular media personality Ted Failon. Philip Chan and I will discuss tomorrow, 19 April 2009 live on air at Bombo Radio GenSan from 11-12noon the so-called Miranda Doctrine. Also, we will discuss obstruction of justice as this was used by policemen in arresting the kins of Ted Failon. The following discussions were taken from www.jlp-law.com 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. 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. 12 , Constitution). The right to counsel was discussed in the leading cases of People vs. Galit and Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile, which rulings were subsequently incorporated into the present Constitution. The right against deprivation of liberty is guaranteed by no less than the Constitution, which states that o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law xxx (Article 3, Section 1) and that o search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. (Art. 3, Sec.2) This right has been characterized by the Supreme Court as a most basic and fundamental right that has been often violated and so deserving of full protection. As a rule, no arrest may be made without a warrant of arrest. The exceptions under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Rule 113, Sec. 5) are arrests made by a peace officer or a private person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. Sec. 5 (a) is also referred to as arrests in flagrante delicto, wherein two elements must exist: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. On the other hand, Section 5 (b) refers to arrests made in hot pursuit, wherein two requisites must exist: (1) an offense has in fact just been committed; and (2) the arresting officer has probable cause based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances indicating that the person to be arrested committed the offense.

What is Obstruction of Justice?

Gensan Exchange FireBoard Forum Component version: 1.0.4 Generated: 7 July, 2012, 06:29

The term is used to refer to the acts punished under Presidential Decree No. 1829 (Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders). Full text here. What is the stated purpose of PD 1829? As stated in the law, its purpose is to discourage public indifference or apathy towards the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders, it is necessary to penalize acts which obstruct or frustrate or tend to obstruct or frustrate the successful apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders. What is the penalty for Obstruction of Justice? The penalty is imprisonment, fine or both. Imprisonment ranges from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years (prision correccional in its maximum period). The fine ranges from P1,000 - P6,000. Who may be charged under PD 1829? Any person whether private or public who commits the acts enumerated below may be charged with violating PD 1829. In case a public officer is found guilty, he shall also suffer perpetual disqualification from holding public office. What are the acts punishable under this law? The law covers the following acts of any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases: a. Preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats. b. Altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases. c. Harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction. d. Publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same purpose or purposes. e. Delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscals offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts. f. Making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases. g. Soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discontinuing, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender. h. Threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or property or that of any immediate member or members of his family in order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in criminal cases. i. Giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of background information and not for publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or the court. What are some of the instances when questions against charges under PD 1829 reached the Supreme Court? In Posadas vs. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 131492, 29 September 2000), certain officials of the University of the Philippines (UP) were charged for violating PD 1829 (paragraph c above). The UP officers objected to the warrantless arrest of certain students by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). According to the Supreme Court, the police had no ground for the warrantless arrest. The UP Officers, therefore, had a right to prevent the arrest of the students at the time because their attempted arrest was illegal. The need to enforce the law cannot be justified by sacrificing constitutional rights.
Gensan Exchange FireBoard Forum Component version: 1.0.4 Generated: 7 July, 2012, 06:29

In another case, Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile was charged under PD 1829, for allegedly accommodating Col. Gregorio Honasan by giving him food and comfort on 1 December 1989 in his house. Knowing that Colonel Honasan is a fugitive from justice, Sen. Enrile allegedly did not do anything to have Honasan arrested or apprehended. The Supreme Court ruled that Sen. Enrile could not be separately charged under PD 1829, as this is absorbed in the charge of rebellion already filed against Sen. Enrile.
============================================================================

Gensan Exchange -

FireBoard Forum Component version: 1.0.4

Generated: 7 July, 2012, 06:29