The right to remain silent

Silence may save an accused based on reasonable doubt. Too much talkativeness may be a criminal's own undoing. That is why the Constitution safeguards the rights of people under custodial investigation, so that they would not say something that may incriminate them.

Under our laws, the arresting officers are duty bound to give the suspects his Miranda rights, as follows: "You have the right to remain silent.  Any statement you make may be used against you in a court of law in the Philippines.  You have the right to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of your own choice.  If you cannot afford the services of a counsel, the government will provide you one.  Do you understand these rights?” We based these from the US case of Miranda vs State of Arizona, where the US Federal Supreme Court acquitted an accused because he was not properly advised of his rights before he made a confession.

In Canada, the police officers are duty-bound to tell the suspect: "You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so.  You have nothing to hope from any promise of favor and nothing to fear from any threat whether or not you say anything.  Anything you say may be used as evidence. It is my duty to inform you that you have the right to retain and instruct counsel of your choice in private and without delay.  Before you decide to answer any question concerning this investigation you may call a lawyer of your choice or get free advice from Duty Counsel.  If you wish to contact Legal Aid duty counsel I can provide you with a telephone number and a telephone will be made available to you" Even the state of Botswana also requires its authorities to warn suspects, as follows:" Do you wish to say anything?  You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence."

In Queensland Australia, the police officers should say the following: "You have the right to telephone or speak to a friend or relative to inform that person where you are and to ask him or her to be present during questioning. You also have the right to telephone or speak to a lawyer of your choice to inform the lawyer where you are and to arrange or attempt to arrange for the lawyer to be present during questioning. If you want to telephone or speak to any of these people, questioning will be delayed for a reasonable time for that purpose. Is there anyone you wish to telephone or speak to? Before I ask you any questions I must tell you that you have the right to remain silent. This means you do not have to say anything, answer any question or make any statement unless you wish to do so. However, if you do say something or make a statement, it may later be used as evidence"

The Supreme Court, en banc, in the case of People vs Dindo Mojello, Gr No 145566, March 9, 2004, held: 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.

The Court explained: In the Philippines, the right to counsel espoused in the Miranda doctrine was based on the leading case of People v.s Galit  and Morales, Jr. v. Enrile, rulings subsequently incorporated into the present Constitution. The Miranda doctrine under the 1987 Charter took on a modified form where the right to counsel was specifically qualified to mean competent and independent counsel preferably of the suspect's 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"

The Philippine legal system is much solicitous of the rights of the accused, thus: "Verily, it may be observed that the Philippine law on custodial investigation has evolved to provide for more stringent standards than what was originally laid out in Miranda v. Arizona. The purpose of the constitutional limitations on police interrogation as the process shifts from the investigatory to the accusatory seems to be to accord even the lowliest and most despicable criminal suspects a measure of dignity and respect. The main focus is the suspect, and the underlying mission of custodial investigation – to elicit a confession."

The police will find it very difficult when the accused invokes his right to remain silent. The prosecutors should build its case on the strength of evidence provided by witnesses, rather than on confession elicited from the accused.