Rights of Persons Under Investigation

Rights of Persons Under Investigation

      Section 12. (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 against him.
                          (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.

Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the following rights:

1. Right to Remain Silent

     While the accused is under custodial investigation he has the right to remain silent and his silence shall not be taken against him as evidence, otherwise his right of silence would be an illusion.

2. Right to counsel

      No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, or by any person in his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or of anyone in his behalf. The right to counsel maybe waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel and in writing. Any statement obtained in violation of this procedure, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part shall be inadmissible in evidence.

3. Right against torture

      This particular right has prevented the authorities of extracting evidence against the accused by the use of "third degree" methods, indicative of police brutality. Thus, confession secured by force in violation of sub-section 3, section 12 of Article III of the Constitution "shall be inadmissible in evidence against him", since such evidence vitiates "the free will".

4. Right against secret detention

      Secret detention, since the medieval ages, is resorted to by police authorities in their inability to obtain evidence against an accused charged for a crime necessary for his prosecution before the courts. This right is a further protection against a person arrested for the commission of a crime from all kinds of torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or such similar means that vitiate free will.

      The rights of a person protected under section 12 (1) by expressed constitutional mandate cannot be waived unless made in writing and in the presence of counsel.

      In order to give life and meaning to the protection of the rights protected against violation under section 12 of Article III of the constitution ,  it is likewise provided that the law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for these violations; including compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families. Of course, all the offenses punishable under the Revised Penal Code have their corresponding civil liability, with the exception of abandonment, violation of religious worship and contempt of court, where no civil liability is provided.

      All these constitutional safeguards against violation of the rights of a person charged for a crime may be ummed up under the Miranda doctrine laid down by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda vs. Arizona (384 US 436)

       The accused, under this doctrine, must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything that he says can be used against him in the court of law, that he has the right to the presence of any attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial no evidence obtained as a result of such interrogation can be used against him.

       These constitutional safeguards have adopted the Miranda doctrine which favorably favors the accused under investigation which are more rigid as a guaranty against their violation. To make these constitutional constraints more effective, it us provided that statements of the accused obtained illegally are inadmissible in evidence against him  during trial, whether secured under "third degree" by the use of glaring lights during investigation, or secured by multiple process of reading and translating the questions and translating again the answer making one's confession unsafe as a basis of conviction, or those extracted by force during the detention of the accused incommunicado.