MIRANDA V.

ARIZONA
Facts:
Miranda was arrested at his home and brought to the police station for questioning. He was never
informed of his right to remain silent or right to have counsel present. After two hours of
interrogation, Miranda made incriminating statements including an oral and signed a written
confession. Evidence of the oral confession through police testimony and the written confession
were later used against him at trial. As a result, Miranda was found guilty of rape and kidnapping.
Arizona trial court found Miranda guilty of rape and kidnapping. Upon appeal to the state supreme
court, the conviction was affirmed because Miranda did not specifically ask for counsel. Miranda
then joined several other defendants and petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States
for review.
Issue:
Is the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination violated when an individual is taken into
custody for interrogation purposes without being informed of his constitutional rights to remain
silent and have counsel present? Yes.
Held:
Yes. Once subject to custodial interrogation, the Fifth Amendment requires that a suspect is
informed of their constitutional rights to: remain silent, have an attorney present, if he cannot
afford an attorney one will be appointed to him and that any statement made may later be used
against them at trial.
The court took into consideration common police tactics and police instruction manuals and
determined that each uncovered an interrogation procedure aimed at attaining confessions
through coercive means. For example, many occur when the suspect is isolated and put in
unfamiliar or intimidating surroundings.
The Court held that police are encouraged to use trickery and make the false promises necessary
to obtain a confession. Although such methods are not physically coercive, the interrogation
process is aimed at putting the suspect in an emotionally vulnerable state so his judgment is
impaired. These coercive tactics are a violation of the Fifth Amendment. To ensure that a
confession is obtained voluntarily, a suspect must be informed of his constitutional right against
self-incrimination in addition to the consequences of a waiver. A waiver of Fifth Amendment rights
must be made voluntary, intelligently and knowingly.
A suspect must also be informed that they have a right for counsel to be present. Indigent
individuals should receive the same right and will be provided counsel if they cannot afford private
representation. Denial of this right also constitutes a violation of the Fifth Amendment, as such
presence can prevent improperly coercive police tactics. When a suspect asserts his Fifth
Amendment right to an attorney or right to remain silent, the police must cease questioning.
Hence, Chief Justice Warren led the majority in Reversal.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. BOLANOS
Facts:
Oscar Pagdalian was murdered in Marble Supply, Balagtas Bulacan. According to Pat. Rolando
Alcantara and Francisco Dayao, deceased was with two companions on the previous night, one
of whom the accused who had a drinking spree with the deceased. When they apprehended the
accused they found the firearm of the deceased on the chair where the accused was allegedly
seated. They boarded accused along with Magtibay, other accused on the police vehicle and
brought them to the police station. While in the vehicle Bolanos admitted that he killed the
deceased. RTC convicted him hence the appeal.
Issue:
Whether or Not accused-appellant deprived of his constitutional right to counsel.
Held:
Yes. Being already under custodial investigation while on board the police patrol jeep on the way
to the Police Station where formal investigation may have been conducted, appellant should have
been informed of his Constitutional rights under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution,
more particularly par. 1 and par. 3.