Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

National Capital Region, Branch ____
Manila, Philippines
People of the Philippines,
Plaintiff,
-

Criminal Case No. 1521-2011

versus

Akhmed Al-Akhbar,
Accused.
x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED
Accused, thru counsel, submits this Memorandum in compliance with the Honorable
Courts Order.
[STATEMENT OF FACTS]
ISSUE
The issue is whether the pieces of evidence obtained by law enforcers based on accused
Akhbars pre-Miranda confession are admissible in evidence.
SUBMISSION OF THE ACCUSED
No, the pieces of evidence are inadmissible under the exclusionary rule, having been
obtained in violation of the Miranda rule.
DISCUSSION
Constitutional and Statutory Rules
Mandate the Giving of Miranda Warnings
To All Persons Under Custodial Investigation
1. The Constitution1 and Republic Act No. 9372 (RA 9372),2 mandate the recitation to the
person under custodial investigation of the Miranda warnings. For this right to attach, all that is
1

Article III, 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
The Human Security Act of 2007, Section 21 of which provides: Rights of a Person under Custodial Detention. The moment a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit
terrorism is apprehended or arrested and detained, he shall forthwith be informed, by the arresting police or law
enforcement officers or by the police or law enforcement officers to whose custody the person concerned is brought,
of his or her right: (a) to be i~nformed of the nature and cause of his arrest, to remain silent and to have competent
and independent counsel preferably of his choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel of his or her
choice, the police or law enforcement officers concerned shall immediately contact the free legal assistance unit of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) or the Public Attorney's Office (PAO). It shall be the duty of the free legal
assistance unit of the IBP or the PAO' th~us contacted to immediately visit the person(s) detained and provide him or
her with legal assistance. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of the counsel of
choice; (b) informed of the cause or causes of his detention in the presence of his legal counsel; (e) allowed to
communicate freely with his legal counsel and to confer with them at any time without restriction; (d) allowed to
communicate freely and privately without restrictions with the members of his family or with his nearest relatives
and to be visited by them; and, (e) allowed freely to avail of the service of a physician or physicians of choice.

2
required is that the person be under investigation (or in the language of RA 9372, [t]he
moment a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy
to commit terrorism is apprehended or arrested and detained (Section 21)). Jurisprudence
defines this point in time as occurring when the investigation x x x begins to focus on a
particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of
interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements. (People v. Marra, 236
SCRA 565, 573 (1994), citing Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 473 (1964)).
2. Applied to accused Akhabar, this took place the moment he was arrested by members
of the special forces, for at that point, he was arrested as suspect for what later turned out to be a
charge for terrorism under RA 9372 and immediately subjected to interrogation that len[t] itself
to eliciting incriminating statements.
3. Instead, however, of complying with the constitutional and statutory strictures for them
to read to accused Akhbar his Miranda rights, the arresting officers purposely skipped this
procedure and proceeded to custodial interrogation, thus, depriving accused Akhbar of that allimportant reminder of his right against uncounselled self-incrimination.
4. Following the exclusionary rule,3 the pieces of evidence the law enforcers gathered as a
result of accused Akhabars tainted incriminating statements, obtained in violation of Section
12(1) of the Constitution, are inadmissible in evidence against him.
From the foregoing, the accused Akhbar prays for the suppression of the pieces of
evidence in question.
Atty.__________
Counsel for the accused

Constitution, Article III, Section 12(3).a