MIRANDA VS ARIZONA

Human rights are aggregate privileges, claim, benefits, entitlements and moral guarantees
that pertain to man because of his humanity. Hence, rights has its principles such as its
Universality to which rights belong to and are to be enjoyed by all human beings without
distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex or language, religion, political and other opinion,
national or social origin, property , birth or other stature. It is as well inherent, hence, rights are
birthright and may be invoked at the time of birth. Likewise, the Constitution guarantees this
rights even with individuals accused of criminal offense.

In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the accused was arrested and charged with rape,
kidnapping, and robbery. Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to the police
interrogation. During the two-hour interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to committing the
crimes, which the police apparently recorded. Miranda, who had not finished ninth grade and had
a history of mental instability, had no counsel present. Miranda was convicted of both rape and
kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. He appealed to the Arizona Supreme
Court, claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession. The Court held
and maintained that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a
criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and
against self-incrimination. The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the
Constitution.

In PEOPLE vs OLVIS the issue in the case is Whether or not the statements made by the three
accused-appelants, as an extrajudicial confession, can stand up in court. It was held that The
extrajudicial confessions made by the accused are inadmissible in evidence because it suffer
from a Constitutional infirmity when the accused-appellants were not assisted by counsel when
they "waived" their rights to counsel; and the forced re-enactments ordered by the investigating
officers violates their right against self-incrimination.

In the Philippine context, the Government declared a war against drug syndicates which
resulted to various issues regarding due process and equal protection of laws. People had the idea
that a drug suspect because of the crime he committed or when he is accused having committed a
crime he has no rights existing and considered a menace in the society. In the eyes of the law,
even if you are a menace, due process of law must be exercised in order to protect the right of an
individual because rights are inherent and is present to all the people existing. Therefore no one
can be deprived of this rights unless the circumstances so warrants. Various drug cases where
dismissed because procedural rules were not followed by public officials. As well as the chain of
custody of the seized items in operations was not maintained therefore becomes inadmissible to
the courts. The right of a person to be informed of this offense, right against self-incrimination,
and right to counsel are inviolable rights that must be respected in order for the Government to
maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the deliverance of justice. Furthermore, these things
are very vital in order for integrity to manifest to public officers that maintain peace and order in
the state. Having this, the generation of social media quickly produces misconception and
misinformation because of prejudice and assumptions. Hence, public officers should be careful
in the discharge of their official functions. In order to do this, they must adhere to the
Constitutional mandates and obey the due process of law.