So thats.. And this newspaper man was the one who testified that..

in fact, uh it has been presented

evidence in court in battle with formalin, and the prosecutor asked him you said you saw this ano im
showing you this which has to be marked as exhibit A for the prosecution this is the thing that you saw
but they did not tell. Why did you not tell? When there are no identifying marks?

Now. If, this has been quite difficult, If the accused can prove that, that reporter, who interviewed the
accused, was in collusion with police investigators, then that court admission would not be admissible.
But the thing is, it is quite difficult to prove that. Then, like I said, the reason why I keep raising this
question is, being asked to participate in the police write-up is not a violation. Hes not being asked to give
any statement. Hes not even being asked to disclose body or identification. Exception, if the interrogation
has already started and then he was asked to participate in a police write-up, now upon, the court did not
elaborate, but, now, that will not be inducement, because in other words, the part of the police will now
be an integral part of the interrogation. That is why it will not be admissible if there was no lawyer to
assist the suspect or taking a photograph of the accused thats not uh.. it should be subjecting his hands
to ultra violet radiation to prove that he touched the shabu or getting some parts of his hair.

Now, when somebody was arrested for drugs and he was asked to sign a receipt acknowledging that the
prohibited drugs were taken from him, the court said that is not admissible if the suspect had no lawyer
because by admitting that, he would be admitting that he was involved with drugs. There was once a case
a foreigner came here and then when they were searching or checking her if she had shabu with her, and
then the airport people placed a tape on the plastic bag and asked her to sign, the court said it was not
admissible because by signing that, the foreigner would be producing evidence that is incriminatory and
she was not assisted by a lawyer.

Now, in NBI Ive been watching this Makati Central Post Office and finally they caught a mailman
commuting with his co-conspirator to spill the contents of the mailbag. They confiscated the mailbag and
then they asked both of them to sign on the envelopes in the mailbag. Now, the Court said that would be
admission that they stole those mail matters. But then Justice Mendoza, who decided this case, made a
distinction and said that it would not be admissible for the purpose of showing that the bag. The court
said, that this would be admissible for another purpose, that these are prohibited items ceased from the
suspect at the time that he was committing the crime.. I dont know but that is what they said.

Common practice, they arrested some, they would prepare an arrest report and they would ask the
suspect that they would narrate what were the matters that led them to decide to make the arrest then
they would ask that person to sign the arrest report. Again that is not admissible if not assisted by counsel.

Now, there is no word, the contemplation .. the court said this applies to any investigation whose purpose
is to determine whether somebody should be prosecuted. If somebody, submitted an affidavit during
preliminary investigation, and hes a layman and it contains knowledge of his admission without assistance
of counsel then that will not be admissible, because the purpose of that is to determine prosecution.

The court applied that into that investigation, to determine, who assassinated Ninoy Aquino. The court
said that was conducted by a commission created to determine who should be prosecuted. So when those
soldiers testified without assistance of counsel they said those testimonies cannot be used as evidence
against them.
And now the Court said, mayors are involved in the enforcement of the law and the barangay chairman
barangay tanod, they are also involved in the enforcement of the law. So if the mayor, the barangay
chairman, or the barangay tanod questions the suspects, and these persons were not assisted by a lawyer,
those statements are not admissible.

Now, when congress passed the law to implement the Miranda doctrine, you see what happened there
was that. Well first, the first case, the Court said that the.. was based on proving the guilt. The Court said
in this police investigation, the initial.. is an alteration of whatever statement that they would need to
produce evidence against him and therefore, we should apply the right to counsel in that stage.

The Miranda doctrine will say that the voluntary must be assistance of counsel.. they have adopted that
that it is voluntary with assistance of competent and independent counsel and it is expressed, that it is in
writing. Now, it is presumed that every lawyer is competent because he passed the bar exams. But in one
case, where a lawyer from the IBP assisted the suspect being interrogated, he kept quiet and the suspect
was speaking all kinds of incriminating statements and he said nothing. I did not enlighten the suspect
about his rights because I would defeat the purpose of the investigation by the police officer. The Supreme
Court said, this lawyer is incompetent. He does not know was is his duty as a lawyer assisting somebody
being interrogated. Imagine, to say that it is equivalent to enlighten the suspect about his constitutional
rights he would frustrate the investigation. But the mere fact that the lawyer was supplied by the police
investigator does not make it inadmissible because the Constitution requires that. If he has no lawyer or
cannot afford a lawyer, he should be provided with one. Now, and the Court said the lawyer must explain
to the accused his constitutional rights and the consequences .. convicted to light imprisonment.. and that
he must be present from the beginning until the signing of conviction.