Admissions before media

By Atty. Farah G. Decano

 

RECENTLY, Randall Echanis, a militant peasant leader, became part of the growing number of the extrajudicially executed. He was a member of the Anakpawis Partylist.

When the victim’s body was “forcibly taken” from the funeral parlor for DNA testing, the police drew flak from the public. There is a possibility that the concerned law enforcement agency will feel compelled to present the “culprit/s” before the media, as they are wont to do when public pressure builds up.

How then should the media treat these so-called suspects under detention?

Media should accurately report to the public, without disregarding the principle of fairness and brushing off the suspects’ humanity. In the investigation of crime incidents, Glen Halbrooks emphasized that the following be observed:   1) sensitivity, especially to victims, 2) ethical standards, and 3) due diligence in getting facts.

Crime reporters must be mindful of respect for the accused.  This proposition is not without basis. Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Consequently, this provision mandates that the narratives of crime reports must accurately indicate the accused as mere suspects.  The story must not make any pronouncement on their level of guilt or innocence.  Respect for the accused entails the observance of their right to presumption of innocence.

Does this so-called respect for the accused necessitate media’s observance of the rights of the accused against self-incrimination and to counsel?

One of the rights enshrined in the 1987 Constitution is the right against self-incrimination. Article III, Section 17 states “no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”  This provision recognizes the human being’s tendency to preserve and protect oneself. It saves the witness from lying under oath.  This right, however, could be waived by the accused through his voluntarily response to questions that could establish his guilt.

During custodial investigation or pre-court proceedings, the protection of the accused is raised to a higher standard.   Waiver of the right against self-incrimination during custodial investigation requires more than just voluntary acknowledgment of a crime or voluntarily answering questions that may tend to implicate the suspect.   Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution requires (1) the person to be properly informed of his rights; (2) the presence of a competent and independent counsel; and (3) the waiver of the right to remain silent and to counsel must be in writing and in the presence of counsel.

Pursuant to Sections 12 and 17 of the 1987 Constitution, an acknowledgment of guilt shall be inadmissible in evidence if the accused’s right against self-incrimination was violated.

The protection of the right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel, however, can be highly compromised when the suspect, while in detention, admits to a crime in front of the media.

Any admission made by the suspect, while in detention, to news reporters will be admissible.

The Supreme Court, in People of the Philippines vs. Pablito Andan (G.R. No. 116437.  March 3, 1997) and People of the Philippines vs. Domanay (G.R. No. 130612, May 11, 1999), declared that media interview of the uncounseled suspects in detention was admissible because the statements made therein were spontaneous and voluntary. The Court, further, declared that the media is not an agent of the government and can, therefore, propound questions without the constitutional requirement of counsel for the detained suspect.

There is a need to revisit the ruling in the aforesaid cases.   The accused were already under the custody of State forces when the uncounseled confessions were made.   The suspects were already at the mercy of institutions that deprived them of their liberty.   Hence, any admission, without the presence of counsel, must be deemed poisonous and inadmissible as evidence.

The task of the media is simply to draw out the truth and report the same fairly.  Under the Constitution, it is not the role of media to guarantee the protection of the rights of the accused in detection.  That responsibility is given to the independent and competent counsel of the suspect.  To deny suspects in detention the presence of counsel during media interviews is a violation of their rights.

Lastly, we must not forget that Republic Act 7438* requires, at all times, the assistance of a counsel to a person who is either arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation.  The intent of the law is clear.

* An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation as Well as The Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating Officers, And Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof,)”.

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments