No matter how society has demonized lawyers, they have vital roles in human interactions. Before you sign any important document, like a waiver, quitclaim, or even a resignation letter, and before you talk to an adverse party or his counsel or make a confession or an admission against your interests, you better be assisted by a competent and independent lawyer of your choice. There are nuances and intricacies of law which you might not be familiar with.
The Bill of Rights of the Philippine Constitution, specifically, Section 12 of Article III, provides for this right which is taken from the famous 5th Amendment of the US Constitution and from the famous US Supreme Court decision in the landmark Miranda case in the State of Arizona. In our own case of People vs. Mojello (GR No 145566, March 9, 2004), which involved a rape and the killing of the victim in Santa Fe, Cebu, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction of the accused but reduced the sentence of death penalty imposed in 1999 to reclusion perpetua when the High Court resolved the automatic appeal in 2004.
The Supreme Court, speaking through a lady justice, Madam Ynares-Santiago held that under our jurisdiction in the Philippines, the right to counsel espoused in the Miranda Doctrine was based in the leading case of People vs. Galit and the case of Morales Jr. vs. Enrile. Both were incorporated in our present Philippine Constitution with a modification that the lawyer should be competent, independent, and should be preferably chosen by the accused himself. If and when the accused waives this right to counsel, he should declare his waiver in writing and in the presence of a legal counsel. This modification is even better than the US standard which does not require competence, independence, and choice as well as the strict protocols for a valid waiver.
The Supreme Court specified in the Mojello case: "The purpose of the constitutional limitations on police interrogation as the process shifts from the investigatory to the accusatory seems to be to accord even the lowliest and most despicable criminal suspects a measure of dignity and respect. The main focus is the suspect and the underlying mission of custodial investigation is to elicit a confession." Based on the foregoing standards, the Supreme Court held that the extra-judicial confession executed by the accused Mojello was compliant with the requirements under the Bill of Rights. Said confession was admitted in evidence. It was not deemed a fruit of the poisonous tree.
It was explained by the High Court that: "The right to counsel at all times is intended to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false. The lawyer, however, should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth." The Lawyer's Oath forbids all members of the Bar from dictating to their clients what they want to declare as the truth, much less to influence clients to tell falsehood for money or for malice. Any violation can cause disbarment or suspension of any lawyer. In this case, the accused was properly assisted by counsel when he made a confession which caused his conviction.
The conviction by the trial court was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which found the accused guilty only of statutory rape (the victim being only 11 years old) but acquitted him from the killing of the victim for lack of evidence. Nonetheless, Mojello was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, instead of death, which is no longer applicable in 2004 until now.
Suffice it to say that in this case, the accused was properly assisted by a competent, independent lawyer of his own choice. He was not deprived of his Miranda rights. He has been in prison for more than 20 years already.