Name: EDWIN JACK G.

ARRIBA
Course/Year: 4th Year BS- CRIMINOLOGY
School: RIZAL MEMORIAL COLLEGES
Department: COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION
Date:

MY REFLECTION

The goal of this interview is to talk about the challenges that certain police officers faced
when applying the "RULES OF EVIDENCE" and how they handled it. When discussing the
principles of evidence, we refer to General Provisions Section 1 of Rule 128. Defined
evidence - Evidence is the method authorized by these rules for determining in a legal
procedure the accuracy of a factual issue. Section 1 and 2. Scope. — Except as otherwise
specified by law or these rules, the rules of evidence shall be the identical in all courts and in
all trials and hearings. Section 3 of 2a. Acceptability of the evidence — Evidence is admissible
if it is pertinent to the matter at hand and is not prohibited by these. Chapter 4. Relevance and
ancillary issues Evidence must be relevant to the fact at hand in order to support or refute its
reality. Evidence on unrelated topics is prohibited unless it helps prove the likelihood or
improbability of the central claim in some other way. (4a).

The court's proceedings to establish the guilt of the person in custody or to demonstrate
that the person did not break the law are also highlighted in Section 1 based on the
information provided above. In Section 2, it was discussed that the regulations must be
uniform throughout all courts in the Philippines, unless otherwise permitted by law. According
to Section 3, in order for evidence to be admitted into evidence in court, it must contain
specific thought relevant to the subject. Section 4 In order to prove or disprove a truth,
evidence must be pertinent to the issue at hand. Evidence on unrelated subjects is not
allowed unless it supports the main point's likelihood or improbability in some other way.

Under the direction of Mr. Vicco Gerona Piodos, our topic CLJ5 "Evidence" assigned us
the duty of meeting and interviewing any police officers nearby to learn about their
experiences applying the laws of evidence. In my situation, I went to the Baguio Police Station
(PS11) in Davao City's Baguio District. I had already met PMSg. Roland M. Muana. The
designated police investigator at the aforementioned police station is Roland M. Muana. He is
asked questions, and he responds to them well.

Based on the learnings imparted to us by our professor such as the definition of

elements or terms, admissibility of the evidence and how to handle such cases or evidences
as it was very important and relevant on giving an essence to handle cases to avoid dismissal
of cases and also to help the victims’ concern. Based on Rule 128 it is necessary to not be
ignorant and must be knowledgeable enough about its content as this will be the basis in the
field. It does not mean that if you are once a police personnel and assigned in the field that
you think you already have the authority to do whatever you wanted to do or create any
shortcuts to resolve any issues. However, we really need to go back into basic as you need to
base your doings into the protocol that will help you resolve and avoid any conflicts in our
field. These was created to have a justification on whatever things a police personnel should
do, no more questioning and no more dramas just a basis on the process and protocol on how
to handle cases and evidences. To elaborate more, there are discussions on its sections to
know more and to explain more the importance of each section into handling any cases and
evidences that is relevant into our field that we should be knowledgeable and confident before
conducting any of this.
 To start with, section 1 of the rules of evidence is where the evidence is define;
Evidence is the method authorized by these rules for determining in a legal procedure the
accuracy of a factual issue. Relating to what happened in such crime evidence has a huge
part in determining a crime such that it gives exact hint or details to be considered in a crime.
Evidence can show the fact in such crimes like murder or any criminal act where evidence can
tell what proof the people could give to the judge. Determines the guilt of someone who has
committed a crime and shows a proof that is related to what the witness stated at court
proving that exact detail what the court needs to understand and to give its judgement if the
suspect plead guilty after presenting such evidence at the court. Like what PMSg. Muana said
at our interview the witness also has a part in determining the crime like relating to the crime
what the evidence represent while giving the statement. Also it’s a proof that really happened
it is the basis of every law enforcers where crime occur evidence must be preserve or secured
most importantly.

In section 2 of rule 128 tells that the scope of the evidence is wide and must be the
same such that no other person can have the chance to have access to the evidences. Same
as what I have learned from our interview with PMSG. Muana there must be what they call it
‘’Chain of Custody’’ where the officer assigned keeping evidences needs to sign for the
turnover of the evidence before his shift. No one should ever touch the evidence unless
provided by the law meaning if the law approves it then it is allowed but if not only those
assigned personnel has authority. Even their subordinates cannot touch the evidence unless
given the authority by the law. A court may take judicial notice of items that are known to the
public, are demonstrably true, or should be known to judges because of their roles as judges.

Section 3 discussed about the admissibility of the evidence relevance of the evidence to
the issue that in can be compared what is shown the investigation of the forensic experts or
the investigators of the crime. For example: He intended to contest Paul's confession's
admission in court because it was deemed sufficient and acceptable. Attorneys for the
defence disputed the admissibility of fingerprint evidence. Based on the rule admissibility of
the evidence is very useful to determine the strong basis for the relevance if the case. With
this, admissibility comprises the process by which the court determines whether the Law of
Evidence permits the court to get that crucial proof.

Lastly, Section 4 discussed about the relevancy of the evidence. This means that
evidence must be relevant to the fact at hand in order to support its presence or denial.
Evidence on unrelated topics is prohibited unless it helps prove the likelihood or improbability
of the central claim in some other way. When we talk about relevant evidence is defined as
any evidence that has the potential to increase or decrease the likelihood that any fact
relevant to the determination of the action is true than it would be in the absence of the
evidence. While, we have some examples of collateral evidence that would be also important
in any cases and here are some of the sample of collateral evidences Records from CPS,
schools, past lawsuits between the parties, criminal history (with some limitations), bad
interactions between the offender and the victim or witnesses for the State in the past, etc.
Defense lawyers that are competent in this area are resourceful. These are the things that
need to be considered as based into section 4 of the Rule 128.

Furthermore, based on the discussion above these will be considered while conducting
the interview of PMSg. Roland Muana and without bias he answered it as expected to proper
and precise that he shared his experiences that he was also practicing the rules of evidence in
the field as indeed it was a protocol. To start with, the following paragraphs will discussed
about the conversation between me and PMSg. Muana answering the questions thrown at
him last 13 January 2023 at Baguio Police Station, Baguio District Davao City.
 During the first question, it talks about how he manage and apply the rules of evidences
in his handled cases. At first, he doubly answered the question considering that it is
confidential and must not be shared to others. However, I told him to just share a general
experience or details to respect his space in his work and he agreed on it. He just filtered the
personal information of such cases but gave a general feedback on a certain issue.

PMSg. Muana answered it in Cebuano dialect to express his comfortability in answering

the questions. He then precisely answered the first question about how he apply the rules of
evidence in his field of work ’’Ang encounter nko pinaka una ana naa jud nay suspect ug
complainant para ma intake suspect kailangan naa jud tay mga documents para sa filing of
case against the suspect and most of all kailangan sad ug witness. Para ma relate sa witness
ang mga nakita nga ebidensya ug kung gi unsa niya pag himo ang crimen. Maski asa na
cases basta naa lang tong gi mention ganiha’’.

This is the English translation of his answer for the formality of this reflection: "My first
encounter is that there is a suspect and a complainant in order to intake a suspect, we need to
have documents for the filing of a case against the suspect and most of all we need a witness.
For the witness to relate the seen evidence and how he committed the crime. Even if there are
cases as long as it is mentioned here.'' Consequently, based on PMSg. Muana's answer to
question number 1 is that you must first have a suspect, a complainant, and the necessary
paperwork to present to the court. The key player in a case's resolution is the witness
because only someone who has testified under oath in court can recount what transpired
during the crime. The witness supports the relationship between each piece of information the
investigator gathered and the evidence that has been gathered. He explained that in order to
prevent contamination, the area at the crime scene must first be sealed off. If certain
instances require forensic professionals or specialized equipment for investigation,

Figure 1. PMSg. Muana answering question no. 1

Moreover, the second question talks about his experiences specifically the difficulties
that he encountered in any of his handled cases. He confidently answered the question
precisely that he reminisced the time his in the field. He did not filtered anything because of
the authenticity of his experiences in the field.

Having said that personally, it was an honor to listen and to learn something from an
experienced person especially in the field of public service that aims to protect and serve the
community. Going back to PMSg. Muana’s answer he shared that:”Ang difficulties based
sakong experience, mag lisod mi pangitag witness parehas anang murder. Mostly, mahadlok
ang tao muhatag ug iyang statement normal jud na sa tao mahadlok pareha anang balikan ug
sa ilang safety. Mao jud ng permi difficulties nako, ang complainant given naman na iyaha
manang tao ang witness man gud ng number ug unsaon pag handle, muhatag ug voluntary
statement. Regarding pud sa drugs, mga evidences pud nato kay lisod pud kayo kay
kailangan dili macontaminate kay pwd lang mailisan if ever nay pangutana ang court pwd
madismiss and kaso. Mao ng mga difficulties para sa ako”.

To translate his answer in English he said that "The difficulties based on my experience,
it will be difficult for us to find witnesses for the same murder. Mostly, people are afraid to give
their statement because it's normal for people to be afraid of the backlash and their safety.
That's why I always have difficulties, the complainant is the person who is the witness of the
number and how to handle it, give a voluntary statement. Also regarding drugs, we also have
evidences because it is difficult for you because you need not to be contaminated because
you can only change if the court ever questions and the case can be dismissed. That's the
difficulties for me". Based on PMSg. Muana’s answer I personally appreciate that it is
challenging to find witnesses for crimes because there is concern for the witness' safety
because they face numerous threats if they choose to come forward. He explained that chain
of custody is their process in handling physical evidence and it is essential in drug-related
cases since they need to safeguard the evidence to prevent contamination.

Many people did not appreciate the things that a police personnel did. They quickly
judge and say any negative feedback at them without looking and thinking that they are just
doing their job properly. They tend to disregard the fact that the police personnel must also
follow what are the orders at them. These are the things that must be considered and must
educate to the people to appreciate their job.

Figure 2. PMSg. Muana answering question no. 2 as well as sharing his experiences in the
field.

People always have their realizations in life such in any police personnel they always
have realizations in their work such based under their experiences because in their field their
not perfect also but to do it properly that is based by the book or in any protocols. This
realization should be considered especially in handling any case or in handling different cases
because small mistake leads to a conflict. Having said that, based on PMSg. Muana his
realization was that:”Dugay-dugay naman ko na imbestigador ug ubay-ubay na sad akong na
handle na mga kaso, didto ta sa mga na dismiss nako na mga kaso. Ang realization nko ato
na mga panahon kinahanglan musubay jud ka sa libro, musubay ka sa rules sa unsaon pag
file sa kaso ug unsay mga requirements, parehas anang sa drugs ang requiremets
kinahanglan nay witness, barangay officials, media personnel ug representative sa DOJ. Dili
nimo na makompleto dismiss jud ang kaso mao nay nahitabo sa amoa na nadismissan mig
kaso. Regarding pud sa murder, realization nko kasagaran ang witness di na mosipot sa korte
kay number 1 ang hasol, ang support pud sa pamalite maong imo jud ng baik balikan para
mkuha jud ang justice sa victim”.
 To translate his answer in English he said that:"I have been an investigator for a long
time and I have already handled several cases, including those that I dismissed. The
realization of these times is that you must follow the book, you must follow the rules on how to
file the case and what are the requirements, the requirements are the same as for drugs, you
must have witnesses, barangay officials, media personnel and representatives of the DOJ.
You can't complete the case and dismiss it, that's what happened to us, we dismissed the
case. Also regarding the murder, I realize that usually the witness does not show up in court
because number 1 is the hassle, the support of the buyer, so you should come back to get
justice for the victim".

Therefore, based on PMSg Muana experiences. Police officers face a variety of

challenges, but for Muana, these were the most frequent ones he faced while serving. Having
said that, since drug-related crimes and murder involve different problems, such as drug use,
you must follow certain rules in order to carry out your operations and prevent your case from
being dismissed. The presence of witnesses is crucial in murder cases, but occasionally they
choose not to show up in court for various reasons, including time constraints and financial
hardship. Police officers will be the ones to persuade and assist the witness to appear before
and secure them in court in order to aid the victim's quest for justice.

Figure 3. PMSg. Muana answering question no. 3 as well as sharing his experiences in the
field.

The information written above is the conversation which is very helpful and useful for us,
as a student the College of Criminal Justice Education in preparation for our future that
possible to encounter this type of matters. To better understand the thoughts and ideas of
PMSg. Roland M. Muana, I have also researched some published cases online to have
deeper understanding and exert more effort in applying the rules of evidence. Below is a
sample of a published cases online:

“DAVAO CITY -- Two robbery suspects were killed in a shootout with authorities here Monday
morning.

Capt. Nolan Tagsip, the spokesperson of Davao City Police Office (DCPO), identified one of
the suspects as Rogelio Wenceslao, 29, a resident of Mintal, Tugbok District. The identity of
the other suspect has yet to be determined as of posting time.

Operatives of the San Pedro police precinct said they received a report of a robbery incident
on Mabini Street, Barangay 9-A, involving one Elias Mauso, 20, who was held up at gunpoint
by the suspects on board a black motorcycle.

Tagsip said the suspects divested Mauso’s coin purse containing more or less PHP900 and
fled towards Marfori Subdivision.

He said authorities managed to corner the suspects but instead of surrendering, the suspects
drew their weapons and exchanged fire with the police.”

With this, it is indeed that applying rules of evidence is important because as what you
can see in the sample robbery case that was published online it is easy to identify and
distinguish the information of the case such in this robbery case, there are some related facts
that PMSg. Muana said at the interview like the statement of the victim in the case provided
also the victim stands for the witness and some bystander and some CCTV footage in the
area. The physical evidence collected matched at the statement of the victim and the report of
the officers in charge of the case where there were shootout happened and those criminal is
shot and sent at the hospital but declared dead on arrival. There we can say that evidence
have huge part in helping such case like what happened in the sample case robbery.

The items found from the two alleged robbers who were killed in a shootout with the police in
Davao City Monday morning (Oct. 7, 2019). The duo earlier held up an Elias Mauso and
divested him of his coin purse at gunpoint. (Photo courtesy of Davao City Police Office)

There are laws that define the evidence that can be used in a defendant's trial in today's
society. These guidelines, known as "The Rules of Evidence" or "The Law of Evidence," are
meant to ensure that all criminal trials take place in a secure and orderly setting and that the
quality of the evidence is improved. The intricacies of the law, what a jury can and cannot see
or hear, and the significance of the law enforcement officer's successful performance are all
constrained by these criteria. The rules governing evidence are generally known to
Americans, but what are they, what do they signify, how do they apply to various situations,
and how are they organized? Any truth that has the impact, inclination, or purpose of
persuading the mind—either positively or negatively—of the existence of another fact that a
crime has been committed is considered evidence.

Additionally, statute or common law is applied in cases when these principles do not
address specific evidence-related difficulties. The regulations governing expert witnesses
appear to regulate and prohibit any lay witnesses from appearing and offering testimony as an
expert witness. It is possible to determine whether amateurs are actually permitted to testify in
circumstances where the subject of expertise is sufficiently hazy by analyzing the law that
governs the use and admission of expert witness testimony—or whether they are actually
considered experts under the applicable legal standards.

The law of evidence is crucial to the criminal justice process. It controls how evidence is
presented and how the prosecution and defense teams establish guilt or innocence in an
adversarial system. The law of evidence must be used in the criminal justice system to protect
the rights of the accused as well as the overall system's integrity. A crucial need for
admissibility is relevance. Relevance is a probative standard for determining the truth and
making a decision. Relevance is essential for the admission of evidence in criminal trials.
When deciding whether or not to admit evidence, the judge applies a relevancy test.
According to the rule, the two facts must be connected throughout the common course of
events. It is a common rule that evidence is admissible if it is pertinent.6 Evidence is
admissible in criminal proceedings when a judge properly admits it during a trial. It is
significant to remember that the exclusionary rule for criminal evidence depends on
admissibility.

This is to talk about five core ideas that emerged during the development of the law of
evidence in the adversarial system form the basis of criminal evidence law. The first is the
principle of factual accuracy, or epistemic accuracy. In order to uphold the severe legal
requirements and safeguard the defendants' rights, it is essential that the method of gathering
evidence be legitimate. The second rule is to shield innocent people from unjustified
conviction. The first principle—accurate fact-finding methodology—is directly related to this
one. The right to a fair trial, which is essentially the prevention of unjust conviction, is at the
heart of criminal justice in English law. It is clearly obvious that when the principles are put into
effect, they protect the accused's rights and dignity and guarantee the efficient operation of
the criminal justice system. This preserves the integrity of the adversarial system, safeguards
the presumption of innocence of the accused, ensures a fair trial, promotes transparency in
the legal system, limits the use of coercive state power, and makes evidence inadmissible.

In addition, the most important step in the documenting of evidence is the chain of
custody. The court must be certain that the evidence is genuine, i.e., that it is the same
evidence that was found at the crime scene. It was never lost since it was always in the care
of a person assigned to look after it. Even though it takes time, it is necessary for evidence to
be used in court. To prove that no one else could have obtained or had that evidence without
authority, the chain of custody must record every transfer from the moment the evidence is
gathered, from one person to another. The number of transfers is unrestricted, but it is
imperative to maintain it as low as possible. Evidence must be handled carefully to prevent
manipulation. The sequential paperwork or trail that tracks the custody, control, transfer,
analysis, and disposition of physical or electronic evidence is referred to as the chain of
custody. The objective is to demonstrate that the evidence is relevant to the claimed crime,
was gathered at the scene, and was in its original/unaltered condition rather than having been
falsified or "placed" to falsely implicate someone. The integrity of the sample is preserved via
the chain of custody. The transparency of the process is indicated by the record's traceability
for control, transfer, and sample analysis.

Moreover, the documentation of the chain of custody serves three main purposes: to
keep a record of the chain of custody, to ask pertinent questions about the evidence to the
analytical laboratory, and to show that the sample/evidence was handled only by authorized
personnel and was not accessible for tampering prior to analysis. In order to enable tracking
of the sample, the investigator or the person in charge of gathering evidence must fill out the
chain of custody paperwork and label the sample container/bags. The label of each sample
container must include a special identification number, as well as pertinent details including
the location, date, and time of collection, the name and signature of the sample collector, and
the witness's signature (es). The evidence must be carefully packaged to prevent damage
during shipment and should preferably be sealed in tamper-evident/resistant bags or with
tamper-evident tapes.

Based on PMSg. Muana there are different ways or method of the chain of custody in
different cases such in drugs of abuse using urine samples, it's crucial that the donor, athlete,
or sportsperson sign the urine cup and identify the sample (preferably by themselves). After
that, the donor/athlete and the person who picked up the specimen should both sign the chain
of custody documents. If a patient is unconscious at the emergency room, the nurse who
takes the urine or blood sample can identify the patient in their place. Except in situations
when the results are positive and the patient was involved in an accident or circumstances
that may lead to a trial, a clinical drug test utilizing urine or blood samples is typically required
in cases of suspected overdose patients being admitted to the emergency room. Typically,
immunoassays are used to screen urine samples for the presence of drugs. Upon the
clinician's request, analytical procedures are used to confirm the preliminary findings.
Confidential information is obtained via drug testing for medical purposes. Even if the drug test
results are positive, they cannot be used as grounds for disciplinary or criminal action against
the person. As a result, the chain of custody is not necessary. The initial positive
immunoassay results must be verified because they may need to be used as evidence in
court. The chain of custody is crucial in these situations.

Therefore, Those in charge of the evidence should view upholding the chain of custody
as a professional and ethical obligation. It is crucial to raise awareness among those involved
in such situations of the necessity of maintaining the chain of custody of the evidence as well
as the proper procedures for doing so. It is frequently disregarded and given very little
importance because it seems simple and unimportant. However, it is important to remember
that the most important method ultimately determines whether or not a piece of evidence will
be admitted into evidence in a court of law.

Also we need to consider the witness and their participation about a crime they have
seen or witnessed. The administration of justice depends heavily on the witness. The witness
fulfils a holy obligation by helping the court learn the truth by providing evidence that relates to
the allegation of the crime. This is the reason why, before to delivering testimony, the witness
either swears in God's name or solemnly declares that their testimony will be based solely on
the truth. Because he is neither the accused nor the victim, the witness has no stake in the
criminal court's ruling. By helping the court determine whether or not the accused is guilty in
the case, the witness performs a crucial civic role. He makes the effort and gives up his time
to travel far to the court to present testimony. By helping the court determine whether or not
the accused is guilty in the case, the witness performs a crucial civic role. He travels all the
way to the court to provide testimony, giving up his time in the process. As a result, the
witness deserves to be treated with the utmost respect and regard. Unfortunately, it appears
that none of these are taking place in the courts.

The witness is one of the most crucial sources of information in determining the truth of
the case, but the suffering and difficulties the witness must endure in order to assist the court
are significant as well. The safety of the witnesses and their families, who are in danger at
various points, is a significant issue. They are frequently threatened, and the gravity of the
danger varies depending on the type of case and the family history of the accused. Prior to
testifying in court, important witnesses are frequently threatened or hurt. The witness might
even be killed if he continues to be uncooperative. In such circumstances, the witness won't
step forward to provide testimony unless he is offered protection, anonymity, or some other
type of physical disguise. Holding hearings behind closed doors may be adequate in some
cases to safeguard the witness' interests. However, I believe that the circumstances suggest
that life. In the event that a particular witness is in danger, the court must take the appropriate
precautions to safeguard him while maintaining his anonymity and without impairing the
accused's right to cross-examine him. The threat from the accused party could come before
the defendant provides a statement to the police officer, presents evidence in court, or comes
following the verdict of the case. The likelihood of the witness and his family members
receiving major life-threatening threats, being kidnapped or raped, having their property
damaged, or otherwise destroying the witness' reputation and interests is on the rise. The
witness is in no way protected. Worldwide, numerous nations have passed legislation to
protect witnesses.
 We also need to consider when collecting evidences how to preserve and care all the
evidences we have collected. Both the initial investigation carried out to obtain or find these
papers, as well as the correct maintenance and storage of documentary evidence, such as
forged checks, anonymous letters, and comparison specimens of a suspect's writing, are
under the purview of investigating officers. The majority of officers are aware of how critical it
is to preserve this kind of evidence, but many of them do not fully understand the need for
careful treatment and preservation while these records are in their custody. It serves as a
means of this study will describe the ideal procedure for handling and maintaining such
documented evidence for police investigators.

Documents become marked either through planned writing by investigators or

accidentally being handled by someone who uses a pen, pencil, dividers, or eraser to highlight
certain aspects of the document. Investigators shouldn't make notes on any documentation
unless it's necessary for later identification. In these situations, the only acceptable
identification marks are initials or numerals, preferably put in a corner on the back of the
document. The officer who obtains the standards should typically initial them, especially
request standards. Investigators may be tempted to make notes about a suspect's or a
questioned document's handwriting when it appears in those writings. There are various
reasons why this practice should be avoided. Sometimes these markings eliminate some of
the original identifying information that was in the document, such as highlighting that the
author used to emphasize a point that could be confused with marks indicating a different
characteristic that the investigator thinks is crucial. If these marks are made on a document
that may subsequently be used as evidence in court, the fact that the document is marked
may, in some cases, inhibit or prevent its admission.

Even though the officer highlights what he views as characteristic parallels between two
pieces of writing, it's likely that these similarities aren't the most important ones. However,
because the markings are affixed to the original document in a way that makes them
impossible to erase, they will draw the attention of later examiners, especially jury members,
to the point where they emphasize these features and take away from other, more important
qualities.

Moreover, this is also very important to think through about the Police complaint
systems serve a variety of objectives, including as well as the general public and
stakeholders. There have been many complaints about the suitability. An efficient police
complaints system provides crucial defense against the emergence of an environment of
impunity. Police, prosecutors, and the courts have always been able to identify illegal
behavior, misconduct, and subpar performance on the part of law enforcement employees
through the use of the complaints system. Cultures of impunity may emerge as a result of, on
the one hand, police management', prosecutors', and courts' unwillingness to take proper
action against an officer, or, on the other hand, people' reluctance to file complaints due to
their lack of faith in the complaints system.

However, a complaint is also an expression of criticism or accusation made by a person

who has encountered a particularly unfavorable event, item, or fact. Any of these aggrieved
parties may file a complaint with the station house officer in charge of the police station in the
area where the incident occurred. A complaint could be either public or private. It is untrue that
only those who have been wronged can register a police complaint; anyone can enter a police
station and make a complaint. Due to trauma, stress, and terror, the victim in some situations,
such as rape and accidents, is frequently unable to go to the police station on their own to file
a complaint.

This is also one example of filing a complaint first, it is advisable to notify the barangay
and police authorities if you are a victim of a crime or felony in the Philippines. After that, you
must obtain a police report or blotter from the barangay so that you can use it as proof. Visit a
public hospital to have yourself examined if you were injured. You can prove your physical
injuries with the help of the hospital's medical report. Additionally, request that someone take
pictures of your injuries as documentation. It is crucial that you retain the services of a
competent and effective Philippine lawyer, attorney, or legal company so that you can
correctly file a criminal complaint. You must have your facts and proof in order because you
must file a Complaint-Affidavit with the city prosecutor's office where the crime was
committed. An effective criminal defence attorney will prepare a Complaint-Affidavit that will
establish each aspect of the crime or felony. The Office of the City Prosecutor will issue a
subpoena against the accused once you file your complaint-affidavit, requiring him to attend at
a specific location and time to present his counter-affidavit. After that, you might submit a
Reply-Affidavit to refute the fresh points he made. In a similar vein, the defendant may submit
a rejoinder affidavit.

Preliminary investigation is what is done in this situation. The purpose of a preliminary

investigation is to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to support a well-founded
suspicion that a crime has been committed and that the respondent should be held in custody
until trial. The prosecutor will need to decide if there is enough evidence to submit an
information in court against the offender at this critical point in the criminal process. To
guarantee that your criminal complaint is strong and can prove the elements of the crime, you
need get experienced legal guidance and retain the services of a Philippine criminal
prosecution lawyer or attorney. The prosecutor will drop the case if there are insufficient
reasons. The criminal complaint won't be submitted to the court as a result. The City
Prosecutor may receive a Motion for Reconsideration from your criminal defence attorney.
You may contact the Department of Justice for redress if the Motion is rejected. The
prosecutor will issue a resolution outlining his findings if he determines there is probable
cause. Accordingly, the prosecution will submit an information to the court with the suggested
bail. A warrant for an arrest will be issued by the judge in the relevant court if he finds strong
justifications. When there is strong evidence of guilt, the accused may post bail, with the
exception of several crimes that are punishable by reclusion perpetua.

The trial will then start. The fact that criminal offenses are acts against the state must be
underlined. So, the person prosecuting the criminal case will be the fiscal or prosecutor. He
might, however, receive assistance from private prosecutors. Since it is well known that
prosecutors have a heavy caseload, it is preferable to hire a private attorney in the Philippines
who can give your problems the attention and depth they require.

This is also important to better understand the difference between criminal and civil
cases. Between a criminal and civil case, there is frequently a fine line, mainly because
criminal guilt also entails civil liability. Due to the fact that committing a crime is considered to
hurt both the state and the victim, both parties are held accountable. The civil action is
typically already a part of the criminal action, but the offended party can usually reserve the
right to bring a separate civil action as long as he doesn't obtain compensation twice for the
same cause.

In addition, civil action may also be brought against people or organizations that have
not necessarily broken the law but whose acts or negligence may have infringed upon the
rights of another person or damaged that person or that person's property. A civil case is
brought by one person or entity against another person or entity, unlike a criminal case, which
is brought by the state against the offender. A civil case is frequently resolved financially or by
reaching a settlement for specific problems, whereas a criminal case may result in sanctions
and punishments that include jail time.

The type of case will determine where to file a complaint. Real estate litigation (real
actions) cases are brought in the appropriate court where the contested property is situated.
Personal actions (cases involving people) are filed in the courts where the complainant or
defendant is located. You may file the complaint at a court in your locality if the defendant
lives abroad and the case involves a personal conflict. A lawsuit can be filed in a court where
the property is located if the case involves a property issue. You also have to pay filing fees
based on a schedule when you file the complaint. A judge is then drawn to hear the case.

Therefore when a person complaint he/she needs to go to the barangay or the nearest
police station to notify the authorities about his/her injuries obtained. The victim must need to
tell the authorities that he/she wants to report or blotter someone so that it will be catered by
the police personnel. They also need to have their injuries documented so that it may serve as
proof of the incident happened to them and also the medical records from the clinic or hospital
they are examined. The authority will have the information given by the complainant and are
going to catered at the police station and there goes the case continues. Also evidences need
to be provided so that the complaint should be valid and supported by the complainant and
their statements.

Secondary evidence is also important to be considered because not all the time our
primary evidences lasts cause of some factors happening unpredictably. Just like if someone
lost a physical printed evidence on someone’s case a documented evidence can be
considered also like picture taken from the original evidence. Any proof of a document's
contents other than the original of the cited material is referred to as secondary evidence. It
might be spoken or written. II. First Exception: "When the original has been destroyed, lost, or
cannot be produced in court without the offeror acting in bad faith. Primary sources offer
unfiltered data and first-hand proof. Transcripts from interviews, numerical data, and artistic
creations are a few examples. You have direct access to the topic of your research while
using a primary source.Secondary sources offer second-hand data and analysis from other
scholars. Journal articles, book reviews, and scholarly texts are a few examples. Described,
interpreted, or synthesized in a secondary source are the primary sources. Although primary
sources are more reliable as proof, competent research also makes use of secondary
sources.

Using written, recorded, or visual evidence is frequently necessary when presenting a

case before a judge or jury. Pictures of property damage, voicemail recordings, and contracts
are examples of this kind of evidence. The Federal Rules of Evidence state that the "original
writing, recording, or photograph must be given to substantiate its substance unless the
original is lost, destroyed, or otherwise unobtainable" when written, recorded, or photographic
evidence is required for a hearing or trial. The Best Evidence Rule, often known as the original
writing rule, is the foundational rule of evidential law. The Best Evidence Rule is based on the
idea that the "best" approach to demonstrate the truth of the evidence's contents is through
the original writing, recording, or photograph. This is due to best evidence requirements
ensures that parties to a dispute offer evidence that will make it easier for a court to decide
factual disputes fairly. Only if the original document is not available will other forms of writing,
recording, or photographic evidence be considered admissible. Unless there is a legitimate
worry that the photocopy is not authentic, it is typically assumed that a photocopy is equivalent
to the original. The requirement for original materials serves to bar documents that restate or
paraphrase the original.

Having said and discussed above such the important matters in rules of evidence that is
need to consider. The limitation against evidence has an unusual form and hearsay is not
permitted. In both the summary decision and trial phases of a case, evidence is used. Only
certain things can be done with evidence. A jury can be told, for instance, not to deduce
conclusions about other facts from the evidence and to just use the evidence to support a
single fact. In some cases, a jury may be told to consider the evidence in favor of just one
party.
 In a courtroom, both direct and circumstantial evidence is allowed. While circumstantial
evidence needs the fact-finder to deduce a fact from the evidence, direct evidence establishes
a fact on its own. Observing Johnny steal a candy bar is an example of direct proof. There
must be some logical connection between the evidence and the claim being made for it to be
significant, even if it is only a weak one. Even if a piece of evidence cannot prove or refute a
claim on its own, it may nevertheless be admitted into court. Also, it is important to consider
that admissible proof also needs to be authenticated and pertinent. To demonstrate that
evidence is what it claims to be is to authenticate it. Typically, testimony is used to verify
physical and written evidence. While establishing a chain of custody is a more laborious
method of verifying tangible evidence, some evidence is self-authenticating. Judges can also
make factual observations that do not need to be verified, but only for specific facts like filing
dates and geographic borders. We refer to this as "judicially noted facts."

When a person testifies in court as a lay witness, they discuss facts or opinions about
which they have first-hand knowledge. The traditional rule that lay witnesses may only attest
to "facts" was found to be unworkable. However, a witness' testimony is not necessarily
admissible just because they are permitted to testify. There are several arguments against
witness evidence. For instance, hearsay is not allowed in court. On hearsay, more later.
Additionally, during cross-examination, but not during direct examination, lawyers are often
permitted to offer leading questions. A question that begs for an answer is known as a leading
question. Additionally, lawyers are prohibited from posing a narrative inquiry. A narrative
inquiry is one that leaves the witness free to ramble on and prevents the opposing counsel
from raising objections to possibly inadmissible material. When deciding whether a question is
leading or narrative, judges have a lot of discretion. The majority of queries could be viewed
as leading or narrative when interpreted widely. A witness's credibility may also be called into
doubt at any time if they are impeached. More details on this can be found in the section on
character evidence. A witness could go against the best evidence principle.

But, this must be think through that not all witnesses will tell the truth some will just give
you a hearsay that means it is an unofficial statement made outside of court that is used to
support the assertions made in the statement. Hearsay is normally not admissible, but there
are many exceptions to this rule, and there are additional exceptions to those exceptions.
"Bob told me back in June that Johnny stole that candy bar" is hearsay because it occurred
outside of court and is being submitted to prove that Johnny stole a candy bar.

The term “evidence,” as it relates to investigation, speaks to a wide range of information

sources that can eventually inform the court to prove or deny matters at issue before the trier
of fact. The observations of witnesses as well as the inspection and evaluation of tangible
objects are all examples of sources of evidence. Even the geographical relationships between
people, places, and things along the timeline of events may be included. The court can infer
facts and draw conclusions from the various types of evidence to decide whether a charge
has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Each item of pertinent evidence will be
evaluated according to its "probative value," which is the weight or persuasive value that the
court accords to that specific piece of evidence when evaluating its worth towards
demonstrating a point of fact in issue for the case being heard. The judge, or the judge and
jury, will use the evidence's probative value to determine whether a case has been proved
beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial or beyond a reasonable doubt in a civil trial.
Physical exhibits will typically be given high probative value by the court. The reason the court
prefers physical evidence is that it allows the court to see and study the items in question in
order to assess the relevant facts and establish their veracity. Almost anything can be
considered physical evidence, including objects like weapons, fingerprints, shoe prints, tire
prints, tool impressions, hair, fiber, or bodily fluids. These physical exhibits of evidence are
susceptible to examination and analysis by experts who can offer the court expert testimony
linking the piece of evidence to a particular person, place, or criminal occurrence. This
enables the court to take into account possible connections between the accused and the
crime scene or the victim. For instance, suppose that if a suspect's fingerprints are discovered
at a crime scene and blood with a DNA match from a murder victim is discovered on that
suspect's clothing, forensic connections could be made, and if there is no plausible
explanation, the court would probably find this physical evidence to be pertinent, convincing,
and of high probative value.

Evidence that is pertinent to the case at hand and the charge under consideration
speaks to that problem. Both direct and indirect circumstantial evidence are relevant forms of
evidence. Direct or indirect circumstantial evidence must be related to the elements of the
offense that must be shown in order for it to be considered relevant by the court. The evidence
will not be regarded as pertinent to the charge if it does not relate to proving the location, date,
accused's name, or illegal activities within the offense itself. The prosecution may offer
evidence in the form of a tangible exhibit that the court can view and examine or through
witness testimony, in which case the witness is providing what they could perceive with their
available senses. Direct evidence is proof that establishes a claim incontrovertibly without
considering the context. It is any proof that can persuade the court that something happened
without requiring the judge to draw conclusions or make assumptions. Direct evidence would
be offered by a witness who observed the offender shoot a victim. Similar to this, direct
evidence might also include a surveillance camera recording the accused committing a crime
or a confessional statement from the accused admitting to the crime. Direct examination,
which is the initial questioning of a witness at trial by the party who called that person, should
not be confused with direct evidence. Additionally, even though each witness could provide
evidence, theoretically, even when someone is directly attesting to their knowledge and
experiences, this does not always mean that they are directly attesting to the offense itself.

In line with this, all other evidence, often known as circumstantial evidence, includes
fingerprints of suspects discovered at crime scenes. Although indirect evidence does not
prove the crime on its own, it can add to a body of evidence that could establish guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt by interpretation of the circumstances and in connection with other
evidence. Sometimes the court will rely on strong circumstantial evidence that only supports
one logical conclusion in order to find an accused person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court must make presumptions and logical deductions in order to interpret the evidence.
The spatial linkages between the suspects, victims, chronology, and the crime event are
shown via circumstantial evidence. These spatial relationships can occasionally show that an
accused individual has all the necessary elements of criminal behaviour, including intent,
motive, opportunity, and/or means to carry out the crime. Linkages can be created in a variety
of ways to show contextual links. These can include witness testimony indicating criminal
behavior on the part of an accused before, during, or after the offense, as well as forensic
analysis of fingerprints or DNA that links an accused to the crime site or victim. Circumstantial
evidence can appear at any time and in a variety of ways, so the possibilities are virtually
limitless. It is the responsibility of the investigator to analyzely establish ideas about how
events may have occurred after taking into account the whole context of all the data. Once a
plausible explanation has been developed, more research and examination of physical
evidence might validate circumstantial evidence to link a suspect to the crime.

Also there is this what we call Inculpatory evidence is any evidence that will directly or
indirectly link an accused person to the offence being investigated. For an investigator,
inculpatory evidence can be found in the victim’s complaint, physical evidence, witness
accounts, or the circumstantial relationships that are examined, analyzed, and recorded
during the investigative process. It can be anything from the direct evidence of an eyewitness
who saw the accused committing the crime, to the circumstantial evidence of a fingerprint
found in a location connecting the accused to the victim or the crime scene. Naturally, the
preferred inculpatory evidence is direct evidence that the accused did the crime, but in reality,
this is frequently not accessible. The investigator must find and evaluate other sources of
information and proof. To establish a case that gives the investigator legitimate grounds to
believe and empowers the court to reach its belief beyond a reasonable doubt, it is frequently
necessary to assemble a number of circumstantial pieces of evidence. The court would not be
able to convict someone of car theft based solely on a single fingerprint discovered on the
outside driver's door of a stolen vehicle. The court would likely have proof beyond a
reasonable doubt if you added witness testimony demonstrating that the accused was seen
near the car at the time it was stolen, a security camera recording of the accused leaving the
parking lot where the stolen car was dumped, and the police discovering the accused leaving
the dump site where he attempted to throw the stolen car's keys into the bushes.

The court will frequently come to the conclusion that there is proof beyond a reasonable
doubt if there is a substantial amount of incriminating circumstantial evidence that can be
located and presented to the court that supports a single logical conclusion, unless the
defense presents exculpatory evidence to raise a reasonable doubt.

The overall main point of this reflection paper is that the finest thing you can do in any
legal dispute, whether you are a plaintiff, a defendant, or a witness, is to be absolutely truthful.
Three primary factors make this true. First and first, very few aspects of anyone's life are
actually private, especially in these day of Facebook and Twitter. Lawyers are often quite
good at finding the truth, and in this wired, instantaneous communication era, and our abilities
in that regard have only increased. Thus, it is more crucial than ever to stand by the facts. You
won't have to worry about anything that anyone attempts to find out about you if you simply
give the truth. This will significantly lessen your case's burden for you. The jury system is the
second factor that makes telling the truth so crucial. Juries are made up of people, and as
people, we prefer truthful, upright people to con artists and liars. Your efficacy as a plaintiff,
defendant, or witness depends in great part on how well you come across to those who are
involved in your case. In this matter, the truth will set you free. This emphasis on honesty
includes being truthful with your healthcare providers, who must base a shockingly significant
portion of their plans and recommendations on patient histories.  The third major factor is that
telling the truth will enable you and us, your Portland injury attorneys, to come up with the best
possible plan of action. We can all work together to develop and follow the shortest,
straightest path to a successful legal resolution if we are all aware of the fundamental facts
surrounding your accident, loss, or injury. We also give careful consideration to individuals on
the side of our clients with whom we disagree. Finding out how honest (or dishonest) the other
parties are is always a crucial component of creating compelling arguments and successful
resolutions in legal disputes.

We've all heard the saying, "Honesty is the Best Policy," and police officers need to live
by it more than ever since it's increasingly clear that lying will get you fired faster than
anything else. No matter how excellent your counsel is or how small the lie, there is really no
way to avoid a termination consequence in today's world once a police officer starts acting
dishonestly. So, please, refrain from going there. You should know that officer credibility is
crucial for successful criminal prosecution. In "he said, she said" or "swearing contests,"
judges and juries frequently award a "tie" to the officer based on the "honesty" and "integrity"
necessary to retain the position rather than a decision in favor of the civilian. Therefore, when
a management naturally comes to the conclusion that the officer's continuing service could
impair the law enforcement purpose if the officer's integrity is compromised. Truthfulness
affects more than only the credibility of police witnesses in a court of law; it also has a
profound impact on one's capacity to carry out crucial tasks efficiently. Based on their
investigations and observations, police officers write factual reports.
We have a saying that “If you want to be trusted be HONEST”, this also my personal
mantra in life because to gain trust from someone or to other people you need to be honest so
that they can trust you- How they can trust you if you are dishonest? As Nelson Mandela once
stated that the first thing to be honest is with yourself. You can never have an impact on
society if you have not changed yourself. Great peacemakers are all people with integrity, of
honesty but humility.
 From this statement this reflects the heavy responsibility of a police personnel. You are
not just simply following such protocols or rules but you should also handle it with integrity and
honesty to avoid conflicts that leads to trouble. As PMSG. Roland Muana from Baguio Police
Station he is one of the police personnel you finds the job seriously with integrity and honesty
as to help those people who are in need especially those seeking for justice. You are not just
responsible for just being honest for someone else but it is a reciprocal way that what others
might react on you how they can trust you as a law enforcer, you should be honest in all
aspects so that people will give you trust. I personally believe that anyone who does not take
truth and honesty seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large matters as well.

Honesty is often very hard and the truth is often painful. But always bare in mind that the
truth and freedom it can bring is worth fighting for. When you do something with a lot of
honesty and dedication as well integrity and commitment the outputs will reflects you as a
person. Telling the truth and practicing it in your field or in your job is like giving an expensive
and precious gift that someone’s need. As a future police personnel I would and must do the
job with honesty and with integrity as having this subject discussed the importance of rules of
evidence, I personally realized that being a police personnel is tough but a fulling job because
you will be a part of one’s freedom and justice in the making that with a mantra of “ To Serve
and To Protect”.
DOCUMENTATION:

These are the photos taken during the interview of

PMSG. Rolanf Muana