I. Republic Act No. 10973 is constitutional.

 The assailed statute does not run contrary to any

provision of the 1987 Constitution nor any existing
legislative act. R.A. No. 10973 provides greater efficacy to
the traditional power of the Chief of Police to issue
subpoenas.
A. The Court may not exercise its power of judicial review to
resolve the issue of constitutionality of Republic Act No.
10973.
 In order for the Court to be in its proper exercise of its
constitutionally-granted power of judicial review, extant
must be certain requisites, the absence of at least one
rendering such exercise improper.
B. The instant appeal constitutes a collateral attack on the
validity of Republic Act No. 10973.
 Well-settled is the rule that the constitutionality of a
statute cannot be collaterally attacked as constitutionality
issues must be pleaded directly and not collaterally.
II. The affidavit of petitioner Tim Li is admissible as evidence.
 The circumstances which surround the case at bar can
hardly be characterised as those which need full
compliance with the general requisites of a valid extra-
judicial confession.
A. The extra-judicial confession is akin to a voluntary
confession.
 Absent the element of coercion stemming from the part of
the law enforcement officers, there is a presumption that
such confession was made under petitioner own volition
and willingness.
B. Petitioner’s failure to object the admissibility of the
evidence duly constitutes a waiver to question the legality
of the same.
 The Rules on Evidence and the Rules of Court provide
that an objection to the admissibility of evidence must be
timely made during the offer of the same. Else, the failure
of a party to dispute the evidence is tantamount to the
acknowledgement of such evidence.
III. No rights granted under Sec. 12 of Art. III of the 1987
Constitution were violated as petitioner was not under
custodial investigation.
 The rights enumerated under Sec. 12 are available upon
a showing that there is a specific questioning initiated by
the authorities to elicit incriminating statements for an
investigation for a specific crime from a particular suspect.
IV. Petitioner was correctly cited for indirect contempt.
 The power to cite for contempt is not exclusively judicial in
nature and may be done by the Chief of PNP in aid of the
investigation. A person who refuses to cooperate with the
PNP after a subpoena has been issued may be cited for
contempt.