No. 1 Rafael, Carlos and Joseph were accused of murder before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

Accused
Joseph turned state witness against his co-accused Rafael and Carlos, and was accordingly discharged from the
information. Among the evidence presented by the prosecution was an extrajudicial confession made by
Joseph during the custodial Investigation, implicating Rafael and Carlos who, he said, together with him
(Joseph), committed the crime. The extrajudicial confession was executed without the assistance of counsel.

Accused Rafael and Carlos vehemently objected on the ground that said extrajudicial confession was
inadmissible in evidence against them.

Rule on whether the said extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence or not. (5%)

FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

According to People vs. Balisteros, 237 SCRA 499 (1994), the confession is admissible. Under Section 12,
Article III of the Constitution, the confession is inadmissible only against the one who confessed. Only the one
whose rights were violated can raise the objection as his right is personal.

SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;

According to People us. Jara, 144 SCRA 516(1986), the confession is inadmissible. If it is inadmissible
against the one who confessed, with more reason it should be inadmissible against others.

No. 2 An information for parricide was filed against Danny. After the NBI found an eyewitness to the
commission of the crime. Danny was placed in a police line-up where he was identified as the one who shot
the victim. After the line-up, Danny made a confession to a newspaper reporter who interviewed him. 1) Can
Danny claim that his identification by the eyewitness be excluded on the ground that the line-up was made
without benefit of his counsel? 2) Can Danny claim that his confession be excluded on the ground that he was
not afforded his "Miranda" rights?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the identification of Danny, a private person, by an eyewitness during the line-
up cannot be excluded in evidence. In accordance with the ruling in People vs. Hatton, 210 SCRA 1, the
accused is not entitled to be assisted by counsel during a police line-up, because it is not part of custodial
investigation.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;

Yes, in United States v. Wade, 338 U.S. 218 (1967) and Gilbert v. California, 338 U.S. 263

(1967). it was held that on the basis of the Sixth, rather than the Fifth Amendment (equivalent to Art. III, Sec.
14 (2) rather than Sec. 12(1)), the police line-up is such a critical stage that it carries "potential substantial
prejudice" for which reason the accused is entitled to the assistance of Counsel.

No. Danny cannot ask that his confession to a newspaper reporter should be excluded in evidence. As
held in People vs. Bernardo, 220 SCRA 31, such an admission was not made during a custodial interrogation
but a voluntary statement made to the media.

Custodial Investigation; Rights (1996)

No.3 A, who was arrested as a suspect in a murder case was not represented by counsel during the "question
and answer" stage. However, before he was asked to sign his statements to the police investigator, the latter
provided A with a counsel, who happened to be at the police station. After conferring with A, the counsel told
the police investigator that A was ready to sign the statements. Can the statements of A be presented in court
as his confession? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the statements of A cannot be presented in court as his confession. He was not assisted by counsel
during the actual questioning. There is no showing that the lawyer who belatedly conferred with him fully
explained to him the nature and consequences of his confession. In People vs. Compil 244 SCRA 135, the
Supreme Court held that the accused must be assisted by counsel during the actual questioning and the belated
assistance of counsel before he signed the confession does not cure the defect.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes, the statements of A can be presented in court as his confession. As held in People vs. Rous, 242 SCRA
732, even if the accused was not assisted by counsel during the questioning, his confession is admissible if he
was able to consult a lawyer before he signed.

Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination (1992)

No, 3; Congress is considering a law against drunken driving. Under the legislation, police authorities may ask
any driver to take a "breathalyzer test", wherein the driver exhales several times into a device which can
determine whether he has been driving under the influence of alcohol. The results of the test can be used, in
any legal proceeding against him. Furthermore, declaring that the issuance of a driver's license gives rise only
to a privilege to drive motor vehicles on public roads, the law provides that a driver who refuses to take the test
shall be automatically subject to a 90-day suspension of his driver's license, Cite two [2] possible constitutional
objections to this law. Resolve the objections and explain whether any such infirmities can be cured.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Possible objections to the law are that requiring a driver to take the breathalyzer test will violate his right
against self-incrimination, that providing for the suspension of his driver's license without any hearing violates
due process, and that the proposed law will violate the right against unreasonable searches and seizures,
because it allows police authorities to require a drive to take the breathalyzer test even if there is no probable
cause.

Requiring a driver to take a BREATHALYZER TEST does not violate his right against self-incrimination,
because he is not being compelled to give testimonial evidence. He is merely being asked to submit to a
physical test. This is not covered by the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination. Thus, in South
Dakota vs. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, it was held for this reason that requiring a driver to take a blood-alcohol test
is valid.

N0.4 Crack officers of the Anti-Narcotics Unit were assigned on surveillance of the environs of a cemetery
where the sale and use of dangerous drugs are rampant. A man with reddish and glassy eyes was walking
unsteadily moving towards them but veered away when he sensed the presence of policemen. They
approached him, introduced themselves as police officers and asked him what he had clenched in his hand. As
he kept mum, the policemen pried his hand open and found a sachet of shabu, a dangerous drug. Accordingly
charged in court, the accused objected to the admission in evidence of the dangerous drug because it was the
result of an illegal search and seizure. Rule on the objection. b) What are the instances when warrantless
searches may be effected?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The objection is not tenable. In accordance with Manalili v. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 400 (1997). since
the accused had red eyes and was walking unsteadily and the place is a known hang-out of drug addicts, the
police officers had sufficient reason to stop the accused and to frisk him. Since shabu was actually found
during the investigation, it could be seized without the need for a search warrant.
 A warrantless search may be effected in the following cases: a) Searches incidental to a lawful
arrest: b) Searches of moving vehicles; c) Searches of prohibited articles in plain view: d) Enforcement of
customs law; e) Consented searches; f) Stop and frisk (People v. Monaco, 285 SCRA 703
[1998]);Routine searches at borders and ports of entry (United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 [1977]);
and Searches of businesses in the exercise of visitorial powers to enforce police regulations (New York v.
Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987]).
As held in Mackey vs. Afontrya 443 U.S. 1, because

of compelling government interest in safety along

the streets, the license of a driver who refuses to

take the breathalyzer test may be suspended

immediately pendinga post-suspension hearing,

but there must be a provision for a post-suspension

hearing.Thus, to save the proposed law from

unconstitutionally on the ground of denial of due

upon suspension of the driver's license. The

proposed law violates the right against

unreasonable searches and seizures. It will

authorize police authorities to stop any driver and

ask him to take the breathalyzer test even in the

absence of a probable cause.

Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination

(2000)

No XI. b) A man was shot and killed and his killer

fled. Moments after the shooting, an eyewitness

described to the police that the slayer wore white

pants, a shirt with floral design, had boots and

1.65 meters. Borja, who fit the description given,

was seen nearby. He was taken into custody and

brought to the police precinct where his pants,

shirt and boots were forcibly taken and he was

weighed, measured, photographed,

fingerprinted and subjected to paraffin testing. At

his trial, Borja objected to the admission in

evidence of the apparel, his

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The best answer is c) when he is ordered to produce a sample of his handwriting to be used as evidence
that he is the author of a letter wherein he agreed to kill the victim. Under Article HI, Section 17 of the
1987 Constitution, "no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." Since the provision
prohibits compulsory testimonial incrimination, it does not matter whether the testimony is taken by oral
or written means as either way it involves the USE OF INTELLECTUAL FACULTIES. The purpose of
the privilege is to avoid and prohibit thereby the repetition and recurrence of compelling a person, in a
criminal or any other case, to furnish the missing evidence necessary for his conviction (Bermudez v.
Castillo, Per Rec. No. 714-A, July 26, 1937; Beltran v. Samson, G.R. No. 32025, September 23,1929).

height and weight, his photographs, fingerprints comparison and the results of the paraffin test, asserting
that these were taken in violation of his right against self-incrimination. Rule on the objection. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The objection of Borja is not tenable. As held in People v. Paynor, 261 SCRA 615 (1996), the
rights guaranteed by Section 12, Article in of the Constitution applies only against testimonial evidence.
An accused may be compelled to be photographed or measured, his garments may be removed, and his
body may be examined.
 proof. One day, Emilio broke open the desk of Alvin and discovered a letter wherein Randy thanked
Alvin for having passed on to him vital trade secrets of Emilio. Enclosed in the letter was a check for
P50,000.00 drawn against the account of Randy and payable to Alvin. Emilio then dismissed Alvin from
his employment. Emilio's proof of Alvin's perfidy are the said letter and check which are objected to as
inadmissible for having been obtained through an illegal search. Alvin filed a suit assailing his dismissal.
Rule on the admissibility of the letter and check. (5%)Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination

(Q7-2006)

Select the best answer and explain.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

1. An accused's right against self-incrimination is. As held in People v. Marti (G.R. No. 81561, violated in
the following cases: (5%) January 18, 1991), the constitution, in laying down

When he is ordered by the trial court to the principles of the government and fundamental undergo a
paraffin test to prove he is guilty of murder; liberties of the people, does not govern. When he is
compelled to produce his relationships between individuals. Thus, if the bankbooks to be used as
evidence against his father search is made at the behest or initiative of the charged with plunder;
proprietor of a private establishment for its own

When he is ordered to produce a sample of his and private purposes and without the intervention
handwriting to be used as evidence that he is the of police authorities, the right against author of a letter
wherein he agreed to kill the victim; unreasonable search and seizure cannot be. When the president
of a corporation is sub- invoked for only the act of private individuals, not poenaed to produce certain
documents as proofs he is the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the