P. 1
Answers to Phil Bar Exams 1987-2006 Political Law

Answers to Phil Bar Exams 1987-2006 Political Law

|Views: 164|Likes:
Published by Hanna Mapandi

More info:

Published by: Hanna Mapandi on Mar 14, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/10/2012

pdf

text

original

No XI. On October 1, 1985, Ramos was
arrested by a security guard because he
appeared to be "suspicious" and brought to a
police precinct where in the course of the
investigation he admitted he was the killer in an
unsolved homicide committed a week earlier.
The proceedings of his investigation were put in
writing and dated October 1, 1985, and the only
participation of counsel assigned to him was his
mere presence and signature on the statement.
The admissibility of the statement of Ramos
was placed in issue but the prosecution claims
that the confession was taken on October 1,
1985 and the 1987 Constitution providing for
the right to counsel of choice and opportunity to
retain, took effect only on February 2, 1987 and
cannot be given retroactive effect. Rule on this.
(3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The confession of Ramos is not admissible,
since the counsel assigned to him did not
advise him of his rights. The fact that his
confession was taken before the effectivity of
the 1987 Constitution is of no moment. Even
prior to the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution,
the Supreme Court already laid down strict
rules on waiver of the rights during investigation
in the case of People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465
(1985).

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->