QUIZ EVIDENCE NUMBER 2

I. Distinguish the following: (3 points each)

a. Facts in issue versus facts relevant to the issue
b. Primary evidence versus secondary evidence
c. Corroborative evidence versus cumulative evidence
d. Relevant evidence versus material evidence
e. Judicial admission versus confession

II. (5 points each) explain you answers briefly.

a. Are evidence of collateral facts admissible in evidence?
b. May the rules on evidence be waived?
c. What is the purpose of hearing before the court exercises its
discretion to take judicial notice of a certain matter?
d. When may tape recording be considered as documentary
evidence and when is it considered as object evidence?
e. When is the best evidence rule applicable?
f. When is the parole evidence rule applicable?
g. When is a tombstone considered as object evidence when is
it considered as documentary evidence?

III. A search warrant was issued for the purpose of looking for
unlicensed firearms in the house of Ass-asin, a notorious gun
for hire. When the police served the warrant, they also sought
the assistance of barangay tanods who were assigned to look
at other portions of the premises around the house. In a nipa
hut thirty (30) meters away from the house of Ass-asin, a
barangay tanod came upon a kilo of marijuana that was
wrapped in a newsprint. He took it and this was later used by
the authorities to charge Ass-asin with illegal possession of
marijuana. Ass-asin objected to the introduction of such
evidence claiming that it was illegally seized. Is the objection of
Assasin valid? (10 points)

IV. Policemen brought Lorenzo to the Philippine General Hospital

(PGH) and requested one of its surgeons to immediately
perform surgery on him to retrieve a packet of 10 grams of
shabu which they alleged to have swallowed Lorenzo. Suppose
the PGH agreed to, and did perform the surgery is the package
of shabu admissible in evidence? (10 points)

V. Arrested in a buy-bust operation, Edmond was brought to the

police station where he was informed of his constitutional rights.
During the investigation, Edmond refused to give any
statement. However, the arresting officer asked Edmond to
acknowledge in writing that six (6) sachets of “shabu” were
confiscated from him. Edmond consented and also signed a
receipt for the amount of P3,000, allegedly representing the
“purchase price of the shabu.” At the trial, the arresting officer
testified and identified the documents executed and signed by
Edmond. Edmond’s lawyer did not object to the testimony. After
the presentation of the testimonial evidence, the prosecutor
made a formal offer of evidence which included the documents
signed by Edmond. Edmond’s lawyer object to the admissibility
of the document for being the fruit of the poisoned tree. Resolve
the objection with reason. (10 points)
ASSIGNMENT NO. 1

I. Distinguish the following: (3 points each)

a. Facts in issue versus facts relevant to the issue

b. Primary evidence versus secondary evidence
c. Corroborative evidence versus cumulative evidence
d. Relevant evidence versus material evidence
e. Judicial admission versus confession
II. (5 points each) explain you answers briefly.
a. Are evidence of collateral facts admissible in evidence?
b. May the rules on evidence be waived?
c. What is the purpose of hearing before the court exercises its
discretion to take judicial notice of a certain matter?
d. When may tape recording be considered as documentary
evidence and when is it considered as object evidence?
e. When is the best evidence rule applicable?
f. When is the parole evidence rule applicable?
g. When is a tombstone considered as object evidence when is it
considered as documentary evidence?

III. A search warrant was issued for the purpose of looking for unlicensed
firearms in the house of Ass-asin, a notorious gun for hire. When the
police served the warrant, they also sought the assistance of barangay
tanods who were assigned to look at other portions of the premises
around the house. In a nipa hut thirty (30) meters away from the house
of Ass-asin, a barangay tanod came upon a kilo of marijuana that was
wrapped in a newsprint. He took it and this was later used by the
authorities to charge Ass-asin with illegal possession of marijuana. Ass-
asin objected to the introduction of such evidence claiming that it was
illegally seized. Is the objection of Assasin valid? (10 points)

IV. Policemen brought Lorenzo to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH)

and requested one of its surgeons to immediately perform surgery on
him to retrieve a packet of 10 grams of shabu which they alleged to have
swallowed Lorenzo. Suppose the PGH agreed to, and did perform the
surgery is the package of shabu admissible in evidence? (10 points)

V. Arrested in a buy-bust operation, Edmond was brought to the police

station where he was informed of his constitutional rights. During the
investigation, Edmond refused to give any statement. However, the
arresting officer asked Edmond to acknowledge in writing that six (6)
sachets of “shabu” were confiscated from him. Edmond consented and
also signed a receipt for the amount of P3,000, allegedly representing
the “purchase price of the shabu.” At the trial, the arresting officer
testified and identified the documents executed and signed by Edmond.
Edmond’s lawyer did not object to the testimony. After the presentation
of the testimonial evidence, the prosecutor made a formal offer of
evidence which included the documents signed by Edmond. Edmond’s
lawyer object to the admissibility of the document for being the fruit of
the poisoned tree. Resolve the objection with reason. (10 points)

VI. Pedro is charged for the crime of murder. During the trial, the
prosecution presented in evidence a photocopy of the death certificate of
the victim to prove that the Civil Registry Office issued a death certificate
of the victim. The lawyer of Pedro objected on the admission of the said
evidence on the ground that it is a violation of the best evidence rule. (10
points)

VII. Pedro executed a promissory note in favour of Juan. The promissory

note stated that Pedro will pay the capital of his indebtedness to Juan
including the interest after 2 years. After two years, Pedro did not pay. A
case for recovery of sum of money is filed against Pedro. During the trial,
Pedro is trying to prove, through his testimony and the testimonies of his
witnesses that He and Juan had agreed that the payment of his debt
including its interest shall be made in three years instead of two years. If
you were the counsel of Juan, what objection would you interpose if
there be any? Explain. (10 points)
ASSIGNMENT NO. 3 EVIDENCE

I.
Pedro is charged for the crime of homicide. The prosecution has
four (4) witnesses in the persons of Juan, Thomas, PO1 Matulis and Dr.
Love. The prosecution presented Juan on direct examination on May 1,
2018. After his direct examination, the counsel for the Accused cross-
examined Juan but the counsel for the Accused moved for continuance
or resetting as he has still many questions to ask to Juan. On May 2,
2018, Juan did not appear because he was sick but the prosecution
presented its second witness in the person of Thomas. After the direct
testimony of Thomas, the counsel for the Accused cross-examined him
until the testimony of Thomas was terminated. The hearing was reset
again to May 3, 2018 for the cross-examination of Juan. However, on
May 3, 2018, it was found out that there was no subpoena issued to
Juan. He was not in court on that day. But on the same day, May 3,
2018, the prosecution presented its third witness, PO1 Matulis, whose
testimony was terminated after he was presented on direct and
subsequently subjected for cross-examination by the counsel for the
Accused. The case was reset again for hearing on May 4, 2018 and a
subpoena was issued to Juan to appear. On May 4, 2018, Juan did not
appear but the prosecution presented Dr. Love as its last witness. He
was cross-examined by the Accused counsel. After the cross-
examination of the Doctor, the prosecution rested its case. The court
convicted Pedro for the crime of Homicide. The court gave credence to
the testimony of Juan. On appeal, the Accused assigned as one of the
errors of the Court the fact that it gave credence to the testimony of Juan
whose cross-examination was incomplete. The Accused further argues
that it is a violation of his constitutional right to meet the witnesses
against him face to face. a. What are the purposes of cross-
examination? (5%) b. Do you agree with the Accused? (15%)

II.
Pedro is arrested in a drug buy-bust operation conducted against
him by the police. He was charged for selling shabu in violation of Article
II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. During the trial, the prosecution presented
and offered as one of its exhibits the photocopy of the 500 peso bill buy-
bust money. The counsel for the accused Pedro objected on the
admissibility of the photocopy of the 500 peso bill as it is a violation of
the best evidence rule. If you were the Judge, would you sustain the
objection of the counsel of Accused Pedro? Explain. (10%)
III.
Immediately before he died of gunshot wounds to his chest while
at the emergency room of the hospital, Pedro told the attending
physician, in a very feeble voice, that “Doc, I know I will die, please tell
the police that it was Kardo who shot me”. He added that “Kardo is also
the one who shot Juan” (Pedro is referring to another person lying on the
bed beside him). In the prosecution of Kardo for the criminal killing of
Juan and Pedro, are all the statements of Pedro admissible as dying
declarations? Explain. (10%)

IV.
In an attempt to discredit and impeach a Prosecution witness in a
homicide case, the defense counsel called to the stand a person who
had been the boyhood friend and next-door neighbor of the Prosecution
witness for 30 years. One question that the defense counsel asked of
the impeaching witness was: "Can you tell this Honorable Court about
the general reputation of the prosecution witness in your community for
aggressiveness and violent tendencies?" As the trial prosecutor, on what
ground would you base your objection to the question of the defense
counsel? Explain. (10%)

V.
On May 15, 2018, Pedro committed estafa against Juan in the
amount of P3 Million. Juan brought his complaint to the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI), which found that Pedro had visited his lawyer
twice, the first time on May 1, 2018 and the second on May 6, 2018; and
that both visits concerned the swindling of Juan. During the trial of
Pedro, the RTC issued a subpoena ad testificandum to Pedro's lawyer
for him to testify on the conversations during their first and second
meetings. May the subpoena be quashed on the ground of privileged
communication? Explain. (10%)

VI.
Juan filed a case for the crime of Estafa against Pedro. When Juan
was presented to testify, he narrated the facts and circumstances on
how Pedro had defrauded him of his hard-earned money. The
prosecution presented its second witness in the name of Kardo. The
testimony of Kardo was offered to prove the bad character of Accused
Pedro. If you were the counsel of Pedro, on what ground would you
base your objection to the testimony of Kardo? Explain (10%)
VII.
Define and explain the following: a. Estoppel in pais. (5%) b.
Estoppel by deed. (5%)

VIII.
Pedro was charged for the crime of theft of a cellular phone on
May 1, 2018. On May 2, 2018, another case for the crime of robbery of a
laptop was filed against him before the RTC. He was convicted by the
MTC for the crime of theft and his counsel appealed the decision of the
MTC before the RTC. During the trial of his robbery case before the
RTC, the counsel of Pedro presented the latter as a witness in his favor.
On cross-examination, the prosecutor cross-examined Pedro and asked
him if he was convicted of the crime of theft before the MTC. The
counsel for the Accused interposed an objection on the ground that it is
a violation of the right of the Accused as a witness. But the prosecutor
contended that a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final
conviction of an offense under Rule 132, Section 3. Do you agree with
the Prosecutor? Explain. (10%)

IX.
If the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another
marriage within three hundred days after such termination of the former
marriage, what is the presumption if the child is born before 180 days
following the solemnization of the second marriage? What is the
presumption if the child is born after 180 days following the second
marriage? (10)
ASSIGNMENT NO. 4 EVIDENCE

I. Explain the following principles or rules in evidence: (3% each)

1. Falsus in unu, falsus in omnibus.

2. An evidence to be believed must not come only from the mouth of a
credible witness must also be credible in itself.
3. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is
claimed to be.
4. Bare allegation is not proof.
5. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is
claimed to be. (Sec. 20, Rule 132)

II. In a case for recovery of sum of money, the plaintiff testified that as
proof of the indebtedness of the defendant, he claims that the defendant
executed a promissory note. The said promissory note was notarized
and it has three original copies, one is in the possession of the notary
public, the other one is in the possession of the defendant and the last
one is in his possession. However, he claims that the copy in his
possession was lost but he has photocopy of the same. Since the
original in his possession was lost, he asked the court for the defendant
to present the original in his (defendant) possession. But the defendant
also claims that the original copy in his possession was lost. With that,
the plaintiff offered in evidence the photocopy of the promissory note in
his possession. The counsel for the defendant objected to the
admissibility of the photocopy for being violative of the best evidence
rule. Rule on the objection of the counsel of the defendant? Explain your
answer. (10%)

III. Pedro and Juan received 100,000 pesos from Vilma F. Castro and he
executed a trust receipt which they signed, to wit: For and in
consideration of the trust conveyed upon us, the undersigned hereby
acknowledged the receipt of the amount of ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS, Philippine currency, from MRS.
VILMA F. CASTRO said amount being extended and received by us not
as loan or credit and without interest, nevertheless, we hereby undertake
and commit to return the same amount to said MRS. VILMA F. CASTRO
on or before May 18, 2018 without need of prior demand. In view of the
foregoing, and as a token of gratitude for the trust and confidence
reposed upon us, we, the undersigned, solidarily promise and warrant
faithful compliance of the terms and conditions herein-above committed.
On due date, they failed to pay. Hence, a case for the crime of estafa
was filed against them. In their defense, they testified that they claim that
the 100,000 thousand pesos they received is a down payment of their lot
they offered to Mrs. Castro. As the prosecutor, what ground would you
base your objection to the testimony of Juan and Pedro? Explain your
answer. (10%)

IV. In a charge for the crime of theft against Peter, the prosecution
included as one of its witnesses the step-daughter of Peter in the person
of Maria. As such, the prosecution requested for the issuance of a
subpoena to Maria to be present for the next scheduled hearing for her
to testify. When Maria appeared in court and the prosecution called her
to the witness stand, the counsel of Peter objected to the presentation of
Maria as she is the step-daughter of Peter, hence, it would be a violation
of the rule on parental and filial privilege. Do you agree with the counsel
of Peter? Explain fully your answer. (10%)

V. Juan is charged for the crime of murder. PO1 Matigas is the

investigator-on-case to lead the conduct of the investigation at the crime
scene. During the crime scene investigation, PO1 Matulis took several
photographs. The said photographs were printed on a piece of bond
paper. The photographs taken are included as exhibits for the
prosecution. When called to testify, PO1 Matigas testified that there were
photographs taken during the crime scene investigation that they have
conducted. The prosecutor then showed the said photographs taken by
PO1 Matulis for PO1 Matigas to identify. At that juncture, the counsel for
Juan objected on the following grounds: PO1 Matigas is incompetent to
identify the photographs because he was not the one who took them
during the conduct of the crime scene investigation and; there is violation
of the best evidence rule as the photographs are merely printed on a
bond paper. Rule on the objections of the counsel of Juan. Explain your
answer. (10%)

VI. In a case for the crime of homicide against Juan, the prosecution
presented its evidence, including all of its witnesses. One of its
witnesses is Pedro, who testified that he saw Juan in the act of stabbing
George while George was sitting, which resulted to his immediate death.
Upon admission of its documentary and object evidence, the prosecution
rested its case. When Accused Juan was presented to testify, he
advanced the defense of self-defense. Juan stated that it was George
who stabbed him first that is why he retaliated by stabbing George.
Maria testified in favor of the Accused by testifying also that Juan just
acted in self defense. The defense also rested its case. If you are the
prosecutor and you want to contradict the testimony of Juan and Maria,
what would be the remedy that you would take under the Rules? (5%)

VII. Pablo is charged for the crime of statutory rape. To prove the age of
the victim, in the name of Maria, the prosecution presented in evidence
her certificate of live birth from the National Statistics Authority. When
Petra, the mother the victim, testified in court, she identified the said
certificate of live birth of Maria. Upon offer of the said live birth certificate,
the counsel of Pablo objected on its admissibility because, according to
him, the due execution and authenticity of the said certificate of live birth
was not proven as it was merely identified by the mother of the victim.
Do you agree with the counsel of the Accused? Explain your answer.
(10%)

VIII. Pedro borrowed money from Juan. They executed a written loan
agreement which they both signed. After a month, Juan died. The
daughter of Juan, in the name of Maria, took hold of the said written loan
agreement. When Pedro failed to pay, Maria filed in court a collection of
sum of money against Pedro. During the trial, Maria presented and
identified the said written loan agreement. Pedro and his counsel
admitted that the written loan agreement shown and identified by Maria
is the same loan agreement executed and signed by Pedro and Juan.
When the said written loan agreement was offered in evidence, the
counsel of Pedro objected to its admission on the ground that since the
loan agreement is a private document, its due execution and authenticity
must be proven first. Do you agree with the objection of the counsel of
Pedro? Explain your answer. (10%)

IX. Give the elements of circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to

convict an Accused. (10%)

X. Pablo posted in his facebook account a libelous statement against

Juan. As such, Juan filed a criminal case before the court for the crime
of libel against Pablo. Is the libelous post of Pablo in his facebook
account admissible in evidence? If so, how would you present in
evidence the said facebook post to be admissible in evidence? (10%)
ASSIGNMENT NO. 5 EVIDENCE

I.
Mario filed a case for the recovery of ownership of a parcel of land
against Pedro. The said parcel of land is titled under the name of Mario.
In his defense, Pedro claims that his father bought the land from the
father of Mario. To support his claim and during his testimony, Pedro
presented and identified a photocopy of the receipt of payment, which he
marked as Exhibit “A”, signed by the father of Mario showing that he
(father of Mario) received the payment of the said parcel of land from the
father of Pedro. He also presented and identified an affidavit executed
by a certain James Bond stating that there was indeed a sale between
the father of Mario, as the seller, and the father of Pedro as the buyer
over the said land. He marked the said affidavit as exhibit “B”.
1. What is hearsay evidence? (2%)
2. What is the best evidence rule? (2%)
3. If you are the counsel of Mario, what objection would you raise as to
the admissibility of Exhibit “A” and exhibit “B” if any? Explain your
answer. (8%)

II.
Maria filed a case for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against
Pepita for issuing a worthless check. Pepita denied having issued the
check and having requested the same to be exchanged with cash by
Maria. When Maria was presented to testify, she testified that Princes
went to her (Maria) house and told her (Maria) that “Pepita is requesting
her (Maria) to change the check into cash as Pepita badly needs
money”. The counsel for Pepita objected to the testimony of Maria on the
ground that it is hearsay because the testimony of Maria refers to the
statement made by Princes. 1. If you were the counsel of Maria, what
argument would you advance to oppose the objection of the counsel of
Pepita, if any? Explain your answer. (8%) 2. If you were the judge, how
would you rule on the objection of the counsel of Pepita? (8%)

III.
Samson stabbed Juan on the chest twenty times with a knife. After he
stabbed Juan, Samson left the place and proceeded to an unknown
direct. When the police officers arrived, they saw Juan lying on the road
with blood oozing from his chest. They immediately lifted and boarded
Juan inside their patrol car. They brought him to the hospital. Before they
could reach the hospital, PO1 Matulis asked Juan “who stabbed you”?
Juan answered, “it was Samson who stabbed me”. Unfortunately, Juan
was declared dead-on-arrival by the attending physician at the hospital.
Samson is charged for the crime of homicide. During the trial, the
prosecution presented PO1 Matulis to testify. He testified that after they
boarded Juan inside their patrol car, he asked Juan who stabbed him
(Juan) and Juan answered that it was Samson who stabbed him. The
counsel for Samson objected on the testimony of PO1 Matulis on the
ground that it is hearsay. But the prosecutor contended that it is a dying
declaration, hence, considered as an exception to the hearsay rule. 1.
Give the requisites of dying declaration as an exception to the hearsay
rule. (2%) 2. Give at least 3 differences between dying declaration and
part of res gestea. (2%) 3. Rule on the objection of the counsel of
Samson with reason? (8%)

IV.
Malaki, Matigas at Mahaba barged in a grocery store owned and
managed by Maganda. Once inside, Malaki, Matigas and Mahaba went
directly to the counter, pointed their guns to Maganda and took all the
cash from the drawer of the table in front of Maganda. Immediately after
the three robbers left, Maganda called the police hotline and informed
the police about the robbery incident. The police responded and was
able to arrest Malaki. Matigas and Mahaba were able to elude arrest.
During the custodial investigation, Malaki, with the assistance of his
counsel, executed an affidavit acknowledging that he is one of the
persons who robbed the grocery store of Maganda. He also stated in his
affidavit that Mahaba and Matigas were his companions who committed
the crime. A complaint for the crime of robbery is filed against Malakas,
Mahaba and Matigas before the prosecution office for the conduct of a
preliminary investigation. One of the evidence submitted by complainant
Maganda is the affidavit of Malaki where he acknowledged his
participation in the commission of the crime and he implicated Mahaba
and Matigas as his companions.
1. What is confession? (2%)
2. What is Admission by conspirator under Section 30 of Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court? (2%)
3. Is the extra-judicial confession of Malaki admissible against the three
of them (Malaki, Mahaba and Matigas)? Explain your answer? (8%)

V. Kardo is engaged in the business of selling pigs. On Janauary 5,

2018, Don Emilio offered to buy 50 pigs. As payment of the said pigs,
Don Emilio issued in favour of Kardo a post-dated check in the amount
of P150,000.00. On due date, Kardo went to the bank and presented the
check for payment. However, he was not able to encash the check on
account of the fact that the account Don Emilio is closed. Kardo wrote a
letter to Don Emilio informing the latter that he should pay the
corresponding amount of the check he issued. In reply, Don Emilio wrote
a letter and he apologized for the inconvenience. In the same letter, he
offered to settle the problem between them and offered to pay 50,000
pesos as advance payment and the remaining balance be paid 10,000
pesos a month. After Kardo refused the offer, a case for violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is filed against Don Emilio for issuing the said
worthless check. During the trial, the prosecution presented the said
letter as an offer of compromise and in effect, an implied
acknowledgement of guilt.

1. If you were the counsel of Don Emilio, what ground would you
advance to object to the admission of the said offer of compromise,
which, according to the prosecution, is admissible in evidence as an
admission of guilt against Don Emilio? (8%)
2. Is the said offer of Don Emilio considered as an implied admission of
guilt under the Rules? (8%)

VI.
Abaloni is charged for the crime of rape through sexual assault. He is out
from detention after he posted a bail bond. After the arraignment, he
went to the house of the victim Agnes and offered to pay 100,000 pesos
to settle the case. Agnes did not accept the offer. 1. Is the offer of
Abaloni to settle the case for the amount of 100,000 pesos admissible as
an implied admission of guilt? (5%) 2. Would your answer be the same
if, instead of Abaloni, it was his father Penduko who made the offer to
Agnes? (5%) 3. What if, instead of making the offer directly to Agnes,
Penduko, the father of Abaloni, made the offer to the Samson, the father
of Agnes, would it be admissible as an implied admission of guilt against
Abaloni? (5%)

VII.
Matikas was arrested for the crime of rape with homicide. During the
custodial investigation, without informing him of his right to remain silent
and without the assistance of a counsel, PO1 Matulis asked Matikas his
participation in the commission of the crime to which Matikas admitted
having committed the crime. Thereafter, the municipal mayor of the town
arrived and still Matikas has no counsel to assist him and the police did
not remind him of his rights under custodial investigation. When Matikas
saw the mayor, he whispered to the mayor that he wanted to talk to him
in private. The mayor led him to a room where Matikas cried and
admitted to the mayor that he raped and killed the victim. After he made
such admission to the mayor and still without the assistance of counsel
and the police did not remind his rights, the media arrived and when they
asked Matikas if he admitted having committed the crime, Matikas
admitted again to the media that he is the one responsible for the killing
and raping of the victim. 1. Is the confession of Matikas which he made
to PO1 Matulis admissible in evidence? Explain your answer. (5%) 2. Is
the confession of Matikas which he made to the mayor admissible in
evidence? Explain your answer. (5%) 3. Is the confession of Matikas
which he made to the media admissible in evidence? Explain your
answer. (5%)

VIII.
Pedro was driving his vehicle along the national road in a fast speed.
Unfortunately, he hit an electric post causing his vehicle to crush on the
side of the road. When the police officers arrived, they tried to help him
out from his vehicle. While on the process of helping him out, the police
officers discovered 50 kilograms of shabu inside a plastic bag placed on
top of the front passenger’s seat. The police arrested him and brought
him to the police station. At the police station, Pedro was not reminded
of his rights under custodial investigation and he was not assisted by
counsel. During the custodial investigation, one of the police officers
asked Pedro to print his name and affix his signature on the plastic bag
containing the 50 grams of shabu which he complied to show that the
same was taken from his possession. Thereafter, when he brought out
his cellular phone purposely to call his wife, a cal. 22 revolver fell from
his pocket. The police confiscated the said firearm. At that time, the
police still did not yet remind him of his rights and he was not yet
assisted by counsel. Separate charges for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearm were filed against
Pedro. During the trial, the prosecution presented in evidence the cal. 22
revolver to prove the crime of illegal possession of firearm. And to prove
that the 50 kilograms of shabu belongs to Pedro, they presented the
name and signature of Pedro which were written and affixed by Pedro on
the plastic bag containing the shabu. The counsel for Pedro objected on
the admissibility of the said firearm and the name and signature of Pedro
on the ground that such evidence were taken when Pedro was under
custodial investigation and was not even assisted by counsel.

1. Enumerate the rights of a person under custodial investigation. (2%)

2. Rule on the objection of the counsel of Pedro. Explain your answer.
(10%)