2014 (Political Law) Bar Exam Questions: Question 23

[Answer/discuss the question below. Or see 2014 bar exam Political Law Instructions; 2014 Political Law Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30; See also 2014 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]

XXIII.

The police got a report about a shooting incident during a town fiesta. One person was killed. The police immediately went to the scene and started asking the people about what they witnessed. In due time, they were pointed to Edward Gunman, a security guard, as the possible malefactor. Edward was then having refreshment in one of the eateries when the police approached him. They asked him if he had a gun to which question he answered yes. Then they asked if he had seen anybody shot in the vicinity just a few minutes earlier and this time he said he did not know about it. After a few more questions, one of the policemen asked Edward if he was the shooter. He said no, but then the policeman who asked him told him that several witnesses pointed to him as the shooter. Whereupon Edward broke down and started explaining that it was a matter of self-defense. Edward was eventually charged with murder. During his trial, the statements he made to the police were introduced as evidence against him. He objected claiming that they were inadmissible since he was not given his Miranda rights. On the other hand, the prosecution countered that there was no need for such rights to be given since he was not yet arrested at the time of the questioning. If you were the judge, how would you rule on the issue? (4%)

2 comments

  1. clearly, the questioning was already in a form of custodial investigation. custodail investigation is a form of questioning made by the investigating officer or person in authority which questions specific question pertaining to the incident and which could also implicate him or suggests his participation to the same.
    the constitution guarantees that in cases of custodial investigation, any person questioned must be reminded of his right to remain silent, a lawyer of his choice, and if he has none, the court shall afford him with the same. and waiver to any of these rights must be done in writing and in the presence of his counsel. however, in the case at bar, edward was not reminded of the same. therefore, his statements are considered inadmissible.

    Thumb up Thumb down +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *