Question 17, 2018 Political Law Bar Exam

XVII

(Question XVII, Political Law, 2018 Bar Exam)

The police served a warrant of arrest on Ariston who was suspected of raping and killing a female high school student. While on the way to the police station, one of the police officers who served the warrant asked Ariston in the local dialect if he really raped and killed the student, and Ariston nodded and said, “Opo.” Upon arriving at the police station, Ariston saw the City Mayor, whom he approached and asked if they could talk privately. The Mayor led Ariston to his office and, while there in conversation with the Mayor, Ariston broke down and admitted that he raped and killed the student. The Mayor thereafter opened the door of the room to let the public and media representatives witness Ariston’s confession. In the presence of the Mayor, the police and the media, and in response to questions asked by some members of the media, Ariston sorrowfully confessed his guilt and sought forgiveness for his actions.

Which of these extrajudicial confessions, if any, would you consider as admissible in evidence against Ariston? (5%)

Suggested Answer:

1) The extrajudicial confession with police officers is not admissible. Answer

Under the 1987 Constitution and jurisprudence, a person under custodial investigation should be read his Miranda rights, including the right to remain silent and to counsel. Further, any extrajudicial confession should be with the assistance of counsel and in writing. Rule

In the case at bar, the admission to the police officers were defective as it did not comply with any of the requirements mentioned. Apply

Thus, the extrajudicial confession with the police officers is not admissible in evidence. Conclusion

2) The extrajudicial confession before the Mayor and the media are admissible. Answer

Under jurisprudence, confession to a Mayor by a suspect who asked for a private conversation and thereafter admitted to the commission of the crime is admissible. In such a case, it is the suspect himself who spontaneously, freely and voluntarily sought the mayor for a private meeting. The mayor does not know that the suspect was going to confess his guilt to him. When the suspect talked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his uncounselled confession to him did not violate his constitutional rights. Rule

Further, statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. Rule

In the case at bar, the suspect made a valid extrajudicial confession before the Mayor as the suspect was did so privately to the Mayor as a confidant and not a law enforcer. As for the media, the accused admitted to the offense voluntarily. Apply

Thus, the extrajudicial confession before the Mayor and media are admissible in evidence. Conclusion

..

(Notice: The suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide, and thus specific citations are not provided. Notwithstanding, in the reviewers, the bar exam question is answered under the appropriate topic which discusses the concepts and principles, as well as provide for specific citations. Accordingly, please refer to it on the reviewer or in the Library.)

Related

System-based bar exam review mentoring program to improve your bar exam preparation

© 2022 BARMENTOR.PH. All Rights Reserved.

error: Content is protected.