Practice question
During custodial questioning, police obtain a confession after denying a suspect's request for counsel. There is no valid waiver. A lawyer arrives afterward, but no new statement is taken with proper safeguards. Prosecutors offer the original confession and say the lawyer's later arrival cured the earlier denial. They also have separately obtained eyewitness testimony. Which assessment is sound?
- The original confession remains inadmissible against its maker; the independent testimony must be assessed separately.
- The lawyer's later arrival automatically validates the earlier statement.
- Exclusion automatically requires acquittal regardless of independent admissible evidence.
- The eyewitness must be excluded solely because a confession was tainted.
- A request for counsel itself proves guilt.
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, section 12, https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- Republic Act No. 7438, sections 2–3, https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1992/ra_7438_1992.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.