Practice question
After pleading without an arrest objection, an accused timely objects at trial that drugs were obtained through an unconstitutional warrantless search. The prosecution argues that the plea necessarily made the drugs admissible. Which is correct?
- The plea automatically admits all seized evidence.
- A search becomes lawful retroactively after arraignment.
- Evidence can never be excluded after any plea.
- Personal-jurisdiction waiver does not itself waive the distinct evidentiary objection; the court must assess admissibility under its own rules.
- The drugs are automatically inadmissible solely because the accused objects.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html — Rule 114 section 26: bail and timely objections to arrest, warrant and preliminary investigation.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/mar2025/gr_257910_2025.html — Patotoy v. People, G.R. 257910, March 4, 2025, main opinion: personal-jurisdiction waiver distinct from evidence admissibility.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html — Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. 158763, March 31, 2006, main opinion: custody, voluntary appearance and special appearance.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.