Practice question
The prosecution says evidence later admitted at trial necessarily cures the earlier denial of investigation despite the accused’s timely, continuous objection. How did Go treat that reasoning?
- It held that later evidence always erases preserved procedural rights.
- It refused to legitimize the deprivation merely because trial evidence later entered the record.
- It found the omitted investigation irrelevant once the first witness testified.
- It treated the objection as a confession.
- It ordered acquittal because later evidence could never be considered.
Legal references
- Rules of Court, Rule 113, Sections 2-9, and Rule 114, Section 26, as relevant: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html
- Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992, main decision, preserved preliminary-investigation objection and qualified relief: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/feb1992/gr_101837_1992.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.