Practice question
A party argues that exclusion of one illegally seized item automatically proves all remaining independent lawful evidence nonexistent. The opponent says exclusion has no consequence if the case is serious. Which is best?
- Every serious case permits use of unconstitutional evidence
- Both positions are overbroad; exclude the unlawfully obtained evidence and assess the remaining lawful proof
- Every exclusion mechanically erases all independent proof
- The judge may ignore the Constitution if convinced
- The accused’s objection is itself proof of guilt
Legal references
- Constitution ArticleIII Section3(2); People v. Sapla: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/jun2020/gr_244045_2020.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.