The barangay chairman reported to the police that Juan was illegally keeping in his

house in the barangay an armalite M16 rifle. On the strength of that information, the
police conducted a search of the house of Juan and indeed found said rifle. The police
raiders seized the rifle and brought Juan to the police station. During the investigation,
he voluntarily signed a Sworn Statement that he was possessing said rifle without
license or authority to possess, and a Waiver of Right to Counsel. During the trial of
Juan for illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution submitted in evidence the rifle,
Sworn Statement and Waiver of Right to Counsel.

Rule on the admissibility in evidence of the:

1. Rifle;
2. Sworn Statement; and
3. Waiver of Right to Counsel of Juan.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:1. The rifle is not admissible in evidence because it was seized
without a proper search warrant. A warrantless search is not justified. There was time
to secure a search warrant.(People us. Encinada G.R. No. 116720, October 2. 1997 and
other cases)2. The sworn statement is not admissible in evidence because it was taken
without informing him of his custodial rights and without the assistance of counsel
which should be independent and competent and preferably of the choice of the
accused. (People us.Januario, 267 SCRA 608.)3. The waiver of his right to counsel is
not admissible because it was made without the assistance of counsel of his choice.
(People us. Gomez, 270 SCRA 433.)
Admissibility (2002)
Acting on a tip by an informant, police officers stopped a car being driven by D and
orderedhim to open the trunk. The officers found a bag containing several kilos of
cocaine. They seizedthe car and the cocaine as evidence and placed D under arrest.
Without advising him ofhis right to remain silent and to have the assistance of an
attorney, they questioned him
regarding the cocaine. In reply, D said, “I don’t know anything about it. It isn’t even my
car.” D
was charged with illegal possession of cocaine, a prohibited drug. Upon motionof D, the
court suppressed the use of cocaine as evidence and dismissed thecharges against him.
D commenced proceedings against the police for the recovery of his car.In his direct
examination, D testified that he owned the car but had registered it in the nameof a
friend for convenience. On cross-examination, the attorney representing the police