VII.

As he was entering a bar, Arnold -who was holding

an unlit cigarette in his right hand -was handed
a match box by someone standing near the doorway.
Arnold unthinkingly opened the matchbox to light
his cigarette and as he did so, a sprinkle of dried
leaves fell out, which the guard noticed. The guard
immediately frisked Arnold, grabbed the matchbox,
and sniffed its contents. After confirming that the
matchbox contained marijuana, he immediately
arrested Arnold and called in the police.
At the police station, the guard narrated to
the police that he personally caught Arnold in
possession of dried marijuana leaves. Arnold did
not contest the guard's statement; he steadfastly
remained silent and refused to give any written
statement. Later in court, the guard testified
and narrated the statements he gave the police over
Arnold's counsel's objections. While Arnold presented
his own witnesses to prove that his possession and
apprehension had been set-up, he himself did not
testify. The court convicted Arnold, relying
largely on his admission of the charge by silence
at the police investigation and during trial.
nito yap,
customer for woodland
buys plenty of pigs
loan
murag sya ang frontman
ni dtg
isakay barko gikan bukidnon
baligya niya diri
cebu
colonnade
etc...
2million
From the constitutional law perspective, was the
court correct in its ruling? (6%)
Tip:
Admission by silence
(1) An act or declaration made in the presence and
within the hearing or observation of a party who does
or says nothing when the act or declaration is such
as naturally to call for action or comment if not true,
and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be
given in evidence against him (Sec. 32).
(2) The rule that the silence of a party against whom
a claim or right is asserted may be construed as
an admission of the truth of the assertion rests on
that instinct of our nature, which leads us to
resist an unfounded demand. The common sense of mankind
is expressed in the popular phrase, silence gives
consent which is but another form of expressing the maxim
of the law, qui tacet cosentire videtur
(Perry vs. Johnson, 59 Ala. 648).
(3) Before the silence of a party can be taken as
an admission of what is said, the following requisites
must concur:
(a) Hearing and understanding of the statement by the party;
(b) Opportunity and necessity of denying the statements;
(c) Statement must refer to a matter affecting his right;
(d) Facts were within the knowledge of the party; and
(e) Facts admitted or the inference to be drawn from his
silence would be material to the issue.