REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 2

POINTERS FOR MID TERM EXAMINATION (THE LAW ON EVIDENCE)

JUDGE GLOBERT J. JUSTALERO

1. (a) What is the hearsay rule?

The hearsay rule provides that a witness can testify only to those facts which he has
personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception except otherwise
provided under the rules. (Rule 130, sec.36)

(b) What are the exceptions to the hearsay rule?

The exceptions to the hearsay rule are the following:

i. Dying declarations
ii. Declarations against interest
iii. Declaration against pedigree
iv. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
v. Common reputation
vi. Part of the res gestae
vii. Entries in the course of business
viii. Entries in official records
ix. Commercial lists and the like
x. Learned treatises
xi. Testimony or deposition at a former trial

2. What are the requirements in order that an admission of guilt of an accused during a custodial
investigation be admitted in evidence?

3. Give the requisites of a dying declaration.

4. Distinguish clearly but briefly between:

(a) Burden of proof and burden of evidence.

(b) Hearsay and opinion evidence.
(c) Question of law and question of fact.

5. Distinguish formal offer of evidence from offer of proof (offer of excluded evidence).

6. In a prosecution for murder, the prosecutor asks accused Darwin if he had been previously
arrested for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. As defense counsel, you
object. The trial court asks you on what ground/s. Respond.

7. Blinded by extreme jealousy, Alberto shot his wife, Betty, in the presence of his sister, Carla.
Carla brought Betty to the hospital. Outside the operating room, Carla told Domingo, a male
nurse, that it was Alberto who shot Betty, Betty died while undergoing emergency surgery. At the
trial of the parricide charges filed against Albetto, the prosecutor sought to present Domingo as
witness, to testify on what Carla told him. The defense counsel objected on the ground that
Domingo’s testimony is inadmissible for being hearsay. Rule on the objection with reasons.

8. Bembol was charged with rape. Bembol’s father, Ramil, approached Artemon, the victim’s father,
during the preliminary investigation and offered Php1 million to Artemon to settle the case.
Artemon refused the offer. During the trial, the prosecution presented Artemon to testify on

1
 Ramil’s offer and thereby establish an implied admission of guilt. Is Ramil’s offer to settle
admissible in evidence?

9. The mutilated cadaver of a woman was discovered near a creek. Due to witnesses attesting that
he was the last person seen with the woman when she was still alive, Carlito was arrested within
five hours after the discovery of the cadaver and brought to the police station. The crime
laboratory determined that the woman had been raped. While in the police custody, Carlio
broke down in the presence of an assisting counsel and orally confessed to the investigator that
he had raped and killed the woman, detailing the acts he had performed up to his dumping of
the body near the creek. He was genuinely remorseful. During the trial, the State presented the
investigator to testify on the oral confession of Carlito. Is the oral confession admissible as
evidence of guilt? Explain.

10. Romeo is sued for damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiff in a vehicular accident. Julieta, a
witness in court, testifies that Romeo told her (Julieta) that he (Romeo) heard Antonio, a witness
to the accident, give an excited account of the accident immediately after its occurrence. Is
Julieta’s testimony admissible against Romeo over proper and timely objection? Why?

11. “S” is indebted to a bank. When the obligation falls due, he fails to pay and the bank sues for
collection. As part of the evidence of the bank, the accountant of “S” is placed on the stand and
in the course of his examination he is asked, in turn, is also indebted to the bank. The lawyer of
“S” interposes an objection to the question on the ground that it is impertinent. If you were the
judge, how would you rule on the objection?

12. May a private document be offered and admitted in evidence both as documentary evidence
and as object evidence?

13. A resident of America, who came here from Massachusetts, made a will where he stated that, in
form, it is executed in accordance with Massachusetts law. The will, instituting his Filipino widow
as his sole heir, would not be valid in form under Philippine Law. Upon his death, the widow
presented the will to the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo. Probate was objected to by distant
relatives of the testator in California. The Judge had studied in Harvard, and was familiar with
Massachusetts law. Without the introduction of formal evidence, he granted probate, stating,
that the will was, indeed, executed in accordance with Massachusetts law. How should the
matter be resolved on appeal? Explain your answer.

14. Explain briefly whether the Regional Trial Court may, motu proprio, take judicial notice of the
ordinances approved by municipalities under its territorial jurisdiction.

15. During the custodial investigation at the Western Police District, Mario Margal was informed of
his constitutional right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. He
decided to waive hid right to counsel and proceeded to make a statement admitting commission
of a robbery. In the same statement, he implicated Antonio Carreon, his co-conspirator in the
crime. Is the testimony of Mario Margal admissible against Carreon as an exception to the res
inter alios acta rule?

16. Pedro was charged with homicide for having hacked Ramon to death. Before the case could be
tried, the heirs of Ramon sought out Pedro and discussed with him the possibility of settlement
of the case. Pedro agreed to a settlement. When the heirs asked how much he was willing to pay,
Pedro offered P30, 000. 00 which the heirs accepted. Is the agreement to settle, as well as the
offer to pay P30, 000. 00 by Pedro, admissible in evidence against him as an implied admission of
guilt?

17. The prosecution presented in evidence a newspaper clipping of the report to the reporter who
was present during the press conference stating that “X” admitted the robbery. Is the newspaper
clipping admissible against “X” ?

2
18. Fallen by a bullet upon being fired at, Santos before expiring told Romero, a passerby who came
to his rescue, “I was shot by Pablo Cruz, our neighbour.” May Romero’s testimony on what was
told him by Santos be offered and admitted in evidence in the separate civil action for damages
brought by the heirs against Pablo Cruz? Discuss.

19. As Cicero was walking down a dark alley one midnight, he saw an “owner-type jeepney”
approaching him. Sensing that the occupants of the vehicle were up to no good, he darted into a
corner and ran. The occupants of the vehicle were elements from the Western Police District
gave a chase and apprehended him. The police apprehended Cicero, frisked him and found a
sachet of 0.09 gram of shabu tucked in his waist and Swiss knife in his secret pocket, and
detained him thereafter. Is the arrest and body search legal? Explain.

20. In a prosecution for rape, the defense relied on Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) showing that the
semen found in the private part of the victim was not identical with that of the accused’s. As
private prosecutor, how will you dispute the veracity and accuracy of the results of the DNA
evidence?

21. Policemen brought Lorenzo to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) and requested one of its
surgeons to immediately perform surgery on him to retrieve a packet of 10 grams of shabu
which they alleged was swallowed by Lorenzo. Suppose the PGH agreed to, and did perform the
surgery, is the package of shabu admissible in evidence? Explain.

22. A was accused of having rape X. Rule on the admissibility of the following pieces of evidence:

a. An offer of A to marry X; and

b. A pair of short pants allegedly left by A at the crime scene which the court, over the
objection of A, required him to put on, and when he did, it fit him well.

23. If the accused on the witness stand repeats his earlier uncounseled extrajudicial confession
implicating his co-accused in the crime charge. Is that testimony admissible in evidence against
the latter?

24. What is the probative value of a witness’ Affidavit of Recantation?

25. What are the two kinds of objections? Explain each briefly. Give an example of each.

26. Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence:
a. Dead Man Rule
b. Parol Evidence Rule
c. Best Evidence Rule
d. The Rule against the admission of illegally obtained extrajudicial confession
e. The Rule against the admission of an offer of compromise in civil case.

27. Distinguish extrajudicial admission from extrajudicial confession in criminal cases.

28. In the examination of witnesses, what is means by “laying the predicate”?

29. At A’s trial for B’ murder, the defense attempts to present as its witness the victim’s widow, X.
She is to testify that just before B died, she approached his sprawled and bloodied husband and
asked who stabbed him. B, conscious of his impending death, named Y as his assailant. The
prosecution moves to stop X from testifying because her testimony: (1) is hearsay, and (2) will be
violative of the rule on privileged marital communication. Rule on the prosecution’s motion.
Explain.

3
30. X charged with rape with homicide, offered P100, 000. 00 as amicable settlement to the family of
the victim. The family refused. During the trial, the prosecution presented in evidence X’s offer of
compromise. What is the legal implication of such offer? Explain.

31. A sued for annulment of his marriage with B. During trial, A offered in evidence cassette tapes of
alleged telephone conversation of B with her lover. The tapes were recordings made by tapping
A’s telephone line, with A’s consent and obviously without B’s or her lover’s. B vehemently
objected to their admission, on the ground that neither B nor her lover consented to the wire
tap. The court admitted the tapes, ruling that the recorded conversations are nonetheless
relevant to the issues involved. Was the court correct in admitting the cassette tapes in
evidence? Explain.

32. Explain the equipoise doctrine in the law of evidence and cite its constitutional and procedural
bases.

33. What is the difference between a “broadside” objection and a specific objection to the
admission of documentary evidence?

34. Al was accused of raping Lourdes. Only Lourdes testified on how the crime was perpetrated. On
the other hand, the defense presented Al’s wife, son and daughter to testify that Al was with
them when the alleged crime took place. The prosecution interposed timely objection to the
testimonies on the ground of obvious bias due to the witnesses’ close relationship with the
accused. If you were the Judge: (1) How would you rule on the objection? And (2) Will the fact
that the version of the defense is corroborated by three witnesses suffice to acquit Al? Why?

35. Bener was the driver of the car that the police searched and from where they seized a rifle and a
number of shells. Bener assails the legality of the search and seizure on the ground that he is not
the owner of the car nor of the seized iyems. Rule on Bener’s contention.

36. On the basis of the testimonies of PDEA agents, James and Stephen, who spearheaded the buy
bust operation by posing as buyers after a tip from a civilian informer, Steve, accused Bob was
convicted of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. On appeal, Bob claims that he is entitled to an
acquittal as the prosecution wilfully suppressed evidence in not presenting the informer, Steve,
in court. Decide on Bob’s contention.

37. When Tomas was stabbed on the chest during a street brawl, he instinctively shouted for help.
Emil who was nearby heard the shout and rushed to Tomas’ side who when asked by Emil what
happened, stated that Kulas stabbed him. Tomas died on account of the stab wound. Could
Emil’s testimony be received to identify Kulas?

38. The day before the stabbing victim died, he identified positively to the police the person who
stabbed him. When he was asked by the police if he was going to die because of his wounds, he
answered that he did not know. Is the identification by the deceased admissible as an ante-
mortem statement and an exception to the hearsay rule? Explain.

39. X was arrested for the alleged murder of a 6-year old boy. He was read his Miranda rights
immediately upon being apprehended. IN the course of his detention, X was subjected to three
hours non-stop interrogation. He remained quiet until, on the 3 rd hour, he answered “yes” to the
question of whether “he prayed for forgiveness for shooting down the boy.” The trial court,
interpreting X’s answer as an admission of guilt, convicted him. On appeal. X’s counsel faulted
the trial court in its interpretation of his client’s answer, arguing that X invoked his Miranda
rights when he remained quiet for the first two hours of questioning. Rule on the assignment of
error.

4
40. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain
your answer in not more than two (2) sentences: The Vallejo standard refers to jurisprudential
norms considered by the court in assessing the probative value of DNA evidence.

THANK YOU