Ill.
Under the Rules on Evidence, a dying
Answer the following briefly:
(a) What elements should concur for
circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction?
(d) What is a tender of excluded evidence?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a)
The following elements should concur for
circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction:
a) There is more than one circumstance.
b) The facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven.
c) The combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt. [S4 R133]
(d)
Tender of excluded evidence is the remedy of a
party when the evidence he has offered is excluded by
the court.
If documentary or object evidence is excluded
by the court, the offeror may have the same attached
to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded
is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name
and other personal circumstances of the witness and
the substance of the proposed testimony. (S40 R132).
XIV.
Immediately before he died of gunshot wounds
to his chest, Venancio told the attending physician, in a
very feeble voice, that it was Arnulfo, his co-worker,
who had shot him. Venancio added that it was also
Arnulfo who had shot Vicente, the man whose cadaver
was lying on the bed beside him.
In the prosecution of Arnulfo for the criminal
killing of Venancio and Vicente, are all the statements
of Venancio admissible as dying declarations? Explain
your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, not all the statements of Venancio are
admissible as dying declarations.
declaration is admissible as an exception to the
hearsay rule provided that such declaration relates to
the cause of the declarant’s death.
Venancio’s statement that it was Arnulfo who
shot him is admissible as a dying declaration. The
same related to Venancio’s own demise. It may be
inferred that Venancio had consciousness of his
impending death since he suffered gunshot wounds to
his chest which would necessarily be mortal wounds.
However, Venancio’s statement that it was
Arnulfo who shot Vicente is not admissible as a dying
declaration since it did not relate to the cause of the
declarant’s death but to the death of another person.
XV.
In an attempt to discredit and impeach a
Prosecution witness in a homicide case, the defense
counsel called to the stand a person who had been the
boyhood friend and next-door neighbor of the
Prosecution witness for 30 years. One question that
the defense counsel asked of the impeaching witness
was: "Can you tell this Honorable Court about the
general reputation of the prosecution witness in your
community for aggressiveness and
violent tendencies?"
Would you, as the trial prosecutor, interpose
your objection to the question of the defense counsel?
Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, I as the trial prosecutor, would interpose
my objection to defense counsel’s question on the
ground of improper impeachment.
Under the Law on Evidence, an adverse party’s
witness may be properly impeached by reputation
evidence provided that it is to the effect that the
witness’s general reputation for honesty, truth, or
integrity was bad. [S11 R132] The reputation must only
be on character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.
[Cordial v. People, 166 SCRA 17]
Here the evidence is not on the Prosecution
witness’s general reputation for honesty, truth, or
integrity but on his aggressive and violent tendencies.
The evidence had nothing to do with the witness’s
character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. Hence the
impeachment was improper