Ocampo, Lorenzo Angelo A.

3-C
1. What would be the most likely reason to hold the videotape inadmissible as evidence?

- The most likely reason to hold the videotape inadmissible as evidence is that
the videotape is irrelevant to the fact in issue.

Evidence is relevant when it has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief
as to its existence or non-existence or its probability or improbability. While
evidence is irrelevant if it has no bearing in the fact in issue.

The fact in issue in this case is whether or not Abe received stolen property in
connection with his arrest by police operatives. While the videotape offered as
evidence shows the fact that Abe is offering to sell a television set to one of the
police officers. The mere fact that Abe is offering to sell a television set to one
of the police officers has no bearing to the fact in issue and such fact cannot
induce belief as to the existence of the fact that Abe received stolen property
because the fact that he is selling property cannot include the fact that he is
receiving stolen property.

Hence, the videotape is inadmissible as evidence because it is irrelevant to the

fact in issue.

2. What would be the most likely reason to hold the videotape admissible as evidence?

- The most likely reason to hold the videotape admissible as evidence is that the
videotape shows the probability that Abe has been habitually transacting with
fences by offering to sell a television set to the officers posing as fences and it
would induce belief as to the existence of the fact that Abe also received stolen
property from his habitual transactions with fences as the basis of the charge.

Evidence can be conditionally admitted when two or more evidentiary facts are
so connected under the issues that the relevancy of one depends upon another
not yet evidenced, and the party is unable to introduce them both at the same
moment, the offering party may be required by the court, as a condition
precedent, to state the supposed connecting facts and to produce them later.

The videotape can be conditionally admitted to establish the fact that Abe is
habitually transacting with fences which would lead to his receipt of stolen
property provided that the prosecution can later on establish the fact that he has
indeed received stolen property.