EVIDENCE

NORSU Law (SY 2020-2021)

QUIZ 4 (Please answer the following.)

1. What is the meaning of the Hearsay Rule?

2. In relation to the hearsay rule, kindly identify the common denominator of the
following rules of evidence:
 on res gestae;
 on dying declarations;
 on admissions against interest.

3. The case of PP vs. Vallejo set the standard or norm to assess the probative
value of DNA evidence, i.e., parentage. (True or False)

4. Based on the doctrine of adoptive admission, a third party's statement

becomes the admission of the party using or relying on it. (True or False)

5. With due regard to the distinction between private and public document,
which of the following assertion is admissible in evidence without need of further
proof because of its due execution or genuineness? (a) certificate of baptism; (b.)
Philippine Embassy Official record as certified by the Vice-Consul with
appropriate official seal; (c.) Notarized documents acknowledged in Panama; and
(d.) clean receipt dated April 10, 1985 duly signed by the promisee, indicating the
fact of payment of loan, which was found among the supposedly secret file of the
one who executed it.

6. From the following admissions made by a witness in the course of a court

trial, identify the judicial admission? (a.) Admissions made in a pleading signed
by the party and his counsel intended to be filed. (b.) An admission made in a
pleading in another case between the same parties. (c.) Admission made by
counsel in open court. (d.) Admissions made in a complaint superseded by an
amended complaint.

7. Who, do you think, among the following is not competent to testify? (a) A
person under the influence of drugs when the event he is asked to testify on took
place. (b.) A person convicted of perjury who will testify as an attesting witness to
a will.(c) A deaf and dumb; (d.) A mental retardate.

8. The plaintiff offered evidence that apparently seemed not relevant. But he
argued that he was eventually going to relate to the issue in the case by some
evidence in the course of the trial. Defense objected timely. Should the Court
refuse the evidence because it is irrelevant? (a.) No, court should reserve its
ruling until the relevance is shown; (b.) Yes, because plaintiff could later on
present the evidence anew; (c.) Yes, since irrelevant evidence is inadmissible;
(d.) No, because once admitted conditionally, it could continue until its relevance
is shown.

9. Sophia pointed a finger at Juan on a police line-up. But Sophia was not
presented in court. Instead, to prove the identity of the killer (Juan) in a crime of
homicide, a police officer testified in court that Maria was the one who identified
Juan as the accused during a police lineup. Is the police officer’s testimony
admissible evidence to prove the identity of the killer, Juan? (a) Yes, since it is
based on his personal knowledge of Andy’s identification of the accused; (b.) Yes,
since it constitutes an independently relevant statement; (c.) No, since the police
had the accused identified without warning him of his rights; and (d) No, since the
testimony is hearsay.

10. What is a verbal act?