I

a. Yes, although n criminal cases, the burden of proving guilt is always the plaintiff/prosecution. But
if the accused sets up an affirmative defense, the burden is on him to prove such by “clear,
affirmative and strong evidence” The foregoing rests on the maxim: EL INCOMBIT PROBOTION
QUI DECIT NON QUI NEGAT ( He who asserts, not he who denies, must prove}
b. Upon interposing the justifying circumstance of self-defense, A assumed the burden of proving
the justification of his act with clear and convincing evidence. This is because his having admitted
the killing required him to rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the
Prosecution’s evidence, which, even if it were weak, could not be disbelieved in view of his
admission.
c. The Equipoise Rule: where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, the case will be resolved
against the plaintiff, thus in criminal cases the accused must be acquitted and in civil cases, the
complaint must be dismissed.
d. Doctrine of pro reo. Rem. Law. [The doctrine that] where the evidence on an issue of fact is in
question or there is doubt on whichside the evidence weighs, the doubt should be resolved in
favor of the accused. [People v. Abarquez, GR 150762, 20 Jan. 2006,479 SCRA 225, 239]. Such
doctrine only applies to criminal cases.

II

a. Yes, Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that 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.
b. The same section also provides that if documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by
the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record.

III

1. If I were the judge I will deny the motion. Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of formal
offer must be made as soon as the witness begins to testify as provided by Section 36 of the
Amended Rules of Evidence
2. Yes, the court can validly consider in evidence the shabu even if it was not formally offered since
it was properly identified by the testimony of B and such object is properly marked and
incorporated in the records.
3. The offer of the testimony of a witness in evidence must be made at the time the witness is called
to testify. While the offer of documentary and object evidence shall be made after the
presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence.
 IV

1. The kind of evidence that the prosecution offer and the court consider as far as its ability to
establish the fact that A was the author of the crime are circumstantial evidence. They are
evidence of collateral facts or circumstances from which an inference may be drawn as to the
probability or improbability of the fact in dispute.
2. The requisites in order that circumstantial evidence will be sufficient to warrant a judgment of
conviction are the following:
a. There is more than one circumstances;
b. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.
3. I will apply for the DNA testing order as provided in Section 4 of the Rules on DNA Evidence which
provide to wit:
“Sec. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order. – The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu
proprio or on application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order
a DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing
of the following:
a. A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
b. The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now
requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require
confirmation for good reasons;
c. The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
d. The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant
to the proper resolution of the case; and
e. The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially
affecting the accuracy of integrity of the DNA testing.
This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order, at the behest of
any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced.”
4. I will offer as evidence the result of the DNA Test
5. (Diri ako hin I sure) I will refute the accuracy of the DNA results by attacking:
a. The chair of custody, including how the biological samples were collected, how they were
handled, and the possibility of contamination of the samples;
b. The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the
advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the scientifically valid
standards in conducting the tests;
c. The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable standards-setting
institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If the laboratory is
not accredited, the relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility
shall be properly established; and
d. The reliability of the testing result, as provided in section 8 of the Rules on DNA Evidence.
 V

1. A can move for the court to declare such witness as an unwilling or hostile witness.
2. If the Court Rules in favour of A, a can now profound leading or misleading questions.
3. The party may not impeach his or her own witness except with respect to an unwilling or
hostile witness and a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing
agent of a public or private corporation, or of a partnership or association which is an adverse
party.
4. A proponent can ask leading questions on his own witness on the following circumstances:
a. On cross examination;
b. On preliminary matters;
c. When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is
ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
d. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
e. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public
or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.
5. The following are objectionable questions:
a. Asked and Answered
b. Argumentative
c. Irrelevant
d. Questions outside the scope of cross-examination
e. Extrapolation questions (Assumes fact not in evidence)