Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

Compiled 1997 to 2006; 2014 to 2016 Bar Questions & Suggested Answers in Remedial Law: Rules on Evidence

Page |1

1997 to 2006 the City Prosecutor against both arrestees before the MM RTC.
May the written statements signed and sworn to by Max and
Brix be admitted by the trial court as evidence for the
Admissibility (1998) prosecution? Reason. (5%)
The barangay captain reported to the police that X was illegally
keeping in his house in the barangay an Armalite M16 rifle. On SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the strength of that information, the police conducted a search No. The sworn written statements of Max and Brix may not be
of the house of X and indeed found said rifle. The police raiders admitted in evidence, because they were not assisted by
seized the rifle and brought X to the police station. During the counsel. Even if the police captain before whom they signed the
investigation, he voluntarily signed a Sworn Statement that he statements was a lawyer, he was not functioning as a lawyer,
was possessing said rifle without license or authority to nor can he be considered as an independent counsel. Waiver of
possess, and a Waiver of Right to Counsel. During the trial of X the right to a lawyer must be done in writing and in the
for illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution submitted in presence of independent counsel. (People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA
evidence the rifle. Sworn Statement and Waiver of Right to 455 11999]; People v. Espiritu, 302 SCRA 533 [1999]).
Counsel, individually rule on the admissibility in evidence of
the: Admissibility; Admission of Guilt; Requirements (2006)
1. Rifle; [2%] What are the requirements in order that an admission of guilt of
2. Sworn Statement; and [2%1 an accused during a custodial investigation be admitted in
3. Waiver of Right to Counsel of X. [1%] evidence? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:


1. The rifle is not admissible in evidence because it was seized 1. The admission must be voluntary.
without a proper search warrant. A warrantless search is 2. The admission must be in writing.
not justified. There was time to secure a search warrant. 3. The admission must be made with the assistance of
(People vs. Encinada, 1997). competent, independent counsel.
2. The sworn statement is not admissible in evidence because 4. The admission must be express (People v. Prinsipe, G.R. No.
it was taken without informing him of his custodial rights 135862, May 2, 2002).
and without the assistance of counsel which should be 5. In case the accused waives his rights to silence and to
independent and competent and preferably of the choice of counsel, such waiver must be in writing, executed with the
the accused. (People vs. Januario, 267 SCRA 608) assistance of competent, independent counsel.
3. The waiver of his right to counsel is not admissible because
it was made without the assistance of counsel of his choice. Admissibility; Document; Not raised in the Pleading (2004)
(People vs. Gomez, 270 SCRA 433) In a complaint for a sum of money filed before the MM RTC,
plaintiff did not mention or even just hint at any demand for
Admissibility (2002) payment made on defendant before commencing suit. During
Acting on a tip by an informant, police officers stopped a car the trial, plaintiff duly offered Exh. "A" in evidence for the stated
being driven by D and ordered him to open the trunk. The purpose of proving the making of extrajudicial demand on
officers found a bag containing several kilos of cocaine. They defendant to pay P500.000, the subject of the suit. Exh. "A" was
seized the car and the cocaine as evidence and placed D under a letter of demand for defendant to pay said sum of money
arrest. Without advising him of his right to remain silent and to within 10 days from receipt, addressed to and served on
have the assistance of an attorney, they questioned him defendant some two months before suit was begun. Without
regarding the cocaine. In reply, D said, I dont know anything objection from defendant, the court admitted Exh. "A" in
about it. It isnt even my car. D was charged with illegal evidence. Was the court's admission of Exh. "A" in evidence
possession of cocaine, a prohibited drug. Upon motion of D, the erroneous or not? Reason. (5%)
court suppressed the use of cocaine as evidence and dismissed
the charges against him. D commenced proceedings against the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
police for the recovery of his car. In his direct examination, D
The court's admission of Exh. "A" in evidence is not erroneous.
testified that he owned the car but had registered it in the name
It was admitted in evidence without objection on the part of the
of a friend for convenience. On cross-examination, the attorney
defendant. It should be treated as if it had been raised in the
representing the police asked, After your arrest, did you not tell
pleadings. The complaint may be amended to conform to the
the arresting officers that it wasnt your car? If you were Ds
evidence, but if it is not so amended, it does not affect the result
attorney, would you object to the question? Why? (5%)
of the trial on this issue. (Sec. 5 of Rule 10).

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Admissibility; Electronic Evidence (2003)


Yes, because his admission made when he was questioned after a) State the rule on the admissibility of an electronic
he was placed under arrest was in violation of his constitutional evidence.
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have b) When is an electronic evidence regarded as being the
competent and independent counsel of his own choice. Hence, it equivalent of an original document under the Best
is inadmissible in evidence. (Constitution, Art. III, sec. 12; R.A. Evidence Rule? 4%.
7438 (1992), sec, 2; People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: (a) Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term writing,
Yes, because the question did not lay the predicate to justify the document, record, instrument, memorandum or any other
cross-examination question. form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an
electronic document as defined in these Rules. (Sec. 1 of
Admissibility (2004) Rule 3, Rules of Electronic Evidence effective August 1,
Sgt. GR of WPD arrested two NPA suspects, Max and Brix, both 2001).
aged 22, in the act of robbing a grocery in Ermita. As he
handcuffed them he noted a pistol tucked in Max's waist and a An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it
dagger hidden under Brix's shirt, which he promptly complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the
confiscated. At the police investigation room, Max and Brix Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the
orally waived their right to counsel and to remain silent. Then manner prescribed by these Rules. (Sec. 2 of Rule 3, Id.).
under oath, they freely answered questions asked by the police The authenticity of any private electronic document must
desk officer. Thereafter they signed their sworn statements be proved by evidence that it had been digitally signed and
before the police captain, a lawyer. Max admitted his part in the other appropriate security measures have been applied.
robbery, his possession of a pistol and his ownership of the (Sec. 2 of Rule 5, Id.).
packet of shabu found in his pocket. Brix admitted his role in
the robbery and his possession of a dagger. But they denied (b) An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent
being NPA hit men. In due course, proper charges were filed by of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it
Compiled 1997 to 2006; 2014 to 2016 Bar Questions & Suggested Answers in Remedial Law: Rules on Evidence
Page |2
is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, not offered by the accused but by the insurance company
shown to reflect the data accurately. (Sec. 1 of Rule 4) which is not his agent.

Admissibility; Objections (1997) Admissibility; Private Document (2005)


What are the two kinds of objections? Explain each briefly. May a private document be offered, and admitted in evidence
Given an example of each. both as documentary evidence and as object evidence? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:


Two kinds of objections are: (1) the evidence being presented is Yes, it can be considered as both documentary and object
not relevant to the issue; and (2) the evidence is incompetent or evidence. A private document may be offered and admitted in
excluded by the law or the rules, (Sec. 3, Rule 138). An example evidence both as documentary evidence and as object evidence.
of the first is when the prosecution offers as evidence the A document can also be considered as an object for purposes of
alleged offer of an Insurance company to pay for the damages the case. Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses
suffered by the victim in a homicide case. (See 1997 No. 14). of the court. (Sec. 1, Rule 130, Rules of Court) Documentary
evidence consists of writings or any material containing letters,
Examples of the second are evidence obtained in violation of the words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written
Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and expressions, offered ns proof of their contents. (Sec. 2, Rule 130,
seizures and confessions and admissions in violation of the Rules of Court) Hence, a private document may be presented as
rights of a person under custodial Investigation. object evidence in order to 'establish certain physical evidence
or characteristics that are visible on the paper and writings that
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS: comprise the document.
1. Specific objections: Example: parol evidence and best
evidence rule General Objections: Example: continuing Admissibility; Proof of Filiation; Action of Partition (2000)
objections (Sec. 37 of Rule 132). Linda and spouses Arnulfo and Regina Ceres were co-owners of
2. The two kinds of objections are: (1) objection to a question a parcel of land. Linda died intestate and without any issue. Ten
propounded in the course of the oral examination of the (10) persons headed by Jocelyn, claiming to be the collateral
witness and (2) objection to an offer of evidence in writing. relatives of the deceased Linda, filed an action for partition with
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the the RTC praying for the segregation of Lindas share,
oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the submitting in support of their petition the baptismal certificates
grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent of seven of the petitioners, a family bible belonging to Linda in
otherwise, it is waived. An offer of objection in writing shall which the names of the petitioners have been entered, a
be made within three (3) days after notice of the offer, photocopy of the birth certificate of Jocelyn, and a certification
unless a different period is allowed by the court. In both of the local civil registrar that its office had been completely
instances the grounds for objection must be specified. An razed by fire. The spouses Ceres refused to partition on the
example of the first is when the witness is being cross- following grounds: 1) the baptismal certificates of the parish
examined and the cross examination is on a matter not priest are evidence only of the administration of the sacrament
relevant. An example of the second is that the evidence of baptism and they do not prove filiation of the alleged
offered is not the best evidence. collateral relatives of the deceased; 2) entry in the family bible is
hearsay; 3) the certification of the registrar on non-availability
Admissibility; Offer to Marry; Circumstantial Evidence of the records of birth does not prove filiation: 4) in partition
(1998) cases where filiation to the deceased is in dispute, prior and
A was accused of having raped X. Rule on the admissibility of separate judicial declaration of heirship in a settlement of estate
the following pieces of evidence: proceedings is necessary; and 5) there is need for publication as
1. an offer of A to marry X; and (3%] real property is involved. As counsel for Jocelyn and her co-
2. a pair of short pants allegedly left by A at the crime which petitioners, argue against the objections of the spouses Ceres so
the court, over the objection of A, required him to put on, as to convince the court to allow the partition. Discuss each of
and when he did, it fit him well. [2%] the five (5) arguments briefly but completely. (10%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:


1. A's offer to marry X is admissible in evidence as an Implied 1. The baptismal certificate can show filiation or prove
admission of guilt because rape cases are not allowed to be pedigree. It is one of the other means allowed under the
compromised. (Sec. 27 of Rule 13O; People vs. Domingo, Rules of Court and special laws to show pedigree. (Trinidad
226 SCRA 156.) v. Court of Appeals, 289 SCRA 188 [1998]; Heirs of
2. The pair of short pants, which fit the accused well, is ILgnacio Conti v. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 345 [1998]).
circumstantial evidence of his guilt, although standing 2. Entries in the family bible may be received as evidence of
alone it cannot be the basis of conviction. The accused pedigree. (Sec. 40, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
cannot object to the court requiring him to put the short 3. The certification by the civil registrar of the non-availability
pants on. It is not part of his right against self- of records is needed to justify the presentation of secondary
incrimination because it is a mere physical act. evidence, which is the photocopy of the birth certificate of
Jocelyn. (Heirs of Ignacio Conti v. Court of Appeals, supra.)
Admissibility; Offer to Pay Expenses (1997) 4. Declaration of heirship in a settlement proceeding is not
necessary. It can be made in the ordinary action for
A, while driving his car, ran over B. A visited B at the hospital
partition wherein the heirs are exercising the right
and offered to pay for his hospitalization expenses. After the
pertaining to the decedent, their predecessor-in-interest, to
filing of the criminal case against A for serious physical injuries
ask for partition as co-owners (Id.)
through reckless imprudence. A's insurance carrier offered to
5. Even if real property is involved, no publication is
pay for the injuries and damages suffered by B. The offer was
necessary, because what is sought is the mere segregation
rejected because B considered the amount offered as
inadequate. a) Is the offer by A to pay the hospitalization of Lindas share in the property. (Sec. 1 of Rule 69; Id.)
expenses of B admissible in evidence? b) Is the offer by A's
insurance carrier to pay for the injuries and damages of B Admissibility; Rules of Evidence (1997)
admissible in evidence? Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules
of evidence:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) Dead Man Rule
a) The offer by A to pay the hospitalization expenses of B is (b) Parol Evidence Rule
not admissible in evidence to prove his guilt in both the (c) Best Evidence Rule
civil and criminal cases. (Rule 130, Sec. 27, fourth par.). (d) The rule against the admission of illegally obtained
extrajudicial confession
b) No. It is irrelevant. The obligation of the insurance
(e) The rule against the admission of an offer of compromise in
company is based on the contract of insurance and is not
civil cases
admissible in evidence against the accused because it was
Compiled 1997 to 2006; 2014 to 2016 Bar Questions & Suggested Answers in Remedial Law: Rules on Evidence
Page |3
SUGGESTED ANSWER: D was prosecuted for homicide for allegedly beating up V to
The reasons behind the following rules are as follows: death with an iron pipe.
(a) DEAD MAN RULE: if death has closed the lips of one party, a. May the prosecution introduce evidence that V had a good
the policy of the law is to close the lips of the other. (Goni v. reputation for peacefulness and nonviolence? Why? (2%)
Court of Appeals, L-77434. September 23, 1986, 144 SCRA b. May D introduce evidence of specific violent acts by V?
222). This is to prevent the temptation to perjury because Why? (3%)
death has already sealed the lips of the party. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) PAROL EVIDENCE RULE: It is designed to give certainty to a. The prosecution may introduce evidence of the good or even
a transaction which has been reduced to writing, because bad moral character of the victim if it tends to establish in
written evidence is much more certain and accurate than any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of
that which rests on fleeting memory only. (Francisco, Rules the offense charged. [Rule 130, sec. 51 a (3)]. In this case,
of Court Vol. VII, Part I. p. 154) the evidence is not relevant.
(c) BEST EVIDENCE RULE: This Rule is adopted for the b. Yes, D may introduce evidence of specific violent acts by V.
prevention of fraud and is declared to be essential to the Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one
pure administration of justice. (Moran, Vol. 5, p. 12.) If a time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the
party is in possession of such evidence and withholds it, same or a similar thing at another time; but it may be
the presumption naturally arises that the better evidence is received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity,
withheld for fraudulent purposes. (Francisco. Rules of plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
Court, vol. VII. Part I, pp, 121,122) (Rule 130, sec. 34).
(d) An illegally obtained extrajudicial confession nullifies the
intrinsic validity of the confession and renders it unreliable Confession; Affidavit of Recantation (1998)
as evidence of the truth. (Moran, vol. 5, p. 257) it is the fruit 1. If the accused on the witness stand repeats his earlier
of a poisonous tree. uncounseled extrajudicial confession implicating his co-
(e) The reason for the rule against the admission of an offer of accused in the crime charged, is that testimony admissible
compromise in civil case as an admission of any liability is in evidence against the latter? [3%]
that parties are encouraged to enter into compromises. 2. What is the probative value of a witness' Affidavit of
Courts should endeavor to persuade the litigants in a civil Recantation? [2%]
case to agree upon some fair compromise. (Art. 2029, Civil
Code). During pre-trial, courts should direct the parties to SUGGESTED ANSWER:
consider the possibility of an amicable settlement. (Sec. 1[a] 1. Yes. The accused can testify by repeating his earlier
of former Rule 20: Sec. 2 [a] of new Rule 16). uncounseled extrajudicial confession, because he can be
subjected to cross-examination.
Best Evidence Rule (1997) 2. On the probative value of an affidavit of recantation, courts
When A loaned a sum of money to B. A typed a single copy of look with disfavor upon recantations because they can
the promissory note, which they both signed A made two photo easily be secured from witnesses, usually through
(xeroxed) copies of the promissory note, giving one copy to B intimidation or for a monetary consideration, recanted
and retaining the other copy. A entrusted the typewritten copy testimony is exceedingly unreliable. There is always the
to his counsel for safekeeping. The copy with A's counsel was probability that it will be repudiated. (Molina vs. People.
destroyed when the law office was burned. 259 SCRA 138.)
a) In an action to collect on the promissory note, which is
deemed to be the "original" copy for the purpose of the Facts; Legislative Facts vs. Adjudicative Facts (2004)
"Best Evidence Rule"? Legislative facts and adjudicative facts.
b) Can the photocopies in the hands of the parties be
considered "duplicate original copies"? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) As counsel for A, how will you prove the loan given to A and Legislative facts refer to facts mentioned in a statute or in an
B? explanatory note, while adjudicative facts are facts found in a
court decision.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The copy that was signed and lost is the only "original" Hearsay Evidence (2002)
copy for purposes of the Best Evidence Rule. (Sec. 4 [b] of Romeo is sued for damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiff
Rule 130). in a vehicular accident. Julieta, a witness in court, testifies that
Romeo told her (Julieta) that he (Romeo) heard Antonio, a
b) No, they are not duplicate original copies because there are witness to the accident, give an excited account of the accident
photocopies which were not signed (Mahilum v. Court of immediately after its occurrence. Is Julietas testimony
Appeals, 17 SCRA 482), they constitute secondary admissible against Romeo over proper and timely objection?
evidence. (Sec. 5 of Rule 130). Why? (5%)

c) The loan given by A to B may be proved by secondary SUGGESTED ANSWER:


evidence through the xeroxed copies of the promissory No, Julietas testimony is not admissible against Romeo,
note. The rules provide that when the original document is because while the excited account of Antonio, a witness to the
lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the accident, was told to Romeo, it was only Romeo who told Julieta
offerer, upon proof of its execution or existence and the about it, which makes it hearsay.
cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part,
may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its
contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony
of witnesses in the order stated. (Sec. 5 of Rule 130).

Burden of Proof vs. Burden of Evidence (2004)


Distinguish Burden of proof and burden of evidence.
Hearsay Evidence vs. Opinion Evidence (2004)
Hearsay evidence and opinion evidence.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the
facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
amount of evidence required by law. (Sec. 1 of Rule 131), while Hearsay evidence consists of testimony that is not based on
burden of evidence is the duty of a party to go forward with the personal knowledge of the person testifying, (see Sec. 36, Rule
evidence to overthrow prima facie evidence established against 130), while opinion evidence is expert evidence based on the
him. (Bautista v. Sarmiento, 138 SCRA 587 [1985]). personal knowledge skill, experience or training of the person
testifying (Sec. 49, Id.) and evidence of an ordinary witness on
limited matters (Sec. 50, Id.).
Character Evidence (2002)
Compiled 1997 to 2006; 2014 to 2016 Bar Questions & Suggested Answers in Remedial Law: Rules on Evidence
Page |4
that a witness may testify on his impressions of the emotion,
Hearsay; Exception; Dead Man Statute (2001) behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
Maximo filed an action against Pedro, the administrator of the
estate of deceased Juan, for the recovery of a car which is part
of the latters estate. During the trial, Maximo presented Hearsay; Exceptions (1999)
witness Mariano who testified that he was present when a) Define hearsay evidence? (2%)
Maximo and Juan agreed that the latter would pay a rental of b) What are the exceptions to the hearsay rule? (2%)
P20,000.00 for the use of Maximos car for one month after
which Juan should immediately return the car to Maximo. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pedro objected to the admission of Marianos testimony. If you a) Hearsay evidence may be defined as evidence that consists
were the judge, would you sustain Pedros objection? Why? (5%) of testimony not coming from personal knowledge (Sec. 36,
Rule 130, Rules of Court). Hearsay testimony is the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: testimony of a witness as to what he has heard other
No, the testimony is admissible in evidence because witness persons say about the facts in issue.
Mariano who testified as to what Maximo and Juan, the b) The exceptions to the hearsay rule are: dying declaration,
deceased person agreed upon, is not disqualified to testify on declaration against interest, act or declaration about
the agreement. Those disqualified are parties or assignors of pedigree, family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree,
parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is common reputation, part of the res gestae, entries in the
prosecuted, against the administrator or Juans estate, upon a course of business, entries in official records, commercial
claim or demand against his estate as to any matter of fact lists and the like, learned treatises, and testimony or
occurring before Juans death. (Sec. 23 of Rule 130) deposition at a former proceeding. (37 to 47, Rule 13O,
Rules of Court)
Hearsay; Exception; Dying Declaration (1998)
Requisites of Dying Declaration. [2%) Hearsay; Exceptions; Dying Declaration (1999)
The accused was charged with robbery and homicide. The
SUGGESTED ANSWER: victim suffered several stab wounds. It appears that eleven (11)
The requisites for the admissibility of a dying declaration are: (a) hours after the crime, while the victim was being brought to the
the declaration is made by the deceased under the hospital in a jeep, with his brother and a policeman as
consciousness of his impending death; (b) the deceased was at companions, the victim was asked certain questions which he
the time competent as a witness; (c) the declaration concerns answered, pointing to the accused as his assailant. His answers
the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's were put down in writing, but since he was a in a critical
death; and (d) the declaration is offered in a (criminal) case condition, his brother and the policeman signed the statement.
wherein the declarant's death is the subject of inquiry. (People Is the statement admissible as a dying declaration? Explain.
vs. Santos, 270 SCRA 650.) (2%)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:


The declaration of a dying person, made under the Yes. The statement is admissible as a dying declaration if the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any victim subsequently died and his answers were made under the
case wherein his death is the subject of Inquiry, as evidence of consciousness of impending death (Sec. 37 of Rule 130). The fact
the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. (Sec. that he did not sign the statement point to the accused as his
37 of Rule 13O.) assailant, because he was in critical condition, does not affect
its admissibility as a dying declaration. A dying declaration need
not be in writing (People v. Viovicente, 286 SCRA 1)
Hearsay; Exception; Res Gestae; Opinion of Ordinary
Witness (2005)
Hearsay; Inapplicable (2003)
Dencio barged into the house of Marcela, tied her to a chair and
X was charged with robbery. On the strength of a warrant of
robbed her of assorted pieces of jewelry and money. Dencio then
arrest issued by the court, X was arrested by police operatives.
brought Candida, Marcela's maid, to a bedroom where he raped
They seized from his person a handgun. A charge for illegal
her. Marcela could hear Candida crying and pleading: "Huwag!
possession of firearm was also filed against him. In a press
Maawa ka sa akin!" After raping Candida, Dencio fled from the
conference called by the police, X admitted that he had robbed
house with the loot. Candida then untied Marcela and rushed
the victim of jewelry valued at P500,000.00.
to the police station about a kilometer away and told Police
Officer Roberto Maawa that Dencio had barged into the house of
The robbery and illegal possession of firearm cases were tried
Marcela, tied the latter to a chair and robbed her of her jewelry
jointly. The prosecution presented in evidence a newspaper
and money. Candida also related to the police officer that
clipping of the report to the reporter who was present during
despite her pleas, Dencio had raped her. The policeman noticed
the press conference stating that X admitted the robbery. It
that Candida was hysterical and on the verge of collapse.
likewise presented a certification of the PNP Firearms and
Dencio was charged with robbery with rape. During the trial,
Explosive Office attesting that the accused had no license to
Candida can no longer be located. (8%)
carry any firearm. The certifying officer, however, was not
a) If the prosecution presents Police Officer Roberto Maawa to
presented as a witness. Both pieces of evidence were objected to
testify on what Candida had told him, would such
by the defense. (6%)
testimony of the policeman be hearsay? Explain.
a. Is the newspaper clipping admissible in evidence against X?
b. Is the certification of the PNP Firearm and Explosive Office
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
without the certifying officer testifying on it admissible in
No. The testimony of the policeman is not hearsay. It is part of
evidence against X?
the res gestae. It is also an independently relevant statement.
The police officer testified of his own personal knowledge, not to
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the truth of Candida's statement, i.e., that she told him, despite
(a) Yes, the newspaper clipping is admissible in evidence
her pleas, Dencio had raped her. (People v. Gaddi,G.R. No.
against X. regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement,
74065, February 27,1989)
the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be
shown where the fact that it is made is relevant. Evidence
b) If the police officer will testify that he noticed Candida to be
as to the making of such statement is not secondary but
hysterical and on the verge of collapse, would such
primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in
testimony be considered as opinion, hence, inadmissible?
issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of
Explain.
such fact. (Gotesco Investment Corporation vs. Chatto, 210
SCRA 18 [1992])
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) Yes, the certification is admissible in evidence against X
No, it cannot be considered as opinion, because he was
because a written statement signed by an officer having the
testifying on what he actually observed. The last paragraph of
custody of an official record or by his deputy that after
Sec. 50, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Evidence, expressly provides
Compiled 1997 to 2006; 2014 to 2016 Bar Questions & Suggested Answers in Remedial Law: Rules on Evidence
Page |5
diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a accompanied. If the record is not kept in the Philippines,
certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that with a certificate that such officer has the custody, if the
the records of his office contain no such record or entry. office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the
(Sec. 28 of Rule 132). certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular
agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the
Judicial Notice; Evidence (2005) Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the
Explain briefly whether the RTC may, motu proprio, take judicial record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office
notice of: (5%) (Sec. 24, Rule 132, Zalamea v. CA, 228 SCRA 23).
1. The street name of methamphetamine hydro-chloride is (c) The presumption is that the wordings of the foreign law are
shabu. the same as the local law. (Northwest Orient Airlines v.
2. Ordinances approved by municipalities under its territorial Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 192; Moran, Vol. 6. page 34,
jurisdiction; 1980 edition; Lim v. Collector of Customs, 36 Phil. 472).
3. Foreign laws; This is known as the PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION.
4. Rules and Regulations issued by quasi-judicial bodies
implementing statutes; Offer of Evidence (1997)
5. Rape may be committed even in public places. A trial court cannot take into consideration in deciding a case
an evidence that has not been "formally offered". When are the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: following pieces of evidence formally offered?
1. The RTC may motu proprio take judicial notice of the street a. Testimonial evidence
name of methamphetamine hydrochloride is shabu, b. Documentary evidence
considering the chemical composition of shabu. (People v. c. Object evidence
Macasling, GM, No. 90342, May 27, 1993)
2. In the absence of statutory authority, the RTC may not SUGGESTED ANSWER:
take judicial notice of ordinances approved by a. Testimonial evidence is formally offered at the time the
municipalities under their territorial jurisdiction, except on witness is called to testify. (Rule 132. Sec. 35, first par.).
appeal from the municipal trial courts, which took judicial b. Documentary evidence is formally offered after the
notice of the ordinance in question. (U.S. v. Blanco, G.R, presentation of the testimonial evidence. (Rule 132, Sec. 35,
No. 12435, November 9,1917; U.S. v. Hernandez, G.R. No. second par.).
9699, August 26, 1915) c. The same is true with object evidence. It is also offered
3. The RTC may not generally take judicial notice of foreign after the presentation of the testimonial evidence.
laws (In re Estate of Johnson, G.R. No. 12767, November
16, 1918; Fluemer v. Hix, G.R. No. 32636, March 17, 1930), Offer of Evidence; res inter alios acta (2003)
which must be proved like any other matter of fact (Sy Joe X and Y were charged with murder. Upon application of the
Lieng v. Sy Quia, G.R. No. 4718, March 19, 1910) except in prosecution, Y was discharged from the Information to be
a few instances, the court in the exercise of its sound utilized as a state witness. The prosecutor presented Y as
judicial discretion, may take notice of foreign laws when witness but forgot to state the purpose of his testimony much
Philippine courts are evidently familiar with them, such as less offer it in evidence. Y testified that he and X conspired to
the Spanish Civil Code, which had taken effect in the kill the victim but it was X who actually shot the victim. The
Philippines, and other allied legislation. (Pardo v. Republic, testimony of Y was the only material evidence establishing the
G.R. No. L2248 January 23, 1950; Delgado v. Republic, guilt of X. Y was thoroughly cross-examined by the defense
G.R. No. L2546, January .28, 1950) counsel. After the prosecution rested its case, the defense filed a
4. The RTC may take judicial notice of Rules and Regulations motion for demurrer to evidence based on the following
issued by quasi-judicial bodies implementing statutes, grounds.
because they are capable of unquestionable demonstration
(Chattamal v. Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 16347, (a) The testimony of Y should be excluded because its purpose was
November 3,1920), unless the law itself considers such not initially stated and it was not formally offered in
rules as an integral part of the statute, in which case evidence as required by Section 34, Rule 132 of the Revised
judicial notice becomes mandatory. Rules of Evidence; and
5. The RTC may take judicial notice of the fact that rape may (b) Ys testimony is not admissible against X pursuant to the rule
be committed even in public places. The "public setting" of on res inter alios acta. Rule on the motion for demurrer to
the rape is not an indication of consent. (People v. Tongson, evidence on the above grounds. (6%)
G.R. No. 91261, February 18, 1991)
6. The Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of the fact SUGGESTED ANSWER:
that a man overcome by perversity and beastly passion The demurrer to the evidence should be denied because:
chooses neither the time, place, occasion nor victim. a. The testimony of Y should not be excluded because the
(People v, Barcelona, G.R. No. 82589, October 31, 1990) defense counsel did not object to his testimony despite
the fact that the prosecutor forgot to state its purpose
Judicial Notice; Evidence; Foreign Law (1997) or offer it in evidence. Moreover, the defense counsel
a) Give three instances when a Philippine court can take thoroughly cross-examined Y and thus waived the
judicial notice of a foreign law. objection.
b) How do you prove a written foreign law? b. The res inter alios acta rule does not apply because Y
c) Suppose a foreign law was pleaded as part of the defense of testified in open court and was subjected to cross
defendant but no evidence was presented to prove the examination.
existence of said law, what is the presumption to be taken
by the court as to the wordings of said law"? Parol Evidence Rule (2001)
Pedro filed a complaint against Lucio for the recovery of a sum
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of money based on a promissory note executed by Lucio. In his
(a) The three instances when a Philippine court can take complaint, Pedro alleged that although the promissory note says
judicial notice of a foreign law are: (1) when the Philippine that it is payable within 120 days, the truth is that the note is
courts are evidently familiar with the foreign law (Moran. payable immediately after 90 days but that if Pedro is willing, he
Vol. 5, p. 34, 1980 edition); (2) when the foreign law refers to may, upon request of Lucio give the latter up to 120 days to pay
the law of nations (Sec. 1 of Rule 129) and (3) when it refers the note. During the hearing, Pedro testified that the truth is
to a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on the that the agreement between him and Lucio is for the latter to
subject of law if the court takes judicial notice of the fact pay immediately after ninety days time. Also, since the original
that the writer thereof is recognized in his profession or note was with Lucio and the latter would not surrender to Pedro
calling as expert on the subject (Sec. 46. Rule 130). the original note which Lucio kept in a place about one days
(b) A written foreign law may be evidenced by an official trip from where he received the notice to produce the note and
publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer in spite of such notice to produce the same within six hours
Compiled 1997 to 2006; 2014 to 2016 Bar Questions & Suggested Answers in Remedial Law: Rules on Evidence
Page |6
from receipt of such notice, Lucio failed to do so. Pedro allowed. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina, 26S SCRA
presented a copy of the note which was executed at the same 198.)
time as the original and with identical contents.
a) Over the objection of Lucio, will Pedro be allowed to testify Privilege Communication; Marital Privilege (2000)
as to the true agreement or contents of the promissory Vida and Romeo are legally married. Romeo is charged to court
note? Why? (2%) with the crime of serious physical injuries committed against
b) Over the objection of Lucio, can Pedro present a copy of the Selmo, son of Vida, stepson of Romeo. Vida witnessed the
promissory note and have it admitted as valid evidence in infliction of the injuries on Selmo by Romeo. The public
his favor? Why? (3%) prosecutor called Vida to the witness stand and offered her
testimony as an eyewitness. Counsel for Romeo objected on the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: ground of the marital disqualification rule under the Rules of
a) Yes, because Pedro has alleged in his complaint that the Court.
promissory note does not express the true intent and a. Is the objection valid? (3%)
agreement of the parties. This is an exception to the parol b. Will your answer be the same if Vidas testimony is offered
evidence rule. [Sec. 9(b) of Rule 130, Rules of Court] in a civil case for recovery of personal property filed by
b) Yes, the copy in the possession of Pedro is a duplicate Selmo against Romeo? (2%)
original and with identical contents. [Sec. 4(b) of Rule 130].
Moreover, the failure of Lucio to produce the original of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
note is excusable because he was not given reasonable a. No. While neither the husband nor the wife may testify for
notice, as requirement under the Rules before secondary or against the other without the consent of the affected
evidence may be presented. (Sec. 6 of Rule 130, Rules of spouse, one exception is if the testimony of the spouse is in
Court) a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the
other or the latters direct descendants or ascendants. (Sec,
Note: The promissory note is an actionable document and the 22, Rule 130). The case falls under this exception because
original or a copy thereof should have been attached to the Selma is the direct descendant of the spouse Vide.
complaint. (Sec. 7 of Rule 9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). In b. No. The marital disqualification rule applies this time. The
such a case, the genuineness and due execution of the note, if exception provided by the rules is in a civil case by one
not denied under oath, would be deemed admitted. (Sec. 8 of spouse against the other. The case here involves a case by
Rule 9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) Selmo for the recovery of personal property against Vidas
spouse, Romeo.
Preponderance vs. Substantial Evidence (2003)
Distinguish preponderance of evidence from substantial Privilege Communication; Marital Privilege (2004)
evidence. 4% XYZ, an alien, was criminally charged of promoting and
facilitating child prostitution and other sexual abuses under
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rep. Act No. 7610. The principal witness against him was his
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE means that the evidence as a Filipina wife, ABC. Earlier, she had complained that XYZ's hotel
whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the other. This was being used as a center for sex tourism and child trafficking.
is applicable in civil cases. (Sec. 1 of Rule 133; Municipality of The defense counsel for XYZ objected to the testimony of ABC at
Moncada v. Cajuigan, 21 Phil, 184 [1912]). the trial of the child prostitution case and the introduction of
the affidavits she executed against her husband as a violation of
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is that amount of relevant evidence espousal confidentiality and marital privilege rule. It turned out
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a that DEF, the minor daughter of ABC by her first husband who
conclusion. This is applicable in case filed before administrative was a Filipino, was molested by XYZ earlier. Thus, ABC had filed
or quasi-judicial bodies. (Sec. 5 of Rule 133) for legal separation from XYZ since last year. May the court
admit the testimony and affidavits of the wife, ABC, against her
husband, XYZ, in the criminal case involving child prostitution?
Privilege Communication (1998)
Reason. (5%)
C is the child of the spouses H and W. H sued his wife W for
judicial declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Family Code. In the trial, the following testified over the
objection of W: C, H and D, a doctor of medicine who used to Yes. The court may admit the testimony and affidavits of the
treat W. Rule on W's objections which are the following: wife against her husband in the criminal case where it involves
a) H cannot testify against her because of the rule on marital child prostitution of the wife's daughter. It is not covered by the
privilege; [1%] marital privilege rule. One exception thereof is where the crime
b) C cannot testify against her because of the doctrine on is committed by one against the other or the latter's direct
parental privilege; and [2%] descendants or ascendants. (Sec. 22, Rule 130). A crime by the
c) D cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of husband against the daughter is a crime against the wife and
privileged communication between patient and physician. directly attacks or vitally impairs the conjugal relation. (Ordono
[2%] v. Daquigan, 62 SCRA 270 [1975]).

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Privilege Communication; Marital Privilege (2006)


a) The rule of marital privilege cannot be invoked in the Leticia was estranged from her husband Paul for more than a
annulment case under Rule 36 of the Family Code because year due to his suspicion that she was having an affair with
it is a civil case filed by one against the other, (Sec. 22, Rule Manuel their neighbor. She was temporarily living with her
130. Rules of Court.) sister in Pasig City. For unknown reasons, the house of Leticia's
b) The doctrine of parental privilege cannot likewise be sister was burned, killing the latter. Leticia survived. She saw
invoked by W as against the testimony of C, their child. C her husband in the vicinity during the incident. Later he was
may not be compelled to testify but is free to testify against charged with arson in an Information filed with the Regional
her. (Sec. 25. Rule 130. Rules of Court; Art. 215, Family Trial Court, Pasig City. During the trial, the prosecutor called
Code.) Leticia to the witness stand and offered her testimony to prove
c) D, as a doctor who used to treat W, is disqualified to testify that her husband committed arson. Can Leticia testify over the
against W over her objection as to any advice or treatment objection of her husband on the ground of marital privilege?
given by him or any information which he may have (5%)
acquired in his professional capacity. (Sec. 24 [c], Rule 130.
Rules of Court.) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Leticia cannot testify over the objection of her husband, not
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: under marital privilege which is inapplicable and which can be
If the doctor's testimony is pursuant to the requirement of waived, but she would be barred under Sec. 22 of Rule 130,
establishing the psychological incapacity of W, and he is the which prohibits her from testifying and which cannot be waived
expert called upon to testify for the purpose, then it should be (Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, October 14, 2005).
Compiled 1997 to 2006; 2014 to 2016 Bar Questions & Suggested Answers in Remedial Law: Rules on Evidence
Page |7
(c) Yes, after formally submitting his evidence, the plaintiff can
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: recall a witness with leave of court. The court may grant or
Yes, Leticia may testify over the objection of her husband. The withhold leave in its discretion as the interests of justice
disqualification of a witness by reason of marriage under Sec. may require. (Sec. 9. Rule 132).
22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court has its exceptions as
where the marital relations are so strained that there is no more Witness; Examination of Witnesses (2002)
harmony to be preserved. The acts of Paul eradicate all major Is this question on direct examination objectionable: What
aspects of marital life. On the other hand, the State has an happened on July 12, 1999? Why? (2%)
interest in punishing the guilty and exonerating the innocent,
and must have the right to offer the testimony of Leticia over the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
objection of her husband (Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, The question is objectionable because it has no basis, unless
October 14, 2005). before the question is asked the proper basis is laid.

Testimony; Independent Relevant Statement (1999) Witness; Utilized as State Witness; Procedure (2006)
A overheard B call X a thief. In an action for defamation filed by As counsel of an accused charged with homicide, you are
X against B, is the testimony of A offered to prove the fact of convinced that he can be utilized as a state witness. What
utterance i.e., that B called X a thief, admissible in evidence? procedure will you take? (2.5%)
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: As counsel of an accused charged with homicide, the procedure
Yes. The testimony of A who overheard B call X a thief is that can be followed for the accused to be utilized as a state
admissible in evidence as an independently relevant statement. witness is to ask the Prosecutor to recommend that the accused
It is offered in evidence only to prove the tenor thereof, not to be made a state witness. It is the Prosecutor who must
prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. Independently recommend and move for the acceptance of the accused as a
relevant statements include statements which are on the very state witness. The accused may also apply under the Witness
facts in issue or those which are circumstantial evidence Protection Program.
thereof. The hearsay rule does not apply. (See People vs. Gaddi,
170 SCRA 649)

Witness; Competency of the Witness vs. Credibility of the


Witness (2004)
Distinguish Competency of the witness and credibility of the
witness.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Competency of the witness refers to a witness who can perceive,
and perceiving, can make known his perception to others (Sec.
20 of Rule 130), while credibility of the witness refers to a
witness whose testimony is believable.

Witness; Examination of a Child Witness; via Live-Link TV


(2005)
When may the trial court order that the testimony of a child be
taken by live-link television? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The testimony of a child may be taken by live-link television if
there is a substantial likelihood that the child would suffer
trauma from testifying in the presence of the accused, his
counsel or the prosecutor as the case may be. The trauma must
of a kind which would impair the completeness or truthfulness
of the testimony of the child. (See Sec. 25, Rule on Examination
of a Child Witness).

Witness; Examination of Witnesses (1997)


a. Aside from asking a witness to explain and supplement his
answer in the cross-examination, can the proponent ask in
re-direct examination questions on matters not dealt with
during cross-examination?
b. Aside from asking the witness on matters stated in his re-
direct examination, can the opponent in his re-cross-
examination ask questions on matters not dealt with
during the re-direct?
c. After plaintiff has formally submitted his evidence, he
realized that he had forgotten to present what he
considered an important evidence. Can he recall a witness?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, on redirect examination, questions on matters not
dealt with during the cross-examination may be allowed by
the court in its discretion. (Sec. 7 of Rule 132).
(b) Yes, the opponent in his re-cross-examination may also ask
questions on such other matters as may be allowed by the
court in its discretion. (Sec. 8. Rule 132).
Compiled 1997 to 2006; 2014 to 2016 Bar Questions & Suggested Answers in Remedial Law: Rules on Evidence
Page |8
statement despite lack of opportunity to cross-examine
her.

There should be no serious question about the


admissibility against an accused of hearsay where this
hearsay falls under an exception to the hearsay rule,
especially here where the declarant is dead and thus
unavailable to testify. (ANTONIO R. BAUTISTA, BASIC
EVIDENCE 214-215 [2004 ed.]). In U.S. v. Gil, 13 Phil. 530
2014 to 2016 (1909), the Supreme Court upheld dying declarations as an
exception to the confrontation clause since such
declarations have always been regarded as an exception to
2014; QUESTION # 3, (4%): the general rule regarding hearsay evidence.
While passing by a dark uninhabited part of
their barangay, PO2 Asintado observed shadows and heard 2. The argument that the trial court erred in holding
screams from a distance. PO2 Asintado hid himself behind the that Renes statement to the press was a confession which,
bushes and saw a man beating a woman whom he recognized standing alone, would be sufficient to warrant conviction is
as his neighbor, Kulasa. When Kulasa was already in agony, the meritorious.
man stabbed her and she fell on the ground. The man hurriedly
left thereafter. Firstly, Renes statement is not a confession but an
admission. A confession is one wherein a person
PO2 Asintado immediately went to Kulasas rescue. Kulasa, who acknowledges his guilt of a crime, which Rene did not do.
was then in a state of hysteria, kept mentioning to PO2 Secondly, even assuming it is a confession, standing alone
Asintado Si Rene, gusto akong patayin! Sinaksak niya ako! it would not be sufficient to warrant conviction since it is
When PO2 Asintado was about to carry her, Kulasa refused and an extrajudicial confession which is not sufficient ground
said Kaya ko. Mababaw lang to. Habulin mo si Rene. for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus
delicti. (S3 R133).
The following day, Rene learned of Kulasas death and, bothered
by his conscience, surrendered to the authorities with his Nonetheless this was a harmless error since the admission
counsel. As his surrender was broadcasted all over of Rene was corroborated by the testimony of PO2 Asintado
media, Rene opted to release his statement to the press which on Kulasas statement.
goes:
2014; QUESTION # 6, (4%):
I believe that I am entitled to the presumption of A search warrant was issued for the purpose of looking for
innocence until my guilt is proven beyond reasonable unlicensed firearms in the house of Ass-asin, a notorious gun
doubt. Although I admit that I performed acts that may for hire. When the police served the warrant, they also sought
take ones life away, I hope and pray that justice will be the assistance of barangay tanods who were assigned to look at
served the right way. God bless us all. other portions of the premises around the house. In a nipa hut
(Sgd.) thirty (30) meters away from the house of Ass-asin, a barangay
Rene tanod came upon a kilo of marijuana that was wrapped in
newsprint. He took it and this was later used by the authorities
The trial court convicted Rene of homicide on the basis of PO2 to charge Ass-asin with illegal possession of marijuana. Ass-
Asintados testimony, Kulasas statements, and Renes statement asin objected to the introduction of such evidence claiming that
to the press. On appeal, Rene raises the following errors: it was illegally seized. Is the objection of Assasin valid?
1. The trial court erred in giving weight to PO2
Asintados testimony, as the latter did not have any
ANSWER:
personal knowledge of the facts in issue, and
Yes, the objection of Ass-asin is valid. Under the Constitution,
violated Renes right to due process when it
the right of the people against unlawful search is inviolable
considered Kulasas statements despite lack of opportunity
except in cases where a valid search warrant was issued or in
for her cross-examination.
exceptional cases where the law provides for a warrantless
2. The trial court erred in holding that Renes statement to
search. (Sec. 2, Art. III, Constitution). Under the fruit of the
the press was a confession which, standing alone, would be poisonous tree doctrine, items seized by virtue of an unlawful
sufficient to warrant conviction. search are inadmissible in evidence. (Sec. 3[2], Art. III,
Constitution). Here the seizure of the marijuana was illegal
Resolve. since it was not pursuant to a search warrant. The search
warrant was for the search and seizure of unlicensed firearms
ANSWER: not marijuana. Nor would the exception regarding items seized
Renes appeal is denied for lack of merit. under plain view apply. The marijuana was wrapped in
newsprint and clearly not in plain sight. Hence the marijuana
1. The contention that the trial court erred in giving weight may not be introduced in evidence over Ass-asins objection.
to PO2 Asintados testimony since he did not have personal
knowledge of the facts in issue is without merit. The 2014; QUESTION # 13, (4%):
contention in effect challenges Kulasas statement for being A foreign dog trained to sniff dangerous drugs from packages,
hearsay. was hired by FDP Corporation, a door to door forwarder
company, to sniff packages in their depot at the international
Under the Rules of Evidence, a statement made airport. In one of the routinary inspections of packages waiting
immediately subsequent to a startling occurrence is to be sent to the United States of America (USA), the dog sat
excepted from the hearsay rule as part of the res gestae. beside one of the packages, a signal that the package contained
dangerous drugs. Thereafter, the guards opened the package
Here Kulasas statement was made immediately subsequent and found two (2) kilograms of cocaine. The owner of the
to a starling occurrence, that is, her stabbing by Rene, and package was arrested and charges were filed against him.
was made in a state of hysteria, showing that she was During the trial, the prosecution, through the trainer who was
under the influence of the startling occurrence. Hence present during the incident and an expert in this kind of field,
testimony regarding the statement is excepted from the testified that the dog was highly trained to sniff packages to
hearsay rule. determine if the contents were dangerous drugs and the sniffing
technique of these highly trained dogs was accepted worldwide
Since Kulasas statement is an exception to the hearsay and had been successful in dangerous drugs operations. The
rule, Rene cannot complain that his right to due process prosecution moved to admit this evidence to justify the opening
was violated when the trial court considered Kulasas of the package. The accused objected on the grounds that: (i)
the guards had no personal knowledge of the contents of the
Compiled 1997 to 2006; 2014 to 2016 Bar Questions & Suggested Answers in Remedial Law: Rules on Evidence
Page |9
package before it was opened; (ii) the testimony of the trainer of At the trial, Pedro's lawyer objected to the prosecution's use of
the dog is hearsay; and (iii) the accused could not cross- judicial affidavits of her witnesses considering the imposable
examine the dog. Decide. penalty on the offense with which his client was charged.

ANSWER: b.) Is Pedro's lawyer correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit


The accuseds objections are overruled. of Mario? (2%)
c.) Is Pedro's lawyer correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit
The objection that the guards had no personal knowledge of the of Juan? (2%)
contents of the package before it was opened is misplaced. The
one testifying is the trainer not the guards and he had personal At the conclusion of the prosecution's presentation of evidence,
knowledge of the circumstances since he was present during Prosecutor Marilag orally offered the receipt attached to Juan's
the incident. Besides there is no rule of evidence that one judicial affidavit, which the court admitted over the objection of
cannot testify about the contents of a package if he did not have Pedro's lawyer. After Pedro's presentation of his evidence, the
prior personal knowledge of its contents before opening it. court rendered judgment finding him guilty as charged and
holding him civilly liable for P20,000.00.
The objection that the testimony of the trainer of the dog is
hearsay is not valid. Hearsay is an out-of-court declaration Pedro's lawyer seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration of
made by a person which is offered for the truth of the matter the decision asserting that the court erred in awarding the civil
asserted. liability on the basis of Juan's judicial affidavit, a documentary
Here what is involved is a dog who is not a person who can evidence which Prosecutor Marilag failed to orally offer.
make an out-of-court declaration. (Lempert & Saltzburg, A
MODERN APPROACH TO EVIDENCE 370-371 [1982]). A dog is d.) Is the motion for reconsideration meritorious? (2%)
not treated as a declarant or witness who can be cross-
examined. (People v. Centolella, 305 N.Y.S.2d 279). Hence
ANSWERS:
testimony that the dog sat beside the package is not testimony
a.) No, Pedros lawyer is not correct in objecting to the judicial
about an out-of-court declaration and thus not hearsay.
affidavit of Mario. The Judicial Affidavit Rule applies to
criminal actions where the maximum of the imposable
The objection that the accused could not cross-examine the dog
penalty does not exceed six years. The penalty for theft of
is without merit. Under the Constitution, the accuseds right of
property not exceeding P12,000 does not exceed 6 years.
confrontation refers to witnesses. As previously discussed, a
Hence the Judicial Affidavit Rule applies.
dog is not a witness who can be cross-examined.
b.) No, Pedro's lawyer is not correct in objecting to the judicial
affidavit of Juan. The Judicial Affidavit Rule applies with
NOTE: It is urged that utmost liberality be exercised in grading
respect to the civil aspect of the criminal actions, whatever
this number. The answer is not found in Philippine law and
the penalties involved are. Here the purpose of introducing
jurisprudence and even in commentaries by writers on
the judicial affidavit of Juan was to prove his civil liability.
evidence.
c.) No, the motion for reconsideration is not meritorious.
Judicial affidavit is not a documentary evidence but is
testimonial evidence. It is simply a witnesss testimony
2014; QUESTION # 19, (1%): reduced to writing in affidavit form. This is shown by
A vicarious admission is considered an exception to the hearsay Section 6 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule which states that
rule. It, however, does not cover: the offer of testimony in judicial affidavit shall be made at
A. admission by a conspirator the start of the presentation of the witness.
B. admission by a privy
C. judicial admission Hence the motion for reconsideration on the ground that
D. adoptive admission Juans judicial affidavit was a documentary evidence which
was not orally offered is without merit.
ANSWER:
C.
2015; QUESTION # 16:
NOTE: a vicarious admission is an extrajudicial admission. AA, a twelve-year-old girl, while walking alone met BB, a teenage
Hence C is not covered by the rule regarding vicarious boy who befriended her. Later, BB brought AA to a nearby
admissions. shanty where he raped her. The Information for rape filed
against BB states:
2014; QUESTION # 26, (1%): "On or about October 30, 2015, in the City of S.P. and
Parole evidence is an: (1%) within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
A. Agreement not included in the document. accused, a minor, fifteen (15) years old with lewd design
B. Oral agreement not included in the document. and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then
C. Agreement included in the document. and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual
D. Oral agreement included in the document. intercourse with AA, a minor, twelve (12) years old against
the latter's will and consent."

ANSWER:
At the trial, the prosecutor called to the witness stand AA as his
A.
first witness and manifested that he be allowed to ask leading
questions in conducting his direct examination pursuant to the
NOTE: It is suggested that either A or B be considered as Rule on the Examination of a Child Witness. BB's counsel
correct. Strictly speaking parol evidence does not have to be an objected on the ground that the prosecutor has not conducted a
agreement; it is simply any evidence, whether written or oral, competency examination on the witness, a requirement before
which is not contained in a written agreement subject of a case the rule cited can be applied in the case.
and which seeks to modify, alter, or explain the terms of the
written agreement.
b) Is BB's counsel correct? (3%)

XIV. Pedro was charged with theft for stealing Juan's cellphone
In order to obviate the counsel's argument on the competency of
worth P10,000.00. Prosecutor Marilag at the pre-trial submitted
AA as prosecution witness, the judge motu proprio conducted
the judicial affidavit of Juan attaching the receipt for the
his voir dire examination on AA.
purchase of the cellphone to prove civil liability. She also
submitted the judicial affidavit of Mario, an eyewitness who
c) Was the action taken by the judge proper? (2%)
narrated therein how Pedro stole Juan's cellphone.

After the prosecution had rested its case, BB' s counsel filed
with leave a demurrer to evidence, seeking the dismissal of the
Compiled 1997 to 2006; 2014 to 2016 Bar Questions & Suggested Answers in Remedial Law: Rules on Evidence
P a g e | 10
case on the ground that the prosecutor failed to present any John filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to
evidence on BB' s minority as alleged in the Information. Anne on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36
of the Family Code. He obtained a copy of the confidential
d) Should the court grant the demurrer? (3%) psychiatric evaluation report on his wife from the secretary of
the psychiatrist. Can he testify on the said report without
ANSWERS: offending the rule on privileged communication? Explain.
a) No, BBs counsel is not correct. Under the Rules on
Examination of a Child Witness, there is no requirement MY SUGGESTED ANSWER:
that a competency examination of the child witness be Yes, he can testify on the said report without offending the rule
conducted before leading questions may be asked of her. A on privileged communication. Where the person who testifies on
competency examination may be conducted by the court the confidential report of the physician but the husband of the
(not the prosecutor) only if substantial doubt exists as to patient in an annulment of marriage case, the privilege does not
the childs competency to testify. (Section 6, RECW). Here apply. Neither can his testimony be considered a circumvention
there is no showing of any substantial doubt as to the of the prohibition because his testimony cannot have the force
competency of AA to testify. Hence BBs counsel is not and effect of the testimony of the physician who examined the
correct. patient and executed the report (Gonzales v. CA, 1998).
b) No, the action taken by the judge was improper. The Rules
on Examination of a Child Witness, a competency
examination may be conducted by the court only if
substantial doubt exists as to the childs competency to
testify. (Section 6, RECW). Here the judges voir dire is in
effect a competency examination. However there is no
showing of any substantial doubt as to the competency of
AA to testify. Hence the judges action was improper.
c) No the court may not grant the demurrer. Under the Rules
of Criminal Procedure, a demurrer to evidence may be
granted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Even
assuming that minority was not proved, BB may still be
convicted of rape since minority is not an element of rape.

2015; QUESTION # 18 (5%):