Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

EVIDENCE – BAR QUESTIONS – 2017 – FABI Here,Venancio’s statement that it was Arnulfo who shot him is admissible as a dying

declaration. The same related to Venancio’s own death. However, Venancio’s

I. BEST EVIDENCE RULE statement that it was also 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.
Police officers arrested Mr. Druggie in a buy-bust operation and confiscated from
him 10 sachets of shabu and several marked genuine peso bills worth ₱5,000.00 III. IMPROPER IMPEACHEMENT
used as the buy-bust money during the buy-bust operation.
In an attempt to discredit and impeach a Prosecution witness in a homicide case,
At the trial of Mr. Druggie for violation of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous the defense counsel called to the stand a person who had been the boyhood friend
Drug Act of 2002), the Prosecution offered in evidence, among others, photocopies and next-door neighbor of the Prosecution witness for 30 years. One question that
of the confiscated marked genuine peso bills. The photocopies were offered to prove the defense counsel asked of the impeaching witness was: "Can you tell this
that Mr. Druggie had engaged at the time of his arrest in the illegal selling of Honorable Court about the general reputation of the prosecution witness in your
dangerous drugs. community for aggressiveness and violent tendencies?"

Invoking the Best Evidence Rule, Atty. Maya Bang, the defense counsel, objected to Would you, as the trial prosecutor, interpose your objection to the question of the
the admissibility of the photocopies of the confiscated marked genuine peso bills. defense counsel? Explain your answer. (4%)

Should the trial judge sustain the objection of the defense counsel? Briefly explain SUGGESTED ANSWER:
your answer (5%)
Yes, I would object on the ground of improper impeachment.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rule 132, Sec. 11 of the Rules of Court provides that “A witness may be impeached
by the party against whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence
NO. In People vs. Tandoy, the Court rule that Best Evidence Rule does not apply that his general reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or by evidence
to all types of evidence. It does not comprehend object and testimonial evidence. It that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present,
only applies when the evidence is documentary. testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be
shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he
has been convicted of an offense.”
In this case, the photocopies of marked peso bills is object evidence and not
documentary evidence since it is being offered to prove not its contents but its Here the evidence is not on the Prosecution witness’s general reputation for
existence and use in the buy-bust operation. 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
II. DYING DECLARATION untruthfulness. Hence the impeachment was improper.

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.


No, not all the statements of Venancio are admissible as dying declarations.

Rule 130, Sec. 37 of the Rules of Court provides that the declaration of a dying
person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, may be received in
any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and
surrounding circumstances of such death.

I. PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE Dave is on trial for sexual assault of Delly, a law student who sidelines as a call
center agent. Dave offers the testimony of Danny, who says that Dave is known in
the community as a decent and discerning person. The prosecution presents a
Dodo was knocked unconscious in a fist fight with Dindo. He was rushed to the
rebuttal witness, Dovie, who testifies that, if Dave was reputed to be a good person,
emergency room of the Medical City where he was examined and treated by Dr.
that reputation was a misperception because Dave had been previously convicted of
Datu. As he was being examined, a plastic sachet appearing to contain shabu fell
from Dodo's jacket which was on a chair beside him.
Dodo was thus arrested by the same policemen who assisted him to the hospital. At
Dodo's trial, the public prosecutor called Dr. Datu to the witness stand. When the Is Dovie's testimony admissible as to the character of Dave?
public prosecutor asked Dr. Datu as to what he saw in the emergency room, Dodo's
counsel objected, claiming doctor-patient privilege rule.
How would you rule on the objection? (2.5%)
YES, Dovie’s testimony is admissible as to the character of Dave.
Rule 130, Sec. 51 of the Rules of Court provides In Criminal Cases:
I would rule that the objection was improper.

In LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS the Court ruled that In order that the disqualification 1. The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the
by reason of physician-patient privilege be successfully claimed, the following moral trait involved in the offense charged.
2. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character
requisites should concur:
which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.

1. Privilege is claimed in a civil case;

Here, Dave proved his good moral character, by presenting Danny, which is
2. the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged which is sexual assault.
authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
The prosecution, during rebuttal, presented Dovie to prove the bad moral character
3. Person acquired the information while he was attending to the of Dave. Dovie testifies that Dave had been previously convicted of homicide which
patient in his professional capacity; is pertinent to the moral trait in the sexual harassment charged against Dave.
4. Information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity;
5. Information was confidential and if disclosed, would blacken the Hence, since Dovie’s testimony is in accordance with the above rule, it is admissible.
reputation of the patient.

Here, the nature of the case filed against Dodo is a criminal case. According to the
above ruling, doctor-patient privilege may only be claimed in a civil case. Hence, Dr.
Datu may be called by the public prosectutor to the witness stand.


Denny is on trial for homicide. The prosecution calls Danilo, a police officer, who
interviewed the victim, Drew, shortly after the shooting. Danilo's testimony is being
offered by the prosecution for purposes of proving that (i) Drew is now dead; (ii)
while in the emergency room, Drew was posting his medical condition on Facebook
and was "liking" the posts of his Facebook friends; (iii) Drew asked the nurse for
water but was refused because he was bleeding, which subsequently angered Drew;
and (iv) that before dying, Drew signed a statement in which he identified Denny as
the shooter.

Is the proposed testimony of Danilo admissible? (2.5%)