PRACTICE COURT 2

1. (a)
(a) Wha
Whatt iiss the
the hear
hearsa
sayy rul
rule? 
e? 

  ANS:  Hearsay evidence may be defned as evidence that consists o tesmony not 
coming rom personal knowledge. Hearsay tesmony is the tesmony o a witness as to
what he has heard other persons say about the acts in issue.

(b) What are the excepons to the hearsay rule? 

 ANS: 
1. Dying Declaraon;
2. Declaraon against interest;
3. Act or declaraon about pedigree;
4. Family reputaon or tradion regarding pedigree;
5. Common reputaon;
6. Res Gestae;
7. Entries in the ordinary course o business;
8. Entries in ocial records;
9. Commercial lists and the like;
10. Learned treases; and 
11. Tesmony or deposion at a ormer proceedings.

2. What are the requirements in order that an admission o guilt o an accused during a
custodial invesgaon be admied in evidence? 

 ANS: Requisites or admissibility:

1. The admission must be voluntary.
2. The admission must be in wring.

3. The admission must be made with the assistance o competent, independent 

counsel.
4. The admissi
admission
on must be express to counsel,
counsel, such waiver
waiver must be in wring,
wring,
executed with the assistance o competent,
competent, independent counsel.

3. Give the requisites o a dying declaraon.

 ANS: 
(a) the de
decla
clara
raon
on is made
made by the deceas
deceased
ed under
under the consc
consciou
iousne
sness
ss o his
impending death;
(b) the deceased was at the me competent as a witness;
(c) the declara
declaraon
on concerns
concerns the cause
cause and surround
surrounding
ing circumsta
circumstances
nces o the
declarant's death; and 

(d) the
subject declaraon is oered in a (criminal) case wherein the declarant's death is the
o Inquiry.
 

4. Disnguish clearly but briey between:

(a) Burden o proo and burden o evidence.
 ANS:
Burden o proo is the duty o a party to present evidence on the acts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or deense by the amount o evidence required by law.
(Sec. 1 o Rule 131), while burden o evidence is the duty o a party to go orward with
the evidence to overthrow prima
prima acie evidence established
established against him.

(b) Hearsay and Opinion evidence.

 ANS:
Hearsay evidence consists o tesmony that is not based on personal knowledge o 
the person tesying, (see Sec. 36, Rule 130), while opinion evidence is expert evidence
based on the personal knowledge skill, experience or training o the person tesying
(Sec. 49, Id.) and evidence o an ordinary witness on limited maers (Sec. 50, Id.).

(c) Questons of law and queston of fac.

ANS:

A queston
of facs, of lawisarises
while here whenof
a queston here
fac is doub
when heasdoub
o wha he as
arises llaw
aw
oishe
on ruh
a cerain sae
of falsiy
of he alleged facs. For a queston o be one of law, he same mus no involve an
examinaton of he probatve value of he evidence presened by he litgans or any of 
hem. The resoluton of he issue mus res solely on wha he law provides on he given
se of circumsances. Once i is clear ha he issue invies a review of he evidence
presened, he queston posed is one of fac.

5. Disnguish ormal oer o evidence rom ormal oer o proo (oer o excluded 
evidence).
 ANS:
Formal oer o evidence reers either to the oer o the tesmony
tesmony o a witness prior 

to the has
 party laer’s tesmony,
presented
presente or to the oer
d his tesmonial o the documentar
evidence. documentaryy and
Oer o proo, object
is the evidence
process aer aa
by which
 proponent o excluded evidence tenders the same. I what has been excluded is
tesmonial evidence, the tender is made by stang or the record the name and other 
 personal circumstances
circumstances o the proposed witness and the substance o his proposed 
proposed 
tesmony. I the evidence excluded is documentary or o things, the oer o proo is
made by having the same aached to or made a part o the record.  

6. In a prosecuon
prosecuon or murder, the prosecutor asks accused Darwin i he had been previously arrested 
 o
 orr viola
la
on o the An
An- Gra and Corrupt Pr
Pra
acces Act. As deense counsel, you object. The trial 
court asks you on what ground/s. Respond.
 ANS:

The objecon
is irrelevant is on the ground
and immaterial to thethat the act
oense undersought to be elicited
prosecuon by the
and trial. prosecuon
Moreover, the
 

Rules do not allow the prosecuon to adduce evidence o bad moral character o the
accused pernent to the oense charged, except on rebual and only i it involves a
 prior convicon
convicon by fnal judgment 
judgment 

7. Blinded by extreme jealousy, Alberto shot his wie, Bey, in the presence o his sister,
Carla.
Carla. Carla
Carla brought
brought Bey
Bey to the hospital.
hospital. Outside
Outside the operan
operang
g room,Car
room,Carlala told 
Domingo, a male nurse, that it was Alberto who shot Bey. Bey died while undergoing
emergen
eme rgency
cy surgery.
surgery. At the trial o the parricide
parricide charges fled against Alberto,
Alberto, the
 prosecutor sought
sought to present Domingo as witness, to tesy on what Carla told him. The
deense counsel objected on the ground that Domingo’s tesmony is inadmissible or 
being hearsay. Rule on the objecon with reasons.
 ANS:
Objecon overruled. The disclosure received
received by Domingo and Carla may be regarded 
as independently relevant statement which is not covered by the hearsay rule; hence
admissible. The statement may be received not as evidence o the truth o what was
stat
stated
ed bubutt on
only
ly as to the
the teno
tenorr ther
thereo
eo and
and th
the
e oc
occu
curr
rren
ence
ce when
when it was
was said
said,,
independently
independent ly o whether it was true or alse.

8. Bembol
vicm
vicm’s atwas
’s athe r, charged
her, during withprelim
during the rape.
pre Bembol’s
limina
inary ather,
ry inves
invesga
gaon
on Ramil,
and approached
oere
oeredd Ph p Artemon,
Php 1 mi
millio nthe
llion to
 Artemon to sele the case. Artemon reused the oer. During the trial, the prosecuon
 presented Artemon
Artemon to tesy
tesy on Ramil’s oer
oer and thereby
thereby establish an
an implied admission
admission
o guilt. Is Ramil’s oer to sele admissible in evidence?
 ANS:
Yes, the oer to sele by the ather o the accused, is admissible in evidence as an
implied admission o guilt.

9. The mulated cadaver o a woman was discovered near a creek. Due to witnesses aesng
that he was the last person seen with the woman when she was sll alive, Carlito was arrested 
within fve hours aer the discovery o the cadaver and brought to the police staon. The crime

laboratory
broke downdetermined that
in the presence othe woman had
an assisng been
counsel raped.
orally While to
conessed in the
police custody, that
invesgator Carlito
he
had raped and killed the woman,detailing the acts he had perormed up to his dumping
o the body near the creek. He was genuinely remorseul. During the trial,the state
 presented the invesgator
invesgator to tesy on the oral conession o Carlito. Is the oral 
conession admissible
admissible in evidence o guilt? 
 ANS:
The declaraon o the accused expressly acknowledging his guilt, in the presence o 
assisng counsel, may be given in evidence against him and any person, otherwise
competent to tesy as a witness, who heard the conession is competent to tesy as to
the substance o what he heard and understood it. What is crucial here is that the
accused was inormed o his right to an aorney and that what he says may be used in

evidence counsel,
assisng against Carlito
him. As the custodial
is deemed conession
ully aware was given in o
o the consequences
consequences thehispresence
statemeno
ts.an
statements.
 

10. Romeo is sued or damages or injuries suered by the plain in a vehicular 
accident. Julieta, a witness in court, tesfes that Romeo told her (Julieta) that he
(Romeo) heard Antonio, a witness to the accident, give an excited account o the
accident
accident immediate
immediatelyly aer
aer its occurren
occurrence.
ce. Is Julieta’s
Julieta’s tesmony
tesmony admissib
admissible
le against 
against 
Romeo over proper and mely objecon? Why?

 ANS:No, Julieta’s tesmony is not admissible against Romeo, because while the excited
account o Antonio, a witness
witness to the accident,
accident, was told
told to Romeo, it was
was only Romeo
who told Julieta about it, which makes it hearsay.

11. “S” is indebted to a bank. When the obligaons falls due, he fails to pay and the
bank sues for collecon. As part of the evidence of the bank, the accountant of “S” is
placed on the stand and in the course of his examinaon he is asked, in turn, is also
indebted to the bank. The lawyer of “S” interposes an objecon to the queson on the
ground that it is impernent. If you were the judge, how would you rule on the
objecon?
ANS:

12. May a private document be oered and admied in evidence both as documentary 

evidence and as object evidence? 
 ANS:
Yes,, it can be consi
Yes consider
dered
ed as both
both docum
documenentar
taryy and object
object evide
evidence
nce.. A privat
private
e
document may be oered and admied in evidence both as documentary evidence and 
as object evidence. A document can also be considered as an object or purposes o the
case. Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses o the court. Documentary 
evidence consists o wrings or any material containing leers, words, numbers, fgures,
symbols or other modes o wrien expressions, oered as proo o their contents. Hence,
Hence,
a private document may be presented as object evidence in order to establish certain
 physical evidence or characteriscs
characteriscs that are visible on the paper and wrings that 

comprise the document.

13. A resident of America, who came here from massachuses, made a will where he
stated that, in form, it is executed in accordance with Massachuses law. The will,
instu
instung
ng his lipin
lipino
o widow
widow as his sole heir,
heir, would
would not be valid
valid in form
form ununder
der
Philippine Law. Upon his death, the widow presented the will to the Regional Court of 
Iloilo. Probate was objected to by distant relaves of the testator in California. The
Judge has studied in Harvard, and was familiar with Massachussets Law. Without the
introd
introduc
ucon
on of for
forma
mall eviden
evidence,
ce, he grante
granted
d proba
probate,
te, stang
stang,, that
that the will
will was,
was,
indeed, executed in accordance with Massachuses law. How should the maer be
resolved on appeal? Explain your answer.
ANS:
 

14. Explain briey whether the Regional Court may, motu proprio, take judicial noce o 
the ordinances approved by municipalies under its territorial jurisdicon.
 ANS:
In the absence o statutory authority, the RTC may not take judicial noce o 
ordinance
ordinancess approved
approved by municipa
municipalies
lies under
under their territorial
territorial jurisdic
jurisdicon,
on, except
except on
appeal rom the municipal trial courts, which took judicial noce o the ordinance in

queson.
15. During the custodial invesgaon at the Western Police District, Mario Margal was
inorm
inormed
ed o his cons
constu
tuona
onall right
right to remain
remain sil
silen
entt and to hahave
ve compet
competent
ent an
and 
d 
independent counsel. He decided to waive his right to counsel and proceeded to make a
statement adming commission o a robbery. In the same statement, he implicated 
 Antonio Carreon, his co-conspirator
co-conspirator in the crime. Is the tesmony o Mario Margal 
 Admissible against
against Carreon as an excepon
excepon to the res
res inter alios acta
acta rule? 
 ANS:
No, because even assuming that the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than the
statement o Margal, the statement was made a ter the conspiracy had ceased.

16.
casePedro
couldwas charged
be tried, the with
heirshomicide
o Ramonor having
sought hacked
out PedroRamon to death.
and discussed Beore
with him the
the
 possibility o selement
selement o the case. Pedro agreed to selement. When the heirs asked 
how much he was willing to pay, Pedro oered Php 30,000.00 which the heirs accepted.
Is the agreement to sele, as well as the oer to pay Php 30,000.00 by Pedro, admissible
in evidence against him as in implied admission o guilt? 
 ANS:
Yes. Under the Rules on Evidence, in criminal cases which are not allowed by law to
be compromised, an oer o compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as
an implied admission o guilt. Since a criminal case or homicide is not allowed by law to
be compromised, Pedro’s oer o P 30,000 or the selement o the case, which the heirs
accepted, is admissible in evidence against him as an implied admission o guilt.

17. ANS: Yes, he newspaper clipping is admissible in evidence agains X. regardless of 
he ruh or falsiy of a saemen, he hearsay rule does no apply and he saemen
may be shown where he fac ha i is made is relevan. Evidence as o he making of 
such saemen is no secondary bu primary, for he saemen iself may constue a
fac in issue or be circumsantally
circumsantally relevan as o he exisence of such fac.

18. Fallen by a bullet upon being fred at, Santos beore expiring told Romeo, a passer by 
who came to his rescue, “I was shot by Pablo Cruz, our neighbor.” May Romeo’s
tesmony on what was told him by Santos be oered and admied in evidence in the
separate civil acon or damages brought by the heirs against Pablo Cruz? 
 ANS:
 

The statement is admissible. A dying declaraon, as in the acts in the case at bar,
may be oered in a civil case provided that the cause and circumstances o the death o 
the declarant are the
the subjects o inquiry.

19. As Cicero was walking down a dark alley one midnight, he saw an “owner-type
 jeepney” approaching
approaching him. Sensing that the occupants o the vehicle were up to no

good, he darted
the Western into
Police a corner
District and
gave a ran.
chaseThe
andoccupants o thehim.
apprehended vehicle
The were
policeelements rom
apprehended 
Cicero, risked him and ound a sachet o 0.09 gram o shabu tucked in his waist and 
Swiss knie in his secret pocket, and detained him thereaer. Is the arrest and body 
search legal? Explain.
 ANS:
No. The arrest and the body search were not legal. In this case, Cicero did not run
because the occupants o the vehicle idenfed themselves as police ocer. He darted 
into the corner and ran upon the belie that the occupants were up to no good.
Cicero’s act o running did not show any reasonable ground to believe that a crime
has been commied or is about to be commied or the police ocers to apprehend him
and conduct body search. Hence, the arrest was illegal as it does not all under any o 

the circumstances or a valid warrantless arrest.

20. In a prosecuon
prosecuon or rape, the deense relied on Deoxyribonucleic
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) evidence
showing that the semen ound in the private part o the vicm was not idencal with
that o the accused’s. As private prosecutor, how will you dispute the veracity and 
accuracy o the results o the DNA evidence? 
ANS:
 As a private prosecutor,
prosecutor, I shall try to discredit the results o the DNA test by 
queson
ques oning
ing and possibly
possibly impugnin
impugningg the integrity
integrity o the DNA profle
profle by showing
showing a
 aw/error in obtaining the biological sample obtained; the tesng methodology 
methodology 
emplo
em ploye
yed;
d; the scien
scienfc
fc st stand
andard
ard obser
observe
ved;
d; the oren
orensic
sic DNA labora
laborator
toryy which
which
conducte
cond uctedd the test; and the qualifcaon,
qualifcaon, training
training and experienc
experiencee o the orensic
orensic

laboratory personnel who conducted the DNA tesng.

21. Policemen brought Lorenzo to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) and requested 
one o its surgeons to immediately perorm surgery on him to retrieve a packet o 10 grams
o shabu which they alleged to have swallowed by Lorenzo. Suppose the PGH agreed to,
and did perorm the surgery is the package o shabu admissible in evidence? Explain.(3%)
 ANS:
No, the package o shabu extracted rom the body o Lorenzo is not admissible in
evidence because it was obtained through surgery which connotes orcible invasion into
the body o Loren
Lorenzozo witho
without ut his consent
consent an
andd ab
absen
sentt due proces
process.
s. The act o the
 policemen and the PGH surgeon involved, violate the undamental rights o Lorenzo, the
suspect.
 

22. A was accused o having rape X. Rule on the admissibility o the ollowing pieces o 
evidence:
(a) An oer o A to marry X; and 
(b) A pair o short pants allegedly le by A at the crime scene which the court, over 
the objecon o A, required him to put on, and when he did he ft him well.
 ANS:

(a) A's
because rapeoer to are
cases marry
notXallowed
is admissible in evidence as an Implied admission o guilt 
to be compromised.
(b) The pair o short pants, which ft the accused well, is circumstanal evidence o 
his guilt, although standing alone it cannot be the basis o convicon. The accused 
cannot object to the court requiring him to put the short pants on. It is not part o his
right against sel-incriminaon because it is a mere physical act.

23. I the accused on the witness stand repeats his earlier uncounseled extrajudicial 
conession implicang his co-accused in the crime charge. Is the tesmony admissible
admissible in
evidence against the laer? 
 ANS:
Yes. The accused
accused can tesy by repeang
repeang his earlier
earlier uncounse
uncounseled
led extrajud
extrajudicial 
icial 

conession, because he can be subjected to cross-examinao

cross-examinaon.
n.
24. What is the probave value o a witness’ Adavit o Recantaon? 
 ANS:
On the probave value o an adavit o recantaon, courts look with disavor upon
recanta
recantaons
ons because
because they can easily
easily be secured
secured rom witnesses,
witnesses, usually through
through
inmida
inm idaon
on or or a monetary
monetary considerao
consideraon,
n, Recanted
Recanted tesmony
tesmony is exceedin
exceedingly 
gly 
unreliable. There is always the probability 

25. What are the two kinds o objecons? Explain each briey. Give an example o each.
 ANS:
Formal and substanve
substanve Objec
Objecons
ons.. A ormal objecon is one directed against the alleged deect in

the ormulaon
ormulaon o the queson. Examples o deec
deecvely ormulated quesons: ambiguous queson;
leading and misleading quesons; repeou
repeouss quesons; mulply
mulply quesons; argumentave
argumentave quesons.
 A substanve objec
jecon are objec
jecons madmade and dirire
ected again
insst the very nature o the evid
ide
ence
nce, i.e
i.e., it 
is in admissible either because
because it is irrelevant
irrelevant or incompetent
incompetent or both. Examples:
Examples: parol;
parol; not the best 
evidence; hearsay privileged communicaon
communicaon not authencated;
authencated; opinion; res inter alios acta

Two kinds o objecons are: (1) the evidence being presented is not relevant to the
issue; and (2) the evidence is incompetent or excluded by the law or the rules.
 An example o the frst is when the prosecuon oers as evidence the alleged oer 
o an Insurance company to pay or the damages suered by the vicm in a homicide
case. Examples o the second are evidence obtained in violaon o the Constuonal 
 prohibion against unreasonable
unreasonable searches and seizures and conessions and admissions

in violaon o the rights o a person under custodial Invesgaon.

 

 ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
ANSWERS:
1) Specifc objectons:  Example: parol evidence and best evidence rule
Objectons:  Example: connuing objecons.
General Objectons:
2) The two kinds o objecons are: (1) objecton o a queston propounded in he course
o he oral examinaton o he winess and (2) objecton o an oer o evidence in
writng. Objecon to a queson propounded in the course o the oral examinaon o a

witness
witne ss shall
apparent sha llerwise,
oth be made
otherwise, it is as soon An
waived. as oer
the r grounds
oe ground s thereo
thereor
o objecon r shall
sha
ngll shall
in wring
wri become
becobe
memade
reasonably 
reasonably 
within
three (3) days aer noce o the oer, unless a dierent period is allowed by the court.
In both instances the grounds or objecon must be specifed. An example o the frst is
when the witness is being cross-examined and the cross examinaon is on a maer not 
relevant. An example o the second is that the evidence oered is not the best evidence.

26. Give the reasons underlying the adopon o the ollowing rules o evidence:
(a) DEAD MAN RULE: i death has closed the lips o one party, the policy o the law is to
close the lips o the other. This is to prevent the temptaon to perjury because death has
already sealed the lips o the party.
(b) PAROL EVIDENCE RULE: It is designed to give certainty to a transacon which has

been reduced
than that whichtorests
wring, because
on eeng wrienonly.
memory evidence is much more certain and accurate
(c) BEST EVIDENCE RULE: This Rule is adopted or the prevenon o raud and is declared 
to be essenal to the pure administraon o jusce. I a party is in possession o such
evidence and withholds it, the presumpon naturally arises that the beer evidence is
withheld or raudulent purposes.
(d) The rule agains he adm admissio
ission
n o illeg
illegally
ally obained
obained exrajud
exrajudicial conession:  An
icial conession:
illegally obtained extrajudicial conession nullifes the intrinsic validity o the conession
and renders it unreliable as evidence o the truth. It is the ruit o a poisonous tree.
(e) The rule agains he admission o an oer o compromise in civil case: The reason
 or the rule against the
the admission o an oer
oer o comprom
compromise ise in civil case as an admission
admission
o any liability is that pares are encouraged to enter into compromises. Courts should 

endeavor
During
Dur to rial,
ing pre-tpersuade
pre-tria thesh
l, courts
courts ligants
shoul
ould dirin
ecta civil
d direct the case
the tos agree
pare
pares upon
to consid
con ersome
sider the air compromise.
possib
possibilit
ilityy o an
amicable selement.

27. Disnguish extrajudicial admission rom extrajudicial conession in criminal case.

 ANS: 
 An extrajudicial admission is a statement o o   act which does not directly involve an
acknowledgment
acknowledgm ent o gui
guilt
lt or cr
crimi
imina
nall intent
intent,, while
while an extra
extrajud
judicia
iciall con 
con es
essi
sion
on is a
declaraon o an accused that he has commied or parcipated in the commission o a
crime.

 AS TO NATURE.  Extrajudicial admission is a statement o acts which does not 

involv
involve
e an acknow
acknowled
ledgm
gment
ent o guilt,
guilt, while
while in extraj
extrajudi
udicia
ciall cone
conessi
ssion
on it involv
involves
es
acknowledgment o guilt.
acknowledgment
 

 AS TO APPLICABILITY. Admission is applicable to civil transacons

transacons and to maers o 
 act in criminal cases not involving criminal intent, while in conession is applicable only 
in acknowledgment o guilt in criminal cases.

MADE. Admission may be made by third person, while conession can

 AS TO WHOM MADE.

be made by the party himsel.

 AS TO MANNER. Admission may be express or implied, while conession is always
express.

28. In the examinaon

examinaon o witness, what is meant by “laying the predicate”? 
 ANS:
“Laying the predicate” is the procedure o impeaching a witness by evidence o prior 
inconsistent statements. Beore such witness can be impeached, the prior statements
must be related to him, with the circumstances o the mes and places and the persons
 present, and must be asked whether he made such statements,
statements, and i so, allowed to
explain them. I the statements be in wring they must be shown to him beore any 

queson is put to him concerning them.

29. At A’s trial or murder, the deense aempts to present as its witness the vicm’s
widow, X. She is to tesy that just beore B died, she approached his sprawled and 
bloodied husband and asked who stabbed him. B, conscious o his impending death,
named Y as his assailant. The prosecuon moves to stop X rom tesying because her 
tesmony: (1) is hearsay, and (2) will be violave o the rule on privileged marital 
communicaon. Rule on the prosecuon’s moon. Explain.
 ANS:
I will deny the prosecuon's moon. The tesmony o X is admissible as a dying
declaraon, which is an excepon to the hearsay rule. Moreover, it is not a privileged 
marital communicaon.
communicaon.

30. X charged with rape with homicide, oered Php 100,000.00 as amicable selement 
to the amily
amily o the vicm.
vicm. The amily
amily re reus
used
ed.. Durin
During
g th
the
e tri
trial,
al, the prosecu
prosecuo
on
n
 presented in evidence X’s oer o compromise.
compromise. What is the legal implicaon o such
oer? Explain.
 ANS:
The oer o Php 100,000.00 as amicable selement in a criminal case or rape with
homicide is an implied admission o guilt. It does not all within the excepons o quasi-
oenses or those allowed by law to be compromised.

31. A sued or annulment o his marriage with B. During trial, A oered in evidence
cassee tapes o alleged telephone conversaon o B with her lover. The tapes were

recordings made by tapping A’s telephone line, with A’s consent and obviously without 
B’s or her lover’s. B vehemen
vehemently
tly objected to their admission, on the ground that neither B
 

nor her lover consented to the wire tap. The court admied the tapes, ruling that the
recorded conversaons are nonetheless relevant to the issues involved. Was the court 
correct in adming the cassee tapes in evidence? Explain.
 ANS:
No, because the tape recordings made by tapping A’s telephone line without the
consent o B or that o her lover was a violaon o the An-Wire Tapping Law.

32. Explain the equipoise doctrine in the law o evidence and cite its constuonal and 
 procedural basis. basis.
 ANS:
Equipose
Equipos e is the equivalentequivalent o equiponder
equiponderance ance o evidence.
evidence. When the scale
s h a l l stand uponupon an equipose
equipose and there
there is nothing
nothing in the evidence
evidence which shall
shall incline
incline it to one
one side or 
the other,
other, the court will fnd or the deend deendant
ant.. The Constu
Constuon provide
providess that
that no person
person shall
shall be
depr
deprivived
ed o lilie
e,, llib
iber
erty
ty or prop
proper
erty
ty witho
w ithout
ut due process
proc ess o law, nor shallshal l any person
perso n be denied 
deni ed 
th
thee equ
e qualal pr
prot otec eco
on n o
o tthe
he law. Burden
Burden o proo
proo is the duty
duty o a party
party to presen
presentt evidenc
evidencee on the
 a
 accts in is
isssue neces cessary to establish his claim or deense by the am amount
ount o evidence req required 
uired 
by law.
In a criminal case its constuonal
constuonal basis is the presumpon
presumpon o innocence and the requirement o 

 pr
 pro
oo bey
beyond reasonable doubt or convic
ic
on.
33. What is the dierence between broadside objecon and a specifc objecon to the
admission o documentary evidence? 
 ANS:
 A broadside objecon is one which does not speciy the ground or objecon or is a
General
Gene ral objecon
objecon such as “incompe
“incompetent
tent,, irreleva
irrelevant
nt and immateria
immaterial”,
l”, while a specifc
specifc
objecon is limited to a parcular ground.

34. Al was accused o raping Lourdes.

Lourdes. Only Lourdes tesfed on how the crime was
 perpetrated.
 perpetrated. On the other hand, the deense presented Al’s wie, son and daughter to
tesy that Al was with them when the alleged crime took place. The prosecuon

interposed mely
witnesses’ close objeconipto
relaonsh
relaonship thethe
with tesmonies
accused. Ionyou
thewere
ground
the o obvious
Judge: bias due
(1) How wouldto you
the
rule
rule on th the
e ob
obje
jec
con
on?? An
Andd (2)
(2) Will
Will the
the act
act th
that
at th
the
e ve
versrsio
ion
n o ththe
e de
dee
ens
nse
e is
corroborated by three witnesses suce to acquit Al? Why? 
 ANS:
(1). I would overrule
overrule the objecon. Close relaonship
relaonship to a party is not a ground to disqualiy
disqualiy a
witness.
(2). No. Witnesses are not numbered but weighed. Posive idenfcaon prevails
over the deense o alibi. Alibi is easily abricated and must be proved clearly and 
convincingly.

35. Bener was the driver o the car that the police searched and rom where they seized 

a rie and a number o shells. Bener assails the legality o the search and seizure on the
 

ground that he is not the owner o the car nor o the seized items. Rule on Bener’s
contenon.
ANS:
Bener’s contenon is not correct. The mere act that he is not the owner o the car 
nor o the seized items does not have any eect on the legality o the search. I Bener is
accused o illegal possession o frearms, his deense would be that he is only the driver 

o the without
made car and ahesearch
knowswarrant,
nothinghe
o can
the seized items,
say that they and
wereiill
the seizure
illegally
egally o theand
obtained items was
cannot 
be admissible in court.
36. On th the
e ba
basisiss o the
the tes
tesmo
monie
niess o PDEA
PDEA agagen
ents
ts,, JaJame
mess an
and
d St
Step
ephe
hen,
n, who
who
spearheaded the buy bust operaon by posing as buyers aer a p rom a civilian
inormer, Steve, accused Bob was convicted o violaon o the Dangerous Drugs Act. On
appea
app eal,
l, Bob
Bob claims
claims that
that he is entle
entledd to an acqui
acquial
al as the prosecu
prosecuoonn wilul
wilully 
ly 
suppressed evidence in not presenng the inormer, Steve, in court. Decide on Bob’s
contenon.
ANS:
The non-presentaon o the confdenal inormant is not atal to the prosecuon’s
case. The presentaon o the inormant is not a requisite in the prosecuon o drug

cas
cases.
es.
succes
suc Hisl prosec
cessu
sul prese
presecu
prosenta
ntao
on
onn becau
uon is ause
bec not
seessena
essen
his al
l orony
tesm
tesmony convico
convicon
ldn mere
would
wou no
norrely
me r ly
is it
beindisp
indispens
ensabl
corro
cor able
robor e eor
borav
ave a
and 
cumulave.
 
37. Wh
Whenen Toma
Tomass was
was sabbe
sabbedd on he chches
es during
during a sree
sree brawl,
brawl, he instnc
instnctve
tvely
ly
shoued for help. Emil who was nearby heard he shou and rushed o Tomas’ side who
when asked by Emil wha happened, saed ha Kulas sabbed him. Tomas died on
accoun of he sab wound. Could Emil’s estmony be received o identfy Kulas?
ANS:
Yes, Emil’s estmony may be received o identfy Kulas because he saemen of 
Tomas who has jus been sabbed on he ches ha Kulas sabbed him is admissible as
par of he res gesae.

38. The day beore the stabbing vicm died, he idenfed posively to the police the
 person who stabbed him. When he was asked by the police i he was going to die
because o his wounds, he answered that he did not know. Is the idenfcaon by the
deceased admissible as ante-mortem statement and an excepon to the hearsay rule? 
Explain.
 ANS:
Yes. The statement o the vicm idenying the person who had stabbed him is
admissib
admi ssible
le as a dying declarao
declaraon.
n. The statement
statement was made with consciousne
consciousness
ss o 
impending death, since the vicm said that he did not know i he was going to survive
because o the many stab wounds he sustained were
were very painul and in act he died two
days later.
 

39. X was arreste

arrested
d for the al
alleg
leged
ed murde
murderr of a 6-year
6-year old boy.
boy. He was read his
Miranda rights immediately
immediately upon being apprehended. In the course of his detenon, X
was subjected to three hours non-stop interrogaon. He remained quiet unl, on the
3rd hour, he answered “yes” to the queson of whether “he prayed for forgiveness for
shoong down the boy.” The trial court, interpreng X’s answer as an admission of 
guilt, convicted him. On appeal, X’s counsel faulted the trial court in its interpretaon

of his client’s answer, arguing that X invoked his Miranda rights when he remained
quiet for the rst two hours of quesoning. Rule on the assignment of error.
ANS:

40. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE i the statement is true, or FALSE i the statement is
 alse. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences: The Vallejo standard 
reers to jurisprudenal norms considered by the court in assessing the probave value
o DNA evidence.
ANS:
TRUE. In People vs. Vallejo, 382 SCRA192
SCRA192 (2002), it was held that in assessin
assessing
g the
 probave value o DNA evidence,courts
evidence,courts should consider among other things, the
 ollowing data: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility 

o contaminaon
 ollowed o thethe
in conducng samples, whether
tests and the properostandards
the qualifcaon and
the analyst procedures
who conductedwere
the
test.