Name: _____________________________________________ Date: ____________

Course & Year: _____________________________________ Score: ___________

RULES ON EVIDENCE
(FINAL EXAM)

Instruction. Multiple Choice. Encircle the correct answer.

1. Inference which the law makes so preemptory that it will not allow them to be overturned by any contrary proof.
A. Presumption
B. Disputable presumption
C. Conclusion
D. Conclusive presumption

2. Logical necessity which rests upon a party at any particular time during the trial to create a prima facie case in his
own favor or to overthrow one created against him.
A. Res gestae
B. Burden of evidence
C. Burden of proof
D. Estoppel

3. A written act or record of acts of a sovereign authority of private writing acknowledge before a notary public
A. Public document
B. Official document
C. Private document
D. Official record

4. Which among the following may disqualify a witness?

A. Capacity of observation
B. Capacity of recollection
C. Capacity of knowledge
D. Capacity of communication

5. 5. Prescribes that governing rules of evidence

A. Revised Penal Code
B. Constitution
C. Rules on Criminal Procedure
D. Rules of Court

6. 6. Factum probans means

A. Evidentiary fact
B. Ultimate fact
C. Weigh of evidence
D. Preponderance of evidence

7. Evidence which has some relation to what is sought to be proved

A. Relevant
B. Material
C. Competent
D. Admissible

8. It affects an issue in an important or substantial matter.

A. Relevant
B. Material
C. Competent
D. Direct

9. Those evidence which are admissible in court are held to be

A. Relevant
B. Material
C. Competent
D. Direct

10. Refers to an evidence of the same kind adduced to prove the same fact
A. Real
B. Cumulative
C. Corroborative
D. Circumstantial
11. Additional evidence of a different kind but tending to prove the same fact
A. Real
B. Cumulative
C. Corroborative
D. Circumstantial

12. Oral testimony given in open court.

A. Real evidence
B. Documentary evidence
C. Testimonial evidence
D. Admission evidence

13. An evidence delivered in open court wherein the witness states that he does not know whether a fact did or did not
occur
A. Positive
B. Negative
C. Direct
D. Circumstantial

14. Evidence which is sufficient to prove an issue unless overcome or rebutted by other evidence.
A. Primary
B. Secondary
C. Prima facie
D. Best

15. Given by a person of specialized knowledge in some particular field

A. Primary
B. Best
C. Secondary
D. Expert
E. Preponderance of evidence

16. Evidence which has some relation to what is sought to be proved

A. Relevant
B. Material
C. Competent
D. Admissible

17. It affects an issue in an important or substantial matter.

A. Relevant
B. Material
C. Competentd. Direct

18. Those evidence which are admissible in court are held to be

a. Relevant
b. Material
c. Competent
d. Direct

19. Refers to an evidence of the same kind adduced to prove the same fact
A. Real
B. Cumulative
C. Corroborative
D. Circumstantial

20. Additional evidence of a different kind but tending to prove the same fact
A. Real
B. Cumulative
C. Corroborative
D. Circumstantial

21. Oral testimony given in open court.

A. Real evidence
B. Documentary evidence
C. Testimonial evidence
D. Admission evidence
22. An evidence delivered in open court wherein the witness states that he does not know whether a fact did or did not
occur
A. Positive
B. Negative
C. Direct
D. Circumstantial

23. Evidence which is sufficient to prove an issue unless overcome or rebutted by other evidence.
A. Primary
B. Secondary
C. Prima facie
D. Best

24. Given by a person of specialized knowledge in some particular field

A. Primary
B. Best
C. Secondary
D. Expert

25. That kind of evidence which cannot be rebutted or overcome

A. Primary
B. Best
C. Real
D. Conclusive

26. Cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take as fact because they are already known to them
A. Cognizance
B. Judicial admission
C. Judicial knowledge
D. Judicial notice

27. In case of falsification of document what would be the best evidence

A. Authentic document
B. Holographic document
C. Questioned document
D. Genuine document

28. When a writing affirms that a fact did or did not occur, such testimony is said to be:
A. Relevant evidence
B. Material evidence
C. Positive evidence
D. Negative

29. Which among the following may be used as evidence in a judicial processing?
A. Privileged conversation
B. Dying declaration
C. Filial privilege
D. Parental privilege

30. Occurs when the evidence adduced proves the disputed fact
A. Cumulative
B. Corroborative
C. Circumstantial
D. Relevant

31. Evidence of this kind are those which are capable of perception
A. Testimonial
B. Corroborative
C. Real
D. Material

32. A priest may not be able to testify on pertinent matters to the case if said conversation or facts relates to that told in
the confession made by the
A. Penitent
B. Patent
C. Client
D. Secretary
33. Who among the following are automatically disqualified to take the witness stand?
A. Sick persons
B. Children
C. Homosexuals and lesbians
D. Insane persons

34. Evidence which show that best evidence existed as to the proof of the fact in question
A. Real evidence
B. Best evidence
C. Secondary evidence
D. Res gestae

35. Legal fitness of a witness to be heard on the trial

A. Admissibility
B. Compensation
C. Qualification
D. Eligibility

36. Means sanctioned by the rules of court to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact.
A. Proof
B. Intent
C. Motive
D. Evidence

37. A duplicate receipt signed and carbon copied at the same time is in terms of its evidentiary value is deemed as:
A. Duplicate
B. Original
C. Authenticate
D. Genuine

38. Exemption to the hearsay rule made under the consciousness of an impending death.
A. Parole evidence
B. Ante mortem statement
C. Dead man statute
D. Mi ultimo adios

39. When are children deemed not competent to qualify as a witness?

A. They understand the obligation of the oath
B. They have not reached the age of discernment
C. They must have sufficient knowledge to receive just impressions as to the facts on which testify
D. They can relate to those facts truly to the court at the time they are offered as witness

40. That degree of proof which produces in the mind of as unprejudiced person, that moral certainty or moral conviction
that the accused did commit the offense charged
A. Ultimate fact
B. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
C. Preponderance of evidence
D. Substantial evidence

41. Circumstantial facts and declarations incidental to the main fact; means things done
A. Factum probans
B. Factum probandum
C. Res gestae
D. Owes probans

42. A person who gives testimonial evidence in a judiciary tribunal.

A. Witness
B. Prosecution
C. Defense
D. Clerk of court

43. 41. In this sort of action, a person merely acknowledges certain facts but does not admit his guilt.
A. Testimony
B. Admission
C. Confession
D. Extra – judicial confession
44. When a categorical statement of guilt was made before a competent tribunal we classify it as.
A. Confession
B. Admission
C. Judicial confession
D. Extra – judicial confession

45. Any evidence either oral or documentary wherein the probative value is not based on personal knowledge of the
witness but that from another.
A. Testimonial evidence
B. Dying evidence
C. Res gestae
D. Hearsay

46. Refers to family history or descent.

A. Pedigree
B. Tradition
C. Inheritance
D. Heritage

47. Obligations imposed upon a party establish their alleged fact by proof are termed as “burden of proof”, what is its
Latin translation?
A. Factum probans
B. Factum probandum
C. Owe probandi
E. Owes probandi

48. The probative aide given by the court to particular evidence.

A. Preponderance of evidence
B. Evidentiary fact
C. Ultimate fact
D. Weight of evidence

49. A degree of proof below that of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which taken in its entirely is superior to that of
another
A. Corpus delicti
B. Real evidence
C. Autoptic evidence
D. Physical evidence

50. The body of crime

A. Corpus delicti
B. Real evidence
C. Autoptic evidence
D. Physical evidence

51. Which among the foregoing is not part of the judicial rule for sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to convict an
accused?
A. There is more than one circumstance
B. The facts from which the inference are derived must be proved
C. The combination of all the circumstance is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt
D. d. It must be of a judicial recognizance

52. Minimum number of witnesses required in rape cases to secure a conviction

A. 1
B. 2
C. 3
D. None

53. A court may take judicial notice on matters that are of?
A. Public knowledge
B. Capable of unquestionable demonstration
C. Ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions
D. All the above

54. 52. When may judicial admissions be mad?

A. The pleading filed by the parties
 B. In the courts of the trial, either by verbal or written manifestation or stipulations
C. In other stage of judicial proceeding
D. All the above

55. The rules of evidence shall be same the in all courts and in all trials and hearing, As otherwise provide by law or
these rules.
A. True
B. False
C. Maybe
D. No

56. The result or effect of evidence

A. Evidence
B. Testimony
C. Proof
D. Positive identification

A relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a concussion.

E. Substantial evidence
F. Best evidence
G. Circumstantial evidence
H. Secondary evidence

57. The witness maybe re-examined by the party calling him, to explain or supplement his answers given during the cross
examination.
A. Direct examination
B. Cross-examination
C. Re-direct examination
D. Re-cross examination

58. The examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts of the issue.
A. Direct examination
B. Cross examination
C. Re-direct examination
D. Re-cross examination

59. It is art of piecing together that is the invocation by the counsel of the rules logic and rhetoric in the combinations of
assumed facts as to reach ultimately the conclusion about the truth of a certain position.
A. Argument
B. Evidence
C. Proof
D. Testimony

60. What are the requisites of the admissibility of evidence?

A. What is relevant to the issue
B. That is competent
C. A and B
D. None of the above

61. Where a fact is admissible for one purpose and is admitted for another purpose.
A. Multiple admissibility
B. Conditional admissibility
C. Curative admissibility
D. None of the above

62. Some facts may be inadmissibility when they are presented but may be relevant only because they some connection
w/ other facts not yet presented.
A. Multiple admissibility
B. Conditional admissibility
C. Curative admissibility
D. None of the above

63. One may offer evidence w/c as inadmissibility but w/c is admitted because there is no objection form the opposite
parts.
A. Multiple admissibility
B. Conditional admissibility
C. Curative admissibility
 D. None of the above

64. An, admission, verbal or written, made party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, and it requires proof.
A. True
B. False
C. Maybe
D. No

65. Establishes a detached fact in a series tending to prove the fact in dispute.
A. Direct evidence
B. Circumstantial evidence
C. Cumulative evidence
D. Partial

66. Are the rules of evidence the same, in criminal as well as in civil case?
A. Yes, the rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trial and hearings except as otherwise
provided by law or these rules.
B. Yes, the rules of evidence shall be same in all courts and in all trials and hearsay.
C. c. No, the rules of evidence shall be same in all courts and in all trials and hearsay
D. d. No, the rules of evidence shall not be the same in all the courts and in all trials and hearsay.

67. Are those other than the facts in issue and w/c are offered as a basic for inference as to existence of the in issue.
A. Collateral matters
B. Prospect ant matters
C. Concomitant matters
D. Retrospect ant matters

68. Are those proceeding of the fact in issue and pointing forward to it, like moral character, motive; conspiracy, etc.
A. Collateral matters
B. Prospect ant matters
C. Concomitant matters
D. Retrospect ant matters

69. Are those accompanying the fact in issue and pointing to it, like alibi, or opportunity and incompatibility.
A. Collateral matters
B. Prospect ant matters
C. Concomitant matters
D. Retrospect ant

70. Are those succeeding the fact in issue but pointing forward to it, like flight concealment,
behavior of the accused upon being arrested; finger prints or foot print.
A. Collateral matters
B. Prospect ant matters
C. Concomitant matters
D. None of the above

71. It is a contact whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end tone already
commenced.
A. Privies
B. Compromise
C. Document
D. Competent

72. It denotes not only the idea of succession in right of heirship or testamentary legacy, but also succession by virtue of
acts inter vivos, as by assignment, subrogation, or purchase.
A. Privies
B. Compromise
C. Document
D. Competent

73. It is an oral evidence of an agreement should be writing, without prejudice to certain exceptions.
A. Hearsay evidence
B. Best evidence
C. Parol evidence
D. Secondary evidence

74. These are the stances when parol evidence is allowed, exect for:
 A. Where there is an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement.
B. When there is a failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
C. When there arises a question as to the validity of the written agreement
D. When there is no other terms agreed by the party’s or there successor’s in interest after the execution of the
written agreement

These are the stances when parol evidence is allowed, exect for:
a. Where there is an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement
b. When there is a failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;
c. When there arises a question as to the validity of the written agreement
d. When there is no other terms agreed by the party’s or there successor’s in interest
after the execution of the written agreemen
These are the stances when parol evidence is allowed, exect for:
a. Where there is an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement
b. When there is a failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;
c. When there arises a question as to the validity of the written agreement
d. When there is no other terms agreed by the party’s or there successor’s in interest
after the execution of the written agreemenThese are the stances when parol evidence is allowed, exect for:a. Where there
is an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreementb. When there is a failure of the written
agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;c. When there arises a question as to the validity
of the written agreementd. When there is no other terms agreed by the party’s or there successor’s in interest after the
execution of the written agreemen
75. It is one where the document refers to a particular person or thing but there are two or more persons having the same
names or two more things to which the description in the writing may apply.
A. Latent ambiguity or intrinsic ambiguity
B. Patent or intrinsic ambiguity
C. Intermediate ambiguity
D. None of the above

76. It is such ambiguity which is apparent on face the writing itself and requires something to be added in order to
ascertain the meaning of the words used.
A. Latent ambiguity or intrinsic ambiguity
B. Patent or intrinsic ambiguity
C. Intermediate ambiguity
D. None of the above

77. It is where the words of the writing through seemingly clear and with a settled meaning, is actually equivocal and
admits of two interpretation.
A. Latent ambiguity or intrinsic ambiguity
B. Patent or extrinsic ambiguity
C. Intermediation ambiguity
D. All of these

78. Inference which the law makes so peremptory that that it will not allow them to be overturned by any contrary proof
however strong.
A. Presumption
B. Conclusive presumption
C. Disputable presumption
D. All of these

79. Are those presumptions which may be disputed, apposed, reputed or rebutted.
A. Presumption
B. Conclusive presumption
C. Disputable presumption
D. All of these

80. When is expert evidence admissible?

A. The fact to be proved is one requiring expert knowledge and
B. The witness is really an expert
C. A and B
D. None of the above
81. It is a categorical acknowledgement of guilt made by an accused in a criminal cases, without any exculpatory
statement or explanation.
A. Admission
B. Confession
C. Judicial admission
D. Extrajudicial

82. Those made on the record, or in connection with the judicial proceeding in which it is offered.
A. Judicial admission
B. Admission
C. Confession
D. Extrajudicial

83. Those made elsewhere, irrespective of time, place, or to whom made.

A. Judicial admission
B. Admission
C. Confession
D. Extrajudicial

84. The totality of evidence presented for the consideration.

A. Quantum of proof
B. Quantum of evidence
C. Burden of proof
D. Burden of evidence

85. Refers to degree of proof required in order to arrive attract conclusion

A. Quantum of proof
B. Quantum of evidence
C. Burden of proof
D. Burden of evidence

86. Bearing in mind the distinction between private and public document, which of the following is admissible in
evidence without further proof of due execution or genuineness?
A. Baptismal certificate
B. B. Official record of the Philippine Embassy in Singapore certified by the Vice- Consul with official seal
C. Documents acknowledged before a Notary Public in Hong Kong
D. Unblemished receipt dated December 20, 1985 signed by the promisee, showing payment of a loan, found among
the well-kept file of the promissor

87. In which of the following instances is the quantum of evidence ERRONEOUSLY applied?
A. In Writ of Amparo cases, substantial evidence.
B. To satisfy the burden of proof in civil cases, preponderance of evidence.
C. To overcome a disputable presumption, clear and convincing evidence.
D. To rebut the presumptive validity of a notarial document, substantial evidence.

88. In a case, the prosecutor asked the medical expert the question, “Assuming that the assailant was behind the deceased
before he attacked him, would you say that treachery attended the killing?” Is this hypothetical question permissible?
A. No, since it asks for his legal opinion
B. Yes, but conditionally, subject to subsequent proof that the assailant was indeed behind the deceased at that time.
C. Yes, since hypothetical questions may be asked of an expert witness.
D. No, since the medical expert has no personal knowledge of the fact.

89. Arvin was caught in flagrante delicto selling drugs for P200,000.00. The police officers confiscated the drugs and
the money and brought them to the police station where they prepared the inventory duly signed by police officer
Oscar Moreno. They were, however, unable to take pictures of the items. Will this deficiency destroy the chain of
custody rule in the drug case?
A. No, a breach of the chain of custody rule in drug cases, if satisfactorily explained, will not negate conviction.
B. No, a breach of the chain of custody rule may be offset by presentation in court of the drugs.
C. Yes, chain of custody in drug cases must be strictly observed at all times to preserve the integrity of the
confiscated items.
D. Yes, compliance with the chain of custody rule in drug cases is the only way to prove the accused’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

90. Which of the following admissions made by a party in the course of judicial proceedings is a judicial admission?
A. Admissions made in a pleading signed by the party and his counsel intended to be filed.
B. An admission made in a pleading in another case between the same parties.
C. Admission made by counsel in open court.
 D. Admissions made in a complaint superseded by an amended complaint.

91. Cindy charged her husband, George, with bigamy for a prior subsisting marriage with Teresa. Cindy presented
Ric and Pat, neighbors of George andTeresa in Cebu City, to prove, first, that George and Teresa cohabited thereand,
second, that they established a reputation as husband and wife. Can Cindy prove the bigamy by such evidence?
A. Yes, the circumstantial evidence is enough to support a conviction for bigamy.
B. No, at least one direct evidence and two circumstantial evidence are required to support a conviction for bigamy.
C. No, the circumstantial evidence is not enough to support a conviction for bigamy.
D. No, the circumstantial evidence cannot overcome the lack of direct evidence in any criminal case.

92. To prove payment of a debt, Bong testified that he heard Ambo say, as the latter was handing over money to Tessie,
that it was in payment of debt. Is Bong’s testimony admissible in evidence?
A. Yes, since what Ambo said and did is an independently relevant statement.
B. No, since what Ambo said and did was not in response to a startling occurrence.
C. No, since Bong’s testimony of what Ambo said and did is hearsay.
D. Yes, since Ambo’s statement and action, subject of Bong’s testimony constitutes a verbal act.

93. Considering the qualifications required of a would-be witness, who among the following is INCOMPETENT to
testify?
A. A person under the influence of drugs when the event he is asked to testify on took place.
B. A person convicted of perjury who will testify as an attesting witness to a will.
C. A deaf and dumb.
D. A mental retardate.

94. During trial, plaintiff offered evidence that appeared irrelevant at that time but he said he was eventually going to
relate to the issue in the case by some future evidence. The defendant objected. Should the trial court reject the
evidence in question on ground of irrelevance?
A. No, it should reserve its ruling until the relevance is shown.
B. Yes, since the plaintiff could anyway subsequently present the evidence anew.
C. Yes, since irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
D. No, it should admit it conditionally until its relevance is shown.

95. Ben testified that Jaime, charged with robbery, has committed bag-snatching three times on the same street in the last
six months. Can the court admit this testimony as evidence against Jaime?
A. No, since there is no showing that Ben witnessed the past three robberies.
B. Yes, as evidence of his past propensity for committing robbery.
C. Yes, as evidence of a pattern of criminal behavior proving his guilt of the present offense.
D. No, since evidence of guilt of a past crime is not evidence of guilt of a present crime

96. Alex filed a petition for writ of amparo against Melba relative to his daughter Toni's involuntary disappearance. Alex
said that Melba was Toni's employer, who, days before Toni disappeared, threatened to get rid of her at all costs. On
the other hand, Melba countered that she had nothing to do with Toni's disappearance and that she took steps to
ascertain Toni's whereabouts. What is the quantum of evidence required to establish the parties' respective claims?
A. For Alex, probable cause; for Melba, substantial evidence.
B. For Alex, preponderance of evidence; for Melba, substantial evidence.
C. For Alex, proof beyond reasonable doubt; for Melba, ordinary diligence.
D. For both, substantial evidence.

97. In which of the following situations is the declaration of a deceased person against his interest NOT ADMISSIBLE
against him or his successors and against third persons?
A. Declaration of a joint debtor while the debt subsisted.
B. Declaration of a joint owner in the course of ownership.
C. Declaration of a former co-partner after the partnership has been dissolved.
D. Declaration of an agent within the scope of his authority.

98. Henry testified that a month after the robbery Asiong, one of the accused, told him that Carlos was one of those who
committed the crime with him. Is Henry’s testimony regarding what Asiong told him admissible in evidence against
Carlos?
A. No, since it is hearsay.
B. No, since Asiong did not make the statement during the conspiracy.
C. Yes, since it constitutes admission against a co-conspirator.
D. Yes, since it part of the res gestae.

99. Which of the following CANNOT be disputably presumed under the rules of evidence?
A. That the thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that nature.
B. That the law has been obeyed.
 C. That a writing is truly dated.
D. That a young person, absent for 5 years, it being unknown whether he still lives, is considered dead for purposes
of succession.

100. Character evidence is admissible

A. In criminal cases, the accused may prove his good moral character if pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged ledge of Andy’s
B. In criminal cases, the prosecution may prove the bad moral characterof the accused to prove his criminal
predisposition.
C. In criminal cases, the bad moral character of the offended party maynot be proved.
D. When it is evidence of the good character of a witness even prior toimpeachment.

101. Which of the following matters is NOT A PROPER SUBJECT of judicialnotice?

A. Persons have killed even without motive.
B. Municipal ordinances in the municipalities where the MCTC sits.
C. Teleconferencing is now a way of conducting business transactions.
D. British law on succession personally known to the presiding judge.

102. Which of the following is NOT REQUIRED of a declaration against interest as an exception to the hearsay rule?
A. The declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to be true.
B. The declarant is dead or unable to testify.
C. The declaration relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant.
D. At the time he made said declaration he was unaware that the same was contrary to his aforesaid interest.

103. To prove the identity of the assailant in a crime of homicide, a police officer testified that, Andy, who did not
testify in court, pointed a finger at the accused in a police lineup. Is the police officer’s testimony regarding Andy's
identification of the accused admissible evidence?
A. Yes, since it is based on his personal knowledge of Andy’s identification of the accused.
B. Yes, since it constitutes an independently relevant statemenT
C. No, since the police had the accused identified without warning him ofhis rights.
D. No, since the testimony is hearsay

104. The prosecution moved for the discharge of Romy as state witness in arobbery case it filed against Zoilo, Amado,
and him. Romy testified, consistentwith the sworn statement that he gave the prosecution. After hearing Romy,the
court denied the motion for his discharge. How will denial affect Romy?
A. His testimony shall remain on record.
B. Romy will be prosecuted along with Zoilo and Amado.
C. His liability, if any, will be mitigated.
D. The court can convict him based on his testimony.

105. To prove that Susan stabbed her husband Elmer, Rico testified that he heard Leon running down the street,
shouting excitedly, “Sinasaksak daw niSusan ang asawa niya! (I heard that Susan is stabbing her husband!)” Is Leon's
statement as narrated by Rico admissible?
A. No, since the startling event had passed.
B. Yes, as part of the res gestae.
C. No, since the excited statement is itself hearsay.
D. Yes, as an independently relevant statement