Evidence Bar

1. Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence:

(a)  Dead Man Rule

(b)  Parol Evidence Rule 

(c)  Best Evidence Rule
(d)  The rule against the admission of illegally obtained extrajudicial
confession 

(e)  The rule against the admission of an oiler of compromise in civil
cases

2. If the result of such test shows that he is HIV positive, and the prosecution offers such result
in evidence to prove the qualifying circumstance under the information for qualified rape, should the court
reject such result on the ground that it is the fruit of a poisonous tree? Explain.

3. May a private document be offered and admitted in evidence both as documentary evidence
and as object evidence? Explain.

4. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false.
Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences.

(a) The Vallejo standard refers to jurisprudential norms considered by the court in assessing
the probative value of DNA evidence.

5. While window-shopping at the mall on August 4, 2008, Dante lost his organizer including his
credit card and billing statement. Two days later, upon reporting the matter to the credit card company, he
learned that a. one-way airplane ticket was purchased online using his credit card for a flight to Milan in
mid-August 2008. Upon extensive inquiry with the airline company, Dante discovered that the plane ticket
was under the name of one Dina Meril. Dante approaches you for legal advice. Suppose an Information is
filed against Dina on August 12, 2008 and she is immediately arrested. What pieces of electronic evidence
will Dante have to secure in order to prove the fraudulent online transaction?

6. On March 12, 2008, Mabini was charged with Murder for fatally stabbing Emilio. To prove
the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, the prosecution introduced on December 11, 2009 a
text message, which Mabini's estranged wife Gregoria had sent to Emilio on the eve of his death, reading:
"Honey, pa2tayin u ni Mabini. Mtgaln nyang plano i2. Mg ingat u bka ma tsugi k."

A. A subpoena ad testificandum was served on Gregoria. For her to be presented for the
purpose of identifying her cellphone and the text message. Mabini objected to her
Presentation on the ground of marital privilege. Resolve.

7. On August 15,2008, Edgardo committed estafa against Petronilo in the amount of P3

Million. Petronilo brought his complaint to the National Bureau of Investigation, which found that Edgardo
had visited his lawyer twice, the first time on August 14, 2008 and the second on August 16, 2008; and that
both visits concerned the swindling of Petronilo. During the trial of Edgardo, the RTC issued a subpoena ad
testificandum to Edgardo’s lawyer for him to testify on the conversations during their first and second
meetings. May the subpoena be quashed on the ground of privileged communication? Explain fully.

8. A tugboat owned by Speedy Port Service, Inc. (SPS) sank in Manila Bay while helping tow
another vessel, drowning five (5) of the crew in the resulting shipwreck. At the maritime board inquiry, the
four (4) survivors testified. SPS engaged Atty. Ely to defend it against potential claims and to sue the
company owning the other vessel for damages to the tug. Ely obtained signed statements from the survivors.
He also interviewed other persons, in some instance making memoranda. The heirs of the five (5) victims
filed an action for damages against SPS. Plaintiffs counsel sent written interrogatories to Ely, asking whether
statements of witnesses were obtained; if written, copies were to be .furnished; if oral, the exact provisions
were to be set forth in detail. Ely refused to comply, arguing that the documents and information asked are
privileged communication. Is the contention tenable? Explain.

9. X and Y were charged with murder. Upon application of the prosecution, Y was discharged
from the Information to be utilized as a state witness. The prosecutor presented Y as witness but forgot to
state the purpose of his testimony much less offer it in evidence. Y testified that he and X conspired to kill
the victim but it was X who actually shot the victim. The testimony of Y was the only material evidence
establishing the guilt of X. Y was thoroughly cross- examined by the defense counsel. After the prosecution
rested its case, the defense filed a motion for demurrer to evidence based on the following grounds:

(a) The testimony of Y should be excluded because its purpose was not initially stated and it
was not formally offered in evidence as required by Section 34, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules
of Evidence: and
(b) Y’s testimony is not admissible against X pursuant to the rule on “res inter alios acta",
Rule on the motion for demurrer to evidence on the above grounds.

10. X was arrested for the alleged murder of a 6-year Old lad. He was read his Miranda rights
immediately upon being apprehended. In the course of his detention, X was subjected to three hours of
non-stop interrogation. He remained quiet until, on the 3rd hour, he answered "yes" to the question of
whether "he prayed for forgiveness for shooting down the boy." The trial court) interpreting X's answer as an
admission of guilt, convicted him. On appeal, X's counsel faulted the trial court in its interpretation of his
client's answer, arguing that X invoked his Miranda rights when he remained quiet for the first two hours of
questioning. Rule on the assignment of error.

11. What is the hearsay rule?

12. Blinded by extreme jealousy, Alberto shot his wife, Betty, in the presence of his sister, Carla.
Carla brought Betty to the hospital. Outside the operating room, Carla told Domingo, a male nurse, that it
was Alberto w'ho shot Betty. Betty died while undergoing emergency surgery. At the trial of the parricide
charges filed against Alberto, the prosecutor sought to present Domingo as witness, to testify on what Carla
told him. The defense counsel objected on the ground that Domingo’s testimony is inadmissible for being
hearsay. Rule on the objection with reasons.

13. In a prosecution for murder, the prosecutor asks accused Darwin if he had been previously
arrested for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. As defense counsel, you object. The trial
court asks you on what ground / s. Respond.

14. Alice, a resident of Valenzuela. Metro Manila, filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court thereat
a complaint for damages against her next-door neighbor Rosa for P100,000.00 with prayer for preliminary
attachment. She alleged that Rosa intrigued against her honor by spreading unsavory rumors about her
among their co-workers at the Phoenix Knitwear factory located at Valenzuela. After pre-trial the court
motu proprio referred the case for amicable settlement between the parties to the Lupon Tagapayapa of
Barangay 2. Zone 3, of Valenzuela where the factory is located. Rosa questioned the order contending that
the court had no authority to do so as both parties had already gone through pre-trial where amicable
settlement was foreclosed and the parties were already going to trial.

1. Comment-on Rosa’s contention. Explain.

2. Rosa also opposed the referral to the Lupon Tagapayapa of Barangay 2, Zone 3, claiming
that the venue was wrong as the proper Lupon was that of Barangay 1, Zone 5, where she
and Alice reside. Is Rosa’s opposition valid? Explain.
3. Suppose that the Lupon of Barangay 2. Zone 3, is successful in forging an amicable
settlement between Alice and Rosa, is the compromise immediately executory? Ex plain.
 4. How, when and by whom shall the compromise agreement be enforced? Explain.

15. An amicable settlement was signed before a Lupon Tagapamayapa on January 3, 2001. On
July 6, 2001, the prevailing party asked the Lupon to execute the amicable settlement because of the non-
compliance by the other party of the terms of the agreement. The Lupon concerned refused to execute the
settlement/agreement.

a) Is the Lupon correct in refusing to execute the settlement/agreement?


b) What should be the course of action of the prevailing party in such a case?

16. What is the difference between a “broadside" objection and a specific objection to the
admission of documentary evidence?

17. What are the two kinds of objections? Explain each briefly. Given an example of each.

18. Linda and spouses Amulfo and Regina Ceres were coowners of a parcel of land. Linda died
intestate and without any issue. Ten (10) persons headed by Jocelyn, claiming to be the collateral relatives of
the deceased Linda, filed an action for partition with the Regional Trial Court praying for the segregation of
Linda’s 1/2 share, submitting in support of their petition the baptismal certificates of seven of the
petitioners, a family bible belonging to Linda in which the names of the petitioners have been entered, a
photocopy of the birth certificate of Jocelyn, and a certification of the local civil registrar that its office had
been completely razed by fire. The spouses Ceres refused to partition on the following grounds: 1) the
baptismal certificates of the parish priest are evidence only of the administration of the sacrament of
baptism and they do not prove filiation of the alleged collateral relatives of the deceased; 2) entry in the
family bible is hearsay; 3) the certification of the registrar on non- availability of the records of birth does
not prove filiation; 4) in partition cases where filiation to the deceased is in dispute, prior and separate
judicial declaration of heirship in a settlement of estate proceedings is necessary; and 5) there is need for
publication as real property is involved. As counsel for Jocelyn and her co-petitioners, argue against the
objections of the spouses Ceres so as to convince the court to allow the partition. Discuss each of the five (5)
arguments briefly but completely.

19. While sleeping under a tree, Kintanar was stabbed several times by a man, sustaining multiple
stab wounds on his chest with blood spurting therefrom. Bathed in his own blood, Kintanar rushed to his
house where he was met by his wife. Kintanar informed his wife that it was Gonzales who stabbed him. On
the way to the hospital, Kintanar kept on saying that it was Gonzales who stabbed him. He died while
undergoing surgery at the hospital.
Convicted for the killing of Kintanar, Gonzales questioned the admission in evidence of the ante-mortem
statement of Kintanar to his wife. He argued that from the abovecited facts, there is no indication that the
aforesaid statement was made by the victim under consciousness of an impending death.
Can the subject statement be considered a dying declaration? Why?

20. 1. If the accused on the witness stand repeats his earlier uncounseled extrajudicial confession
implicating his co-accused in the crime charged, is that testimony admissible in evidence
against the latter?
2. What is the probative value of a witness’ Affidavit of Recantation?