Evidence Quiz 5

LAW ON EVIDENCE
QUIZZ 5 (May 8, 2020)
The following are adaptations of BAR questions. Answer as best as you can. 1 point
each except for the last query.
1. Which is admissible evidence?

(a) The affidavit of an affiant stating that he witnessed the execution of a deed of
sale but the affiant was not presented as a witness in the trial.
(b) The extrajudicial admission made by a conspirator against his co-conspirator
after the conspiracy has ended.
(c) The testimony of a party’s witness regarding email messages the witness
received from the opposing party.
(d) The testimony of a police officer that he had been told by his informants that
there were sachets of shabu in the pocket of the defendant.
(e) None of the above.
2. From the following, identify the conclusive presumption and therefore cannot
be contradicted by evidence.
(a.) A person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act.
(b.) Official duty has been regularly performed.
(c.) A tenant cannot deny his landlord's title during the tenancy period.
(d.) A writing is truly dated.
3. A trial court may take judicial notice of:

(a.) the Twitter account of President Aquino.
(b.) a Committee Report issued by the Congressional Committee on Labor
Relations.
(c.) the effects of taking aspirin everyday.
(d.) the arbitral award issued by International Court of Arbitration.
4. A narrative testimony (or long narration) of a witness is usually objected to

but the court may allow such testimony if:
(a.) it would expedite trial and give the court a clearer understanding of the
matters related;
(b.) the witness is of advanced age;
(c.) the testimony relates to family genealogy;
(d.) the witness volunteers information not sought by the examiner.
5. Y shot X during a robbery. On the brink of death, X told M, a barangay

auxiliary police, that it was Y who shot and robbed him. In the trial for robbery
with homicide, X's declaration can be admitted only as a dying declaration to
prove:
(a.) robbery.to prove homicide.
(b.) robbery and homicide.
(c.) the "corpus delicti".
6. X readily admitted, after his capture by the Forestry Ranger, that he cut the
Narra trees. This statement of X may be admitted and is not necessarily hearsay
because:
(a.) it is a judicial admission of guilt.
(b.) it shows the statement was true.
(c.) it will form part of the circumstantial evidence to convict.
(d.) it proves that such a statement was made.
7. 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.
8. With due regard to the distinction between private and public document,
which of the following is admissible in evidence without additional proof of due
execution or genuineness?
(a.) Baptismal certificates.

(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.
9. Out of the following instances, the quantum of evidence ERRONEOUSLY

applied in one instance. Which is it?
(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.
10. Which of the following admissions made by a party in the course of judicial
proceedings can be considered a judicial admission?
(A) Admissions made in a pleading signed by the party and his counsel intended
to be lied.
(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.
11. Therese accused her husband, Marcus, with bigamy for a prior subsisting
marriage with Cossette. Therese presented Mac and Mei, neighbors of Marcus
and Cossette, in order to prove, (1.) that Marcuse and Cossette cohabited as
husband and wife therein, and, (2.) that both established a reputation as a
couple. Can Therese 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.
12. Pedro was accused of committing a violation of the Human Security Act. He
was detained in solitary confinement. He was sleep-deprived, and suffered water
torture. Allegedly, he confessed his guilt contained in a sworn statement.
Eventually, the trial court acquitted Pedro, ruling that his confession was obtained
through torture, hence, inadmissible as evidence.
In a related criminal case for torture against his 3 alleged torturers, Pedro was
asked to testify and to, among other things, identify his previous sworn statement
of confession. When he was about to do so, the counsel of the accused timely
objected on the ground that the affidavit is a fruit of a poisonous tree. Rule on the
objection. Shall you sustain or overrule the same? Explain. (4 points)

Evidence Quiz 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence Quiz 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence Quiz 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAW ON EVIDENCE

QUIZZ 5 (May 8, 2020)

1. Which is admissible evidence?

3. A trial court may take judicial notice of:

4. A narrative testimony (or long narration) of a witness is usually objected to

5. Y shot X during a robbery. On the brink of death, X told M, a barangay

7. Who among the following is INCOMPETENT to testify?

(a.) Baptismal certificates.

9. Out of the following instances, the quantum of evidence ERRONEOUSLY

(A) in Writ of Amparo cases, substantial evidence.

(A) Yes, the circumstantial evidence is enough to support a conviction for

You might also like