Bar Questions From 2001-2003

BAR QUESTIONS FROM 2001-2003
1. Q: Pedro filed a complaint against Lucio for the recovery of a sum of money based on
a promissory note executed by Lucio. In his complaint, Pedro alleged that although
the promissory note says that it is payable within 120 days, the truth is that the note Is
payable immediately after 90 days but that if Pedro is willing, he may, upon request
of Lucio give the latter up to 120 days to pay the note. During the hearing, Pedro
testified that the truth is that the agreement between him and Lucio is for the latter to
pay immediately after ninety day's time. Also, since the original note was with Lucio
and the latter would not surrender to Pedro the original note which Lucio kept In a
place about one day's trip from where he received the notice to produce the note and
in spite of such notice to produce the same within six hours from receipt of such
notice, Lucio failed to do so. Pedro presented a copy of the note which was executed
at the same time as the original and with identical contents.
A. Over the objection of Lucio, will Pedro be allowed to testify as to the true
agreement or contents of the promissory note? Why? (2%)
B. Over the objection of Lucio, can Pedro present a copy of the promissory
note and have it admitted as valid evidence in his favor? Why? (3%) (2001
Bar Question)
2. Q: D was prosecuted for homicide for allegedly beating up V to death with an iron
pipe.
A. May the prosecution introduce evidence that V had a good reputation for
peacefulness and non-violence? Why? (2%)
B. May D introduce evidence of specific violent acts by V? Why? (3%) (2002

Bar Question)
3. Q: Distinguish preponderance of evidence from substantial evidence. (2003 Ba

Question)
4. Q: In rendering a decision, should a court take into consideration the possible effect of
its verdict upon the political stability and economic welfare of the nation? (2003 Bar
Question)
5. Q: When is an electronic evidence regarded as being the equivalent of an original

document under the Best Evidence Rule? (2003 Bar Question)
6. Q: State the rule on the admissibility of an electronic evidence. (2003 Bar Question)
7. Q: X was charged with robbery. On the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by the
court, X was arrested by police operatives. They seized from his person a handgun. A
charge for illegal possession of firearm was also filed against him. In a press
conference called by the police, X admitted that he had robbed the victim of jewelry
valued at P500.000.00.
The robbery and illegal possession of firearm cases were tried jointly. The
prosecution presented in evidence a newspaper clipping of the report to the reporter
who was present during the press conference stating that X Admitted the robbery. It
likewise presented a certification of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office attesting
that the accused had no license to carry any firearm. The certifying officer, however,
was not presented as a witness. Both pieces of evidence were objected to by the
defense.
A. Is the newspaper clipping admissible in evidence against X?
B. Is the certification of the PNP Firearm and Explosives Office without the
certifying officer testifying on it admissible in evidence against X? (2003 Bar
Question)
8. Q: 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 “resinter

alios acta",
Rule on the motion for demurrer to evidence on the above grounds. (2003 Bar
Question)

Bar Questions From 2001-2003

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

Bar Questions From 2001-2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BAR QUESTIONS FROM 2001-2003

B. May D introduce evidence of specific violent acts by V? Why? (3%) (2002

3. Q: Distinguish preponderance of evidence from substantial evidence. (2003 Ba

5. Q: When is an electronic evidence regarded as being the equivalent of an original

A. Is the newspaper clipping admissible in evidence against X?

b. Y’s testimony is not admissible against X pursuant to the rule on “resinter

You might also like