PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION IN EVIDENCE

Part 1: MCQ. Write the Letter of your choice in you answer sheet.
1. An affidavit is (a) not admissible as evidence since it is hearsay (b) admissible
evidence when proven to be true (c) admissible evidence after being subjected to a cross
examination (d) not admissible when affiant does not testify about it (e) admissible in
evidence when the affiant testifies about it subject to a cross examination.
2.A fish vendor, who was present when the act was perpetrated, testifies in court
concerning the facts of a murdered meat inspector who was newly assigned in the area.
Which of the following statements is most correct? (a) he is not qualified to testify
whether the culprit was drunk during that time (b) he is qualified to state that the cause
of the death was the stab wounds inflicted (c) he may testify that the meat inspector was
insane during that time (d) his testimony that the murderer was very angry during the
commission of the crime is not admissible since he is not a psychiatrist who knows the
mechanics of anger(e) he is qualified to give the opinion that it was really the accused
who murdered the victim.
3. Which of the following can be considered as a disputable presumption? (a) tenancy
landlord relationship concerning a contract of lease (b) the previous statement of a
principal that he appointed Jose as his agent (c) estoppel (d) the overt acts of Luis
showing that Maria is really his wife (e) That money paid by one to another was due to
the latter.
4. The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession
till after an absence of (a) five (b)ten (c) fifteen (d) twenty (e) thirty years.
5. If a person disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of (a)
five (b)ten (c) fifteen (d) twenty (e) thirty years shall be sufficient in order that his
succession may be opened.
6.Which of the following is INCORRECT?
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of
the estate among the heirs:
(a) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft with is missing,
who has not been heard of for five years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
(b) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been
missing for four years;
(c) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose
existence has not been known for four years;
(d) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present
may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent
spouse is already death.
(e)In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death the circumstances
hereinabove provided, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of
contracting a subsequent marriage.

7.Which of the following is not a Disputable presumption?

(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
(c) That a person intends the consequences of his voluntary act;
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.
8. Which of the following is a correct disputable presumption?
(a) That money erroneously paid by one to another was not due to the latter;
(b) That a thing misdelivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
(c) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been unpaid;
(d) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is
concealed;
(e) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful
act is the taker and the doer of the whole act.
9. Which of the following is INCORRECT? (a) the baby of a woman who marries after 360
days of the death of her husband and who gets pregnant by her second husband is
deemed to be the child of the second marriage (b) a baby born of a woman who married
before 180 days of the death of her husband is deemed to be the child of the first
marriage (c) ) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the
subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, even
though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former
marriage (d) A child born after one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the
subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, even
though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former
marriage (e) none of the above.
10.Which of the following is considered as a public document? (a) a birth certificate
issued by the Register of Deeds (b) a certificate of Title issued by the Civil Registrar (c) a
Deed of Sale notarized by a vice mayor who is a lawyer (d) a notarized last will and
testament (e) a board examination result issued by the PRC.

PART 2. Essay type. Answer concisely and briefly

1.To prove New York law and jurisprudence on damages, defendants presented the
affidavit of Alyssa Walden, a New York attorney. The affidavit discussed various court
decisions copies of which were attached to the affidavit. Is it sufficient as proof of
foreign law?
2.The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings,
except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. Explain the exceptions.
3.What do you mean by (a) competent (b) material (c) relevant evidence?
4. The general rule is that documents not formally offered in evidence cannot be
considered by the court. State at least three exceptions of that rule.

5. In cases where the victim could not testify on the actual commission of the rape
because she was rendered unconscious at the time the crime was perpetrated, can the
accused be still convicted of rape? What rules of evidence are applicable when met with
this particular prosecutorial deficiency?
6. In a case for property heirship, the alleged niece testified about her being a niece to
the decedent. She testified that allegedly, her deceased childless Aunt, the owner of the
property in questions, since her lifetime had always declared her as her niece, who
would be capacitated to inherit her property. The adverse party claims that it is hearsay
evidence, and hence inadmissible.The Judge sustained the objection. Is the Judge
Correct?

7. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE ANCIENT DOCUMENT RULE? WHAT ARE

THE REQUISITES?
8. MACAGALING WAS CHARGED WITH ILLEGALLY POSSESSING AN
UNLICENSED
FIREARM.THE
PROSECUTION
DID
NOT
OBTAIN
A
CERTIFICATION FROM THE FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVE OFFICE THAT HE HAD
NO LICENSE.UNDER SEC. 2, RULE 131 OF THE 1964 RULES ON EVIDENCE,
HOWEVER, IT WAS PROVIDED THAT: IN CRIMINAL CASES THE BURDEN OF
PROOF AS TO THE OFFENSE LIES ON THE PROSECUTION. A NEGATIVE FACT
ALLEGED BY THE PROSECUTION NEED NOT BE PROVED UNLESS IT IS AN
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED. UNDER THE REVISED
RULES HOWEVER, THE SECOND SENTENCE WAS DELETED.WITH THE
OMISSION, MUST THE PROSECUTION STILL PROVE THAT THE ACCUSED HAD
NOT LICENSE TO POSSESS THE FIREARM?
9. Robert Te was murdered. A suspect Famon was arrested and confessed to the crime
incriminating Dulang and Feras. According to him, in his affidavit, sworn before a Judge,
he
was
hired
by
Dulang
and
Feras
to
kill
Te.
Issue: What is the effect of Famon's confession? Is the confession made by Famon
binding on Dulang and Feras?
10. .How would you state your objections to the following:
A) : You stated in your last testimony that you saw A driving the car, why are you now
insisting that A was not driving, when what the witness had merely said was that he had
seen A seated on the front seat of the vehicle.
B) : Does ABC or did ABC produce the goods that your company was intending to buy?
C) Tell us in your own words, what happed?
d) How is it that you can recollect a date as long ago as that and you cannot remember
the day of the week?
E) : Did you know that the accused had been beating his wife nightly?:, when there is no
prior evidence that such was the case. Or if the accused is the one asked: When did you
stop beating your wife?, when there is no evidence that he had been beating his wife.
10. Explain the following terms: (a) adoptive admission (b) interlocking confessions (c)
previous conduct as evidence (d) totality of circumstances test (e) chain of custody rule.

11. In a case for violation of BP Blg. 22, the prosecution presented in evidence
only a photocopy of the check that bounced. It appeared, however, that the
original was in the possession of accused.
May the photocopy be admitted in evidence?
12. Atty. Sansaet was counsel for Paredes in a complaint undergoing preliminary
investigation before the Tanodbayan for violation of RA No. 3019. The complaint
was, however, dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy based on their claim
that Paredes was previously charged of the same offense which was dismissed
after arraignment. It turned out, however, that this claim of double jeopardy was
based on falsified documents, so that both Paredes and Sansaet were charged of
falsification. As his defense, Atty. Sansaet claimed that it was Paredes who
falsified the documents in his house and instigated and induced him to file the
motion using the falsified documents. Atty. Sansaet offered to become state
witness against Paredes.
Issue:
Would the proposed testimony of Atty. Sansaet violate the attorney-client
privilege?
13. Petitioners sought the settlement of the estate of their brother Ricardo de
Mesa Abad whom they claimed to be a bachelor and who died without any
heirs. This was opposed by respondent who claimed that Abad had a commonlaw-wife and is survived by two (2) children. They also claimed that that he had
another child by another woman. Against these claims, petitioners presented the
affidavit of Dr. Pedro Arenas, Ricardo Abads physician, declaring thatin 1935, he
had examined Ricardo Abad and found him to be infected with gonorrhea, and
that the latter had become sterile as a consequence thereof.
Issue:
Is the affidavit barred by the physician-patient privilege?
14.In a case for annulment of marriage filed by the husband on the ground that
the wife was suffering from a mental illness called schizophrenia, plaintiff sought
to present the psychiatrist from the National Mental Hospital to testify as an
expert witness. Defendant objected on the ground that the testimony sought to
be presented is privileged since the psychiatrist examined the patient in a
professional capacity. The trial court allowed her to testify as an expert witness
and she was asked hypothetical questions related to her field of expertise. She
neither revealed the illness she examined and treated defendant for nor disclosed
the results of her examination and the medicine she had prescribed.
Issue:
In the testimony barred by Sec. 24(c) , Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
Evidences?

15.Four (4) of the six (6) suspects in the crime of kidnapping with double murder
executed separate extrajudicial statements confessing to the crime and
implicating the others. The statements were independently executed but are
identified with each other in their material details. There are also distinct
similarities in the narration of events leading to the killings.
Issue:
Is the confession of one admissible against the other?
16. Accused were charged with 2 counts of kidnapping. Since the 2 incidents
happened almost simultaneously, the cases were consolidated and joint trial
ensued. In the first case, accused tied the hands of the 2 victims and pointed
their guns at them. In the second, however, ikt appears that the 2 victims were no
physically threatened or tied.
Issue:
Can the evidence in the first case be used in the second to prove tgat
accused had the intent to deprive the victims of liberty?
17. The crime of robbery with homicide took place at around 5:30 in the
afternoon. One of the victims was rushed to the hospital and was operated on
from 8:00 oclock that evening until midnight. At the hospital the victim told
somebody that one of the accused struck her. Said victim died five (5) days later.
Issue:
Considering the interval of four (4) hours or more between the robbery and
the infliction of the I juries and her making of the statement, can it still fall under
the res gestae rule?
18. Accused was convicted of robbery with homicide. Among the evidence
presented against accused was the testimony of the police that after his arrest he
was found wearing the wristwatch taken during the robbery. A subsequent
search of his house also yielded a Sanyo cassette recorder previously taken from
his victim.
Issue:
Can the possession by accused of the stolen items be used as evidence to
prove his guilt?
19.Among the witnesses in the kidnapping for ransom case was the victim who
was 6 years old when she testified. After their conviction, accused claimed that
the prosecution failed to establish that the child understood the nature of an oath
and the need to tell the truth when she testified.
Issue:
Should the testimony ne excluded?

20.Rosella Cangue entered into 2 contracts with Socor Construction as subcontructor. Later, Socor and Cangue a bill representing the balance of Cangues
total amount for materials delivered and services rendered by Socor under the
contracts. However, Cangue refused to pay, claiming that Socor failed to submit
the delivery receipts showing the actual weight in metric tons of the items
delivered.
Socor brought suit in the RTC to recover from Cangue. During the trial,
Socor presented Dolores Aday, its bookkeeper. RTC rendered a decision in favor
of Socor holding that the entries recorded in Socors Book of Collectible
Accounts (Exh. K) are credibles. Undeniably, the book contains a detailed
account of Socors commercial transactions with Cangue which were entered
therein in the course of business.
Socor claims that although the entries cannot be considered an exception
to the hearsay rule, they may be admitted under Rule 132, $16.
Issue:
Can the entries be admitted under Rule 132 Sec. 16?
21. President Roxas, a vessel owned by Philippine President lines, Inc., ran
aground while navigating through Orinoco River in Venezuela. As a
consequence, it obstructed the ingress and egress of other vessels, including
Malandrimon. The owner of the latter vessel, Wildvalley Shipping Company, Ltd,
sued President Lines for damages in the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
To prove Venezuela law, Wildvalley presented Capt. Oscar Leon Monzon.
The Assistant Harbor Master and Chief of Pilots at Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela, as
well as the rules governing the navigation or Orinoco River. The witness
produced in court photocopies of the laws as printed in GazataPOfficial and the
Reglamento Para la Zuma de Pilotaje No. 1 de Orinoco.
Issue:
Are the copies of the laws produced by Wild Valley admissible in
evidence?
22.While Renato and FranciaOng were passengers of an Inland bus, it was
bumped from the rear by another bus, owned and operated by Philtranco. Both
Renato and Francia were injured. Ong filed an action for damages against
Philtranco and Inland. RTC rendered a decision in favor of absolving Inland from
any liability but made Philtranco liable to Ong for damages.
According to the RTC, the proximate cause if the accident was the
bumping from behind by the Philtranco bus based on the Police Report and the
affidavits of passengers, to which Philtranco did not object. Philtranco was held
liable based on culpa aquiliana. The CA, however, resolved that Philtrancos
liability for damages could not be predicted upon the Police Report which had not
been formally offered in evidence. The report was merely annexed to the answer
of Inland, and Ong did not adopt or offer it as evidence. Consequently, it had no
probative value and, thus, Philtranco should be absolved from liability.

Issue:
Whether or not the Police Report, which was not formally offered in
evidence, could be used to establish a chain against Philtranco based onculpa
aquiliana.
23.After the presentation of its sole witness, defendant prayed for fifteen (15)
days within which to mal its formal offer of evidence which was granted. The
court gave plaintiff 10 days to comment on the formal offer. Defendant
subsequently submitted its offer but plaintiff failed to submit its comment, while
the court did not rule on the offer because of plaintiffs motion to recall
defendants witness for further cross-examination. Eventually, the Court,
dismissed the motion to recall and admitted defendants offer without the benefit
of comment or objection from plaintiff.
Issue:
Did the court gravely abuse its discretion?
24.Two witnesses testified against the accused in a murder case and afterwards
they retracted their testimonies. One of them was able to confirm his affidavit of
Retraction., but the other died before he could be recalled to the witness stand.
Issue:
What is the value of retraction as evidence?
25.In their motion to dismiss based on lack of legal capacity to sue, defendants,
asserted that their transaction was not with Merrill Lynch but with another
corporation. To prove this, defendants attached documents in support of their
motion. Even without the documents being offered in evidence, the court took
them into consideration and dismissed the complaint.
Issue:
Is the court correct?
26.Accused together with another, was charged with the crime of robbery with
homicide. While the victim did not personally know accused, she was able to
identify him through a photograph shown to her at the police station.
Issue:
Can accused challenge his out-of-court identification on the ground that it
was not dome through a police line-up?
27. Accused was convicted of raping a 5-year old child. During the trial, including
the time when the victim identified the accused in court, the prosecutor asked
leading questions.
Issue:

Should the conviction be reversed?

28.The Spouses Reyes mortgaged three (3) lots to Ibaan Rural Bank, Inc. When
they failed to pay their loan, the bank extra-judicially foreclosed on the mortgaged
lots. The Certificate of Sale issued by the Provincial Sheriff stated that the
redemption
period
expire
two
(2)
years
from
the
registration
of the sale. Before the lapse of the
two (2) years, the spouses offered to redeem the foreclosed lots and tendered the
redemption amount of 77,737.45. However, the bank refused claiming that the
right to redeem had prescribed, as more than one year gad elapsed from the
registration of the Certificate of Sale.
Issue:
What was the period of redemption: two years as unilaterally fixed by the
sheriff in the contract, or one year as fixed by law?
29. Accused was on trial for the special complex crime of robbery with
rape. Among the evidence he presented for his defense was that it was
impossible for him to have committed the crime charged since he is a person of
good moral character, holding as he does the position of Ministerial Servant in
the congregation of Jehovahs Witness, and that he is a godly man, a righteous
person, a responsible family man and a good Christian who preaches the word
of God.
Issue:
What value should be assigned to the good moral character of the
accused?
30.In a prosecution for murder and frustrated murder, one of the documentary
exhibits offered was an affidavit of a witness in another criminal case against the
same accused. The other case was also for murder that occurred in the same
spot where the murder case currently in trial happened. Over the objection of
accused, considering that the person who executed the affidavit did not testify,
the exhibit was submitted by the trial court.
Issue:
Did the court commit an error in admitting the affidavit?
END OF THE EXAMINATION