REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 2

POINTERS FOR MID TERM EXAMINATION (THE LAW ON EVIDENCE)

JUDGE GLOBERT J. JUSTALERO

30. X charged with rape with homicide, offered P100, 000. 00 as amicable settlement to the family of
the victim. The family refused. During the trial, the prosecution presented in evidence X’s offer of
compromise. What is the legal implication of such offer? Explain.

Yes, the offer to settle by the father of the accused, is admissible in evidence as an implied admission of
guilt. (Peo v. Salvador, GR No. 136870-72, 28 January 2003)

31. A sued for annulment of his marriage with B. During trial, A offered in evidence cassette tapes of
alleged telephone conversation of B with her lover. The tapes were recordings made by tapping
A’s telephone line, with A’s consent and obviously without B’s or her lover’s. B vehemently
objected to their admission, on the ground that neither B nor her lover consented to the wire
tap. The court admitted the tapes, ruling that the recorded conversations are nonetheless
relevant to the issues involved. Was the court correct in admitting the cassette tapes in
evidence? Explain.
No, because the tape recordings made by A’s telephone line without the consent of B or that
of her lover as a violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law. (Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA)

32. Explain the equipoise doctrine in the law of evidence and cite its constitutional and procedural
bases.

Equipoise is equivalent to equiponderance of evudence. When the scale stand upon an

equipoise and there is nothing in evidence which shall incline it to the side or the other, the
court will find for the defendant.

The Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law.
(Sec. 1, Art. III)

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present on the facts in issue necessary to establish his
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. (Sec. 1, Rule 131)

In a criminal case its constitutional basis is presumption of innocence and the requirement of
proof beyond reasonable ground for conviction.

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

A “broadside” objection to the admission of documentary is a general objection such as

“incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial”. Stated otherwise, it is on which does not specify
any ground; while specific objection is limited to a particular ground.

34. Al was accused of raping Lourdes. Only Lourdes testified on how the crime was perpetrated. On
the other hand, the defense presented Al’s wife, son and daughter to testify that Al was with
them when the alleged crime took place. The prosecution interposed timely objection to the
testimonies on the ground of obvious bias due to the witnesses’ close relationship with the
accused. If you were the Judge: (1) How would you rule on the objection? And (2) Will the fact
that the version of the defense is corroborated by three witnesses suffice to acquit Al? Why?

1. If I were the judge, I would overrule the objection. Close relationship to a partyb is not a
ground to disqualify a witness. (Sec. 20, Rule 130)

2. No, witnesses are not numbered but weighed. Positive identification prevails over defense
of alibi. Alibi is easily fabricated and must be proved clearly and convincingly.

1
35. Bener was the driver of the car that the police searched and from where they seized a rifle and a
number of shells. Bener assails the legality of the search and seizure on the ground that he is not
the owner of the car nor of the seized items. Rule on Bener’s contention.

Bener’s contention is not correct. The mere fact that he is not the owner of the car or the
seized items does not have any effect on the legality of the search. If he is accused of illegal
possession of firearms, his defense would be that he is only s driver of the car and knows
nothing of the seized items, and if the seizure of the items was made without search warrant,
he can say that they were illegally obtained and cannot be admissible in court.

36. On the basis of the testimonies of PDEA agents, James and Stephen, who spearheaded the buy
bust operation by posing as buyers after a tip from a civilian informer, Steve, accused Bob was
convicted of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. On appeal, Bob claims that he is entitled to an
acquittal as the prosecution wilfully suppressed evidence in not presenting the informer, Steve,
in court. Decide on Bob’s contention.

Bob’s contention is not correct. The prosecution could not be considered to have willfully
suppressed evidence in not presenting in court the informant in a buy-bust operation because
the latter’s testimony is not necessary in convicting Bob fro violation of Dangerous Drugs Act
because there were testimonies of two PDEA agents who spearheaded the operation.

37. When Tomas was stabbed on the chest during a street brawl, he instinctively shouted for help.
Emil who was nearby heard the shout and rushed to Tomas’ side who when asked by Emil what
happened, stated that Kulas stabbed him. Tomas died on account of the stab wound. Could
Emil’s testimony be received to identify Kulas?

YES, Emil’s testimony may be received to identify Kulas because the statement of Tomas who
has just been stabbed on the chest that Kulas stabbed him is admissible in evidence as part of
res gestae. (Sec 36, Rule 130)

38. The day before the stabbing victim died, he identified positively to the police the person who
stabbed him. When he was asked by the police if he was going to die because of his wounds, he
answered that he did not know. Is the identification by the deceased admissible as an ante-
mortem statement and an exception to the hearsay rule? Explain.

No, because his answer to the question of the police that he did not know that he will die
shows that his identification of the person who stabbed him was not made under the
consciousness of impending death. Hence, the identification is not admissible as dying
declaration or ante-mortem statement. (People vs Dominguez)

39. X was arrested for the alleged murder of a 6-year old boy. He was read his Miranda rights
immediately upon being apprehended. IN the course of his detention, X was subjected to three
hours non-stop interrogation. He remained quiet until, on the 3 rd 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.

The assignment of error invoked by X‟s counsel is impressed with merit since there has been
no express waiver of X‟s Miranda Rights. In order to have a valid waiver of the Miranda Rights,
the same must be in writing and made in the presence of his counsel. The uncounselled
extrajudicial confession of X being without a valid waiver of his Miranda Rights, is
inadmissible, as well as any information derived therefrom.

2
40. 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: The Vallejo standard refers to jurisprudential
norms considered by the court in assessing the probative value of DNA evidence.

TRUE. In People vs. Vallejo, 382 SCRA 192 (2002), it was held that in assessing the probative
value of DNA evidence, courts should consider among other things, the following data: how
the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the
samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests
and the qualification of the analyst who conducted tests.

THANK YOU