PRACTICE COURT 2

1. (a) What is the hearsay rule?

ANS: Hearsay evidence may be defined as evidence that consists of testimony not
coming from personal knowledge. Hearsay testimony is the testimony of a witness as to
what he has heard other persons say about the facts in issue.

(b) What are the exceptions to the hearsay rule?

ANS:
1. Dying Declaration;
2. Declaration against interest;
3. Act or declaration about pedigree;
4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree;
5. Common reputation;
6. Res Gestae;
7. Entries in the ordinary course of business;
8. Entries in official records;
9. Commercial lists and the like;
10. Learned treatises; and
11. Testimony or deposition at a former proceedings.

2. What are the requirements in order that an admission of guilt of an accused during a
custodial investigation be admitted in evidence?

ANS: Requisites for admissibility:

1. The admission must be voluntary.
2. The admission must be in writing.
3. The admission must be made with the assistance of competent, independent
counsel.
4. The admission must be express to counsel, such waiver must be in writing,
executed with the assistance of competent, independent counsel.

3. Give the requisites of a dying declaration.

ANS:
(a) the declaration is made by the deceased under the consciousness of his
impending death;
(b) the deceased was at the time competent as a witness;
(c) the declaration concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of the
declarant's death; and
(d) the declaration is offered in a (criminal) case wherein the declarant's death is the
subject of Inquiry.
4. Distinguish clearly but briefly between:
(a) Burden of proof and burden of evidence.
ANS:
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
(Sec. 1 of Rule 131), while burden of evidence is the duty of a party to go forward with
the evidence to overthrow prima facie evidence established against him.

(b) Hearsay and Opinion evidence.

ANS:
Hearsay evidence consists of testimony that is not based on personal knowledge of
the person testifying, (see Sec. 36, Rule 130), while opinion evidence is expert evidence
based on the personal knowledge skill, experience or training of the person testifying
(Sec. 49, Id.) and evidence of an ordinary witness on limited matters (Sec. 50, Id.).

(c) Questions of law and question of fact.

ANS:
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state
of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth of falsity
of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of
them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given
set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence
presented, the question posed is one of fact.

5. Distinguish formal offer of evidence from formal offer of proof (offer of excluded
evidence).
ANS:
Formal offer of evidence refers either to the offer of the testimony of a witness prior
to the latter’s testimony, or to the offer of the documentary and object evidence after a
party has presented his testimonial evidence. Offer of proof, is the process by which a
proponent of excluded evidence tenders the same. If what has been excluded is
testimonial evidence, the tender is made by stating for the record the name and other
personal circumstances of the proposed witness and the substance of his proposed
testimony. If the evidence excluded is documentary or of things, the offer of proof is
made by having the same attached to or made a part of the record.

6. 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.
ANS:
The objection is on the ground that the fact sought to be elicited by the prosecution
is irrelevant and immaterial to the offense under prosecution and trial. Moreover, the
Rules do not allow the prosecution to adduce evidence of bad moral character of the
accused pertinent to the offense charged, except on rebuttal and only if it involves a
prior conviction by final judgment

7. 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 who 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.
ANS:
Objection overruled. The disclosure received by Domingo and Carla may be regarded
as independently relevant statement which is not covered by the hearsay rule; hence
admissible. The statement may be received not as evidence of the truth of what was
stated but only as to the tenor thereof and the occurrence when it was said,
independently of whether it was true or false.

8. Bembol was charged with rape. Bembol’s father, Ramil, approached Artemon, the
victim’s father, during the preliminary investigation and offered Php 1 million to
Artemon to settle the case. Artemon refused the offer. During the trial, the prosecution
presented Artemon to testify on Ramil’s offer and thereby establish an implied admission
of guilt. Is Ramil’s offer to settle admissible in evidence?
ANS:
Yes, the offer to settle by the father of the accused, is admissible in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt.

9. The mutilated cadaver of a woman was discovered near a creek. Due to witnesses attesting
that he was the last person seen with the woman when she was still alive, Carlito was arrested
within five hours after the discovery of the cadaver and brought to the police station. The crime
laboratory determined that the woman had been raped. While in police custody, Carlito
broke down in the presence of an assisting counsel orally confessed to the investigator that he
had raped and killed the woman,detailing the acts he had performed up to his dumping
of the body near the creek. He was genuinely remorseful. During the trial,the state
presented the investigator to testify on the oral confession of Carlito. Is the oral
confession admissible in evidence of guilt?
ANS:
The declaration of the accused expressly acknowledging his guilt, in the presence of
assisting counsel, may be given in evidence against him and any person, otherwise
competent to testify as a witness, who heard the confession is competent to testify as to
the substance of what he heard and understood it. What is crucial here is that the
accused was informed of his right to an attorney and that what he says may be used in
evidence against him. As the custodial confession was given in the presence of an
assisting counsel, Carlito is deemed fully aware of the consequences of his statements.
10. Romeo is sued for damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiff in a vehicular
accident. Julieta, a witness in court, testifies that Romeo told her (Julieta) that he
(Romeo) heard Antonio, a witness to the accident, give an excited account of the
accident immediately after its occurrence. Is Julieta’s testimony admissible against
Romeo over proper and timely objection? Why?
ANS:
No, Julieta’s testimony is not admissible against Romeo, because while the excited
account of Antonio, a witness to the accident, was told to Romeo, it was only Romeo
who told Julieta about it, which makes it hearsay.

11. “S” is indebted to a bank. When the obligations falls due, he fails to pay and the
bank sues for collection. As part of the evidence of the bank, the accountant of “S” is
placed on the stand and in the course of his examination he is asked, in turn, is also
indebted to the bank. The lawyer of “S” interposes an objection to the question on the
ground that it is impertinent. If you were the judge, how would you rule on the
objection?
ANS:

12. May a private document be offered and admitted in evidence both as documentary
evidence and as object evidence?
ANS:
Yes, it can be considered as both documentary and object evidence. A private
document may be offered and admitted in evidence both as documentary evidence and
as object evidence. A document can also be considered as an object for purposes of the
case. Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. Documentary
evidence consists of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expressions, offered as proof of their contents. Hence,
a private document may be presented as object evidence in order to establish certain
physical evidence or characteristics that are visible on the paper and writings that
comprise the document.

13. A resident of America, who came here from massachusetts, made a will where he
stated that, in form, it is executed in accordance with Massachusetts law. The will,
instituting his filipino widow as his sole heir, would not be valid in form under
Philippine Law. Upon his death, the widow presented the will to the Regional Court of
Iloilo. Probate was objected to by distant relatives of the testator in California. The
Judge has studied in Harvard, and was familiar with Massachussets Law. Without the
introduction of formal evidence, he granted probate, stating, that the will was,
indeed, executed in accordance with Massachusetts law. How should the matter be
resolved on appeal? Explain your answer.
ANS:
14. Explain briefly whether the Regional Court may, motu proprio, take judicial notice of
the ordinances approved by municipalities under its territorial jurisdiction.
ANS:
In the absence of statutory authority, the RTC may not take judicial notice of
ordinances approved by municipalities under their territorial jurisdiction, except on
appeal from the municipal trial courts, which took judicial notice of the ordinance in
question.

15. During the custodial investigation at the Western Police District, Mario Margal was
informed of his constitutional right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel. He decided to waive his right to counsel and proceeded to make a
statement admitting commission of a robbery. In the same statement, he implicated
Antonio Carreon, his co-conspirator in the crime. Is the testimony of Mario Margal
Admissible against Carreon as an exception to the res inter alios acta rule?
ANS:
No, because even assuming that the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than the
statement of Margal, the statement was made after the conspiracy had ceased.

16. Pedro was charged with homicide for having hacked Ramon to death. Before the
case could be tried, the heirs of Ramon sought out Pedro and discussed with him the
possibility of settlement of the case. Pedro agreed to settlement. When the heirs asked
how much he was willing to pay, Pedro offered Php 30,000.00 which the heirs accepted.
Is the agreement to settle, as well as the offer to pay Php 30,000.00 by Pedro, admissible
in evidence against him as in implied admission of guilt?
ANS:
Yes. Under the Rules on Evidence, in criminal cases which are not allowed by law to
be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as
an implied admission of guilt. Since a criminal case for homicide is not allowed by law to
be compromised, Pedro’s offer of P 30,000 for the settlement of the case, which the heirs
accepted, is admissible in evidence against him as an implied admission of guilt.

17. ANS: Yes, the newspaper clipping is admissible in evidence against X. regardless of
the truth or falsity of a statement, the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement
may be shown where the fact that it is made is relevant. Evidence as to the making of
such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a
fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such fact.

18. Fallen by a bullet upon being fired at, Santos before expiring told Romeo, a passer by
who came to his rescue, “I was shot by Pablo Cruz, our neighbor.” May Romeo’s
testimony on what was told him by Santos be offered and admitted in evidence in the
separate civil action for damages brought by the heirs against Pablo Cruz?
ANS:
 The statement is admissible. A dying declaration, as in the facts in the case at bar,
may be offered in a civil case provided that the cause and circumstances of the death of
the declarant are the subjects of inquiry.

19. As Cicero was walking down a dark alley one midnight, he saw an “owner-type
jeepney” approaching him. Sensing that the occupants of the vehicle were up to no
good, he darted into a corner and ran. The occupants of the vehicle were elements from
the Western Police District gave a chase and apprehended him. The police apprehended
Cicero, frisked him and found a sachet of 0.09 gram of shabu tucked in his waist and
Swiss knife in his secret pocket, and detained him thereafter. Is the arrest and body
search legal? Explain.
ANS:
No. The arrest and the body search were not legal. In this case, Cicero did not run
because the occupants of the vehicle identified themselves as police officer. He darted
into the corner and ran upon the belief that the occupants were up to no good.
Cicero’s act of running did not show any reasonable ground to believe that a crime
has been committed or is about to be committed for the police officers to apprehend him
and conduct body search. Hence, the arrest was illegal as it does not fall under any of
the circumstances for a valid warrantless arrest.

20. In a prosecution for rape, the defense relied on Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) evidence
showing that the semen found in the private part of the victim was not identical with
that of the accused’s. As private prosecutor, how will you dispute the veracity and
accuracy of the results of the DNA evidence?
ANS:
As a private prosecutor, I shall try to discredit the results of the DNA test by
questioning and possibly impugning the integrity of the DNA profile by showing a
flaw/error in obtaining the biological sample obtained; the testing methodology
employed; the scientific standard observed; the forensic DNA laboratory which
conducted the test; and the qualification, training and experience of the forensic
laboratory personnel who conducted the DNA testing.

21. Policemen brought Lorenzo to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) and requested
one of its surgeons to immediately perform surgery on him to retrieve a packet of 10 grams
of shabu which they alleged to have swallowed by Lorenzo. Suppose the PGH agreed to,
and did perform the surgery is the package of shabu admissible in evidence? Explain.(3%)
ANS:
No, the package of shabu extracted from the body of Lorenzo is not admissible in
evidence because it was obtained through surgery which connotes forcible invasion into
the body of Lorenzo without his consent and absent due process. The act of the
policemen and the PGH surgeon involved, violate the fundamental rights of Lorenzo, the
suspect.
22. A was accused of having rape X. Rule on the admissibility of the following pieces of
evidence:
(a) An offer of A to marry X; and
(b) A pair of short pants allegedly left by A at the crime scene which the court, over
the objection of A, required him to put on, and when he did he fit him well.
ANS:
(a) A's offer to marry X is admissible in evidence as an Implied admission of guilt
because rape cases are not allowed to be compromised.
(b) The pair of short pants, which fit the accused well, is circumstantial evidence of
his guilt, although standing alone it cannot be the basis of conviction. The accused
cannot object to the court requiring him to put the short pants on. It is not part of his
right against self-incrimination because it is a mere physical act.

23. If the accused on the witness stand repeats his earlier uncounseled extrajudicial
confession implicating his co-accused in the crime charge. Is the testimony admissible in
evidence against the latter?
ANS:
Yes. The accused can testify by repeating his earlier uncounseled extrajudicial
confession, because he can be subjected to cross-examination.

24. What is the probative value of a witness’ Affidavit of Recantation?

ANS:
On the probative value of an affidavit of recantation, courts look with disfavor upon
recantations because they can easily be secured from witnesses, usually through
intimidation or for a monetary consideration, Recanted testimony is exceedingly
unreliable. There is always the probability

25. What are the two kinds of objections? Explain each briefly. Give an example of each.
ANS:
Formal and substantive Objections. A formal objection is one directed against the alleged defect in
the formulation of the question. Examples of defectivelyf ormulated questions: ambiguous question;
leading and misleading questions; repetitious questions; multiply questions; argumentative questions.
A substantive objection are objections made and directed against the very nature of the evidence, i.e., it
is in admissible either because it is irrelevant or incompetent or both. Examples: parol; not the best
evidence; hearsay privileged communication not authenticated; opinion; res inter alios acta

Two kinds of objections are: (1) the evidence being presented is not relevant to the
issue; and (2) the evidence is incompetent or excluded by the law or the rules.
An example of the first is when the prosecution offers as evidence the alleged offer
of an Insurance company to pay for the damages suffered by the victim in a homicide
case. Examples of the second are evidence obtained in violation of the Constitutional
prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and confessions and admissions
in violation of the rights of a person under custodial Investigation.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
1) Specific objections: Example: parol evidence and best evidence rule
General Objections: Example: continuing objections.
2) The two kinds of objections are: (1) objection to a question propounded in the course
of the oral examination of the witness and (2) objection to an offer of evidence in
writing. Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a
witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably
apparent otherwise, it is waived. An offer of objection in writing shall be made within
three (3) days after notice of the offer, unless a different period is allowed by the court.
In both instances the grounds for objection must be specified. An example of the first is
when the witness is being cross-examined and the cross examination is on a matter not
relevant. An example of the second is that the evidence offered is not the best evidence.

26. Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence:
(a) DEAD MAN RULE: if death has closed the lips of one party, the policy of the law is to
close the lips of the other. This is to prevent the temptation to perjury because death has
already sealed the lips of the party.
(b) PAROL EVIDENCE RULE: It is designed to give certainty to a transaction which has
been reduced to writing, because written evidence is much more certain and accurate
than that which rests on fleeting memory only.
(c) BEST EVIDENCE RULE: This Rule is adopted for the prevention of fraud and is declared
to be essential to the pure administration of justice. If a party is in possession of such
evidence and withholds it, the presumption naturally arises that the better evidence is
withheld for fraudulent purposes.
(d) The rule against the admission of illegally obtained extrajudicial confession: An
illegally obtained extrajudicial confession nullifies the intrinsic validity of the confession
and renders it unreliable as evidence of the truth. It is the fruit of a poisonous tree.
(e) The rule against the admission of an offer of compromise in civil case: The reason
for the rule against the admission of an offer of compromise in civil case as an admission
of any liability is that parties are encouraged to enter into compromises. Courts should
endeavor to persuade the litigants in a civil case to agree upon some fair compromise.
During pre-trial, courts should direct the parties to consider the possibility of an
amicable settlement.

27. Distinguish extrajudicial admission from extrajudicial confession in criminal case.

ANS:
An extrajudicial admission is a statement of fact which does not directly involve an
acknowledgment of guilt or criminal intent, while an extrajudicial confession is a
declaration of an accused that he has committed or participated in the commission of a
crime.

AS TO NATURE. Extrajudicial admission is a statement of facts which does not

involve an acknowledgment of guilt, while in extrajudicial confession it involves
acknowledgment of guilt.
 AS TO APPLICABILITY. Admission is applicable to civil transactions and to matters of
fact in criminal cases not involving criminal intent, while in confession is applicable only
in acknowledgment of guilt in criminal cases.

AS TO WHOM MADE. Admission may be made by third person, while confession can
be made by the party himself.

AS TO MANNER. Admission may be express or implied, while confession is always

express.

28. In the examination of witness, what is meant by “laying the predicate”?

ANS:
“Laying the predicate” is the procedure of impeaching a witness by evidence of prior
inconsistent statements. Before such witness can be impeached, the prior statements
must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons
present, and must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to
explain them. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to him before any
question is put to him concerning them.

29. At A’s trial for murder, the defense attempts to present as its witness the victim’s
widow, X. She is to testify that just before B died, she approached his sprawled and
bloodied husband and asked who stabbed him. B, conscious of his impending death,
named Y as his assailant. The prosecution moves to stop X from testifying because her
testimony: (1) is hearsay, and (2) will be violative of the rule on privileged marital
communication. Rule on the prosecution’s motion. Explain.
ANS:
I will deny the prosecution's motion. The testimony of X is admissible as a dying
declaration, which is an exception to the hearsay rule. Moreover, it is not a privileged
marital communication. 

30. X charged with rape with homicide, offered Php 100,000.00 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.
ANS:
The offer of Php 100,000.00 as amicable settlement in a criminal case for rape with
homicide is an implied admission of guilt. It does not fall within the exceptions of quasi-
offenses or those allowed by law to be compromised.

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.
ANS:
No, because the tape recordings made by tapping A’s telephone line without the
consent of B or that of her lover was a violation of the Anti-Wire Tapping Law.

32. Explain the equipoise doctrine in the law of evidence and cite its constitutional and
procedural basis.
ANS:
Equipose is the equivalent of equiponderance of evidence. When the scale
shall stand upon an equipose and there is nothing in the evidence which shall incline it to one side or
the other, the court will find for the defendant. The Constitution provides that no person shall be
deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied
the equal protection of the law. Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the
facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required
by law.
In a criminal case its constitutional basis is the presumption of innocence and the requirement of
proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction.

33. What is the difference between broadside objection and a specific objection to the
admission of documentary evidence?
ANS:
A broadside objection is one which does not specify the ground for objection or is a
General objection such as “incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial”, while a 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?
ANS:
(1). I would overrule the objection. Close relationship to a party is not a ground to disqualify a
witness.
(2). No. Witnesses are not numbered but weighed. Positive identification prevails
over the defense of alibi. Alibi is easily fabricated and must be proved clearly and
convincingly.

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.
ANS:
Bener’s contention is not correct. The mere fact that he is not the owner of the car
nor of the seized items does not have any effect on the legality of the search. If Bener is
accused of illegal possession of firearms, his defense would be that he is only the driver
of the car and he knows nothing of the seized items, and if the seizure of the items was
made without a 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.
ANS:
The non-presentation of the confidential informant is not fatal to the prosecution’s
case. The presentation of the informant is not a requisite in the prosecution of drug
cases. His presentation is not essential for conviction nor is it indispensable for a
successful prosecution because his testimony would merely be corroborative and
cumulative.

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?
ANS:
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 as
part of the res gestae.

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 ante-mortem statement and an exception to the hearsay rule?
Explain.
ANS:
Yes. The statement of the victim identifying the person who had stabbed him is
admissible as a dying declaration. The statement was made with consciousness of
impending death, since the victim said that he did not know if he was going to survive
because of the many stab wounds he sustained were very painful and in fact he died two
days later.
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
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.
ANS:

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.
ANS:
TRUE. In People vs. Vallejo, 382 SCRA192 (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 the
test.