Remedial Law Bar Examination Q&A (1997-2008) (@. The proper cour isthe Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction ver crimes commined by a consul or Higher official in the diplomatic service. (See. es Sandigiaiayan isa naional cour. (Nimee “Sindiguntayan, 10 SCRA 35 fz. It has only one enue at present, which isin Mero Manil, until RA. No. 7975, proniding far two other branches in Cebu and in Cagayan de Oo, is implemented. ‘tomas Anaiere: (©) The information may be fled either in Calamba or in Makati City, not in Tagaytay City where no offence had as yer been commited, (@ Assuming that the Sandiganbayan has oo Jurisdiction, the proper venue is the first TC in ‘which the charge is fled (Se 15) Rsk 110) EVIDENCE ‘Admissibility (1908) ‘The barangay captain reported w the police dhat X ‘was illegally keeping in his house in the barangay an Armalite MI if, On the sirengh of thar information, the police conducted a search of the hhouse of X’and indeed found said rifle, The sidlers seized the rifle and fbeought X to the police station. During the investigation, be voluntaily ssigned.s Sworn Starement thar he was possessing suid ‘ifle without license or authority to possess, and a ‘Waiver of Right to Counsel. During the wal of X for eg of firearm, the posession, proscourion, submised in evidence the rifle. Sworn Statement and Waiver of Right wo Counsel, individually rule om the admissibility ly in evidence af the: by. sindondecia gmail.com: Page 50 of 66 ‘Aeting on 2 tip by an informant, police officers stopped a car being driven by D and ordered him 1 ‘open the trunk The officers found a bag containing several kilos of encaine. They seized the car and the ‘cocaine as evidence and placed [ under arrest. Without advising bim of his ght to remain ent and im have the assitance of an atomey, they questioned him regarding the cocaine. In reply, D said, "1 doa’ See sng se seek ya” D a with illegl possession of cocaine, a pecibitad drag. Upos’ moan of TD, the count the we of cocaine at evidence and cliwnised the changes aganst him. D ‘commenced Proceedings agsinst the police for the recovery of his Gaz In his direct examination, DD testified that be ‘owned the car but had registered ic in the name of 3 fiend for convenience. On crossexamination, the attomey presenting the police arked, “After your arrest, di you aot te the amesting officers that it wasn't your ca” If you were D's anomey, woud you object tothe question? Why? (54) SuccesTep ANSWER: Yes, becmse his admission made when he was sqocstioned after he was placed uncer arrest was in Violation of his constiutianal ght se be informed oF bis sight ro remain silent and to bave warrantless search is not justified. There was time to scoure a search warrant. (Pople wx Encinads GA. No. “M8720, Gctobee 2.1987 and otter cases) 2. The sworn satcment is not admissible in evidence because it was taken withour informing him of his custodial iphts and without the assistance af counsel ‘which should be independent and competent and Preferably of the chaice of the accuscd. (People ux Sequin, 27 SCRA OB) 3. The waiver of hie right to. counsel is act admissible because it was made wahoue the assistance of counsel ‘of his choice. (Peoples. Gamez, 290 SCRA 423) ‘dmissibiy (2002) adimizted his role in the robbery and his possession afRemedial Law Bar Examination © & A (1857-2006) before whom they signed the statements was 2 lawyer, be was not funcisoning as a lawyer, nor ean he be considered as an indepensient counsel. Waiver of fh sigh fw ter meth de i ting adn the presence of independent counsel. (People ¥. Mania, 302 SCRA A518: Pepl Exp, SCRA ‘Admissibility; Admission of Gullt; Requirements (2006) ‘The admission must be made with the The admission must be express (Peiple Prise, Goll. No, LESS, May 2, 02. In eate the accused waives his rights wo silence and vo counsel, such waiver must be in writing, vexceuted with the aiistance of competent, independent counsel, 2 4 assistance of competent, independent counsel. 4 5 Admissibility: Document: Not raised in the Pleading (emma) Ta complaint for a sum af money fed before the ME TC plaie did not meron or even just bint a any detand for pyrene made on defendant hefore commencing tui During the si dily offered Exh AY in evidence for tie sed purpone of proving the making of exijodical Semand on deicedant to pay PSOQ00, che abort of the suit, Exh, "AT war a lester of demand for defendant pay suid yum of money within 10 days fioen rocipt, sddessed to and served om defendant some rw months before gut wor begun. Without Objection tom defender, the cout acmined Exh, SA" in evidence. Was the cour’ admission of Exh. inevidence erroneous or not? Reasons (392) sucaesTeD ANsWeR. ‘The courts sdmimion of Exh. "A" in evidence is not Gromeout Ie war adbuaned in evidence, withoet ‘Objecsom on the par of the defendant tt should be treme ati 9 hal cen tose inthe pleating The Complaint may be amended to conform ta the vevmdence, but if it is mot so amended, it does not Acer the resule of the wil smu lc of i Admissibility: Electronic Evidence (2003) a}, Stare the rule on the admissibility af an electronic evidence. by) When is an electronic evidence megarded as being boy sirctondoigmal com Page 31 of 66 ‘deemed tm include an electronic document as defined in these Rules. (Sa: U af Rk 3, Rake of Ebert Eider fe nga 2001) An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it ‘complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related Laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules. (Tm 7 of Reb 5, fd) The authenticity of any Private elecwronic document must be proved by evidence thar it had been digitally signed and other appropriate security measures have been applic. fi 2 ofa 5, ld {b) An electronic document shall be as the equivalent of an original document under the Best ‘Evidence Rule iff is a printout or oaspu readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately. (lief fRae 4) ‘Admissibility; Object or Rewl Eviderce (1994) At the tal of Ace for violation af the Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosceuson offers in evidence a Photweopy of the marked PIOO00 bills used in the “buy-bust” operition. Ace obits to-the introduction of the photocopy on the ground that the Best Evidence Rule prohibits the intraduction of ssccondary evidence in liew of the a) Is the photocopy real fabject) evidence or documentary evidence? 2) Ie the photocopy adnissiblein evidence? SUGGESTED ANSWER: a} The photocopy of the marked bis is real (object) evidence not documentary evidence, because the marked bills are real evidence. B) Yes, the photocopy is admissible in evidence, because the best evidence rule does nat apply to object or real evidence. ‘Admissibility: Objections (1997) ‘What are the row kinds of objections? briefly. Given an example of exch. ‘SUGGESTED ANSWER! ‘Two kinds of objections are: (I) the evidence Presented is not relevant tm the issue; and (2) the evidence is incompetent or excluded by the law a the ules, (Si 3, Rab 138} Aa example of the frst ‘when the ‘offers as evidence the alleged offer of an Insurance company to pay for the damages suffered by the wictim in a homicide case. (See 1997 Na 14. ‘Examples of the second are evidence obtained in Explain each (@) Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term ‘or any other form of writing, such term shall beRemedial Law Bar Examination @ & A (1997-2006) 1) Specific objectons: Example: paral evidence and best evidence nile Genel Objections: Example: continuing. objections (Bec. 37 of Rule 132). 2) The rwo kinds of objections are: (I) objection a question propounded in the coune af the onal examination of the wines and (2) objection to an offer of evidence in writing. Objection ta 4 question, Propounded in the course of the oral examination of witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent acherwise, ‘waived. An affer of objection an writing shall be sade within shree () days after notice of the offer, unless a different period is allowed by the court. In both instances the for objection mast be specified. An example of che first is when the wines is being cross-examined and the cross ‘ona mutter not relevant. An cxample of the second. that the evidence offered is not the best evidence. Aantal (Gtler to Marry; Circumstantial Exidence ‘Awwas accused of having raped X. Rule an the admissibility of the following pieces of evidence: 1. anaffer af Ato marry X; and (3%) 2. a pair of shore pants allegedly left by A at the erime which the cour, over the objection of A, required him to pat oa, and when he did, ic Gi ir well. [2% SUGGESTED ANSWER: LA's offer to marry X is admissible in evidence as an Implied admission of guik because rape cases are not aBowed tc be eompromized. (Sec. 27 af Rk 130; People rs, Dorningo, 206 SCRA 186) 2. The pair of shor pants, which fir the accused ‘wel, fs circumstantial evidence of bis guilt, although standing alone it cannoe be the basis of conviction. "The accused cannot object to the court im 1 put the shore punts on. I is aot part of his right against self ‘because it isa mere physical Admissibility; Offer to Pay Expenses (1997) ‘A, while driving his car ran over B.A visited B ac the hnospita and offered to pay for hes bospataliztion cespentes After the fing ofthe criminal case against ‘A for scious physical injurcs through seciless impridence. A's insurance carer offered to pay for the injries and damages sfened by B. The offer was sejcted because B considesed the amount offered as inadequate. 3) Ie the offer by A to pay the bospélization ‘expenses of B admissible in evidenced 1) Is the offer by A's insurance carrer to pay forthe injuries and) damages of B admissible in evidence? by: sintondocitgmai com Page $2 of 66 ‘SUGGESTED ANSWER: @ The offer by Aw pay the hospitaization expenses of B is not admissible in evidence to prowe bis guilt in both the civil and criminal cases. flak 130, “im 7, ftp. (@) No. It ie ievelevant. The obligation of the insunince company is based on the contract of insurance and & ot admissible in evidence against the accused becaute it was no offered by the accused burby theinsumance company which is noc his agent. ‘Admissibitty; Private Document (2005) ‘May a private document be offered, and admired in evidence boch as documentary evidence and 1s object Yes, it can be considered as both decumenary and object evidence. A private document may be offered and admined in evidence bath as documentary evidence and as object evidence. A document can ako he considered as an object for purposes of the are. Objects ax evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. fl 1, Rink 130, Rabe of Cam) ‘Documentary evidence consists of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, ‘ar other modes of written expressions, ‘offered ns peoof af their contents. (Sm 2 ab 10, Rr 4 Cart} Hence, a private document may be presented as object evidence in order wo ‘establish cermin physical evidence or characteristics that are visible on. the paper and weiings thar compaise the document. ‘Admissibility; Proof of Filistion; Action of Partition Linda and Arvind Cores were co-owners of a parcel of land. Linda died intestate and without any ieaue. Ter (10) headed by Jocelyn, chiming to be the collateral elaives: of the ‘deceased Linda, filed an action for partion with the INTC praying for the segregation of Linda's Vs share, submiting in support of their petition the bapeismal cenificates of seven of the petioncrs, « family bible hielonging to Linda in which the names af the Pesrioners have been catercd, a photocopy af the Binh cenificate of Jocelyn, and a conifiation of the local civil regictrar that ice aFice ad reen cormplecely sured by fre. The spouses Ceres refused to partion ‘on the following grounds: 1) che baptismal certiicates of the parish priest are erklence only of the ‘ciminisotcion of the sacament of bape and hey slo not prove ftation of the alleged collateral relatives, of the deceased: 9) enery inthe family bible is hearsay, 3) the certification cf she registrar on non-availability ff the recands of bin does nat prove fliation: 4) in partition cases where fation to the deceased is in. Sispue, prine and separste judicial declaration of heitship in a senlment of esate proceedings is necessary; and 5) there is need for pubbeation ax relRemedial Law Bar Examination @ & & (1997-2006) Propenty is invalved. As counsel for Jocelyn and her co-petitioners, argue agains: the objections of the spouses Ceres so as to convince the court to allow the panitian, Discuss each of the five (5) aqguaments briefly bur ceampenly. (10%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: (1) The baptismal certificate can show Siation or prove pedigree. It is one of the ocher means allowed under the Rules of Court and special laws to shaw pesligres. (Toinidd 0 Couet af Appeuly, 257 SCRA 188 [ISISf; Hekes of Upc Cod 6 Gace of Appeals, 300 ‘SCRA 345 [199593 (@) Enaries in the family bible may be received as evidence of pedipre. (See 4%, Aule 190, Hates of Court. @) The cenification by the civil registrar of the non avaibilay of records i necdedd to justify che Presentation af sceondiry evidence, which is the Photocopy af the birth certificate of Jocelyn. (Fetes af Apnacio Caw v. Cowet af Appeals, supea.) (@) Declaration of heirship in a settlement proceeding saat Tecan be made ia the: action for parition wherein the heirs are exercising the right ning w the decedent, their predecessar-in- Snterest, 0 ask for panttion as co-ommners (ld) G) Even if real property is involved, ne publication is necessary, because whar is sought is the mere segregation of Linda's share in the peoporty. (la: taf a 9: Ly ‘Admissibility; Rules of Evidence (1997) Give the reasons underlying the adaprion of the follonsing ruler of evidence: (@) Dead Man Rule b) Paral Evidence Rule Ke} Best Evidence Rule (@) The nul against the admission of illegally (@) The rule agninse the admission of an offer of compromise in civd cases SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘The reasons behind ihe following nales areas follows: (@) DEAD MAN RULE: if death bas closed the lips ‘of one pany, the poly of the law is to close the lips of the other, Gea? m Ciwm oftppeals, £-7™M. September 2%, 1986, 14 SCRA 222). This is to prevent the tempration ta perjury because death has already sealed the lips of the pary. () PAROL EVIDENCE RULE: Iris designed to (Eve cemaimy to a transaction which has been reduced fo wnting, because ‘rinen evidence is much more ‘cemain and accurate than that which rests 00 ‘mesma cy. (Peas, Rar of Court Wad V0, Part Lp. 156) bby: siniamdeciaigmail.com Page 53 of 66. (© BEST EVIDENCE RULE: Ths Rule sclopred forthe prevenson of Fsul and ix declared ro be fssntal to the pure administation of justice, (Mira, Val fp. 12) Ifa party in possession of such evidence and withholds i, the presumption naruraiy arcs that the better evidence ix withheld for ftaudlent From Rao Co ra VTL Pa pa THE) (Aa illegally obtained extrajudicial confession sullifies the intrinsic ‘of the confession and renders ie unreliable ac evidence of the truch. (ena, mol 5, 257) itis the fruit of « posomous tree. (©) The reason for the nsle agains: the admission of an offer of compromise in civil case as an admission of any liability i that parties are encouraged to enter into compromises. Couns should endeavor permunde the Ergants ina civil case oo agree upon some fiir compromise. (ee 2029, Cu Cadel During: pre-trial, cours should dincer the pumies to consider the ‘of an amicable settlement. (a: Nef of frre 0 Sa. 2 fof Ra 16h Best Evidence Rule (1997) Whea A loaned a sum of money to B. A yped a. single copy of the promissory nex, which they bath signed A made two photo (screed) copies of the promissory note, giving ane copy to Band retaining, the other copy. A entrusted the pewniten enpy 10 his counsel for safekeeping The copy with A's counsel was destrayed when the bw office was bumed. a} In an action tw collect on. the promissory ante, Which is deemed to be the “original” copy for the of the “Best Evidence Rule"? 1b) Can the photocopies in the hands of the parties be considered "duplicate original copies"? ©) As counsel for A, how will pou prove the loan given to A and B? SUGGESTED ANSWER: (@). The copy thar was signed and lost is the only. “original” copy for purposes of the Best Evidence Rule. tee ¢ Jaya 150, (@) No, They are aot duplicate original copies because there are ies which were not sig (Mahim v. Court of Appeals, 17 SCRA 43, ‘They constitute secondary evidence. fie 5 e/faae 130) (©) The loan given by A to B may be proved by secondury evidence thaugh the seroed copies of the Promissory noee. The mules provide that when the oxiginal document is lst or destnyed, or cannot be lbiliry without bad faith on his pars, may Prove ics coments by a copy, or by a recinl of its contents in some authentic dacument, ar by theRernedial Law Bar Examination © & A (1887-2006) restimoay of wimesses in the order stated. (Sie 5 af a 130) Burden of Proof vs. Burden of Evidence (2004) Distinguish Burden of proof and burden of evidence. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Burden of proof is the dusy of a pany to present ‘evidence 00 the facts in issue necessary t0 establish ‘chim of defense by the amount of evidence required by lw. (ie fof Reb 191, while burden of evidence & the duty of a pany to go forward with the evidence 1 avemhrow prima facie evidence ‘establishes against him. (Baulistsv. Saminta, 138 5CRA SAT [tees (Character Evidence (2002) D was pensecuted for homicide for allegedly beating up V te death with an io pipe. A. May the prosccurion introduce evidence that V had a good repuntion far peacefulness and non ‘violenze? Why? (236) B. May D inuduce evidence of specific violent acts by V2 Why? (5) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. The prosecution may introduce evidence of the goad or evca bad mor character of the victim if it tends t establish in any ressanuhle degree the probability or improbabiity of che offense charged. Rink 150, 51 2 (9. ln this case, the evidence is not relevant. B.Yes, D muy introduce evidence of specific violent acts by V. Evidence that one did oe did not do a.cermin thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not de the same or a similar ching at another time; bur it may be received to prove a specific inteat or knowledge, identity, plan, system, one, ite oxen or on, se He: (Rae Confession; Affidavit of Recantation (1998) 1. Ifthe accused on the witness stand repeats his earlier uncounseled extrajudicial confession 1 Yes. The accused can testify by repeating his earlier luncounseled extrajudicial confession, because he can be subjected! te 2 Om the probative value of an affiderit of recantation, cours look with disfavor upon recantations because they can easily be secured from ‘witnesses, usually theowgh intimidaioa or far a monetary contiderstion, Recanted testimony is exceedingly unteliable, There i abways the probabiliry bys, Page 54 of 66 sirdondeet gmail.com har it will be repudiated. (Motina ws. People. 289 SORA my Facts: Legislative Forts vs. Adjudicative Facts (2004) “Legichive facts and adjudicarive Facts SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘Legichtive facts refer to facts mentioned in a stanute for in an explanatory note, while adjudicutive fers are fers found in a count decision. Hesrsay Evideoce (2002) ‘Romeo is sued for damages for injuries suffered by the plains im a vehicular accident. Julieta, a winnces ‘in cour, testifies that Romo tald her (Juice) ehat he Romeo) heard Antonio, a witness to the accident, ‘give an excited account of the accident is after its occurrence. Is Julia's testimony admissible aginst Romeo aver proper and timely objection? ‘Why? (555) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Julica’s testimony is not admissible against Romen, because while the excited account of Antonio, a witness w the accident, was told t Romeo, it was only Ramen who told Julieta about it, ‘which makes it hearsay. Hearsay Evidence vs, Opinion Evidence (2008) ‘Hearay evidence aad opinion evidence. SUGGESTED ANSWER: “Hearsay evidence consists of testimony thar % aot based 0a persoaul Lnowlalge of the person testifring, (oe See, Kae 120), while opinion evidence is espert evidence bated oa the peronal knowledge skill, experiance of taining of the person texifying fe. 3, Jaj and evidence of an ordinary wines: on limized ‘matters (50, 1} Hearsay; Exception; Oead Man Statute (2001) Maximo filed an action Pedra, the administrator of the este of deceased Juan, for the recovery of a car which is part of the latter’: estate, ng the trial, Maxime ‘witness Mariano ‘who testified that he was present when Maxime and Joan agreed that the latter would pay 2 rental of P20Q)000.00 for the use of Maximo’s car for one month after which Joan should immediately remus the car to Maximo, Pedro objected to the admission of Mariano’s testimony. Tf you were the judge, would you sustain Pedta’s sbjetion? Wy? (6) No, he testimony iz admissible in evidence beezuse ‘witness Mariano who testified as to udhat Maximo. and Joan, the decesed person agreed upon, is, aot ‘squalid wo testify on the agrecment. ‘Those lisqualified are parties or assignors of parties w a ‘case, or perons in whose behali a case is prosecuted, against the adminittntor or Juan's esate, upon aRemedial Law Bar Examination © & A (1987-2006) claim or demand spuinst his estate as t-any mater of fact occurring before Juan's death. (Sex 23 af Rule 130) Hearsay; Exception; Dying Declaration (1996) Reguisites of Dying Declaratioa. [29%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘The requisites for the admis of a dying declaration are: (a) the decharion i made by the deceased under the consciousness of his impending ‘death; (1) the deceased was at the time competent az 4 witness: (¢) the declaration concerns the cause and ‘of che declarar’s eats and (d) the declaration is offered in a (criminal) case whereia the declaran’s death is the subject of inquiry. Pa Senta, 79 SCAB [ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: ‘The declaration of a dying person, made under the coneciousnest of ani death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of Inquiry, 23 evidence of the cause and surrounding ireumatances of such cleath. fae 37 af Rade HEM) Hearsay; Exception; Res Gestae; Opinion of Ordinary Witness (2006) [Dencin barged into the house of Marecla, tod her to a chair and mbbed her of assored pacces of jewelry and money. Dencio then brought Candida, Marcel's maid, tw a bedeoom where be raped her. Marcela could hear Candida crying and pleading: "Huwag! ‘Maawa ka sa akin!” After raping Candida, Deneie fed from the house with che loot. Candida thea untied ‘Marcela and rushed so ihe police station about a Klometer and told Police Officer Robero Marwa thar Dencio had barged into the howe of ‘Marecla, tied the later to a chair and robbed her of hier jewelry and money. Candida also related to the police officer that despite her pleas, Dencio had raped her. The policeman noticed that Candida was hysterical and 00 the verge of collapse. Dencio was charged with mbbery weh rape. During the wil, (Candida cant no longer be lncated. (89) 3) Mi dhe prosecution prevents Police Officer Rabo avs to testy on what Conti had told Bis worl awn personal knowicdge, not to the truth of Candisl's statement, ic, thar she tok him, despite her pleas, Dencio had raped her. (Pew v. Gad Gk, [Nia 74063, Rebrnsy 73889) (6) te plice alte wit est tha de once Camda 1 be lyserica and on the verge of ealapee, would sch ‘atinany ee coaidored as opin, Bence, fnadondae? Epa SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘Na, ir cannot be considered as opinion, because fe was testifying om what he actully observed. The last paragraph of Sec. 3, Rule 130, Reviced Rules of by: sirdandeei gmail.com Page 55 of 66. idence, expressly provides that a witness may estfy on his impressions of the emocion, behavior, ‘condition or appearance af a person. Hearsay; Exceptions (1999) a) Define hearsay evidence? (24%) 1B) Whar are the exceptions tthe hearsay rule? 279) SUGGESTED ANSWER! a Heapuay evidence may be defined! as evidence that consists of testimany not coming from personal nowiedge fla: 38, Ra 15% Rake of Coury. Hearsay imony is the teximony of a witness ax to what he has heard other persons say about the facts in issue. B. The exceptions oo the hearsay mule are: dying OF the mr gestae, entries in the course of business, ceatries in official reconds, commercial lists and the like, leamed treatizes, and testimony or deposition at aa former proceeding. (71 47, Rae 130, Rake of Coan) ‘Hearsay; Exceptions: Dying Dectaration (1899) "The accusod was charged with robbery and homicide, ‘The victim suffered several sub wounds. It appears that leven (I) hours after the crime, while the victim was being brought wo the hospital in a jeep, vwith bis brother and a policeman at corspanions, the victim was asked certain questions which he answered, pointing w the accused as his astilant, ‘His answers were put down in writing, but siace he ‘was 2 in a critical condition, bis brother and the policeman signed the surement, Is the statement adminsible as a dying declaration? Explain. (26) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. ‘The statement is admissible as a ‘Sonor ete eluent pina te cea oisReenedial Liw Bar Examination © & A (1857-2006) srigg that “Xi admimed the robbery. It Bkewive frsented a cerificaioa of the PNP Fissams and [Exphosive Office anesting that the accused had no cence to camry any firearm. The cenifying officer, however, was not presented asa wimess. Both pisces cf evidence were objected toby the defense. (0) 2) Is the newspaper clipping admisible in evidence against XP 1) Ie the centfcation of the PNP Firearm and Explosive Office without the officer testifying on i acmisible in evidence ugatast X? SUGGESTED ANSWER: (Yes, the newspaper clipping is admissible in ‘viene against Xreganiiss of the truth or falsity of a statement, the hearsay rule does not apply and the sotement may be shown whese che fact that i is surement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue oF be cireumnstandally relevant a3 to the existence af such ‘uct, (Comeseo Javestment Corpuration vs, Charen, 210 SCARA as poescyy &) Yes, the cenification is admissible in evidence 1X because a written statement by an officer having the custody of an official record be Spy a ie ges ee mn ed ofa tenor is found tc exist ia the ‘tconde of his fice accompanied bya cenit ax abowe i admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. (ae 28 of Rak 152). Judictl Notice; Evidence (2005) ‘Explain briefly whether the RTC may, amatu propris, ‘ake judicial notice of (5%) 1 The serect_ name of methumphetamine ydrowchloride is shabu. SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘The RTC may sont popes take judicial nosice of the sreet name of hydrochloeide ix shabu, considering the chemical composition of shabu. (Pape +. Mecasting: CM, No O52, Muy 2, a) 2 Ondinances approved by municipalities _ uncer ite toitonial indicia; SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the absence of senutogy authority, she RTC may not take judicial notice of ordinances approved by smunicipalises under their terieorial jurisdiction, except on appeal from the municipal trial courrs, which rook judicial notice of che ordinance in quesion. (US. x Blancs, GR, Ne ZA, November UST; US «. Hemandes, GR No 3655, Aupusr 35, 105) Foreign laws; ‘SUGGESTED ANSWER: by: sintondectaigmail com Page 56 of 66 ‘The RTC may not generally take juicial notice of foreign laws (a re Esta of faason, GR. No. 12767 ‘November Id, 180% Flacaver v. Hix, CR. Na E3636 acct 1% 290), which must be proved Eke any other matter of fact (Sp for Lica. Sy Quin, it Na. 4718 ‘Macch 13; 1900) except in a few instances, the cour in. the exercise of i sound judicial discretion, may take notice of foreign lrws when Phi Courts are evidently familiar with them, such 25 the Spanish Cid Code, which had taken effect in the Philippines, and other allied legislation. (Punto +. Repubik, 2 Na. 2 22s fasmay 24, 195%, Defpeda +. Republic, GRE Na. E P56 Jonny 28, 1950) ko Rules and Regulations issued by quasi= judicial bastion Paptemmench . ‘SUGUESTED ANSWER: | Degen ted Ps mined odes of Contos, GR. No. WE, November 3183), unless the law itself considers such rules as an integral part ‘of the statute, in which case judicial notice becomes mandatory. Rape may be committed even in public places SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘The RTC may take jticial notice of the fact that pe say be comanined even in public places. The "public setting” of the rape & not an indication of consent. (People +. Tangsom, GL Na. S1261, Feta 18, 3951) ‘The Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of the uct that a man overcome by perversity and beastly passion chonses neither the time, place, occasion nor victim, (Pople % Macchi, GA. Nia 82589, Ocsaber Jt ad Judictal Notice: Evidence: Foreign Law (1997) 3) Give thror inseances when a ‘ake judicial notice of a foreign Law. 1b) How do you prove a writen forcign Law? ©) Suppose a foreign law was pleaded as part of the defense of defendant but no eviclemce was Presented to prove the existence of suid law, swhar is the presumption to be taken by the court as to the wordings of said lrw*? SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) The tree instances when a Philippine court can. take judicial nodce of a foreign law are: (I) when the Philippine couns arc evidensly familie wah the ‘foreign law flees. Vel 5p. 34, 0810 ater (2} when the foecign law refers to. the Law of nations fix ¥ f Rabe 129) and (3) when it refers to a published treatise, Petiodical or pamphlet an the subject of law if the ‘court takes judicial notice of the fact that the writer thereof is recognized in hie profession. or calling ax expert on the sulbject fa 46. Rak 1301Remedial Law Bar Examination @ & A, (1897-2006) () Avwsinen foreign lw may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody af the record, or by his depury, and accompanied. If the record is net epr in the Philippines, ith a certificate that such officer has the custady, if the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, cansul, vice-coasul, or consular agent or by any afficer in the foreign service of the ‘satoned in the ‘country in hich the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of hi office (See 24 Rule 12, Zatemes « C4, 229 SCRA ZH. (@ The js that the ‘of the foreign law are the same as the local law. (Norabwesr Orient Astin v. Cour of Appts, 241 SCRA. 182 Mom, Val & paige 34, 1980 edison: Liaw. Collccar of Cussaras, 36 Pha 47. This is known as the PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION. Memorandum (1996) 1X states on direct examination that he once knew the facts being asked but be cannoe recall them now. Wien handed a written recon! of the facts he testifies that the facts are caereedy stated, bur that he has never seen the writing before. Is the writing admisible ss past scenllection recorded? Explain, SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, because for the written recond tor be admissible ss past recollection recorded. Ie must have been ‘written o¢ reconled by X or under his direction at the ime when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, oF at any other time when the fact was fresh ic hes and he knew that the same was ‘cormecly written or recone. (ie 16 af Ras 132) But in this case N has never seen the writing before. ier of Evidence (1907) A trial court cannot tke into consideration in deciding a case an evidence that has mot becn “formally offered”. When are the following pieces af evidence offered? (@) Testimonial evidence (6) Documentary evidence (©) Object evidlence SUGGESTED ANSWER: (@ Testimonial evidence is formally offered at the time the witness is called to testify. (lak 152. Sie 5, fiat ph (6) Documentary evidence is formally offered afier the Som ofthe testimonial evidence. (aie 172 i mela (©) The same is tre with object evidence. Iris also offered after the presentation of che tstimonial evidence. by: sintandeeigmail.com ‘Offer of Evidence; res inter ais acts (2003) ‘and Y were charged with murder. Upon application. of the prosecution, Y was discharged from the ‘Tnfommation to. be wsilixed ax a state witness. The prosecutor presented ¥ as witness but faggot to stare the purpose of his testimony much lers offer it in evidence. Y testified that he and X conspired to Kl the vierim bat it was X who scruilly shot the victim. ‘The testimony of Y was the only material evidence cesblishing the guile of X.Y was thocoughly cmss- examined by the defeme counsel Afier the Prosecution rested its case, the defense filed a mation. for demurrer co evidence based on the following ‘grounds. (@) The testimony of Y should be excluded Heme pepo me me iy eae mal cme ‘offered in evidence as sequited by Seen 34) ule 132 of the Revised ules oF idence, and ©) Y's testimony is not admissible aginst X pursuant wo the mle on “tes intesalios act", ‘Rule on the motion for demurrer to evidence on the Page 57 of 66 a) The testimony of Y should not be excluded because the defense counsel diel not object to his estimony despite the fact that the presecuror forgot to state its purpose or offer ie in evidence. ‘Moreover, the defense counsel thoroughly cross ‘examined Y and thus waived the objection. 1B) The mr intr alles acts mie does nat apply because Y testified in open court and was subjected oo ‘fer of Evidence; Testimonial & Documentary (18) & the difference between an offer of Timon colonce anf an oe of documentary evidence? ‘SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘An offer of testimonial evidence is made ar the time the witness is called tw testify, while an offer of slocumensaty evidence i¢ made afer the presentation of a pary’s testimonial evidence. (Sie 35, Rade 132) ‘Opinion Rute (1894) At Nolan's till foe posession and ue of the Probibited dmg, known as “shabus, his girlfriend ‘Kim, testified that 001 a particular day, he would see ‘Nolan very prim and proper, lert and sharp, but that three days after, he would sppear haggard, tited and ‘overly nervous at the slightest sound he would hear ‘alan objects to the admissbiliry of Kim's testimocy on the ground thar Kim merely stated her opinion ‘without having been firs quabied as expen witaess, ‘Should you, 25 judge, exclude the testimony of Kim?Remedial Law Bar Examination @.8 A (1997-2006) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. The testimony of Kim should not be excluded. Even though Kim is not an expert witness, Kim may testify oa her impressions of the emotion, behavior, condaion o appearance of 2 person. (Sm 50, kat per, Rab 139) Parol Evidence Rule (2001) Pedro filed a complaint against Lucia for the recovery of a sum of money based on a promissory note executed by Lucio. In his complaint, Pedro alleged thar although the peomissory note says that it ix payable within 120 days, dhe truth is thar the note is payable immediately after 90 days but thar if Pedro ix willing, be may, upon request of Locio give the lanier up 120 the note. During the hearing, Peso testified that the truth is that the agreement between him and Lace is for the later 1 pay immediately after ninety day's time. Also, since the original none was with Lucio and the latter would not surrender to Pedro the original note which Luo kept in a place about one day's mip from where he received the notice to produce the note and in spice of such notice to, ‘the same within six hours from receipt af such nocice, Lucio failed wo do so. Peden presented a copy of the note which wae executed at the same time as the original and with ilentical coments. 3} Over the objection of Lucio, will Pedro be allowed to testify as to the trac agrocment or ‘contents of the peomissory ate? Why? (2%) 8) Over the objection of Lucio, ean Pasiro present 2 “copy of the promissory note and have it aclmatted as valid cvidenec in his favor? Why? (394) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 4} Yes, becmse Pedro has alleged in his enmplaine thar the pminory note docs not express the tue ingent and agreement of the parties. This ie an ‘exception t© the parol evidence rule. [Src 9/3) of Rak 13 ak of Care 8 Ves, the copy in the of Pedro is a duplicate eriginal and with identical contents. fre 4) of fad 1309, Moreover, the falure of Lucio w preduce the original of the note is excusable because he was not given reasonable notice, a3 requirement under the Rules before secondary evideace may be presented. (la 6 of Rae 10, Ka of Came) Nate: The promissory note is an actonatie document and the original or & copy thereof should have been attached the complaint. (Soe 7 9 Fle 8 197 Ras of Ct Proce such a ease, the ‘and due execution of the rote, not ened under oath, would be deemed stmntted (Boe Bo Rue 31957 Ra of Chl Pca) Prepanderance vs. Substantial Evidence (2003) Distinguish preponderance of evxdence from substantial evidence. 4% SUGGESTED ANSWER: by: -sidomdechligenail com Page $8 of 66 PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE means thar the evience as a whole acduced by one side is superior to that of the other. This is applicable in civ cases, (Ser. fof ke £53; Municipality af Memes. Cajun, 21 Pha, 188 902) accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. This applicable in cace filed before administrative or quasi. jualicial bodies. (i Sofa 153) Privilege Communseation (1998) C is the child of the spouses H andl W. H sued his wife W far judicial declaration of rnallity of mart under Article 36 of the Family Code, In the trial the ing testified over the abjection of W: C, Hand D,adoctar of medicine who used to treat W. Rule on. \W's objections which are the 1. Fleannot testify against her because ofthe mule on marital privilege: [184 2. Cannon rey against her because of the doctrine a parental pavilege; and [296] 51D canoe esti apne Per because of he decane of prvieged erweem pent and picin. [5] SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1 'The rule of mantl peiviege cannot be invoked ia the annulment exe under Rule 6 ofthe Family Code because ins ced case fled bye agaist the other, (le 2 Wal Ra af Cas) 2. The doctrine of parental privilege cannot Ekewise be invoked by W as against the tarimany of C, their child. C may not be compelled to testify but is free 1 testy against er, Sie 2% Rak 130, Rab of Cars rt 205, amy Ce) 3..D,2s a doctor who used wo treat Wis disqualified to tesnfy against W over her objection a3 to any advice of treatment given by him a any information which he may have acquised in his professional Apa. (in 28 ff, Re 182 Rao Carty ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: If the doctors testimony is purnant ta the Privilege Gommunéestien; tsries! Privilege (1989) Ody sued spouses Cesar and Baby fora sum of money and damages. Ar the tral, uy ell Baby as his first witness. Baby objected, ined by Cesar, on. the ground that she may not be to testify against her husband. Ody insisted and contended that after all, she would just be questioned about 2 conference they had with che barangay captain, aRemedial Law Bar Examination G & A (1897-2006) matter which is not confidential in nature, ‘The trial court ruled in favor of Ody. Was the ruling proper? Will your answer be the same if the marers ta be rettified on were known to Baby or acquired by her Psior to her marriage to Cesar? Explain. ‘SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘No. Under the Rules an Evidence, a wife eanaat be examined for or agsinst her husband without his consent, except in civil cases by one against the athe, for in a criminal case for crime committed by one against the other. Since the case was fled by Ody against the spouses Cesar and Baby, Baby cannot be ‘compelled to testify For or against Cesar without his ccomscnt. (Leeams rx. Radhigues, 25 SCRA TS). ‘The answer would be the same if the maters to be restified on were known to Baby ar acquired by her Prior to her marriage wo Cesar, because the marital disquacation rule may be invoked with respect to restimony on any fact. [tis immaterial whether suck matters were known tw Baby before or after her marriage to Cesar. Privilege Communication; Marital Privilege (2000) Vidi and Romeo ase legally married. Remco is charged to court with the crime of serious physi Sajuries committed againes Selmn, con of Vida, step- son af Romeo. Vide witnessed the infliction of the injuries on Selmo by Romeo. The public prosecutor called Vida to the witness stand and offered er estimony as an eyewiness Counsel for Ramco objected on the ground of the masial disqualification rule under the Risks of Coure. a) Is the objection wah GM) 1b) Will your ancuer be the ame if Vidde's textimony is offered i a civil cate for ‘of personal property filed by Selmo against Romeo? (2%4) ‘SUGGESTED ANSWER: (No. Whi ndither the hushand nor the wife may testify for or ayainst the other without the ‘consent of the affected spouse, ane exception ie if the festimony of the spouse ix in a criminal case For 2 ‘crime committed by one against the other at the luster’ direct descendants or ascendants. (ia: 22, Ra ‘0, The cate fils under this exception because Selma is the direct descendant of the spouse Vide. vil case by one personal property against Vida’s spouse, Ramen. by: irdomdeciaigreail com Page 59 of 66 being used as a center for sex vourism and child ttafficking. The defense counsel for XYZ. objected to the testimony of ABC at the trill of the child peosimtion ease and the introduction of the affidavits she cxecuted aginst her husband a5 a violition of espousal confidentiaity and marital paivilege rule, It tured out that DEF, the minor daughter of ABC by ber first husband who was 2 Filipino, was molested by XYZ earlier. Thus, ABC had filed foe legal separation from XYZ since last Ny the cour adit the testimony and affidvis of the wife, ABC, against her husband, XYZ, in the criminal ‘case involving child prostitution? Reason. oy) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. The coum may admit the testimony and affidavits of the wife against her husband in. the criminal case where ie involves child peostinuson of the wie’s - It es noe covered by te marital paivilege rule. One exception thereof is where the crime & committed by one aguinsr the other or the lamers direst descendants or asceadants. (Sic 22, Bale 13 A crime by the husband against the daughter is a crime against the wife and dirceriy attacks or vitally impairs the ennjugal relation. (Chafano w. Dsguipsn, 62 SCRA 270 PES) Privilege Gommuniestion; tara! Privilege (2006) Leticia was estranged from ter husband Paul for more than a year due to bis suspicion that she was having an affair with Manuel their neighbor. She was remparatily living with her sister in Pasig Ciry. For unknown reasons, the house of sister was burned, killing the later. Leticia survived. She saw her Bee i iii cig i Ss. Le he ‘charged with arson in an Information filed with the Regina Tal Cour, Pan Cy ‘During the ria the prosecutor called Leticia to the witness stand and offered ber testimony to peove that her husband committed arson, Can Leticia testify aver the objection of her husband oa the ground of marital patilepe? (544) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: No, Leticia cannot testify over the election of er husband, not under matial privilege which is and which can be waived, bur she would be barred under See. 2? of Rule 150, which prohibits her from testifying and which cannot be waived (Alvarez. Raraives, C.R. No. M3499, October i, 205) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, Leticin may testify oner the objection of her husband. The disquabfication of a witness by reason of mariage under Sec. 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court has its exeeptions as where the marital relations are so stmined that there is no more harmony to be preserved The acts of Paul eradicate all major aspects of marital life. On the other band, the State has an interest in punishing the guilty andRemedial Low Bar Examination © & & (1897-2006) ‘swonerating the innocent, and must have the right 10 offer the ‘of Leseia over the objection of her husband (Asawee «. Ranies, GA. Na. 2432, erabee 4 205, Remedy; Lost Documents: Secondary Evidence (1982) Ajax Power Corporation, a wily company, sued in the RTC to enfarce supposed right of uay over 2 Property owned by Simplicio. Ar the ensuing, trial jee ite eericed fad aucizor whe teil hat he know for a fact chat a cestain sum of money ‘wus perindically paid wo Simplicio for some ime ax scmsideration fora sight of way pursuant oo a writen senmtmace. ‘The ‘eontmer wat not presented. ‘nstead, a purported copy, idemified by the retired ‘Ged auditor a: such, wan ‘offered 2s part of his testimony. Rejected by the trial cours, it was finaly made the subject of an-offer of proof by Ajax. Can Ajax validly claim that it had suffigemtly eet ite burden of peoving the existence of the contract ctabliching its ight of way? Explain, ‘SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Ajax fad not sufficiently met the burden of Proving the existence of the weimen commact because. Tr had pot laid the basis for the admission of a Purpomed copy thereof as secondary evidence. Ajax should have first proven the execution of the original document and its lass ar destruction. (a. S4/Rade 150) ‘Testimany: Independent Relevant Siatement (1 A overheard Beall Xa thief In an acon for defamation fled by X against B, is the testimony of A ‘offered i prove the fact of unerance ie, thar B called X a thief, admissible in evidence? Esplin. a) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yea. The testimony of A who overheard B call Xa thi in admins in evidence ay an independemty relevant statement. It ix offered ia evidence prove ie tenor thereof ot to prove dhe wath of the Fac asserted thesia. ‘elevant seuements include statements which are on the very face in issue of chose which are ciecumstantal ‘evidence thereof. The heansay mule daes not apply. (See Pople vs. Cale 170 SCRA 619) Witness; Competency of the Witness vs. Credibility of the Witness (2004) Compecency of the witness and ‘Discinguich ccredibiliey of che witness. Competency of the witness refers to- a witness who ‘can perceive, and perceiving, can make known bis perception te others fie: 20 Pak f20), while eredibaliry (of the wimess refers to a witness whose testimony is believable. by: sindomdeeiaigrnil com Page 60 of 66 Witness: Examination of a Child Witness: via Live-Link TV (200s) When may the tial court order that the testimony of child he taken by Eveclink television? Explain. ‘SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘The restimony of a child may be taken by livedink television if there is a substantial Ukelihood chat the child would suffer teuma fiom testifying in the pecsence of the accuse, his counsel or the Peosceutor 25 the ease may be. The trauma must of a Lind which woul impair the completeness or ruthfulness of the temimony of the child. (Sm See 25, aw Erinn fa Cd sp Witness: Examination of Witnesses (1987) a) Aside from asking a witness tw esphin and supplement his answer in the cross-cxamination, can the proponent ask in re-ditect examination, questions om masters not dealt with during cross 1b) Aside from asking the witness on marters stated fn bis rewdirect examination, ean the opponent in, his re-cross-cumination ask questions on mutters not dealt with during the redirect? 2) After plaindé has formally submired his evidence, he realized thar he had forgotten 10 Present what ke considered an important evidence. Can he recall a witness? SUGGESTED ANSWER: (@) Yes, on redirect examination, questions om matters ‘nor dealt with during the cross-cxamination may be allowed by the cour imits discretion. (li? fa 32} Yes, the ia his se-crosscxamination ‘may also ask questings on such other matters as may bie allowed by the court im its discretion. fle: 8. Rai a3 (©) Yes, after formully submitting his evidence, the plainsiff can recall a witness with leave of cour: The Count may grant at withhold leave in its diseretion a3, the interests of justice may reqpire. fli. 2. Rad 132) Wiiness: Examination of Witnesses (2002) Is this question on direct examination objectionable: “What happened on July 12, 1999"? Why? (2) SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘The question is ebjectionable because it as mo basis, unless before the questin is asked the proper basis is hk Wines; Utilized as State Witness; Procedure (2006) As counsel of an accused charged with homicide, you are convinced that he can be utilized as a sate witness. Whar procedure will you take? (25%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘As counsel of an accused charged with homicide, the that can be followed! far the accused to be lcilized as a stare witness is to ask the Prosecutor tc recommend that the accused be made a state wanes.