You are on page 1of 7

Choose the best answer:

1. Amendments in Rules on Evidence may be validly made applicable to cases pending such time of
change, except:
a. In civil cases where parties have vested rights in accordance with the rules on evidence.
b. In criminal cases where the accused pleads guilty to a lesser crime necessarily included in the
crime charged.
c. In criminal cases where the amendment would permit the reception of a lesser quantum of
evidence to convict the accused.
d. In all cases where reception of evidence is applicable.
2. Which of the following is admissible in evidence?
a. Seized screwdriver, camera and cellphone during a drug raid by virtue of a search warrant.
b. Video recording of the altercation of an MMDA traffic enforcer and a private individual charged
with traffic violation.
c. bank account information
d. coerced confession
3. The following are the requisites for the disqualification based on attorney-client privilege,
a. There is an attorney and client relation.
b. The attorney is hired to represent the client in court.
c. The privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential communication between them in the
course of professional employment.
d. The client has not given consent to the attorneys testimony.
4. A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires, is NOT
allowed, except:
a. On redirect examination
b. Where the witness is the spouse of the opposing party.
c. On stipulation of facts
d. On preliminary matters
5. When is the presumption of suppression of evidence not applicable?
a. When the evidence is material.
b. When the suppression of evidence is an exercise of privilege
c. When the party had the opportunity to produce the same
d. When the said evidence is available only to said party
6. A party can impeach a witness of an adverse party by:
a. Evidence of incompetence
b. Evidence of hostility or a certain wrong act
c. Evidence of conviction of a prior crime involving moral turpitude.
d. Proving that the conduct of the witness is consistent with his testimony.
7. Self defense must be proved by what kind of evidence?
a. Clear and convincing
b. Substantial evidence
c. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
d. Preponderance of evidence
8. The following are the scope of the right against self-incrimination, except:
a. It is granted not only in favor of individuals.
b. No person should be compelled to be a witness against himself.
c. May be invoked in any court proceedings
d. Covers only testimonial compulsion and production by him of incriminating documents and

9. Authentication of a document Is not required, except:

a. Last wills and testaments
b. Deed of absolute sale
c. Actionable documents
d. 1960s Land title
10. Motion to strike out or expunge is proper in what case?
a. Unresponsive answers
b. Substantiated evidence previously admitted conditionally.
c. Where the witness is cross-examined
d. Corollary answers
11. Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved. Testimony of handwriting experts are mandatory in proving due
execution and authenticity of private documents.
a. Both statements are correct.
b. Both statements are incorrect.
c. Only the first statement is correct.
d. Only the second statement is incorrect.
12. Other instances of privileged communications are, except:
a. Source of new report or information appearing in an official publication i.e. newspaper,
magazine, or periodical of general circulation
b. State secrets
c. All information and statements made at conciliation proceedings in accordance with the Labor
d. Confession with a priest
13. When can a parol evidence be admitted?
a. When there is existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest
after the execution of the written agreement.
b. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement.
c. The validity of the agreement.
d. The enforceability of the agreement
14. The technical Rules on evidence is applicable on the following proceedings, except:
a. In MTC proceedings.
b. In CTA proceedings.
c. In DARAB proceedings
d. In Sandiganbayan proceedings
15. Which of the following in not an example of judicial admission?
a. Act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact.
b. Material allegations in the complaint specifically denied by the opposing party
c. Admission by silence
d. Implied admission of guilt in an offer of compromise by the accused in criminal cases.
16. Exceptions to the best evidence rule are the following, except:
a. The original is a private document is in custody of a private individual.
b. The original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on
the part of the offeror
c. The original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in
court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the
general result of the whole.
d. The original is recorded in a public office
17. Offer of compromise is inadmissible in evidence in the following circumstances except:
a. Tax cases
b. Accepted offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense
c. Criminal negligence quasi-offenses
d. Payment of expenses occasioned by an injury
18. Opinion of a witness as a general rule is not admissible in evidence except, for instance, the
witness has a sufficient familiarity with the handwriting in question. Character evidence is also,
as a general rule, not admissible in evidence.
a. Both statements are correct
b. Both statements are incorrect.
c. Only the first statement is correct.
d. Only the second statement is incorrect.
19. When can character evidence be admitted?
a. When the moral character of the accused if pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
b. Character of an impeached witness
c. In rebuttal by the prosecution, the bad moral character of the accused may be proved if
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
d. In all civil cases.
20. The following presumptions are satisfactory if not contradicted, except:
a. The unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent
b. A person takes extraordinary care of his concerns
c. Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced
d. The thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter
21. The following presumptions are satisfactory if not contradicted, except:
a. Prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later ones is produced
b. A person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act
c. Facts presented are admitted
d. There was a sufficient consideration for a contract
22. The following presumptions are satisfactory if not contradicted, except:
a. Negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration
b. A writing is duly dated
c. That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives,
he is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession
d. Debts are duly paid.
23. Questions propounded to a witness must be, except:
a. Relevant
b. Not be misleading
c. Not be repetitious
d. Calls for a narration
24. It is the right of a witness to
a. Be examined only as to matters pertinent to the issue
b. Give an answer which will degrade him
c. Be detained longer that the 3 months
d. Give an answer which may subject him to a penalty

25. Can a witness refuse to answer questions material to the issue?

a. Yes, if it will establish a claim against him
b. Yes, under the right against self-incrimination
c. No, even if it will have a direct tendency to degrade his character
d. Yes, if refusal is seasonably invoked.
26. When can the right against self-incrimination be availed of?
a. Paraffin test
b. Police line up
c. Judicial admission
d. Testimonial evidence
While passing by a dark alley, PO1 Matulis observed shadows and heard screams from a
distance. He then hid behind a car and saw a man beating a woman whom he recognized as his
neighbor, Malambot. She was thereafter stabbed. Upon falling to the ground, the man hurriedly

PO1 Matulis immediately went to Malambots rescue. Malambot, who was then in a state of
hysteria, kept stating Si Kilabot, ang sumaksak sa akin! Gusto nya akong patayin! When PO1
Matulis was about to bring her to the hospital, she refused and said hulihin mo sya. Iwanan mo
na ako, kaya ko ang sarili ko

The following day, Kilabot learned of Malambots death and, bothered by his conscience,
surrendered to the authorities with his counsel. As his surrender was broadcasted all over
media, Kilabot opted to release his statement to the press which goes:

I believe that I am entitled to the presumption of innocence until my guilt is proven beyond reasonable
doubt. Although I admit that I performed acts that may take ones life away, I hope and pray that justice
will be served the right way. God bless us all.
Can the court in this case convict Kilabot of Homicide on the basis of the following:
27. Matulis testimony and Malambots statements?
a. Yes. It is a dying declaration.
b. No. the statement made by malambot is excluded by the hearsay rule
c. No. because of the lack of opportunity to cross
d. Yes. It is a statement made immediately subsequent to a startling occurrence is excepted from
the hearsay rule as part of the res gestae
28. What is the nature of Kilabots statement to the press?
a. It is a confession which, standing alone, would be sufficient to warrant conviction is
b. It is a coerced admission.
c. It is a corroborated admission.
d. It amounts to an extrajudicial confession.

29. An order of the court requiring a retroactive re-dating of an order, judgment or document filing be
entered or recorded in a judgment is: (1%)
a. pro hac vice
b. non pro tunc
c. confession relicta verification
d. nolle prosequi

30. At the trial of Randy Z for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosecution offers in
evidence a photocopy of the marked P100.00 bills used in the buy-bust operation. Randy Z
objects to the introduction of the photocopy on the ground that the Best Evidence Rule
prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence in lieu of the original. Should the objection be
a. Yes. The marked bills contain writings, thus considered documentary evidence embraced in
the Best Evidence Rule.
b. No. The marked bills are real evidence, Best evidence rule is inapplicable.
c. Yes. The marked bills are real evidence, Best evidence rule is inapplicable.
d. No. The marked bills are documentary evidence, Best evidence rule applies.
A was accused of having raped X. Rule on the admissibility of the following pieces of evidence:

31. An offer of A to marry X;

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. A's offer to marry X is inadmissible in evidence as the Constitution regards highly of the
sanctity of marriage.
c. A's offer to marry X is admissible in evidence even if A approves of the marriage.
d. A's offer to marry X is inadmissible in evidence as rape cases may be compromised.
32. (same facts as 31.) A pair of short pants allegedly left by A at the crime which the court, over the
objection of A, required him to put on, and when he did, it fit him well.

a. No. Clear violation of right against self-incrimination.

b. Yes. A may be convicted by that fact alone.
c. Yes. But is merely a circumstantial evidence, not sufficient to convict A.
d. No. A cannot be compelled by the court to wear the shorts.
33. Abdul and Jabar are two muslims being tried in a Shariah District Court in a case involving
commercial transactions. The counsel of Jabar raised that Abdul failed to file his Judicial Affidavit
when he submitted his shuhud (statement of witnesses) and bayyina (other evidence pertinent
to the issue). Should Abdul be deemed to have waived his right to file a Judicial Affidavit and be
considered at not present during the pre-trial?
a. No. The court may allow its belated submission provided the requisites are met.
b. No. Judicial Affidavit Rule is not applicable in commercial cases.
c. No. Judicial Affidavit Rule is not applicable in Shariah Courts
d. Yes. He already lost his right to submit his Judicial Affidavits
















51. Din and spouses Joey and Lisa Santos were co-owners of a parcel of land. Din died intestate and
without any issue. Ten (10) persons headed by Jocelyn, claiming to be the collateral relatives of
the deceased Din, filed an action for partition with the RTC praying for the segregation of Dins
share, submitting in support of their petition the baptismal certificates of seven of the
petitioners, a family bible belonging to Din in which the names of the petitioners have been
entered, a photocopy of the birth certificate of Jocelyn, and a certification of the local civil
registrar that its office had been completely razed by fire.
The spouses Santos refused to partition on the following grounds:
1) the baptismal certificates of the parish priest are evidence only of the administration of the
sacrament of baptism and they do not prove filiation of the alleged collateral relatives of the
2) entry in the family bible is hearsay;
3) the certification of the registrar on non-availability of the records of birth does not prove
4) in partition cases where filiation to the deceased is in dispute, prior and separate judicial
declaration of heirship in a settlement of estate proceedings is necessary; and
5) there is need for publication as real property is involved.

As counsel for Jocelyn and her co-petitioners, argue against the objections of the spouses Santos
so as to convince the court to allow the partition. Discuss each of the five (5) arguments briefly
but completely.

(1) The baptismal certificate can show filiation or prove pedigree. It is one of the other means
allowed under the Rules of Court and special laws to show pedigree. (Trinidad v. Court of
Appeals, 289 SCRA 188 [1998]; Heirs of ILgnacio Conti v. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 345 [1998]).
(2) Entries in the family bible may be received as evidence of pedigree. (Sec. 40, Rule 130, Rules
of Court).
(3) The certification by the civil registrar of the nonavailability of records is needed to justify the
presentation of secondary evidence, which is the photocopy of the birth certificate of Jocelyn.
(Heirs of Ignacio Conti v. Court of Appeals, supra.)
(4) Declaration of heirship in a settlement proceeding is not necessary. It can be made in the
ordinary action for partition wherein the heirs are exercising the right pertaining to the
decedent, their predecessor-ininterest, to ask for partition as co-owners (Id.)
(5) Even if real property is involved, no publication is necessary, because what is sought is the
mere segregation of Dins share in the property. (Sec. 1 of Rule 69; Id.)