Name: ___________________________ Course: _______________ Date: _____________

Essay – Read the questions carefully then answer in brief and concise statements.
1. 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, Carlos 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, Carlos
broke down in the presence of an assisting counsel and 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 Carlos. Is the oral confession
admissible in evidence of guilt? Explain your answer.

2. Policemen brought Lyndon 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 been swallowed by Lyndon. Suppose the PGH agreed to, and did
perform the surgery, is the package of shabu admissible in evidence? Explain.

3. Discuss the "chain of custody" principle with respect to evidence seized under R.A. 9165 or
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

4. When does evidence of similar acts or previous conduct become admissible?

5. In a prosecution for murder, the prosecutor asks accused Domeng 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.

6. Enumerate the requisites needed for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction.

7. Blinded by extreme jealousy, Jerald shot his wife, Sansa, in the presence of his sister, Arya.
Arya brought Sansa to the hospital. Outside the operating room, Arya told Robb, a male nurse,
that it was Jerald who shot Sansa. Sansa died while undergoing emergency surgery. At the
trial of the parricide charges filed against Jerald, the prosecutor sought to present Robb as
witness, to testify on what Arya told him. The defense counsel objected on the ground that
Robb’s testimony is inadmissible for being hearsay. Rule on the objection with reasons.

8. When does opinion evidence become admissible?

9. Jon was accused of committing a violation of the Human Security Act. He was detained
incommunicado, deprived of sleep, and subjected to water torture. He later allegedly
confessed his guilt via an affidavit.

After trial, he was acquitted on the ground that his confession was obtained through
torture, hence, inadmissible as evidence.

In a subsequent criminal case for torture against those who deprived him of sleep and
subjected him to water torture. Jon was asked to testify and to, among other things, identify
his above said affidavit of confession. As he was about to identify the affidavit, the defense
 counsel objected on the ground that the affidavit is a fruit of a poisonous tree. Can the
objection be sustained? Explain.

10. What is “onus probandi”? Discuss.

11. Arrested in a buy-bust operation, Sam was brought to the police station where he was
informed of his constitutional rights. During the investigation, Sam refused to give any
statement. However, the arresting officer asked Sam to acknowledge in writing that six (6)
sachets of “shabu” were confiscated from him. Sam consented and also signed a receipt for
the amount of P3,000, allegedly representing the “purchase price of the shabu.” At the trial,
the arresting officer testified and identified the documents executed and signed by Sam.
Sam’s lawyer did not object to the testimony. After the presentation of the testimonial
evidence, the prosecutor made a formal offer of evidence which included the documents
signed by Sam.

Sam’s lawyer object to the admissibility of the document for being the fruit of the
poisoned tree. Resolve the objection with reasons.

12. For over a year, Catelyn had been estranged from her husband Ned because of the latter’s
suspicion that she was having an affair with Jaime, a barangay kagawad who lived in nearby
Mandaluyong. Catelyn lived in the meantime with her sister in Makati. One day, the house of
Catelyn’s sister inexplicably burned almost to the ground. Catelyn and her sister were caught
inside the house, but Catelyn survived as she fled in time, while her sister tried to save
belongings and was caught inside when the house collapsed.

As she was running away from the burning house, Catelyn was surprised to see her
husband also running away from the scene. Dr. Bran, Ned’s psychiatrist who lived near the
burned house and whom Ned medically consulted after the fire, also saw Ned in the vicinity
some minutes before the fire. Coincidentally, Fr. Rickon, the parish priest who regularly hears
Ned’s confession and who heard it after the fire, also encountered him not too far away from
the burned house.
 Ned was charged with arson and at his trial, the prosecution moved to introduce the
testimonies of Catelyn, the doctor and the priest-confessor, who all saw Ned at the vicinity
of the fire at about the time of the fire.

May the testimony of Catelyn be allowed over the objection of Ned?

13. Assuming the same facts from Question No. 12, may the testimony of Dr. Bran, Ned’s
psychiatrist, be allowed over Ned’s objection?

14. Assuming the same facts from Question No. 12, may the testimony of Fr. Rickon, the priest-
confessor, be allowed over Ned’s objection?

15. Enumerate matters subject to mandatory judicial notice.

16. An electronic evidence is the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence
Rule if it is a printout or readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
accurately. True or False? Explain.
17. Differentiate “subpoena duces tecum” from “subpoena ad testificandum”.

18. On August 15, 2008, Joffrey committed Estafa against Robert in the amount of P3 Million.
Robert brought his complaint to the National Bureau of Investigation, which found that
Joffrey had visited his lawyer twice, the first time on August 14, 2008 and the second on
August 16, 2008; and that both visits concerned the swindling of Robert. During the trial of
Joffrey, the RTC issued a subpoena ad testificandum to Joffrey’s lawyer for him to testify on
the conversations during their first and second meetings. May the subpoena be quashed on
the ground of privileged communication? Explain fully.

19. Renly was hired by Starks Co. as General Manager for its oil exploration venture in Palawan.
The employment contract expressly provided that Renly was to receive salary worth
P15,000.00 a month plus travelling expenses of P5,000.00 a month. Starks Co. failed to pay,
so Renly filed an action for specific performance of the employment contract. At the trial,
Starks Co. attempted to prove, by oral testimony, that the payment of salary to Renly was
subject to the condition that Starks Co.’s oil exploration in Palawan was already successful. Is
such oral testimony admissible? Why or why not?

20. What are the elements of a dying declaration?