UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS

COLLEGE OF LAW
FINAL EXAM
EVIDENCE
JENNIFER P. HUMIDING
18 May 2020
NAME: SCORE:

ANSWER SHEET
The questions are written on the attached QUESTIONNAIRE. Write the
CAPITAL LETTER of the correct answer on this ANSWER SHEET. Send only
this Answer Sheet as an attachment to jhumiding@yahoo.com on or before 4
pm, 20 May 2020. Thank you.

1. _____ 26. _____ 51. _____ 76. _____

2. _____ 27. _____ 52. _____ 77. _____
3. _____ 28. _____ 53. _____ 78. _____
4. _____ 29. _____ 54. _____ 79. _____
5. _____ 30. _____ 55. _____ 80. _____
6. _____ 31. _____ 56. _____ 81. _____
7. _____ 32. _____ 57. _____ 82. _____
8. _____ 33. _____ 58. _____ 83. _____
9. _____ 34. _____ 59. _____ 84. _____
10. _____ 35. _____ 60. _____ 85. _____
11. _____ 36. _____ 61. _____ 86. _____
12. _____ 37. _____ 62. _____ 87. _____
13. _____ 38. _____ 63. _____ 88. _____
14. _____ 39. _____ 64. _____ 89. _____
15. _____ 40. _____ 65. _____ 90. _____
16. _____ 41. _____ 66. _____ 91. _____
17. _____ 42. _____ 67. _____ 92. _____
18. _____ 43. _____ 68. _____ 93. _____
19. _____ 44. _____ 69. _____ 94. _____
20. _____ 45. _____ 70. _____ 95. _____
21. _____ 46. _____ 71. _____ 96. _____
22. _____ 47. _____ 72. _____ 97. _____
23. _____ 48. _____ 73. _____ 98. _____
24. _____ 49. _____ 74. _____ 99. _____
25. _____ 50. _____ 75. _____ 100. _____

Nothing follows.
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

QUESTIONNAIRE
Choose the letter of the correct answer.

____ 1. A was accused of raping P. Only P testified on how the crime was perpetrated. On the other
hand, the defense presented A’s (1) wife, (2) son and (3) daughter to testify that A 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 witness’ close relationship with the accused. If you were the
judge, will the fact that the version of the defense is corroborated by 3 witnesses suffice to acquit A?

A. YES. The witnesses in favour of A are weighed not counted.

B. YES. While the defense of alibi is inherently weak, it assumes significance and strength where
the evidence for the prosecution is also intrinsically weak.
C. NO. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as
perpetrator of the crime.
D. NO. The corroboration of the version of the defense by 3 witnesses is not sufficient for
acquittal. Alibi is one of the weakest defences due to its being capable of easy fabrication.

_____ 2. May a private document be offered and admitted both as documentary evidence and as
object evidence?

A. NO. A private document offered to prove its existence, condition or for any purpose other than
its contents, is considered object evidence.
B. NO. A private document offered as proof of its contents, is considered documentary evidence.
C. NO. It will depend on the discretion of the judge.
D. YES. It depends on the purpose for which the document is offered.

_____ 3. When A was stabbed on the chest during a street brawl, he instinctively shouted for help. B,
who was nearby, heard the shout and immediately ran towards A who, upon inquiry by B, stated that
C had stabbed him. If A should die, on account of the stab wound, upon what rule or rules of
evidence could B’s testimony be received?

A. The testimony could be admitted as a Dying Declaration.

B. The testimony could be admitted as part of the res gestae.
C. The testimony could not be admitted as a dying declaration and part of the res gestae unless A
was under the consciousness of an impending death.
D. Both A and B.

_____ 4. A was accused of having raped X. Rule on the admissibility of a pair of short pants allegedly
left by A at the crime scene.

A. INADMISSIBLE for being irrelevant.

B. INADMISSIBLE for being immaterial.
C. ADMISSIBLE as direct evidence.
D. ADMISSIBLE as circumstantial evidence of his liability although not sufficient in itself to
support a conviction.

_____ 5. May the parties stipulate waiving the rules of evidence in a court trial?

A. NO. The Civil Code of the Philippines does not allow waiver of procedural rules of court as it
affects substantive rights.
B. NO. The Rules of Evidence are designed to put order to judicial trials and are not subject to
waiver.
__________________________________________________
Page 2 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

C. YES. The Rules of Evidence must be liberally construed to facilitate the attainment of justice.
D. YES. The Civil Code of the Philippines (Article 6) provides that “rights may be waived, unless
the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, good customs or prejudicial to
a third person with a right recognized by law.

_____ 6. D is indebted to a bank. When the obligation fell due, he failed to pay and the bank sued for
collection. As part of the evidence of the bank, the Accountant of D is placed on the stand and in the
course of his examination he is asked if he, in turn, is also indebted to the bank. The lawyer of D
objects to the question on the ground of “impertinence.” Rule on the objection.

A. OVERRULED. The impertinence of a question is irrelevant and immaterial in the admissibility

of evidence.
B. OVERRULED. The objection is not among the grounds provided for under the rules of
evidence.
C. SUSTAINED. The issue in this case is the indebtedness of the defendant to the bank which is
circumstantially related to the indebtedness of the accountant of D to the bank.
D. SUSTAINED. The issue in this case is the indebtedness of the defendant to the bank and not
the indebtedness of the accountant of D to the bank.

_____7. In which of the following instances is the quantum of evidence ERRONEOUSLY applied?

A. in Writ of Amparo cases, substantial evidence.

B. to satisfy the burden of proof in civil cases, preponderance of evidence.
C. to overcome a disputable presumption, clear and convincing evidence.
D. to rebut the presumptive validity of a notarial document, substantial evidence.

_____ 8. Accused is charged with the murder of his wife. The prosecution offers evidence that
accused has a reputation in the community as a very violent man.

A. INADMISSIBLE. The reputation of the accused is irrelevant in the resolution of the case.
B. INADMISSIBLE unless the reputation to be shown is of a time preceding the act in question
and not subsequent to it.
C. INADMISSIBLE as hearsay because evidence is in the form of an opinion and personal
feelings rather than to reflect correctly the collective opinion of the community.
D. INADMISSIBLE. Under the rules on evidence, a person’s character is not admissible to prove
conduct.

_____ 9. During the trial, counsel for the defendant elicits from a witness an answer taht includes
inadmissible hearsay. About 30 seconds later, counsel for the plaintiff realizes what has happened
and objects. The witness is already answering the question. What should the judge do?

A. OVERRULE the objection. Where the court over an objection has permitted a party to
introduce incompetent evidence, the aggrieved party may, without losing or waiving his rights,
rebut such evidence.
B. SUSTAIN the objection. The witness has not finished answering the question.
C. SUSTAIN the objection. The rule is that objection to the admission of an evidence on the
ground of hearsay cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and this does not preclude a
party on objecting during the trial.
D. OVERRULE the objection. Counsel for the plaintiff failed to object in a timely fashion. The rule
that objection is to be made when the question is propounded to the witness adn before he
gives his answer must be reasonably applied. Its object is to prevent a party from “gambling on
the answer.”

_____ 10. To prove the extent of his injuries and that his neck pains were caused solely by the
accident, P calls his physician, Dr. G to testify, “Over the course of several months of treatment, P
__________________________________________________
Page 3 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

consistently complained to me of severe pain when he moved his neck. He told me that he had never
experienced any such pain prior to the accident.” Is this testimony admissible?

A. ADMISSIBLE. Dr. G is an expert witness.

B. INADMISSIBLE. Dr. G’s testimony is inadmissible hearsay as to the fact that P never
experienced never experienced such pain prior to the accident
C. ADMISSIBE. P’s statements concerning the severe pain are admissible as statements of then
existing physical condition.
D. INADMISSIBLE. P’s statement that he had never before experienced such pain as a statement
of medical history made for purposes of diagnosis or treatment is inadmissible, unless there is
a medical record supporting such claim.

_____ 11. Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only:

A. Legal certainty
B. Logical certainty
C. Absolute certainty
D. Moral certainty

_____ 12. Preponderance of evidence presupposes:

A. Superior legal argument

B. Superior number of evidence
C. Superior number of witnesses
D. Superior weight of evidence

_____ 13. All the following go into the weight of evidence, except:

A. Credibility of the witness;

B. Intelligence of the witness;
C. Documentary Exhibits;
D. Education of the witness.

_____ 14. An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the
same case does not require proof. This rule is –

A. Ministerial upon the judge;

B. Discretionary upon the judge;
C. With qualifications;
D. Absolutely true.

_____ 15. Who has the burden of proof?

A. One who judges the case;

B. One who testifies at trial;
C. One who may receive an adverse judgment;
D. One who who alleges a fact as existing.

_____ 16. The principal function of judicial notice is to:

A. Abbreviate the evidence;

B. Abbreviate the proceeding;
C. Dispense the proceeding;
D. Dispense the evidence;

__________________________________________________
Page 4 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

_____ 17. If evidence bears such relation to a fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence of non
existence, then it is said to be relevant. In a homicide case wherein A was accused of killing B, the
following are relevant except for one:

A. A is suffering from a psychiatric disorder making him vulnerable to hurt other persons
B. The weapon used in the killing was found in the house of A.
C. Personal effects of A were found in the crime scene.
D. A has a bad character.

____ 18. P filed a paternity case against D. P presented evidence showing that D is a promiscuous
person (playboy) which was objected to by D. If P will argue that such evidence may establish that D
sired the child of P and this will be allowed by the court, this illustrates the rule on:

A. Absolute Admissibility
B. Multiple Admissibility
C. Curative Admissibility
D. Conditional Admissibility

_____ 19. If evidence is not excluded by the rules of evidence and substantive law it is said to be
competent. In a homicide case, the following are competent pieces of evidence except for one:

A. Accused was identified by a witness as the killer in a police lineup without the assistance of a
lawyer;
B. Accused admitted to a news reporter that he killed B without the assistance of a lawyer;
C. Accused talked to the relatives of B for possible settlement of the homicide case without the
assistance of a lawyer;
D. Accused was interrogated by the police about the killing without the assistance of a lawyer.

_____ 20. In a homicide case, it was alleged that A hacked and killed PEDRO using a bolo. What is
the factum probandum (fact or proposition to be established)?

A. That A has a motive to commit the crime.

B. That A used a bolo in committing the crime.
C. That PEDRO died.
D. That PEDRO was hacked to death.

_____ 21. In the same homicide case, what is the factum probans (facts or material evidencing the
fact or proposition to be established)?

A. That PEDRO was hacked to death.

B. That A had a motive to commit the crime.
C. That PEDRO died.
D. That A used a bolo in committing the crime.

_____ 22. Which of the following cannot be disputably presumed under the rules of evidence?

A. That a writing is truly dated.

B. That the thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that nature
C. That the law has been obeyed.
D. That a young person, absent for 5 years, it being unknown whether he still lives, is considered
dead for purposes of succession.

____ 23. Considering the qualifications required of a would-be witnss, who among the following is
incompetent to testify?

__________________________________________________
Page 5 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

A. A person under the influence of drugs when the event he is asked to testify on took place;
B. A mental retardate;
C. A deaf and dumb.
D. A person convicted of perjury who will testify as an attesting witness to a will;

_____ 24. Z charged her husband Y with bigamy for a prior subsisting marriage with X. Z presented
W and V, neighbours of Y and X in Tarlac City to prove, first that W adn V cohabited there and
second that they established a reputation as husband and wife. Can Z prove bigamy by such
evidence?

A. NO. At least one direct evidence and two circumstantial evidence are required to support a
conviction for bigamy;
B. NO. The circumstantial evidence cannot overcome the lack of direct evidence in any criminal
case.
C. YES. The circumstantial evidence is enough to support a conviction for bigamy.
D. NO. The circumstantial evidence is not enough to support a conviction for bigamy.

_____ 25. Which of the following matters is not a proper subject of judicial notice?

A. Municipal ordinances in the municipalities where the MTC sits;

B. Persons have killed even without motive;
C. Teleconferencing is now a way of conducting business transactions.
D. British law on succession personally known to the presiding judge;

_____ 26. During trial, P offered evidence that appeared irrelevant at that time but he said he was
eventually going to relate to the issue in the case by some future evidence. The defendant objected.
Should the trial court reject the evidence in question on ground of irrelevance?

A. NO, it should reserve its ruling until the relevance is shown.

B. YES, since the P could anyway subsequently present the evidence anew.
C. YES, since irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
D. NO, it should admit it conditionally until its relevance is shown.

_____ 27. In which of the following situations is the declaration of a deceased person against his
interest NOT ADMISSIBLE against him or his successors and against third persons?

A. Declaration of a joint debtor while the debt subsisted;

B. Declaration of a joint owner in the course of the partnership;
C. Declaration of an agent within the scope of his authority.
D. Declaration of a former co-partner after the partnership has been dissolved;

_____ 28. To prove the identity of the assailant in a crime of homicide, a police officer testified that B,
who did not testify in court, pointed a finger at the accused in a police line-up. Is the police officer’s
testimony regarding B’s identification of the accused admissible in evidence?

A. YES, since it constitutes an independently relevant statement;

B. NO, since the police had the accused identified without warning him of his rights;
C. YES, since it is based on his personal knowledge of B’s identification of the accused.
D. NO, since the testimony is hearsay;

_____ 29. To prove payment of a debt, B testified that he heard A say, as the latter was handing over
money to C, that it was in payment of a debt. Is B’s testimony admissible in evidence?

A. NO, since what A said and did was not in response to a startling occurrence;
B. YES, since what A said and did is an independently relevant statement;
__________________________________________________
Page 6 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

C. NO, since B’s testimony of what A said and did is hearsay;

D. YES, since A’s statement and action, subject of B’s testimony constitutes a verbal act.

_____30. Which of the following is NOT REQUIRED of a declaration against interest as an exception
to the hearsay rule?

A. The declaration relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant;

B. The declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to be true;
C. The declarant is dead or unable to testify.
D. At the time he made said declaration he was unaware that the same was contrary to his
aforesaid interest

_____ 31. In which of the following instances is the quantum of evidence erroneously applied?

A. To satisfy the burden of proof in civil cases, preponderance of evidence;

B. To overcome a disputable presumption, clear and convincing evidence;
C. To prove guilt of accused in a criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt;
D. To rebut the presumptive validity of a notarial document, substantial evidence.

_____ 32. Bearing in mind the distinction between private and public document, which of the following
is admissible in evidence without further proof of due execution or genuineness?

A. Baptismal certificates;
B. Documents acknowledged before a Notary Public in Hong Kong;
C. Unblemished receipt dated December 20, 2005 signed by the promise showing payment of a
loan, found among the well-kept file of the promissory.
D. Official record of the Philippine Embassy in Singapore certified by the Vice-Consul with official
seal;

_____ 33. B testified that J, charged with robbery, has committed bag-snatching three times on the
same street in the last six months. Can the court admit this testimony as evidence against J?

A. YES, as evidence of his past propensity for committing robbery;

B. YES, as evidence of a pattern of criminal behaviour proving his guilt of the present offense;
C. NO, since there is no showing that B witnessed the past three robberies
D. NO, since evidence of guilt of a past crime is not evidence of guilt of a present crime.

_____ 34. A resident 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 Filipino law. Upon his death, the Filipino widow
presented the will the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City. Probate was objected to by distant relatives
of the testator in California. The Judge studied in Harvard and was familiar with Massachusetts law.
Without the introduction of formal evidence, he granted probate, stating that the will was indeed,
executed in accordance with Massachusetts law. On appeal, the judgment was reversed. State the
correct reason for reversal:

A. The trial judge erred when he took judicial notice of Massachusetts law on the basis of his
personal knowledge of the said law;
B. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court;
C. The judge is not authorised to make his individual knowledge of a fact the basis of his action.
D. All of the above.

_____ 35. Under what circumstances may the court take judicial notice of foreign laws?

__________________________________________________
Page 7 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

A. When the foreign law refers to the law of nations;

B. When the foreign law is within the actual knowledge of the court such as when the law is
generally well known, had been ruled upon in previous cases before it and none of the parties
claim otherwise;
C. When the foreign law is part of a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet and the writer is
recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject;
D. All of the above.

_____ 36. When a foreign law was pleaded as part of the defense of the defendant but no evidence
was presented to prove the existence of said law, the court should presume that the law of the foreign
country is the same as Philippine law. This doctrine is referred to as:

A. The doctrine of competence-competence;

B. The doctrine of similar presumption
C. The doctrine of procedural assumption
D. The doctrine of processual presumption;

_____ 37. During custodial investigation at the Baguio City Police Station, Accused was informed of
his constitutional right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. He decided
to waive his right and proceeded to make a statement admitting commission of the robbery. In the
same statement, he implicated B, his co-conspirator in the crime. Is the testimony of the Accused
admissible against B as an exception to the res inter alios acta rule?

A. NO. The statement was made after the conspiracy had already ceased;
B. NO. The statement is not shown to relate to the conspiracy;
C. NO. The conspiracy must first be shown by evidence other than such declration or act.
D. All of the above.

_____ 38. Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the admissibility of audio, photographic and video
evidence of events, acts or transactions rests on:

A. Their being shown, presented or displayed in court;

B. Their being identified by the person who made the recording;
C. Their being explained or authenticated by some other person competent to testify on the
accuracy thereof;
D. All of the above.

_____ 39. When is post-conviction DNA testing allowed?

A. When a biological sample exists;

B. When the sample is relevant to the case;
C. When the testing would probably result in the reversal of the judgment of conviction;
D. All of the above.

_____ 40. At the trial of A for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosecution offers in evidence
a photocopy of the marked bill used in the buy-bust operation. A 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. Is the photocopy of the bill real or documentary evidence?

A. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. The bills contain letters, words, numbers and other modes of
written expression.
B. REAL EVIDENCE. The bills are manufactured and therefore are not documents under the
legal definition.
__________________________________________________
Page 8 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

C. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. The bills contain figures and pictures that are intended to
convey expression.
D. REAL EVIDENCE. The bills were presented to show that money exchanged hands in the buy-
bust operation and not to prove anything written on the bills.

_____ 41. One of the statements below is considered TRUE.

A. Any means by which the truth may be ascertained will do.

B. The ascertainment of truth is determined by different rules of evidence.
C. The means must be sanctioned by substantive law.
D. The means by which truth may be ascertained is determined in a judicial proceeding;

_____ 42. As to form, evidence may be classified into object, documentary, and testimonial. The
classification implies that:

A. A piece of evidence is confined in one form;

B. A piece of evidence could have more than one form;
C. A piece of evidence must be assessed
D. A piece of evidence must be assessed upon the purpose for which it is utilized;

_____ 43. ___ is that evidence acquired in regard to a particular knowledge not possessed by other
persons.

A. Cumulative evidence
B. Corroborative evidence
C. Indirect evidence
D. Expert evidence

_____ 44. ___ is that which proves a fact in dispute without the aid of any inference.

A. Expert evidence
B. Corroborative evidence
C. Indirect evidence
D. Direct Evidence

_____ 45. ___ is that which has no direct relation to a fact in issue but its existence may be inferred
from facts and circumstances.

A. Cumulative evidence
B. Corroborative evidence
C. Direct evidence
D. Indirect evidence

_____ 46. This is any additional evidence of the same kind tending to prove the same proposition.

A. Prima facie evidence

B. Conclusive evidence
C. Corroborative evidence
D. Cumulative evidence

_____ 47. This is any additional evidence of a different kind tending to prove the same proposition.

A. Indirect evidence
B. Conclusive evidence
C. Cumulative evidence
__________________________________________________
Page 9 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

D. Corroborative evidence

_____ 48. LESSEE sues LESSOR for breach of their lease contract. The LESSEE testifies that the
lease requires LESSOR to pay for all repairs, costing more than PhP 100,000.00. The testimony is:

A. ADMISSIBLE. The purpose of the LESSOR’s testimony is to modify, explain or add to the
terms of the written agreement.
B. INADMISSIBLE. The fact of loss of the document was not established.
C. ADMISSIBLE. The LESSOR testifies on a subsequent agreement.
D. INADMISSIBLE. The LESSEE’s claim arises directly from the lease, and the lease has
independent significance.

_____ 49. Policemen brought A to the Baguio General Hospital (BGH) and requested one of is
surgeons to immediately perform surgery on him to retrieve a packet of 10 grams of shabu which they
alleged was swallowed by A.

Suppose the BGH agreed to, and did perform the surgery, is the package of shabu admissible in
evidence?

A. YES. The package is admissible in evidence because the constitutional right against self-
incrimination is addressed only to extracting admission of guilt from the lips of the suspect
where otherwise no incriminating evidence exists.
B. YES. The package is admissible. In the past, the Supreme Court has declared many invasive
and involuntary procedures (i.e. examination of women’s genitalia, expulsion of morphine from
one’s mouth, DNA testing) as constitutionally sound.
C. NO. The package is inadmissible. The act of the policemen and the BGH surgeon violate the
fundamental rights of A.
D. NO. The package of shabu extracted from the body of A is not admissible because it was
obtained through surgery which connotes forcible invasion into the body of A without his
consent and absent due process.

_____ 50. A sued for annulment of his marriage with B. During trial, A offered in evidence, Compact
Discs (CDs) of alleged recorded telephone conversations of B with her lover. The CDs 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 CDs, ruling that the recorded conversations are
nonetheless relevant to the issues involved. Rule on the admissibility of the CDs.

A. PROPER. The CD recordings were made on A’s telephone with his consent; the consent of B
is not necessary;
B. IMPROPER. The CD recordings were immaterial to the annulment of marriage case filed by A
against B.
C. PROPER. The CD recordings were relevant to prove the grounds for the annulment case filed
by A against B.
D. IMPROPER. The CD recordings made by tapping A’s telephone line without the consent of B
or that of her lover was a violation of the anti-wiretapping law.

Questions 51-53 are based on the following facts.

Phillip purchased a suit of thermal underwear manufactured by MAINIT INC. from synthetic materials.
While he was attempting to stamp out a fire, Phillip’s thermal underwear caught fire and burned in a
melting fashion up to his waist. He suffered a heart attack a half hour later. In a suit against MAINIT
INC., Phillip alleged that negligence and breach of warranty caused both the burn and the heart
attack. Phillip testified to the foregoing.

__________________________________________________
Page 10 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

_____51. Dr. JOSE, a physician, having listened to Phillip’s testimony, is called by Phillip and asked
whether, assuming the truth of such testimony, Phillip’s heart attack could have resulted from the
burns. His opinion is:

A. ADMISSIBLE, because the physician’s expertise enables him to judge the credibility of Phillip’s
testimony.
B. INADMISSIBLE, because a hypothetical question may not be based on prior testimony.
C. INADMISSIBLE, because an expert’s opinion may not be based solely on information provided
by a lay person.
D. ADMISSIBLE as a response to a hypothetical question

_____ 52. Dr. BANZON, a physician is called by Phillip to testify that on the basis of her examination
of Phillip and the blood study reports by an independent laboratory, reports which were not introduced
in evidence, she believes that Phillip has a permanent disability. This testimony is:

A. ADMISSIBLE, because such laboratory reports are business records.

B. INADMISSIBLE, unless Dr. BANZON has been shown to be qualified to conduct laboratory
blood analysis.
C. INADMISSIBLE, because Dr. BANZON’s testimony cannot be based on tests performed by
persons not under her supervision.
D. ADMISSIBLE, if such reports are reasonably relied upon in medical practice.

_____ 53. Phillip testified that his purchase of the underwear occurred on April 17 th, a fact of minor
importance in the case. He stated that he could identify the date because his secretary had taken the
day off to attend the first game of the basketball season and he had checked his company’s payroll
records to verify the date. MAINIT INC. moves to strike the testimony as to the date. The motion
should be:

A. SUSTAINED, because the best evidence of the information contained in the payroll records is
the records themselves.
B. SUSTAINED, because Phillip’s testimony is based upon hearsay declarations contained in the
payroll records.
C. OVERRULED, if the Judge has personal knowledge of the date on which the basketball
seasoned opened.
D. OVERRULED, because the payroll records relate to a collateral matter.

_____ 54. In an action to recover for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident, Plaintiff
calls Bystander to testify. Claiming privilege against self-incrimination, Bystander refused to answer a
question as to whether she was at the scene of the accident. Plaintiff moves that Bystander be
ordered to answer the question. The judge should allow Bystander to remain silent only if:

A. The judge is convinced that she will incriminate herself.

B. There is clear and convincing evidence that she will incriminate herself.
C. There is a preponderance of evidence that she will incriminate herself.
D. The judge believes that there is some reasonable possibility that she will incriminate herself.

_____ 55. Pura sued Dolores on a product liability claim. Luis testified for Pura. On cross-
examination, which of the following questions is the trial judge most likely to rule improper?

A. “Isn’t it a fact that you are Pura’s close friend?”

B. “Didn’t you fail to report some income on your tax return last year?”
C. “Weren’t you convicted 7 years ago in this court for estafa?”
D. “Isn’t it true that you are known in the community as ‘Luis the Bangag’ because of your
addiction to alcohol?”

__________________________________________________
Page 11 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

Questions 56- 58 are based on the following fact: DREW was tried for the July 21 murder of Victor.

_____ 56. In his presentation of evidence-in-chief, Drew called as his first witness, Wilma, to testify to
Drew’s reputation in his community as a “peaceable man.” The testimony is:

A. ADMISSIBLE as tending to prove Drew is believable.

B. INADMISSIBLE, because Drew has not testified.
C. INADMISSIBLE, because reputation is not a proper way to prove character.
D. ADMISSIBLE as tending to prove Drew is innocent.

_____ 57. Drew called Wilma to testify that on July 20 Drew said that he was about to leave that day
to visit relatives in a distant province. The testimony is:

A. INADMISSIBLE, because it is irrelevant.

B. INADMISSIBLE, because it is hearsay not within any inception.
C. ADMISSIBLE, because it is not hearsay.
D. ADMISSIBLE, because it is a declaration of present mental state.

_____ 58. Drew called Wilson to testify to alibi. On cross-examination of Wilson, the prosecutor
asked, “Isn’t it a fact that you are Drew’s first cousin?” The question is:

A. IMPROPER, because the question goes beyond the scope of direct examination.
B. IMPROPER, because the evidence being sought is irrelevant.
C. PROPER, because a relative is not competent to give reputation testimony.
D. PROPER, because it goes to bias.

_____ 59. Alice was held up at the point of a gun, an unusual revolver with a red-painted barrel, while
she was working at a grocery store. Dennis is charged with armed robbery of Alice.

The prosecutor calls William to testify that, a week after the robbery of Alice, he was robbed by
Dennis with a pistol that had red paint on the barrel. William’s testimony is:

A. INADMISSIBLE, because it is improper character evidence.

B. INADMISSIBLE, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice.
C. ADMISSIBLE as showing that Dennis was willing to commit robbery.
D. ADMISSIBLE as establishing an identifying circumstance.

_____ 60. DOMINADOR is charged with committing perjury before a legislative committee. The
prosecution may prove what DOMINADOR said to the committee through:

A. The stenographer who recorded DOMINADOR’s testimony.

B. The transcript of the testimony.
C. The testimony of a spectator who was present when DOMINADOR testified before the
committee.
D. All of the above.

_____ 61. Donato is charged with theft that occurred on June 15. The prosecution seeks to call
Donato’s ex-wife, Wendy, to testify that on June 16, she found a watch in Donato’s nightstand, which
the prosecution had already proved was among the items taken in the June 15 theft. Donato and
Wendy’s marriage was annulled 3 months after the theft.

This testimony is:

__________________________________________________
Page 12 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

A. INADMISSIBLE because the State may not force Wendy to testify against Donato, her former
spouse.
B. INADMISSIBLE because it is hearsay.
C. INADMISSIBLE because it violates Donato’s privilege against self-incrimination.
D. ADMISSIBLE because she is not testifying as to a confidential communication made during the
marriage.

_____ 62. Ditas consults with Lawyer regarding Ditas’ indictment for malversation. Ditas admits to
having engaged in some of the charged conduct. Lawyer declines to represent her and accepts no
payment. Ditas subsequently hires a different lawyer.

At Ditas’ trial, which of the following is true?

A. Lawyer’s secretary, who was present during the consultation may testify as to Ditas’
statements.
B. An NBI agent, who had bugged Lawyer’s office, may testify as to what he heard when he
eavesdropped on Ditas and Lawyer’s conversation.
C. Lawyer may testify as to Ditas’ statements because he did not take the case.
D. Ditas may prevent any of the above from testifying as to the contents of his communications
with Lawyer.

Questions 63- 65 are based on the following fact situation.

Pablo brings an action for damage to his automobile, allegedly caused by the negligence of Dana.
Upon direct examination, Pablo is asked to describe in detail the damage to his vehicle. He states
that he cannot remember the details, as the collision in question occurred 4 years prior to the trial.

_____ 63. Pablo’s attorney then hands him a written estimate of repairs prepared a few days after the
collision by a mechanic at the ACME GARAGE. This is:

A. NEVER PERMITTED unless the judge first examines the item.

B. IMPROPER because the item has not been authenticated.
C. PROPER because the estimate is reliable past recollection recorded.
D. PERMISSIBLE to refresh Pablo’s present memory.

_____ 64. Pablo testifies that he recognizes the estimate, which includes a list of all the damaged
parts of his vehicle, and that he was present when it was prepared. Pablo then requests permission to
read the estimate aloud. The request should be:

A. IGNORED.
B. CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.
C. GRANTED.
D. DENIED.

_____ 65. PABLO then calls JESS, the owner of ACME GARAGE, who testifies that he recognizes
the estimate as being on a printed form used in the regular course of his business, that such forms
were filled out only by qualified estimators immediately after viewing the car in question, and that
although he did not prepare the estimate, the figures “look right” to him.

The testimony:

A. Must be stricken because JESS does not have personal knowledge of the estimate.
B. Is admissible as an admission.
C. Is admissible as a declaration against interest.
__________________________________________________
Page 13 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

D. Sufficiently qualifies the estimate to allow the judge to admit it as a business record.

_____ 66. Paul dues Dean for injuries suffered in an automobile accident. To prove that Dean did not
have a driver’s license, Paul calls Wanda to testify that Dean told her a week before the accident that
he had failed his road test.

The testimony is:

A. INADMISSIBLE because Wanda may be lying.

B. INADMISSIBLE hearsay.
C. ADMISSIBLE only if Dean is unavailable.
D. ADMISSIBLE as an admission by a party opponent.

_____ 67. Diego is being tried for bank robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. To prove that his
participation in the robbery was coerced, Diego testifies that his fellow robbers told him that if he did
not participate in the robbery he would be shot.

This testimony is:

A. Hearsay, but admissible as declaration against interest.

B. Hearsay, but admissible as an excited utterance.
C. Not hearsay only of Diego reasonably believed the statements of his fellow robbers.
D. Not hearsay.

_____ 68. Portia was injured in an automobile collision at the intersection of Session Road and
Magsaysay Avenue. She sued the City, claiming that the City negligently failed to trim the trees and
shrubs around the STOP SIGN at the intersection, thereby allowing the STOP SIGN to be obscured.
Portia offers in evidence five letters that the City admits having received prior to the accident, all of
which complain that the STOP SIGN is not visible from the road.

This evidence is:

A. INADMISSIBLE to prove either that the STOP SIGN was not visible or that the City knew or
should have known that.
B. ADMISSIBLE to prove both that the stop sign was not visible and that the city knew or should
have known that.
C. ADMISSIBLE to prove only that the stop sign was not visible.
D. ADMISSIBLE to prove only that the city knew or should have known that the STOP SIGN was
not visible.

_____ 69. PATRICIA sues GEORGE for slander. PATRICIA seeks to testify that GEORGE said to
her a few weeks before the trial, “Maybe I shouldn’t have said those things I said about you. But your
claim for P100,000.00 is ridiculous. I will give you P50,000.00 if you’ll drop your claim.”

A. ADMISSIBLE because George’s statement is an admission.

B. INADMISSIBLE because George’s statement is hearsay not within any exception.
C. INADMISSIBLE because admission of George’s statement would violate his privilege against
self-incrimination.
D. INADMISSIBLE because George’s statement was an attempt to settle PATRICIA’s claim.

Questions 70-71 are based on the following facts: DORA is being tried for the June 21 murder of
Victim.

__________________________________________________
Page 14 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

_____ 70. Prosecution calls Wendy to testify that she saw DORA shoot the victim. Wendy has
recently arrived from the province and does not speak English of Filipino. Wendy was released from a
mental institution, following a 4-month stay at the institution.

Which of the following statements is true?

A. Wendy is incompetent to testify because she cannot speak English or Filipino.

B. Wendy is mentally incompetent to testify.
C. Wendy may testify, but only if she was officially adjudicated as competent witness when she
released from the mental institution.
D. Wendy may testify through a qualified interpreter.

_____ 71. The prosecution calls Nurse to testify that Paula, a patient at the hospital, told her, “I know
I’m about to die. I saw Dora shoot Victim.” Paula died a few minutes later.

This testimony is:

A. ADMISSIBLE as a dying declaration.

B. ADMISSIBLE as an admission of a party opponent.
C. INADMISSIBLE for being irrelevant.
D. INADMISSIBLE hearsay.

Questions 72 – 74 are based on the following facts:

PETRA and 3 passengers, Berto, Badong and Caloy, were injured when their car was struck by a
truck owned by MALIKSI INC. and driven by EDUARDO. Helper, also an employee of MALIKSI INC.,
was riding in the truck. The issues include the negligence of EDUARDO in driving too fast and in
failing to wear glasses, and of PETRA in failing to yield the right of way.

_____ 72. PETRA’s counsel proffers evidence showing that shortly after the accident, MALIKSI INC.
put a speed detector on the truck involved in the accident. The judge should rule on the profferred
evidence.

A. ADMISSIBLE as an admission of a party.

B. ADMISSIBLE as res gestae.
C. INADMISSIBLE, because it would lead to the drawing of an inference on an inference.
D. INADMISSIBLE for public policy reasons.

_____ 73. PETRA’s counsel seeks to introduce Helper’s written statement that EDUARDO, MALIKSI
INC.’s driver had left his glasses (required by operator’s license) at the truck stop which they had left
5 minutes before the accident. The judge should rule the statement admissible only if:

A. Petra produces independent evidence that EDUARDO was not wearing corrective lenses at
the time of the accident.
B. Helper is shown to be beyond the process of the court and unavailable to testify.
C. The statement was under oath in affidavit form.
D. Petra fist proves that Helper is an agent of MALIKSI INC. and that the statement concerned a
matter within the scope of his agency.

_____ 74. MALIKSI INC.’s counsel seeks to have Sheriff testify that while he was investigating the
accident, he was told by Petra, “This is probably our fault.” The judge should rule on the profferred
evidence.

A. INADMISSIBLE, because it is a mixed conclusion of law and fact.

__________________________________________________
Page 15 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

B. INADMISSIBLE, because it is hearsay, not within any exception.

C. ADMISSIBLE, because it is a statement made to a police officer in the course of an official
investigation.
D. ADMISSIBLE as an admission of a party.

_____ 75. DREW is charged with the murder of Perla. The prosecutor introduced testimony of a
public officer that Perla told a priest, administering the last rites, “I was stabbed by Drew. Since I am
dying, tell him I forgive him.” Thereafter, Drew’s attorney offers the testimony of Wallis that the day
before, when Perla believed she would live, she stated that she had been stabbed by Jack, an old
enemy. The testimony of Wallis is:

A. INADMISSIBLE, because it goes to the ultimate issue in the case.

B. INADMISSIBLE, because it is irrelevant to any substantive issue in the case.
C. ADMISSIBLE under an exception to the hearsay rule
D. ADMISSIBLE to impeach the dead declarant.

Questions 76 – 77 are based on the following facts: PAMELA sues DANICA for a libellous letter
received by the Investigator. The authenticity and contents of the letter are disputed.

_____ 76. Pamela’s attorney asks Investigator to testify that, a week before receiving the libellous
letter, he had written to Danica inquiring about Pamela. The testimony is:

A. INADMISSIBLE unless Pamela’s attorney has given Danica notice of Investigator’s intended
testimony.
B. INADMISSIBLE unless the inquiry letter itself is shown to the unavailable.
C. ADMISSIBLE provided this inquiry was made in the regular course of Investigator’s business.
D. ADMISSIBLE without production of the inquiry letter or the showing of its unavailability.

_____ 77. Investigator, if permitted, will testify that, “I received a letter that I cannot now find, which
read: ‘Dear Investigator, You inquired about Pamela. We fired her last month when we discovered
that she had been stealing from the stockroom. Danica’ ”

The testimony should be admitted in evidence only if the:

A. Judge finds that Investigator has quoted the letter precisely.

B. Judge is satisfied that the original letter is unavailable.
C. Judge is satisfied that the contents of the letter are true.
D. Judge finds that the original letter is unavailable.

Questions 78 – 79 are based on the following facts: In a trial between JOSE and SANTOS, an issue
arose about SANTOS’ ownership of a dog which has caused damage to JOSE’s crops.

_____ 78. JOSE offered to testify that he looked up SANTOS’ telephone number in the directory,
called that number and that a voice answered, “This is SANTOS speaking.” At this JOSE asked,
“Was that your dog that tramped across my vegetable farm this afternoon?” The voice replied, “Yes.”
The judge should rule the testimony:

A. INADMISSIBLE unless JOSE can further testify that he was familiar with SANTOS’ voice and
that it was in fact SANTOS to whom he spoke.
B. INADMISSIBLE unless SANTOS has first been asked whether or not the conversation took
place and has been given the opportunity to admit, deny or explain.
C. ADMISSIBLE, because judicial notice may be taken of the accuracy of telephone directories.
D. ADMISSIBLE, because the answering speaker’s identification of himself, together with the
usual accuracy of the telephone directory and transmission system, furnishes sufficient
authorization.
__________________________________________________
Page 16 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

_____ 79. JOSE seeks to introduce in evidence a photograph of his vegetable farm in order to depict
the nature and extent of the damage done. The judge should rule the photograph:

A. ADMISSIBLE if JOSE testifies that the photograph was taken within a week after the alleged
occurrence.
B. INADMISSIBLE if JOSE fails to call the photographer to testify concerning the circumstances
under which the photograph was taken.
C. INADMISSIBLE if it is possible to describe the damage to the vegetable farm through direct
oral testimony.
D. ADMISSIBLE if JOSE testifies that it fairly and accurately portrays the condition of the
vegetable farm after the damage was done.

_____ 80. PETRA sues SM SUPERMART for personal injuries alleging that while shopping, she was
knocked to the floor by a merchandise car being pushed by HENRY, a stock clerk, and that as a
consequence, her back was injured.

HENRY testified that PETRA fell near the cart but was not struck by it. 30 minutes after PETRA’s fall,
HENRY, in accordance with regular practice of SM SUPERMART, had filled out a printed form,
“Employee’s Report of Accident – SM SUPERMART, “ in which he stated that PETRA had been
leaning over to spank her young child and in so doing had fallen near his cart. Counsel for SM
SUPERMART offers in evidence the report, which had been given him by HENRY’s supervisor. The
judge should rule the report offered by SM SUPERMART.

A. ADMISSIBLE as res gestae.

B. ADMISSIBLE as a business record.
C. INADMISSIBLE, because HENRY is available as a witness.
D. INADMISSIBLE, because it is hearsay, not within any exception.

____ 81. A leading question is LEAST likely to be permitted over objection when:

A. Asked on cross-examination of an expert witness.

B. Asked on direct examination of a young child.
C. Related to preliminary matters such as the name or occupation of a witness.
D. Asked on direct examination of a disinterested witness.

_____ 82. PRIMA sued DONNA for injuries PRIMA received in an automobile accident. PRIMA
claimed DONNA was negligent in (a) exceeding the posted speed limit of 30 kilometers per hour; (b)
failing to keep a lookout; and (c) crossing the center line. Bystander, PRIMA’s eyewitness, testified on
cross-examination, that DONNA was wearing a green sweater at the time of the accident. DONNA’s
counsel calls WILSON to testify that DONNA’s sweater was blue. WILSON’s testimony is:

A. ADMISSIBLE as substantive evidence of a material fact.

B. ADMISSIBLE as bearing on Bystander’s truthfulness and veracity.
C. INADMISSIBLE, because it has no bearing on the capacity of Bystander to observe.
D. INADMISSIBLE, because it is extrinsic evidence of a collateral matter.

____ 83. Cars driven by PEETA and DREENA collided. DREENA was charged with driving while
intoxicated is connection with the accident. She pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence and was
merely fined, although under the law, the court could have sentenced her to imprisonment.

Thereafter, PEETA, alleging that DREENA’s intoxication had caused the collision, pursued her claim
against DREENA for damages. At trial, PEETA offers the properly authenticated record of DREENA’s
conviction. The record should be:

__________________________________________________
Page 17 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

A. EXCLUDED, because the conviction was not the result of a trial.

B. EXCLUDED, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
C. ADMITTED as proof of DREENA’s character.
D. ADMITTED as proof of DREENA’s intoxication.

____ 84. PETER sued DEBBIE for damages for injuries that PETER incurred when a badly rotted
limb from a curbside tree in front of DEBBIE’s home hit PETER. DEBBIE claimed that the tree was on
city property and thus was the responsibility of the city. At trial, PETER offered the testimony that a
week after the accident, DEBBIE had cut the tree down with a chainsaw. The offered evidence is:

A. ADMISSIBLE, because there is a policy to encourage safety precautions.

B. INADMISSIBLE, because it is irrelevant to the condition of the tree at the time of the accident.
C. ADMISSIBLE to show the tree was in a rotted condition.
D. ADMISSIBLE to show the tree was on DEBBIE’s property.

____ 85. DIANA, charged with murder, was present with her attorney at a preliminary investigation
when WILMA who was the accused in a separate prosecution for concealing the body of the murder
victim, testified for the prosecution against DIANA. When called to testify at DIANA’s trial, WILMA
refused to testify, though ordered to do so:

The prosecution offers evidence of WILMA’s testimony at the preliminary investigation. The evidence
is:

A. INADMISSIBLE, because it would violate WILMA’s privilege against self-incrimination.

B. INADMISSIBLE, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
C. ADMISSIBLE as past recollection recorded.
D. ADMISSIBLE as former testimony.

_____ 86. PIERRE, a building contractor sued DONALD for failure to pay on a small cost-plus
construction contract. At trial, PIERRE, who personally supervised all of the work, seeks to testify to
what he remembers about the amount of pipe used, the number of workers used on the job, and the
number of hours spent grading.

DONALD objects on the ground that PIERRE had routinely recorded these facts in notebooks which
are in PIERRE’s possession.

PIERRE’s testimony is:

A. INADMISSIBLE, because it violates the Best Evidence Rule.

B. INADMISSIBLE, because a summary of writings cannot be made unless the originals are
available for examination.
C. ADMISSIBLE as a report of regularly conducted business activity.
D. ADMISSIBLE as based of first-hand knowledge.

_____ 87. DINDO is tried on charge of driving while intoxicated. When DINDO was booked at the
police station, a videotape was made that showed unsteady, abusive, and speaking in a slurred
manner. If the prosecutor lays a foundation properly identifying the tape, should the court admit it in
evidence?

A. NO because the privilege against self-incrimination is applicable.

B. NO because specific instances of conduct cannot be proved by extrinsic evidence.
C. YES because it is an admission.
D. YES because its value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

__________________________________________________
Page 18 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

_____ 88. In POLKA’s negligence action against DOTTIE arising out of a multiple car collision,
WENDY testified for POLKA that DOTTIE went through a red light. On cross-examination, DOTTIE
seeks to question WENDY about her statement that the light was yellow, made in a deposition that
WENDY gave in a separate action between ANNA and BENJAMIN. The transcript of the deposition is
self-authenticating.

On proper objection, the court should rule the inquiry:

A. INADMISSIBLE, because it is hearsay not within any exception

B. ADMISSIBLE for impeachment only.
C. ADMISSIBLE as substantive evidence only.
D. ADMISSIBLE for impeachment and as substantive evidence.

_____ 89. In a civil suit by PEARLIE against DARA, DARA called WALTER, a chemist, as an expert
witness and asked him a number of questions about his education and experience in chemistry. Over
PEARLIE’s objection that WALTER was not shown to be qualified in chemistry, the trial court
permitted WALTER to testify as to his opinion in response to a hypothetical question.

On cross examination, PEARLIE asked WALTER if he had failed two chemistry courses while doing
his graduate work. The answer should be:

A. EXCLUDED, because the court has determined that WALTER is qualified to testify as an
expert.
B. EXCLUDED because WALTER’s character has not been put in issue.
C. ADMITTED because specific acts bearing on truthfulness may be inquired about on cross-
examination.
D. ADMITTED because it is relevant to the weight to be given to WALTER’s testimony.

_____ 90. In a tort action, FIONA testified against DAWN. DAWN then called JUANA, who testified
that FIONA had a bad reputation for veracity. DAWN then also called WINONA to testify that FIONA
once perpetrated a hoax on the police.

WINONA’s testimony is:

A. ADMISSIBLE, provided that the hoax involves untruthfulness.

B. ADMISSIBLE, provided that the hoax resulted in conviction of FIONA.
C. INADMISSIBLE, because it is merely cumulative impeachment
D. INADMISSIBLE, because it is extrinsic evidence of a specific instance of misconduct.

_____ 91. Tort action for injuries in a slip-and-fall; the answer admits liability but denies that plaintiff
suffered any injuries in the fall. Which of the following would not be relevant evidence:

A. Testimony that the defendant refused to call an ambulance for the plaintiff though requested to
do so.
B. Testimony that the floor was marble.
C. Testimony that the defendant had seen several other people slip and nearly fall in the same
spot but did nothing.
D. Testimony that defendant’s mother’s maiden name was KAMUNING.

_____ 92. Murder prosecution: to support a claim of self-defense, the accused calls the victim’s
psychiatrist to testify that in her opinion, the victim was a homicidal maniac. The testimony is:

A. ADMISSIBLE expert witness evidence.

B. INADMISSIBLE opinion evidence.
C. INADMISSIBLE evidence of character.
__________________________________________________
Page 19 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

D. INADMISSIBLE if the psychiatrist claims the doctor-patient privilege.

____ 93. Prosecution of a doctor for Philhealth fraud; the defendant takes the stand and denies any
guilt. Which of the following questions would be improper on cross-examination?

A. “Isn’t it true that your character for truth and veracity us about two notches below that of a used
car salesman?”
B. “Didn’t you lie in your income tax?”
C. “Weren’t you convicted in 2005 for selling amphetamines do dope dealers?”
D. “Isn’t your reputation for truth and veracity among your medical school classmates that of a
person who would lie for any reason of for no reason?”

_____ 94. Criminal prosecution for arson; The prosecution calls 3 witnesses who testify that they are
familiar with the accused’s reputation in the local underworld and that he is reputed to be the “best
torchman in the business.” This evidence is:

A. INADMISSIBLE as hearsay.
B. INADMISSIBLE as irrelevant.
C. ADMISSIBLE as material evidence.
D. ADMISSIBLE if the accused has called witnesses to testify to his good character.

_____ 95. Action for damages for personal injury: the Plaintiff calls the ambulance attendant to testify
that all the way to the hospital, Plaintiff was “screaming in pain.” This testimony is:

A. INADMISSIBLE as irrelevant.
B. INADMISSIBLE as hearsay.
C. INADMISSIBLE opinion.
D. ADMISSIBLE.

_____ 96. Action on a life insurance policy: the answer denies that the insured is dead. At trial, the
insurance company produces a copy of the Philippine Daily Inquirer with a huge photograph of
President PNOY’s oathtaking in 2010. In the background, just to the left of President PNOY’s
bodyguard, a person who looks like the insured is visible. The newspaper is:

A. INADMISSIBLE as hearsay.
B. INADMISSIBLE as not authenticated.
C. INADMISSIBLE as not the best evidence.
D. ADMISSIBLE.

_____ 97. Action for breach of contract: to prove the making of the contract, the Plaintiff testifies that
she called the law firm asking for the firm’s response to her proposal and the hiring partner told her,
“Our letter of acceptance is in the mail.” The testimony about what the partner said is:

A. ADMISSIBLE.
B. INADMISSIBLE hearsay.
C. INADMISSIBLE as a violation of the attorney-client privilege.
D. INADMISSIBLE as not the best evidence.

_____ 98. Prosecution for theft of homing pigeons: a police officer testifies that he went to the
Accused’s loft pursuant to a search warrant, opened the window wide, and half of the pigeons
immediately took off an flew directly to the victim’s nearby loft. This testimony is:

A. IRRELEVANT.
B. INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY.

__________________________________________________
Page 20 of 21
EVIDENCE FINAL EXAM
May 18, 2020

C. INADMISSIBLE without some proof that the officer knows the difference between a pigeon and
a dove.
D. ADMISSIBLE

____ 99. Child custody dispute: the mother testifies that the father has a reputation in the community
as a “bum,” that in her opinion he is an alcoholic, and that he has frequently failed to make his child
support payments on time.

A. The reputation evidence is inadmissible.

B. The opinion is inadmissible.
C. The evidence about the child support payments is inadmissible.
D. All the evidence is admissible.

_____ 100. Action for defamation in claiming that the Plaintiff’s husband was a dog. Defense: truth.
The Accused calls a Witness who testifies that he attended a wedding in the chapel at Pink Sisters’,
Baguio City. He heard the priest say, “Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife?” The
groom answered. “Bow-wow!” The testimony is:

A. INADMISSIBLE as hearsay.
B. ADMISSIBLE as adoptive admission.
C. ADMISSIBLE as a declaration against interest.
D. ADMISSIBLE as not hearsay

-Nothing follows.-

__________________________________________________
Page 21 of 21