REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
Andrews Campus, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

EVIDENCE
Final Examination
(Part I)

Instructions: Answer the questions briefly and concisely. Answers must be

handwritten and in PDF format, to be submitted to this email address:
mjmtamayao@yahoo.com.

Distinguish from each other by way of illustration the following concepts:

1. Factum probans and Factum probandum

Breach of contract is a Factum probandum which is the ultimate fact to be

proven. On the other hand, the written contract is the factum probans which is
the evidentiary fact to prove that there is breach of contract.

2. Relevance and Competence

The confiscation of shabu is relevant evidence for the prosecution of a crime
under RA 9165. However, it is not competent when it is confiscated without a
valid search warrant.
3. Competence and Credibility of evidence
A witness who testified that he personally saw the crime occurred is
competent evidence wherein he being of sound mind shows that such
testimonial evidence is credible.
4. Direct and circumstantial evidence
Eye witness testimony that the accused stabbed the victim is direct
evidence of murder whereas a testimony of him fleeing from the crime
scene is circumstantial evidence.
5. Admission and Confession
There is an admission when the accused merely stated that he was angry
at the victim without declaring any actual crime towards the victim
whereas there is confession if he declared that he actually killed him.
6. Burden of proof and Burden of evidence
In a criminal case, the burden of proof belongs to the plaintiff and
burden of evidence must be beyond reasonable doubt.
7. Original Document Rule and Parol Evidence Rule

1|Page
 To prove paternal filiation, the birth certificate may be offered as
evidence under the Original Document Rule. On the other hand, to
prove breach of contract, the original contract must be presented under
the Parol Evidence rule.

8. Disqualification by reason of marriage and Disqualification by reason of

privilege communication between husband and wife

A wife cannot testify against her husband in a graft and corruption case filed
against him because she is disqualified to testify by reason of marriage.

In case against the boss of the husband, the wife cannot testify about a
conversation she had with her husband relevant to the case against his boss.

9. Hearsay Rule and Opinion Rule

Samson heard from Delilah he saw Gerard killed Red. This is not admissible
under the Hearsay Rule.

Samson thinks Gerard killed Red because he is grade-conscious. This is not

admissible under the Opinion rule.

10. Dying Declaration and Res Gestae

A hitman, hours before his natural death, confessed in the killing of

Noynoy Aquino is admissible because it is a dying declaration.

A mother seeing her daughter with blood on her clothes and the latter
screaming “ni-rape ako ni tito” immediately after the crime is
admissible under Res Gestae.

II.

Police officers arrested Mr. Druggie in a buy-bust operation and

confiscated from him 10 sachets of Shabu and several marked genuine peso bills
worth P5,000.00 used as the buy-bust money during the buy-bust operation.

At the trial of Mr. Druggie for violation of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drug Act of 2002), the Prosecution offered in evidence, among others,
a. photocopies of the confiscated marked genuine peso bills.
b. Photocopies of the confiscated drug items.

The photocopies were offered to prove that Mr. Druggie had engaged at
the time of his arrest in the illegal selling of dangerous drugs.

2|Page
 Invoking the Best Evidence Rule, Atty. Maya Bang, the defense counsel,
objected to the admissibility of the photocopies of the confiscated marked
genuine peso bills and the photocopies of the confiscated drug items. On the first
evidence offered, the trial court overruled the objection, on the ground that the
Best Evidence Rule does not apply. The confiscated marked genuine pesos bills are
not documentary evidence but object evidence.

Rule on the objection on the photocopies of the confiscated drug items?

Briefly explain your answer.

The objection is properly overruled.

It is well settled in jurisprudence that the best evidence rule applies only to
documentary evidence, not to object evidence. Here, the photocopies are offered
as evidence not to prove the contents of a document but the existence of the
confiscated drug items during the buy-bust operation.

III

Answer the following briefly:

(a) What elements should concur for circumstantial evidence to be

sufficient for conviction?

(b) When is bail a matter of judicial discretion?

(c) Give at least two instances when a peace officer or a private person may
make a valid warrantless arrest.

(d) What is a tender of excluded evidence?

IV

In a prosecution for rape, the defense relied on Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA)

evidence showing that the semen found in the private part of the victim was not
identical with that of the accused’s.

a. As private prosecutor, how will you dispute the veracity and accuracy of
the results of the DNA evidence?
b. What is the nature of DNA evidence, is it direct or circumstantial or
corroborative?

3|Page
In a prosecution for rape, the defense relied on Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA)
evidence showing that the semen found in the private part of the victim was not
identical with that of the accused’s.

a. As private prosecutor, how will you dispute the veracity and accuracy of
the results of the DNA evidence?

As private prosecutor, I will dispute the results of the DNA test by finding an
error or flaw in obtaining the biological sample, the qualification of the person
obtaining it, the method used, or in the chain of custody of the DNA sample.

b/What is the nature of DNA evidence, is it direct or circumstantial or

corroborative?

In one case the Supreme Court decided, DNA evidence is circumstantial

evidence to prove the crime of rape.

Arrested in a buy-bust operation, Juan was brought to the police station where
he was informed of his constitutional rights. During the investigation, Juan
refused to give any statement. However, the arresting officer asked Juan to
acknowledge in writing that six (6) sachets of "shabu" were confiscated from him.
Juan consented and also signed a receipt for the amount of P3,000.00, allegedly
representing the “purchase price of the shabu.”

Juan, however, requested that he will be allowed to look at the confiscated items
for the last time to make sure that these were the same items taken from him. He
then swiftly took the sachets of shabu and immediately swallowed them.

He was brought to the hospital to extract the shabu he swallowed. The attending
doctor agreed to conduct an emergency operation to extract the shabu.

At the trial, the arresting officer and the doctor testified. The former identified
the documents executed and signed by Juan. Juan's lawyer did not object to the
testimony. Doctor also identified the drug items he extracted from the accused.
Juan’s lawyer did not again 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 Juan and the drug items.

Juan's lawyer objected to the admissibility of the documents for being the “fruit
of the poisoned tree” and to the admissibility of the drug item being violative of
the right of the accused against self-incrimination and the chain of custody rule.
Resolve the objection with reasons.

4|Page
The objection should be sustained because the signing of Juan of the writing that
six (6) sachets of "shabu" were confiscated from him and a receipt of 3000 pesos
representing the purchase price of shabu, constitutes an admission of selling
illegal drugs without the assistance of counsel. Such admission inadmissible
without the presence of counsel during custodial investigation as provided
under the Constitution.

VI

A criminal complaint for Theft was filed against Mr. X by his employer for
allegedly stealing company property. During trial, the prosecutor called Mr. X's
former supervisor, Mr. V, to the stand and attempted to question him on similar
incidents also involving Mr. X with his previous employer. Mr. X's counsel
objected to the question, invoking the rule on res inter alias acta. In response, the
prosecutor argued that the question should be allowed since he was trying to
establish Mr. X's habit of stealing things from the workplace.

(a) Should the objection of Mr. X's counsel be sustained? Explain.

(b) Assuming that the prosecution presents evidence on the bad moral
character of Mr. X, may the same be admitted in the present case? Explain.

(c) When can evidence of bad character be received in evidence? Explain.

A.) Yes, the objection should be sustained.

Under res inter alias acta, the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by
an act, declaration, or omission of another. Here, Mr. V cannot testify
against Mr. X because is neither involved in the crime nor is he privy to
the theft that occurred. Hence, any testimony given by Mr. V is
inadmissible.

B.) No, the same cannot be admitted as evidence.

The Rules of Court provide that, in criminal cases, the prosecution can
only prove the bad moral character of the accused in rebuttal. Here, the
5|Page
 accused has not yet introduced any evidence of his good moral
character. Hence, the evidence of the bad moral character of the
accused may not be admitted.

The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to
establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense
charged.

C.)

VII

Give examples of the following objectionable questions:

a. Leading question
b. Misleading question
c. Question that calls for an opinion
d. Argumentative question
e. Trick question
f. Compound question

6|Page