MIDTERM EXAM Q-BANK

1. Explain the concept of evidence.

2. What are the requisites for admissibility of evidence? Explain each.

3. Distinguish factum probans from factum probandum.

4. What is the difference between proof and evidence?

5. Cite at least three (3) exclusionary rules based on a provision from a)

the Constitution, b) law, and c) Rules of Court. Briefly explain each.

6. Is hearsay evidence admissible? When is a statement not hearsay?

7. What is an independently relevant statemen?

8. Explain the concept of residual exception.

9. Urban Transit dismissed two of its drivers, Duke and Luke, on the
ground of serious misconduct constituting fraud or wilful breach of
trust and confidence. Duke and Luke filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and non-payment of wages with prayer of reinstatement
before the Labor Arbiter. In their defense, and to prove that the
dismissal from employment of Duke and Luke was justified, Urban
Transit presented the affidavits of Marie and Tess, co-employees of
Duke and Luke, which narrated the purported fraud. By way of
rebuttal, Duke and Luke argued that the documentary and testimonial
evidence presented by Urban Transit were purely self-serving and
hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible to establish the validity of their
dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the complainants and found
the dismissal of Duke and Luke illegal. The LA held that Urban Transit
failed to discharge its burden of proving that complainants were
dismissed for just cause. The LA noted that the affidavits which Urban
Transit submitted in evidence were inadmissible for being hearsay and
self-serving. Aggrieved, Urban Transit appealed to the NLRC arguing
that in examining the affidavits of complainants’ co-employees, the LA
should not have confined himself to technical rules on evidence and
should have, instead, liberally applied the same in deciding the instant
case. Is Urban Transit’s argument tenable? Explain.

10. In Mamba vs. Garcia, the Supreme Court mentioned that the
Investigating Judge relied on a tape-recorded conversation between
Bulatao and the two police officers. Is the subject tape-recorded
conversation admissible in evidence? Why or why not? Explain.
11. Lenlen Moreno filed a petition before the RTC of Manila for change of
her surname to Lenlen Marcos. To support her petition, she submitted
her baptismal certificate showing that when she was baptized, she was
given the name Lenlen Moreno. She testified that she has always used
the name Lenlen Marcos as shown in her elementary school certificate
and high school diploma. However, she did not present any record of
her birth in the civil register. The Judge of RTC of Manila, Daryll Lao,
granted the petition and ordered the civil registrar of Manila to make
the corresponding change in the petitioner’s record of birth or in her
civil registry by way of marginal notes. Was the decision of Judge Lao
correct? Explain.

12. Section 4 of R.A. No. 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Law) provides: “Any

communication or spoken word, xxx obtained or secured by any person
in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible
in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative
hearing or investigation.” In the case of Navarro vs. CA, one of the
pieces of evidence offered by the prosecution is a voice/tape recording
of the verbal exchanges between the accused and the victim.
Is the said voice/tape recording inadmissible in evidence pursuant to
R.A. No. 4200? Explain.

13. In the case of Dela Llano vs. Biong, the Supreme Court said that Dela
Llano, during trial, did not adduce the factum probans by which the
factum probandum can be established. What was the factum
probandum referred to by the Supreme Court? Why did the Supreme
Court ruled that it was not established? Explain.

14. When is judicial notice mandatory?

15. When is judicial notice discretionary?

16. When is hearing necessary before a court may take judicial notice of
any matter?

17. What is a judicial admission?

18. When may a judicial admission contradicted?

19. What are objects as evidence?

20. What do documents as evidence consist of?

21. Explain the Original Document Rule. What are the exceptions to the
rule?

22. Under the original document rule, what is regarded as original?

23. Distinguish original of a document from duplicate.

24. What are the rules to prove the contents of a document when:
a. the original document is not available?
b. The original document is in the custody or control of the adverse
party?
c. The original document is a public record?
d. The contents of documents are voluminous and cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought
to be established is only the general result of the whole?

25. Generally, the rules on privileged communications extend to attorney-

client relationship. What are the exceptions?

26. What are instances of conclusive presumptions?

27. Distinguish between burden of proof and burden of evidence.

28. In Santos vs. National Statistics Office, the Supreme Court expounded
on the rule on estoppel against a tenant. Explain the aforesaid rule on
estoppel against a tenant.

29. Explain the three disputable presumptions below, with an illustrative

actual/hypothetical case preferably the case cited by Justice Singh, viz:
a. That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his or her
voluntary act;
b. That a person takes ordinary care of his or her concerns; and
c. That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing
of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act;
otherwise, that things which a person possesses, or exercises act
of ownership over, are owned by him or her.

30. Children born in wedlock are legitimate. Is this presumption absolute?

What are the exceptional circumstances?

31. Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 131 are new provisions to the Rules on
Evidence. Explain each, their nature and the rationale for their
inclusion in the 2019 Amendments to the Rules on Evidence.

32. May an offer of compromise be considered as an admission of liability

by the offeror?

33. Distinguish original document rule from parol evidence rule.

34. What is the inter alios acta rule?

 ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

I.
Ana and Rolando were charged with parricide for the death of Derek
(husband of Ana). Ana and Rolando allegedly hired a bomb-maker who
planted a bomb in Derek’s car. The prosecution presented a witness, Wilma,
who testified that she overheard a conversation between Rolando and Ana
that they would fetch a man in Batangas who knew how to place a bomb in a
vehicle. The defense counsel objected to the testimony for being hearsay.
Should the objection be sustained?

II.
The prosecution witness testified that he saw a CCTV footage of the
accused robbing the bank. The defense counsel objected on the ground of the
original document rule. The prosecution argued that the CCTV footage is not
a document since it is not a writing. Should the defense counsel’s objection
be sustained?

III.
Epad (prime suspect) and two other suspects were rounded up in
connection with a rape with homicide case. In the presence of the mayor, the
police (who interrogated Epad), representatives of the media and Epad’s own
wife and son, he confessed his guilt, disclosed how he killed one Maria and
volunteered to show them the place where he hid her bags.

On arraignment, however, appellant (Epad) entered a plea of “not

guilty.” He testified that that afternoon, he was at his parents’ house
attending the birthday party of his nephew. The confession was captured on
videotape. The lower trial court convicted the appellant (Epad) and
sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Is Epad’s extrajudicial oral confession
unassisted by a counsel admissible as evidence?

IV.
Johair was convicted of arson by the Regional Trial Court in the place
where we live. He allegedly burned the house of our neighbor. Now witness
was presented who could have seen directly and plainly Johair committing
any act that would constitute arson. There were testimonies, however, that
say that Johair threatened to burn our neighbor’s house and that there was
an ongoing verbal altercation between my Johair and his neighbor. There
was also a testimony stating that previously Johair already tried to burn that
house in a different incident but it is not the same incident that consequently
led to his indictment and conviction.

The court says Johair’s conviction was based on purely “circumstantial

evidence” is valid. What is circumstantial evidence? Is it possible to convict
a person, beyond reasonable doubt, mainly on the basis of circumstantial
evidence?
 V.
A disbarment case was filed against Atty. Santos. One of the pieces of
evidence presented by the complainant a birth certificate showing that Atty.
Santos had fathered a son by his mistress, Elena. Atty. Santos objected on
the introduction of the birth certificate as evidence invoking the exclusionary
rule and the express provision of Art. 7 of P.D. No. 603 which provides that
the birth records of a person shall be kept strictly confidential and that no
information thereto shall be disclosed except on request of the person
himself or of a court and which punishes with imprisonment and/or fine any
unauthorized disclosure. Is the birth certificate admissible in evidence?

VI.
In the prosecution of Cora Tong for kidnapping, one of the
prosecution’s witnesses is Henry who testified that he received a ransom
note, delivered at their house and received by his minor son from an
unidentified man riding a motorcycle. Cora Tong objected to the testimony
of Henry invoking the Original Document Rule. Rule on the objection.

VII.
Maritess was a cardholder of Citibank Mastercard. Citibank sued
Maritess for unpaid credit card debts. During the trial, Citibank offered in
evidence photocopies of the sales invoice to prove the obligation of Maritess.
Maritess objected to the introduction of the photocopies for being violative
of the original document rule. If you were the judge, how would you resolve
the objection of Maritess?

VIII.
At Arman’s trial for Benjo’s murder, the defense attempts to present as
its witness Benjo’s widow, Zenaida. She is to testify that just before Benjo
died, she approached his sprawled and bloodied husband and asked who
stabbed him. Benjo, conscious of his impending death, named Charlie as his
assailant. The prosecutor moves to stop Zenaida from testifying because her
testimony is hearsay and will be violative on the rule on privileged marital
communication. Rule on the prosecution’s motion.

IX.
Martin was charged with the murder of his officemate Rudy. Martin
admitted that he has killed the victim, but he invoked self-defense. During
the initial trial, the prosecution moved for a reverse trial on the ground that
the burden of proof is shifted to the accused. The accused opposed the
motion on the ground that under the rules the burden of proof does not shift.
Resolve the motion.

X.
Ody sued spouses Cesar and Baby for a sum of money and damages. At
the trial, Ody called Baby as his first witness. Baby objected, joined by Cesar,
on the ground that she may not be compelled to testify against her husband.
Ody insisted and contended that after all, she would just be questioned about
a conference they had with the barangay captain, a matter which is not
confidential in nature. The trial court ruled in favor of Ody. Was the ruling
of the trial court proper?
 XI.
While patrolling, PO2 Greg and PO2 Paolo, spotted a suspiciously
parked taxi. They approached that taxi and asked the driver, Noel, for his
documents. Having doubts regarding the veracity of documents shown them,
they asked Noel to come with them to the police station for further
questioning. Along the way, they stopped at a 7-11 store. PO2 Paolo went
down to relieve himself. While at the store, he came upon two suspected
robbers and shot it out with them. He shot one suspect dead and hit the other
who managed to escape. But someone fired at PO2 Paolo causing his death.
On hearing the shots, PO2 Greg came around and saw two armed men who
fired their gun at him. PO2 Greg returned fire but the men were able to take
a taxi and escape. PO2 Greg radioed for help. On returning to the mobile car,
he realized that Noel had fled. Suspecting that Noel was involved in the
robbery, PO3 Jimmy, one of the responding police officers, searched the
abandoned taxi and found therein a mobile phone that Noel apparently left
behind. PO3 Jimmy, pretending to be Noel, communicated with the other
accused, Noa and Nolan. An entrapment operation was conducted that
resulted in the arrest of accused Noa and Nolan. The police were also able to
capture Noel. During the trial for the murder of PO2 Paolo, the prosecution
offered as evidence the transcripts of the mobile phone text messages
between Noel and his co-accused. The accused objected on the ground that
the text messages were inadmissible because, one, the text messages are
electronic evidence and the Rule on Electronic Evidence does not apply to
criminal cases, and, two, the text messages were not properly identified or
authenticated. Are the grounds for objection of the accused tenable?

XII.
Salman sued Panasia Banking Inc. (Panasia) alleging that the bank had
allowed his son to make unauthorized withdrawals from his account. The
complaint was later amended to include Bank of Commerce as a defendant
on the allegation that there was a merger between Bank of Commerce and
Panasia. Bank of Commerce denied that it had merged with Panasia and had
bought only selected assets. The trial court decided in favor of Salman. In its
judgment, the trial court held Bank of Commerce solidarily liable with
Panasia for damages. In response to Bank of Commerce’s denial of the
merger, the trial court took judicial notice of the merger between Bank of
Commerce and Panasia and said that common sense dictates that a bank will
not just cherry pick assets. Was the trial court’s decision to hold Bank of
Commerce solidarily liable proper?

XIII.
Alex sued for annulment of his marriage with Betty. During trial, Alex
offered in evidence cassete tapes of alleged telephone conversations of Betty
with her lover. The tapes were recordings made by tapping Alex’s telephone
line, with Alex’s consent and obviously without Betty’s or her lover’s. Betty
vehemently objected to their admission, on the ground that neither Betty nor
her lover consented to the wiretap. The court admitted the tapes, ruling that
the recorded conversations are nonetheless relevant to the issues involved.
Was the court correct in admitting the cassete tapes in evidence?