Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evidence BQ
Evidence BQ
Due credit and appreciation are extended to those who actually own the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
intellectual property rights over the content of this material as well as to the 1. The rifle is not admissible in evidence because it was seized without a
contributors and volunteers. The latter intends to do no copyright proper search warrant. A warrantless search is not justified. There was
infringement nor do they accept any liability for the content and time to secure a search warrant. (People vs. Encinada G.R. No. 116720,
consequences of any act performed by the user, except for typographical, October 2. 1997 and other cases)
grammatical, or related errors. 2. The sworn statement is not admissible in evidence because it was taken
without informing him of his custodial rights and without the assistance
For contributions, suggestions, participations, you may approach the Law of counsel which should be independent and competent and preferably
Student Government or contact the same through any of the following of the choice of the accused. (People vs. Januario, 267 SCRA 608)
media: Facebook: LSG San Beda Manila (@lsg.sanbedamanila); 3. The waiver of his right to counsel is not admissible because it was made
Contact Number: 09951693210; E-mail address: lsg.beda@gmail.com without the assistance of counsel of his choice. (People vs. Gomez, 270
SCRA 433)
UIOGD.
Admissibility (2002)
Acting on a tip by an informant, police officers stopped a car being driven by
D and ordered him to open the trunk. The officers found a bag containing
several kilos of cocaine. They seized the car and the cocaine as evidence and
placed D under arrest. Without advising him of his right to remain silent and
to have the assistance of an attorney, they questioned him regarding the
cocaine. In reply, D said, “I don’t know anything about it. It isn’t even my car.”
Admissibility; Offer to Pay Expenses (1997) Admissibility; Proof of Filiation; Action of Partition (2000)
A, while driving his car, ran over B. A visited B at the hospital and offered to Linda and spouses Arnulfo and Regina Ceres were co-owners of a parcel of
pay for his hospitalization expenses. After the filing of the criminal case land. Linda died intestate and without any issue. Ten (10) persons headed by
against A for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence. A's Jocelyn, claiming to be the collateral relatives of the deceased Linda, filed an
insurance carrier offered to pay for the injuries and damages suffered by B. action for partition with the RTC praying for the segregation of Linda’s ½
The offer was rejected because B considered the amount offered as share, submitting in support of their petition the baptismal certificates of
inadequate. seven of the petitioners, a family bible belonging to Linda in which the names
a) Is the offer by A to pay the hospitalization expenses of B admissible in of the petitioners have been entered, a photocopy of the birth certificate of
evidence? Jocelyn, and a certification of the local civil registrar that its office had been
b) Is the offer by A's insurance carrier to pay for the injuries and damages of completely razed by fire. The spouses Ceres refused to partition on the
B admissible in evidence? following grounds:
1) The baptismal certificates of the parish priest are evidence only of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: administration of the sacrament of baptism and they do not prove
a) The offer by A to pay the hospitalization expenses of B is not admissible filiation of the alleged collateral relatives of the deceased;
in evidence to prove his guilt in both the civil and criminal cases. (Rule 2) Entry in the family bible is hearsay;
130, Sec. 27, fourth par.) 3) The certification of the registrar on non-availability of the records of birth
does not prove filiation;
Discuss each of the five (5) arguments briefly but completely. (10%) b) PAROL EVIDENCE RULE: It is designed to give certainty to a transaction
which has been reduced to writing, because written evidence is much
SUGGESTED ANSWER: more certain and accurate than that which rests on fleeting memory only.
1) The baptismal certificate can show filiation or prove pedigree. It is one of (Francisco, Rules of Court Vol. VII, Part I. p. 154)
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 c) BEST EVIDENCE RULE: This Rule is adopted for the prevention of fraud
of Ignacio Conti v. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 345 [1998]). and is declared to be essential to the pure administration of justice.
2) Entries in the family bible may be received as evidence of pedigree. (Sec. (Moran, Vol. 5, p. 12.) If a party is in possession of such evidence and
40, Rule 130, Rules of Court) withholds it, the presumption naturally arises that the better evidence is
3) The certification by the civil registrar of the non-availability of records is withheld for fraudulent purposes. (Francisco. Rules of Court, vol. VII. Part
needed to justify the presentation of secondary evidence, which is the I, pp, 121,122)
photocopy of the birth certificate of Jocelyn. (Heirs of Ignacio Conti v.
Court of Appeals, supra.) d) An illegally obtained extrajudicial confession nullifies the intrinsic validity
4) Declaration of heirship in a settlement proceeding is not necessary. It can of the confession and renders it unreliable as evidence of the truth.
be made in the ordinary action for partition wherein the heirs are (Moran, vol. 5, p. 257) it is the fruit of a poisonous tree.
exercising the right pertaining to the decedent, their predecessor-in-
interest, to ask for partition as co-owners (Id.) e) The reason for the rule against the admission of an offer of compromise
5) Even if real property is involved, no publication is necessary, because in civil case as an admission of any liability is that parties are encouraged
what is sought is the mere segregation of Linda’s share in the property. to enter into compromises. Courts should endeavor to persuade the
(Sec. 1 of Rule 69; Id.) litigants in a civil case to agree upon some fair compromise (Art. 2029,
Civil Code). During pre-trial, courts should direct the parties to consider
Admissibility; Rules of Evidence (1997) the possibility of an amicable settlement. (Sec. 1[a] of former Rule 20:
Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence: Sec. 2 [a] of new Rule 16).
a) Dead Man Rule
b) Parol Evidence Rule Best Evidence Rule (1997)
c) Best Evidence Rule When A loaned a sum of money to B. A typed a single copy of the
d) The rule against the admission of illegally obtained extrajudicial promissory note, which they both signed A made two photo (xeroxed) copies
confession of the promissory note, giving one copy to B and retaining the other copy. A
e) The rule against the admission of an offer of compromise in civil cases entrusted the typewritten copy to his counsel for safekeeping. The copy with
A's counsel was destroyed when the law office was burned.
a) In an action to collect on the promissory note, which is deemed to be the
"original" copy for the purpose of the "Best Evidence Rule"?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Note: The promissory note is an actionable document and the original or a
No. The testimony of Kim should not be excluded. Even though Kim is not an copy thereof should have been attached to the complaint. (Sec. 7 of Rule 9,
expert witness, Kim may testify on her impressions of the emotion, behavior, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). In such a case, the genuineness and due
condition or appearance of a person (Sec. 50, last par., Rule 130). execution of the note, if not denied under oath, would be deemed admitted.
(Sec. 8 of Rule 9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Parol Evidence Rule (2001)
Pedro filed a complaint against Lucio for the recovery of a sum of money Preponderance vs. Substantial Evidence (2003)
based on a promissory note executed by Lucio. In his complaint, Pedro Distinguish preponderance of evidence from substantial evidence. (4%)
alleged that although the promissory note says that it is payable within 120
days, the truth is that the note is payable immediately after 90 days but that SUGGESTED ANSWER:
if Pedro is willing, he may, upon request of Lucio give the latter up to 120 PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE means that the evidence as a whole
days to pay the note. During the hearing, Pedro testified that the truth is that adduced by one side is superior to that of the other. This is applicable in civil
the agreement between him and Lucio is for the latter to pay immediately cases. (Sec. 1 of Rule 133; Municipality of Moncada v. Cajuigan, 21 Phil, 184
after ninety day’s time. Also, since the original note was with Lucio and the [1912]).
latter would not surrender to Pedro the original note which Lucio kept in a
place about one day’s trip from where he received the notice to produce the SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is that amount of relevant evidence which a
note and in spite of such notice to produce the same within six hours from reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. This is
receipt of such notice, Lucio failed to do so. Pedro presented a copy of the applicable in case filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies. (Sec. 5
note which was executed at the same time as the original and with identical of Rule 133)
contents.
Privilege Communication (1998)
C is the child of the spouses H and W. H sued his wife W for judicial
a) Over the objection of Lucio, will Pedro be allowed to testify as to the true
declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. In the
agreement or contents of the promissory note? Why? (2%)
trial, the following testified over the objection of W: C, H and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The answer would be the same if the matters to be testified on were known
1. The rule of marital privilege cannot be invoked in the annulment case to Baby or acquired by her prior to her marriage to Cesar, because the
under Rule 36 of the Family Code because it is a civil case filed by one marital disqualification rule may be invoked with respect to testimony on any
against the other (Sec. 22 , Rule 130. Rules of Court.) fact. It is immaterial whether such matters were known to Baby before or
2. The doctrine of parental privilege cannot likewise be invoked by W as after her marriage to Cesar.
against the testimony of C, their child. C may not be compelled to testify
but is free to testify against her (Sec. 25. Rule 130. Rules of Court; Art. Privilege Communication; Marital Privilege (2000)
215, Family Code.) Vida and Romeo are legally married. Romeo is charged to court with the
3. D, as a doctor who used to treat W, is disqualified to testify against W crime of serious physical injuries committed against Selmo, son of Vida,
over her objection as to any advice or treatment given by him or any stepson of Romeo. Vida witnessed the infliction of the injuries on Selmo by
information which he may have acquired in his professional capacity Romeo. The public prosecutor called Vida to the witness stand and offered
(Sec. 24 [c], Rule 130. Rules of Court.) her testimony as an eyewitness. Counsel for Romeo objected on the ground
of the marital disqualification rule under the Rules of Court.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: a) Is the objection valid? (3%)
If the doctor's testimony is pursuant to the requirement of establishing the b) Will your answer be the same if Vida’s testimony is offered in a civil case
psychological incapacity of W, and he is the expert called upon to testify for for recovery of personal property filed by Selmo against Romeo? (2%)
the purpose, then it should be allowed. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals and
Molina, 26S SCRA 198) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No. While neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the
Privilege Communication; Marital Privilege (1989) other without the consent of the affected spouse, one exception is if the
Ody sued spouses Cesar and Baby for a sum of money and damages. At the testimony of the spouse is in a criminal case for a crime committed by
trial, Ody called Baby as his first witness. Baby objected, joined by Cesar, on one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants
the ground that she may not be compelled to testify against her husband. (Sec, 22, Rule 130). The case falls under this exception because Selma is
Ody insisted and contended that after all, she would just be questioned the direct descendant of the spouse Vide.
about a conference they had with the barangay captain, a matter which is not b) No. The marital disqualification rule applies this time. The exception
confidential in nature. The trial court ruled in favor of Ody. Was the ruling provided by the rules is in a civil case by one spouse against the other.
proper? Will your answer be the same if the matters to be testified on were The case here involves a case by Selmo for the recovery of personal
known to Baby or acquired by her prior to her marriage to Cesar? Explain. property against Vida’s spouse, Romeo.
The contention that the guards had no personal knowledge of the contents
of the package before it was opened is without merit. The guards can testify
as to the facts surrounding the opening of the package since they have
personal knowledge of the circumstances thereof, being physically present at
the time of its discovery.
Conversely, the accused may not argue that he cannot cross-examine the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
dog as the Constitutional right to confrontation refers only to witnesses. (C) Judicial admission
As alluded, the human witnesses who have explained the workings of non-
human evidence is the one that should be cross-examined. Hence, the Judicial admission is not covered by the Rules on vicarious admission which
contention of the accused that he could not cross-examine the dog is are considered exceptions to the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule.
misplaced.
Under the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule, the rights of a party cannot be
Ergo, there is no doubt that the evidence of the prosecution is admissible for prejudiced by the act, declaration, or omission of another (Section 38, Rule
being relevant and competent. 130, Rules of Court).
SECOND SUGGESTED ANSWER: It is not only rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man
The evidence for the prosecution is admissible. should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers, and if a party
ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or
In People of the Philippines vs. Hedishi Suzuki, G.R. No. 120670 [October 23, conduct be used as evidence against him (5 Moran, p.237 1980 ed.).
2003], the Supreme Court held that search conducted by the airport
authorities as reasonable and, therefore, not violative of any constitutional The exceptions are admission by co-partner or agent (Section 29), admission
rights. “Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by by conspirator (Section 30), admission by privies (Section 31), which are
exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a collectively classified by Senator Salonga as “vicarious admissions.” (Vide
lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is Gilbert, Sec. 332; page 398 Remedial Law V; Herrera).
At the trial, the prosecutor called to the witness stand AA as his first witness
and manifested that he be allowed to ask leading questions in conducting his
direct examination pursuant to the Rule on the Examination of a Child
Witness. BB’s counsel objected on the ground that the prosecutor has not
conducted a competency examination on the witness, a requirement before
the rule cited can be applied in the case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. BB’s counsel is not correct. Every child is presumed qualified to be a
witness (Sec. 6, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness). To rebut the
presumption of competence enjoyed by a child, the burden of proof lies on
the party challenging his competence (Sec. 6 A.M. No. 005-07-SC or the
Rules on Examination of Child Witness).
Here, AA, a 12-year old child witness who is presumed to be competent, may
be asked leading questions by the prosecutor in conducting his direct
examination pursuant to the RECW and the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure (People vs. Santos, G.R. No. 171452, October 17, 2008)
Be that as it may, the Court should consider minority in rendering the Should a party fail to file and serve written interrogatories on an adverse
decision. After all, the failure of the prosecutor to prove the minority of AA party, he cannot compel the latter to give testimony in open court or to
may only affect the imposable penalty but may not absolve him from criminal give deposition pending appeal, unless allowed by the court for good
liability. cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice (Section 6, Rule 25,
Rules of Court; Spouses Vicente Afulugencia and Leticia Afulugencia,
G.R. No. 185145, February 5, 2014).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, John can testify. Under the rule on privileged communication, the
husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined
without the consent of the other as to any communication received in
confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil
case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed
by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants
(Rule 130, Sec. 24(a), Rules of Court).
In this case, Anne cannot prevent John from testifying against her since
the petition for declaration of nullity is a civil case filed by one spouse
against the other; hence, the rule on privileged communication between
the spouses does not apply. John could testify on the confidential
psychiatric evaluation report of his wife that he obtained from the
secretary of the psychiatrist, without offending the rule on privileged
communication.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, John can testify. A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery,
or obstetrics cannot, in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be
examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information
which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional
capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to act in that
capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient (Section
24(c), Rule 130, Rules on Evidence).