1.

YES. Although the failure of Lynette to produce the original of the note is
excusable since she was not given reasonable notice, a requirement under the
Rules before secondary evidence may be presented, the copy in possession of
Paula is not secondary evidence but a duplicate original because it was executed
at the same time as the original and with identical contents. Hence, being an
original, the rule on secondary evidence need not be complied with. (Sec. 6, Rule
130, ROC, as amended).
2.
a. yes, the seizure of the firearm was valid because it was seized in the
course of a valid arrest in a buy bust operation. A search warrant was not
necessary because it was incidental to a valid warrant of arrest.
b. The denial of the motion to dismiss was not proper. The court had no
authority to issue the writ of replevin whether the firearm was in custodia legis or
not. The motion to recover the firearm should be filed in the court where the
criminal action is pending.
3.
4. (a) The objection is not valid. While the rule provides that neither the
husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of
the affected spouse, the prohibition is merely the general rule.
exceptions, one of which is in a criminal case committed by one against the
direct descendant of the other.
In this case, Romeo is accused of committing a crime against selmo, the son
of vida and the latter’s direct descendant.
5.  The objection of Pedro should not be sustained. The testimony is
admissible because the witness is not disqualified to testify. Those disqualified
under the dead man’s statute or the survivorship disqualification rule are parties
or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted.
The witness is not one of those enumerated under the rule (Section 23, Rule 130,
Rules of Court)
6.
a. doctor martin owns the documents. It was forcibly taken by her wife
without his knowledge and consent.
If I were the judge, I will render the documents seized as inadmissible for
violating the privacy of communication and constitutional right. A husband and
wife insures privilege communication between them. They cannot testify against
each other and neither be examined without the consent of the other as to any
communication received in confidence except for specified exceptions.
b. No, a person does not shed his right to privacy as an individual by
marriage and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or her.
It is provided under the constitution that “the privacy of communication
and correspondence is inviolable”. In this case, it a wife cannot simply get forcibly
documents from his husband who thinks that she was aggrieved by her husband’s
infidelity. The only exception to the prohibition in the constitution is if there is a
lawful order from the court or when public safety or order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law.
Hence, the right to privacy communication of the husband should be
upheld.