evidence examination

1.                   State the hierarchy of evidentiary values under the rules of evidence.

2.                  Concerning the writ of amparo,  fill in the blanks in the provision below:

SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. – The parties shall establish their claims by ________________.The respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove that _______________as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty. The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that _____________ as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty. The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed to evade responsibility or liability.

3.What kind of proof is required to prove a criminal conspiracy?

4.At midnight of July 4, 1986, Agapito Gambalan answered the door, thinking of a neighbor in need. Instead, heavily armed men came through the door, declared a hold-up and fired their guns at him. Upon hearing the gunshots, Agapito’s wife, Juliet, went out of their room and found his lifeless body while a man took Agapito’s gun and left hurriedly with the others. George Jovillano responded to Juliet’s plea for help and reported the incident to the police, who found Amado Ponce, one of the accused, wounded and lying near the Gambalan’s house. Ponce revealed to the police that Sabas and Valeriano Raquel were the perpetrators of the crime and that they may be found in their residence. The Raquels were later apprehended on different occasions.The trial court found all the accused guilty of the crime.

Question: Can the extrajudicial statement of Ponce pointing at the Raquels as his co-perpetrators of the crime be used as a basis to convict them?

5.At the trial, the appellant testified that at midday on June 2, 1938,  he looked for his wife, Sixta Quilason and found her with Isabelo Evangelio near the toilet of his house in a place covered with underbush, who was standing and buttoning his drawers, and immediately ran away. The accused went after him, but unable to overtake him, he returned to where his wife was and, completely obfuscated, attacked her with a knife and killed her. Thus, lower court has found him guilty of parricide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P1,000, and to pay the costs.The appellant asserted that under such circumstances, he was entitled to the privilege afforded by article 247 of the Revised Penal code providing: "Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill either of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

Question:

On the given set of facts, is the accused entitled to Article 247 of Revised Penal Code ?