sample questions with answers

1. (a)In a labor case for the dismissal of an employee for alleged commission of a criminal act, what quantum of proof must be established by the employer to justify the dismissal?

(b) In an agrarian dispute involving tenancy relations, what quantum of proof is required to establish one’s claim?

© In an administrative case against a judge for bribery, extortion and violation of the anti-graft law which can result to removal, what quantum of proof is required to convict him?

(d) In an administrative case against a judge, when is there substantial evidence as to justify a conviction?

      (e) In an administrative complaint against a court employee for forgery and dishonesty, what quantum of proof is required to convict her?

Answer: (a) MERALCO V. NLRC, 198 SCRA 681 (1991) What is required is only substantial evidence.(b) SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, Reyes v. CA, 216 SCRA 25 (1992) (c) ANG V. ASIS (2002) proof beyond reasonable doubt (d0 Substantial evidence is that amount of evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conviction; such evidence is satisfied when there is a reasonable ground to believe that the respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant.(Laguid v. Camano, 2002)(e) substantial evidence (Mariano v. Roxas 2002)

2. IN their motion to dismiss based on lack of legal capacity to sue, defendants asserted that their transaction was not with Merrill Lynch but with another corporation. To prove this,defendants attached documents in support of their motion. Even without the documents being offered in evidence, the court took them into consideration and dismissed the complaint. Is the court correct? Explain.

Answer: Yes, SEC. 7 OF Rule 133 states that when a motion is based on facts not appearing on record the court may hear the matter on afdidavits and depositions presented by the respective parties.( Merril LYNCH V. CA, 211 SCRA 824,( 1992).

3. In convicting the accused in People v. Ador (22004) for murder, the trial court relied on the following circumstances to wit: (1) that he was seen fleeing from the crime scene (2) that he allegedly surrendered the hand gun (3) that the slug taken from the head of the victim was fried from the gun he surrendered (4) that the victim made a dying declaration identifying him and (5) paraffin test showed that he was positive for gunpowder. IS THE CONVICTION PROPER?

ANSWER: No. For circumstantial evidence to suffice, (1) there should be more than one circumstance (2) the facts from which the inference are derived are proven (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. These elements are not present in the case at bar.(People v. Ador 432 SCRA 1 (20024)

4.IN People v. Dungo (1991), the accused claims insanity as a defense in a criminal prosecution. What degree of evidence is required in order that he would be exempted from criminal liability?

ANSWER: Proof beyond reasonable doubt. IN considering the defense of insanity, the starting premise is that the law presumes all persons to be of sound mind. Otherwise stated, the law presumes all acts to be voluntary and that it is improper to presume that the acts were done unconsciously. WHOEVER therefore, invokes insanity as a defense had the burden of proving its existence beyond reasonable doubt. Insanity is a defense of confession and avoidance, and as such must be clearly and satisfactorily proved in order to acquit the accused.

5. Accused in the case of People v. Barlis (1994) duly assisted by counsel, confessed to having robbed the watches, jewelry and cash, and then killed one Honorian Balmaseda. During his trial, the confession was presented and admitted in evidence. Insofar as the robbery is concerned, the extra-judicial statement of the accused constituted as the only evidence of the taking of the property of the victim. Based on said premises, (a) is the conviction of the accused for the crime of robbery proper? (b) can he be convicted of homicide?

Answer: NO. Sec. 3 Rule 133 requires that an extrajudicial confession shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by the evidence of corpus delicte. In this case the robbery was not corroborated, only the homicide portion.He can only be convicted of homicide.(341)

6.To successfully invoke the defense of alibi as a defense in a criminal case, what evidence must be adduced by the accused?

Answer: The accused must show that he was at some other place for such period of time and that it was impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was committed at the time of its commission.(PEOPLE V. DEVARAS, 205 SCRA 676, 1992)

7.Accused together with another , was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. While the victim did not personally know the accused, she was able to identify him through a photograph shown to her at the police station. Can the accused challenge his out-of-court identification on the ground that it was not done through a police line-up?

Answer: NO. There is no rule that before a suspect can be identified as the culprit, he should first be placed in a police line-up. What is important is the positiveness of the victim that the persons charged were the malefactors, the same to be tested during the trial. (People v. Apawan (1994).

8.What is the English Exhequer rule?

Answer: It is mid-1880 rule pursuant to which “ a trial court’s error as to the admission of evidence was presumed to have caused prejudice and therefore, almost automatically required a new trial. It had long been laid to rest, for even the English appellate courts now disregard an error in the admission of evidence unless in its opinion, some substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has been occasioned.

9.The general rule is that documents not formally offered in evidence cannot be considered by the court. State at least three exceptions of that rule.

ANSWER: (see p. 362 of the book)

10.When to do make an offer of a testimonial evidence? What about documentary and object evidence?

Answer: Sec. 35 Rule 132- AS regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify. Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally, unless allowed by the court to be done in writing.