Saturday, November 23, 2019

test questions in evidence



Part 1: MCQ. Write the Letter of your choice in you answer sheet.

1. An affidavit is (a) not admissible as evidence since it is hearsay (b) admissible evidence when proven to be true (c) admissible evidence after being subjected to a cross examination (d) not admissible when affiant does not testify about it (e) admissible in evidence when the affiant testifies about it subject to a  cross examination.

2.A fish vendor, who was present when the act was perpetrated,  testifies in court concerning the facts of a murdered meat inspector who was newly assigned in the area. Which of the following statements is most correct? (a) he is not qualified to testify whether the culprit was drunk during that time (b) he is qualified to state that the cause of the death was the stab wounds inflicted (c) he may testify that the meat inspector was insane during that time (d) his testimony that the murderer  was very angry during the commission of the crime is not admissible since he is not a psychiatrist who knows the mechanics of anger(e) he is qualified to give the opinion that it was really the accused who murdered the victim.

3. Which of the following can be considered as a disputable presumption? (a) tenancy landlord relationship concerning a contract of lease (b) the previous statement of a principal that he appointed Jose as his agent (c) estoppel (d) the overt acts of Luis showing that Maria is really his wife (e) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter.

4. The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of (a) five  (b)ten  (c) fifteen (d) twenty (e) thirty  years.

5. If a person  disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of (a) five  (b)ten  (c) fifteen (d) twenty (e) thirty   years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.

6.Which of the following is INCORRECT?
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among the heirs:
(a) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, who has not been heard of for five years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
(b) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been missing for four years;
(c) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four years;
(d) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already death.
(e)In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death the circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage.

7.Which of the following is not a Disputable presumption?
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
(c) That a person intends the consequences of his voluntary act;
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.

8. Which of the following is a correct disputable presumption?
(a) That money erroneously paid by one to another was not due to the latter;
(b) That a thing misdelivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
(c) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been unpaid;
(d) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is concealed;
(e) 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.

9. Which of the following is INCORRECT? (a) the baby of a woman who marries after 360 days of the death of her husband and who gets pregnant by her second husband is deemed to be the child of the second marriage (b) a baby born of a woman who married before 180 days of the death of her husband is deemed to be the child of the first marriage (c) ) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage (d) A child born after one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage (e) none of the above.

10.Which of the following is  considered as a public document? (a) a birth certificate issued by the Register of Deeds (b) a certificate of Title issued by the Civil Registrar (c) a Deed of Sale notarized by a vice mayor who is a lawyer (d) a notarized last will and testament (e) a board examination result issued by the PRC.

PART 2. Essay type. Answer concisely and briefly


1.To prove New York law and jurisprudence on damages, defendants presented the affidavit of Alyssa Walden, a New York attorney. The affidavit discussed various court decisions copies of which were attached to the affidavit. Is it sufficient as proof of foreign law?
               
2.The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. Explain the “exceptions”.

3.What do you mean by (a) competent (b) material (c) relevant evidence?

4. 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.

5. In cases where the victim could not testify on the actual commission of the rape because she was rendered unconscious at the time the crime was perpetrated, can the accused be still convicted of rape? What rules of evidence are applicable when met with this particular prosecutorial deficiency?

6. In a case for property heirship, the alleged niece testified about her ‘being a niece” to the decedent. She testified that allegedly, her deceased childless Aunt, the owner of the property in questions, since her lifetime had always declared her as her niece, who would be capacitated to inherit her property. The adverse party claims that it is hearsay evidence, and hence inadmissible.The Judge sustained the objection. Is the Judge Correct?



7. What do you mean by the “ancient document rule”? What are the requisites?

 

 

8. Macagaling was charged with illegally possessing an unlicensed firearm.The prosecution did not obtain a certification from the Firearms and Explosive Office that he had no license.Under Sec. 2, Rule 131 of the 1964 Rules on Evidence, however, it was provided that: In criminal cases the burden of proof as to the offense lies on the prosecution. A negative fact alleged by the prosecution need not be proved unless it is an essential ingredient of the offense charged. Under the revised rules however, the second sentence was deleted.With the omission, must the prosecution still prove that the accused had not license to possess the firearm?

 

9. Robert Te was murdered. A suspect Famon was arrested and confessed to the crime incriminating Dulang and Feras. According to him, in his affidavit, sworn before a Judge, he was hired by Dulang and Feras to kill Te.

Issue: What is the effect of Famon's confession? Is the confession made by Famon binding on Dulang and Feras?

10. .How would you state your objections to the following:
A) : “You stated in your last testimony that you saw A driving the car, why are you now insisting that A was not driving”, when what the witness had merely said was that he had seen A seated on the front seat of the vehicle.
B) : Does ABC or did ABC produce the goods that your company was intending to buy?
C) “Tell us in your own words, what happed?”
d) “How is it that you can recollect a date as long ago as that and you cannot remember the day of the week?”
E) : “Did you know that the accused had been beating his wife nightly?:, when there is no prior evidence that such was the case. Or if the accused is the one asked: “When did you stop beating your wife?”, when there is no evidence that he had been beating his wife.

10. Explain the following terms: (a) adoptive admission (b) interlocking confessions (c) previous conduct as evidence (d) totality of circumstances test (e) chain of custody rule.


11.  In a case for violation of BP Blg. 22, the prosecution presented in evidence only a photocopy of the check that bounced.  It appeared, however, that the original was in the possession of accused.
            May the photocopy be admitted in evidence?

12. Atty. Sansaet was counsel for Paredes in a complaint undergoing preliminary investigation before the Tanodbayan for violation of RA No. 3019.  The complaint was, however, dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy based on their claim that Paredes was previously charged of the same offense which was dismissed after arraignment.  It turned out, however, that this claim of double jeopardy was based on falsified documents, so that both Paredes and Sansaet were charged of falsification.  As his defense, Atty. Sansaet claimed that it was Paredes who falsified the documents in his house and instigated and induced him to file the motion using the falsified documents.  Atty. Sansaet offered to become state witness against Paredes.

Issue:
            Would the proposed testimony of Atty. Sansaet violate the attorney-client privilege?

13. Petitioners sought the settlement of the estate of their brother Ricardo de Mesa Abad whom they claimed to be a bachelor and who died without any heirs.  This was opposed by respondent who claimed that Abad had a common-law-wife and is survived by two (2) children.  They also claimed that that he had another child by another woman.  Against these claims, petitioners presented the affidavit of Dr. Pedro Arenas, Ricardo Abad’s physician, declaring thatin 1935, he had examined Ricardo Abad and found him to be infected with gonorrhea, and that the latter had become sterile as a consequence thereof.

Issue:
            Is the affidavit barred by the physician-patient privilege?

14.In a case for annulment of marriage filed by the husband on the ground that the wife was suffering from a mental illness called schizophrenia, plaintiff sought to present the psychiatrist from the National Mental Hospital to testify as an expert witness.  Defendant objected on the ground that the testimony sought to be presented is privileged since the psychiatrist examined the patient in a professional capacity.  The trial court allowed her to testify as an expert witness and she was asked hypothetical questions related to her field of expertise.  She neither revealed the illness she examined and treated defendant for nor disclosed the results of her examination and the medicine she had prescribed.
Issue:

            In the testimony barred by Sec. 24(c) , Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidences?

15.Four (4) of the six (6) suspects in the crime of kidnapping with double murder executed separate extrajudicial statements confessing to the crime and implicating the others.  The statements were independently executed but are identified with each other in  their material details.  There are also distinct similarities in the narration of events leading to the killings.

Issue:
            Is the confession of one admissible against the other?

16. Accused were charged with 2 counts of kidnapping.  Since the 2 incidents happened almost simultaneously, the cases were consolidated and joint trial ensued.  In the first case, accused tied the hands of the 2 victims and pointed their guns at them.  In the second, however, ikt appears that the 2 victims were no physically threatened or tied.

Issue:
            Can the evidence in the first case be used in the second to prove tgat accused had the intent to deprive the victims of liberty?

17. The crime of robbery with homicide took place at around 5:30 in the afternoon.  One of the victims was rushed to the hospital and was operated on from 8:00 o’clock that evening until midnight.  At the hospital the victim told somebody that one of the accused struck her.  Said victim died five (5) days later.

Issue:
            Considering the interval of four (4) hours or more between the robbery and the infliction of the I juries and her making of the statement, can it still fall under the res gestae rule?

18. Accused was convicted of robbery with homicide.  Among the evidence presented against accused was the testimony of the police that after his arrest he was found wearing the wristwatch taken during the robbery.  A subsequent search of his house also yielded a Sanyo cassette recorder previously taken from his victim.

Issue:
            Can the possession by accused of the stolen items be used as evidence to prove his guilt?

19.Among the witnesses in the kidnapping for ransom case was the victim who was 6 years old when she testified.  After their conviction, accused claimed that the prosecution failed to establish that the child understood the nature of an oath and the need to tell the truth when she testified.

Issue: 
            Should the testimony ne excluded?

20.Rosella Cangue entered into 2 contracts with Socor Construction as sub-contructor.  Later, Socor and Cangue a bill representing the balance of Cangue’s total amount for materials delivered and services rendered by Socor under the contracts.  However, Cangue refused to pay, claiming that Socor failed to submit the delivery receipts showing the actual weight in metric tons of the items delivered.
            Socor brought suit in the RTC  to recover from Cangue.  During the trial, Socor presented Dolores Aday, its bookkeeper.  RTC rendered a decision in favor of Socor holding that the entries recorded in Socor’s Book of Collectible Accounts (Exh. “K”) are credibles.  Undeniably, the book contains a detailed account of Socor’s  commercial transactions with Cangue which were entered therein in the course of business.
            Socor claims that although the entries cannot be considered an exception to the hearsay rule, they may be admitted under Rule 132, $16.

Issue:
            Can the entries be admitted under Rule 132 Sec. 16?

21. President Roxas, a vessel owned by Philippine President lines, Inc., ran aground while navigating through Orinoco River in Venezuela.  As a consequence, it obstructed the ingress and egress of other vessels, including Malandrimon.  The owner of the latter vessel, Wildvalley Shipping Company, Ltd, sued President Lines for damages in the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
            To prove Venezuela law, Wildvalley presented Capt. Oscar Leon Monzon. The Assistant Harbor Master and Chief of Pilots at Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela, as well as the rules governing the navigation or Orinoco River.  The witness produced in court photocopies of the laws as printed in GazataPOfficial and the Reglamento Para la Zuma de Pilotaje No. 1 de Orinoco.

Issue:
            Are the copies of the laws produced by Wild Valley admissible in evidence?

22.While Renato and FranciaOng were passengers of an Inland bus, it was bumped from the rear by another bus, owned and operated by Philtranco.  Both Renato and Francia were injured.  Ong filed an action for damages against Philtranco and Inland. RTC rendered a decision in favor of absolving Inland from any liability but made Philtranco liable to Ong for damages.
            According to the RTC, the proximate cause if the accident was “the bumping from behind by the Philtranco bus” based on the Police Report and the affidavits of passengers, to which Philtranco did not object.  Philtranco was held liable based on culpa aquiliana.  The CA, however, resolved that Philtranco’s liability for damages could not be predicted upon the Police Report which had not been formally offered in evidence.  The report was merely annexed to the answer of Inland, and Ong did not adopt or offer it as evidence.  Consequently, it had no probative value and, thus, Philtranco should be absolved from liability.

Issue:
            Whether or not the Police Report, which was not formally offered in evidence, could be used to establish a chain against Philtranco based on culpa aquiliana.

23.After the presentation of its sole witness, defendant prayed for fifteen (15) days within which to mal its formal offer of evidence which was granted.  The court gave plaintiff 10 days to comment on the formal offer.  Defendant subsequently submitted its offer but plaintiff failed to submit its comment, while the court did not rule on the offer because of plaintiff’s motion to recall defendant’s witness for further cross-examination.  Eventually, the Court, dismissed the motion to recall and admitted defendant’s offer without the benefit of comment or objection from plaintiff.

Issue:
            Did the court gravely abuse its discretion?

24.Two witnesses testified against the accused in a murder case and afterwards they retracted their testimonies.  One of them was able to confirm his affidavit of Retraction., but the other died before he could be recalled to the witness stand.

Issue:
            What is the value of retraction as evidence?

25.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.

Issue:
            Is the court correct?

26.Accused together with another, was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide.  While the victim did not personally  know accused, she was able to identify him through a photograph shown to her at the police station.

Issue:
            Can accused challenge his out-of-court identification on the ground that it was not dome through a police line-up?

27. Accused was convicted of raping a 5-year old child.  During the trial, including the time when the victim identified the accused in court, the prosecutor asked leading questions.

Issue:
            Should the conviction be reversed?

28.The Spouses Reyes mortgaged three (3) lots to Ibaan Rural Bank, Inc.  When they failed to pay their loan, the bank extra-judicially foreclosed on the mortgaged lots.  The Certificate of Sale issued by the Provincial Sheriff stated that the redemption period expire two (2) years from the registration                                                            of the sale.  Before the lapse of the two (2) years, the spouses offered to redeem the foreclosed lots and tendered the redemption amount of 77,737.45.  However, the bank refused claiming that the right to redeem had prescribed, as more than one year gad elapsed from the registration of the Certificate of Sale.

Issue:
            What was the period of redemption: two years as unilaterally fixed by the sheriff in the contract, or one year as fixed by law?

29. Accused was on trial for the special complex crime of robbery with rape.  Among the evidence he presented for his defense was that it was impossible for him to have committed the crime charged since he is a person of good moral character, holding as he does the position of “Ministerial Servant” in the congregation of Jehovah’s Witness, and that he is a godly man, a righteous person, a responsible family  man and a  good Christian who preaches the word of God.

Issue:
            What value should be assigned to the good moral character of the accused?

30.In a prosecution for murder and frustrated murder, one of the documentary exhibits offered was an affidavit of a witness in another criminal case against the same accused.  The other case was also for murder that occurred in the same spot where the murder case currently in trial happened.  Over the objection of accused, considering that the person who executed the affidavit did not testify, the exhibit was submitted by the trial court.

Issue:
            Did the court commit an error in admitting the affidavit?  























No comments:

Post a Comment