FINAL EXAMINATION IN EVIDENCE
INSTRUCTION: Write your answer in the Examination booklet. With respect to the MCQ write the letter of your choice only.
1. What is the meaning of Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt? What rule of evidence is applicable in said maxim?
2. Distinguish Section 23 from Sec. 38 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court?
3. Bearing in mind the distinction between private and public document, which of the following is admissible in evidence without further proof of due execution or
genuineness?
A. Baptismal certificates.
B. Official record of the Philippine Embassy in Singapore certified by the Vice-
Consul with official seal.
C. Documents acknowledged before a Notary Public in Hong Kong.
D. Unblemished receipt dated December 20, 1985 signed by the promisee,
showing payment of a loan, found among the well-kept file of the promissor.
5. In a case, the prosecutor asked the medical expert the question, “Assuming
that the assailant was behind the deceased before he attacked him, would you
say that treachery attended the killing?” Is this hypothetical question
permissible?
A. No, since it asks for his legal opinion.
B. Yes, but conditionally, subject to subsequent proof that the assailant was
indeed behind the deceased at that time.
C. Yes, since hypothetical questions may be asked of an expert witness.
D. No, since the medical expert has no personal knowledge of the fact.
6. Arvin was caught in flagrante delicto selling drugs for P200,000.00. The
police officers confiscated the drugs and the money and brought them to the
police station where they prepared the inventory duly signed by police officer
Oscar Moreno. They were, however, unable to take pictures of the items. Will
this deficiency destroy the chain of custody rule in the drug case?
A. No, a breach of the chain of custody rule in drug cases, if satisfactorily
explained, will not negate conviction.
B. No, a breach of the chain of custody rule may be offset by presentation in
court of the drugs.
C. Yes, chain of custody in drug cases must be strictly observed at all times to
preserve the integrity of the confiscated items.
D. Yes, compliance with the chain of custody rule in drug cases is the only way to
prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
7. Which of the following admissions made by a party in the course of judicial
proceedings is a judicial admission?
A. Admissions made in a pleading signed by the party and his counsel intended
to be filed.
B. An admission made in a pleading in another case between the same parties.
C. Admission made by counsel in open court.
D. Admissions made in a complaint superseded by an amended complaint.
8. What defenses may be raised in a suit to enforce a foreign judgment?
A. That the judgment is contrary to Philippine procedural rules.
B. None, the judgment being entitled to full faith and credit as a matter of general
comity among nations.
C. That the foreign court erred in the appreciation of the evidence.
D. That extrinsic fraud afflicted the judgment.
9. Cindy charged her husband, George, with bigamy for a prior subsisting
marriage with Teresa. Cindy presented Ric and Pat, neighbors of George and
Teresa in Cebu City, to prove, first, that George and Teresa cohabited there and,
second, that they established a reputation as husband and wife. Can Cindy
prove the bigamy by such evidence?
A. Yes, the circumstantial evidence is enough to support a conviction for bigamy.
B. No, at least one direct evidence and two circumstantial evidence are required
to support a conviction for bigamy.
C. No, the circumstantial evidence is not enough to support a conviction for
bigamy.
D. No, the circumstantial evidence cannot overcome the lack of direct evidence
in any criminal case.
10.To prove payment of a debt, Bong testified that he heard Ambo say, as the
latter was handing over money to Tessie, that it was in payment of debt. Is
Bong’s testimony admissible in evidence?
A. Yes, since what Ambo said and did is an independently relevant statement.
B. No, since what Ambo said and did was not in response to a startling
occurrence.
C. No, since Bong’s testimony of what Ambo said and did is hearsay.
D. Yes, since Ambo’s statement and action, subject of Bong’s testimony,
constitutes a verbal act.
11. Considering the qualifications required of a would-be witness, who among
the following is INCOMPETENT to testify?
A. A person under the influence of drugs when the event he is asked to testify on
took place.
B. A person convicted of perjury who will testify as an attesting witness to a will.
C. A deaf and dumb.
D. A mental retardate.
12. 42. During trial, plaintiff offered evidence that appeared irrelevant at that time but
he said he was eventually going to relate to the issue in the case by some future
evidence. The defendant objected. Should the trial court reject the evidence in
question on ground of irrelevance?
A. No, it should reserve its ruling until the relevance is shown.
B. Yes, since the plaintiff could anyway subsequently present the evidence anew.
C. Yes, since irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
D. No, it should admit it conditionally until its relevance is shown.
13. Ben testified that Jaime, charged with robbery, has committed bag-snatching
three times on the same street in the last six months. Can the court admit this
testimony as evidence against Jaime?
A. No, since there is no showing that Ben witnessed the past three robberies.
B. Yes, as evidence of his past propensity for committing robbery.
C. Yes, as evidence of a pattern of criminal behavior proving his guilt of the
present offense.
D. No, since evidence of guilt of a past crime is not evidence of guilt of a present
crime.
14. Alex filed a petition for writ of amparo against Melba relative to his daughter
Toni's involuntary disappearance. Alex said that Melba was Toni's employer,
who, days before Toni disappeared, threatened to get rid of her at all costs. On
the other hand, Melba countered that she had nothing to do with Toni's
disappearance and that she took steps to ascertain Toni's whereabouts. What is
the quantum of evidence required to establish the parties' respective claims?
A. For Alex, probable cause; for Melba, substantial evidence.
B. For Alex, preponderance of evidence; for Melba, substantial evidence.
C. For Alex, proof beyond reasonable doubt; for Melba, ordinary diligence.
D. For both, substantial evidence.
15. In which of the following situations is the declaration of a deceased person
against his interest NOT ADMISSIBLE against him or his successors and against
third persons?
A. Declaration of a joint debtor while the debt subsisted.
B. Declaration of a joint owner in the course of ownership.
C. Declaration of a former co-partner after the partnership has been dissolved.
D. Declaration of an agent within the scope of his authority
16. Henry testified that a month after the robbery Asiong, one of the accused,
told him that Carlos was one of those who committed the crime with him. Is
Henry’s testimony regarding what Asiong told him admissible in evidence against
Carlos?
A. No, since it is hearsay.
B. No, since Asiong did not make the statement during the conspiracy.
C. Yes, since it constitutes admission against a co-conspirator.
D. Yes, since it part of the res gestae.
17. Which of the following CANNOT be disputably presumed under the rules of
evidence?
A. That the thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of
that nature.
B. That the law has been obeyed.
C. That a writing is truly dated.
D. That a young person, absent for 5 years, it being unknown whether he still
lives, is considered dead for purposes of succession
18. Character evidence is admissible
A. in criminal cases, the accused may prove his good moral character if
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
B. in criminal cases, the prosecution may prove the bad moral character of the
accused to prove his criminal predisposition.
C. in criminal cases, the bad moral character of the offended party may not be
proved.
D. when it is evidence of the good character of a witness even prior to
impeachment.
19. Which of the following matters is NOT A PROPER SUBJECT of judicial
notice?
A. Persons have killed even without motive.
B. Municipal ordinances in the municipalities where the MCTC sits.
C. Teleconferencing is now a way of conducting business transactions.
D. British law on succession personally known to the presiding judge.
20. Which of the following is NOT REQUIRED of a declaration against interest as
an exception to the hearsay rule?
A. The declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to be
true.
B. The declarant is dead or unable to testify.
C. The declaration relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant.
D. At the time he made said declaration he was unaware that the same was
contrary to his aforesaid interest.
21. To prove the identity of the assailant in a crime of homicide, a police officer
testified that, Andy, who did not testify in court, pointed a finger at the accused in
a police lineup. Is the police officer’s testimony regarding Andy's identification of
the accused admissible evidence?
A. Yes, since it is based on his personal knowledge of Andy’s identification of the
accused.
B. Yes, since it constitutes an independently relevant statement.
C. No, since the police had the accused identified without warning him of his
rights.
D. No, since the testimony is hearsay
22. In which of the following cases is the testimony in a case involving a
deceased barred by the Survivorship Disqualification Rule or Dead Man Statute?
A. Testimony against the heirs of the deceased defendant who are substituted
for the latter.
B. The testimony of a mere witness who is neither a party to the case nor is in
privity with the latter.
C. The testimony of an oppositor in a land registration case filed by the
decedent’s heirs.
D. The testimony is offered to prove a claim less than what is established
under a written document signed by the decedent.
23. To prove that Susan stabbed her husband Elmer, Rico testified that he heard
Leon running down the street, shouting excitedly, “Sinasaksak daw ni Susan ang
asawa niya! (I heard that Susan is stabbing her husband!)” Is Leon's statement
as narrated by Rico admissible?
A. No, since the startling event had passed.
B. Yes, as part of the res gestae.
C. No, since the excited statement is itself hearsay.
D. Yes, as an independently relevant statement
24. Which of the following means res gestae? (a) of things done (b) of things said (c) startling occurrence (d) spontaneous statement (e) a thing uttered
25. What are the requisites for an “ancient document” to be admitted as evidence in court? Explain.
END OF THE EXAMINATION
No comments:
Post a Comment