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?
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