1.
Facts:
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.
Issue:
May the photocopy be admitted in
evidence?
2.
Facts:
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?
3.
Facts:
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?
4.
Facts:
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?
5.
Facts:
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?
6.
Facts:
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?
7.
Facts:
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?
8.
Facts:
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?
9
Facts:
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?
10
Facts:
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?
11.
Facts:
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?
12
Facts:
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.
13.
Facts:
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?
14.
Facts:
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?
15
Facts:
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?
16.
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?
17.
Facts:
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?
18.
Facts:
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?
19.
Facts:
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?
20.
Facts:
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?
END OF THE EXAMINATION
