Bar Qs

Question 1

Legislative facts and adjudicative facts.

Answer 1

A: Legislative facts refer to facts mentioned in a statue or in an explanatory note, while adjudicative facts are facts found in a court decision.

Question 2

Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence:
a. Dead Man Rule

Answer 2

If death has closed the lips of one party, the policy of the law is to close the lips of the other (Goni v. Court of Appeals, L-77434, September 23, 1986). This is to prevent the temptation to perjury because death has already sealed the lips of the party.

Question 3

Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence:

Parol Evidence Rule

Answer 3

It is designed to give certainty to a I transaction which has been reduced to writing, because written evidence is much more certain and accurate than that which rests on fleeting memory only (Francisco, Revised Rules of Court)

Question 4

Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence:

d. The rule against the admission of
illegally obtained extrajudicial confession.

Answer 4

An illegally obtained extrajudicial confession nulli- fies the intrinsic validity of the confession and renders it unreliable as evidence of the truth (Moran, Volume 5. p. 257). It is the fruit of a poisonous tree.

Question 5

Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence:

The rule against the admission of an
offer of compromise in civil cases (1997
Bar)

Answer 5

The reason for the rule against the admission of an offer of compromise in civil case as an admission of any liability is that parties are encouraged to enter into compromises. Courts should endeavor to persuade the litigants in a civil case to agree upon some fair compromise (Art. 2029, NCC). During pre-
trial, courts should direct the parties to consider the Bar)
possibility of an amicable settlement. (Sec. 2[a], Rule 18)

Question 6

What elements should concur for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction? (2017 Bar)

Answer 6

The following elements should concur for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; (c) The combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt (Sec. 4, Rule 133).

Question 7

The barangay captain reported to the police that X was illegally keeping in his house in the barangay an Armalite M16 rifle. On the strength of that information, the police conducted a search of the house of X and indeed found said rifle. The police raiders seized the rifle and brought X to the police station. During the investigation, he voluntarily signed a Sworn Statement that he was possessing said rifle without license or authority to possess, and a Waiver of Right to Counsel, individually rule on the admissibility in evidence of the:
a. Rifle;

Answer 7

The rifle is not admissible in evidence because it was seized without a proper search warrant. A warrantless search is not justified. There was time to secure a search warrant. (People v. Encicada G.R. No. 116720, October 2, 1997)

Question 8

The barangay captain reported to the police that X was illegally keeping in his house in the barangay an Armalite M16 rifle. On the strength of that information, the police conducted a search of the house of X and indeed found said rifle. The police raiders seized the rifle and brought X to the police station. During the investigation, he voluntarily signed a Sworn Statement that he was possessing said rifle without license or authority to possess, and a Waiver of Right to Counsel, individually rule on the admissibility in evidence of the:

Sworn Statement;

Answer 8

The sworn statement is not admissible in evidence because it was taken without informing him of his custodial rights and without the assistance of counsel which should be independent and competent and preferably of the choice of the accused. (People v. Januario, G.R. No. 98252, February 7, 1997)

Question 9

The barangay captain reported to the police that X was illegally keeping in his house in the barangay an Armalite M16 rifle. On the strength of that information, the police conducted a search of the house of X and indeed found said rifle. The police raiders seized the rifle and brought X to the police station. During the investigation, he voluntarily signed a Sworn Statement that he was possessing said rifle without license or authority to possess, and a Waiver of Right to Counsel, individually rule on the admissibility in evidence of the:

Waiver of Right to Counsel of X.

Answer 9

The waiver of his right to counsel is not admissible because it was made without the assistance of counsel of his choice. (People v. Gomez, G.R. No. 101817, March 26, 1997)

Question 10

Dominique was accused of committing a violation of the Human Security Act. He was detained incommunicado, deprived of sleep, and subjected to water torture. He later allegedly confessed his guilt via an affidavit. After trial, he was acquitted on the ground that his confession was obtained through torture, hence, inadmissible as evidence. In a subsequent criminal case for torture against those who deprived him of sleep and subjected him to water torture, Dominique was asked to testify and to, among other things, identify his above-said affidavit of confession. As he was about to identify the affidavit, the defense counsel objected on the ground that the affidavit is a fruit of a poisonous tree. Can the objection be sustained? Explain. (2010 Bar)

Answer 10

No, the objection may not be sustained on the ground stated, because the affiant was only to identify the affidavit which is not yet being offered in evidence. The doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree can only be invoked by Domingo as his defense in the crime of violation of Human Security Act filed against him but not by the accused in a torture case filed by him. In the instant case, the presentation of the affidavit cannot be objected to by the defense counsel on the ground that it is a fruit of the poisonous tree because the same is used in Domingo’s favour.

Question 11

Sgt. GR of WPD arrested two NPA suspects, Max and Brix, both aged 22, in the act of robbing a grocery in Ermita. As he handcuffed them he noted a pistol tucked in Max’s waist and a dagger hidden under Brix’s shirt, which he promptly confiscated. At the police investigation room, Max and Brix orally waived their right to counsel and to remain silent. Then under oath, they freely answered questions asked by the police desk officer. Thereafter they signed their sworn statements before the police captain, a lawyer. Max admitted his part in the robbery, his possession of a pistol and his ownership of the packet of shabu found in his pocket. Brix admitted his role in the robbery and his possession of a dagger. But they denied being NPA hit men. In due course, proper charges were filed by the City Prosecutor against both arrestees before the MM RTC. May the written statements signed and sworn to by Max and Brix be admitted by the trial court as evidence for the prosecution? Reason. (2004 Bar)

Answer 11

No. The sworn written statements of Max and Brix may not be admitted in evidence, because they were not assisted by counsel, even if the police captain before whom they signed the statements was a lawyer, nor can he be considered as an independent counsel. The waiver of the right to a cousel must be done in writing and in the presence of independent counsel. (People v. Mahinay, G.R. No. 122485, February 1, 1999; People v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 128287, February 2, 1999)

Question 12

Distinguish Burden of proof and burden of evidence

Answer 12

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law (Sec. 1, Rule 131), while burden of evidence is the duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow prima facie evidence established against him (Bautista v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. L-45137 September 23, 1985).

Question 13

Distinguish preponderance of the evidence from substantial evidence. (2003 Bar)

Answer 13

Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence as a whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the other. This is applicable in civil cases. (Sec. 1, Rule 133; Municipality of Moncada v. Cajuigan, G.R. No. L-7048, January 12, 1912)
Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. This is applicable in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies (Sec. 5, Rule 133).

Question 14

Give three instances when a Philippine Court can take judicial notice of a foreign law. (1997 Bar)

Answer 14

The three instances when a Philippine court can take judicial notice of a foreign law are: (1) when the Philippine courts are evidently familiar with the foreign law (Moran, 1980); (2) when the foreign law refers to the law of nations (Sec. 1, Rule 129) and, (3) when it refers to a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on the subject of law if the court takes judicial notice of the fact that the writer thereof is recognized in his profession or calling as expert on the subject. (Sec. 4[5], Rule 130)

Question 15

Suppose a foreign law was pleaded as part of the defense of defendant but no evidence was presented to prove the existence of said law, what is the presumption to be taken by the court as to the wordings of said law?

Answer 15

The presumption is that the wordings of the foreign law are the same as the local law (Northwest Orient Airlines v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 112573, February 9, 1995; Moran, 1980; Lim v. Collector of Customs, G.R. No. L-11759, March 16, 1917). This is known as the processual presumption.

Question 16

At the trial of Ace for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosecution offers in evidence a photocopy of the marked P100.00 bills used in the “buy-bust” operation. Ace objects to the introduction of the photocopy on the ground that the Best Evidence Rule prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence in lieu of the original.
Is the photocopy real evidence or documentanyevidence

Answer 16

The photocopy of the marked bills is real (object) evidence and not documentary evidence, because the marked bills are real evidence

Question 17

At the trial of Ace for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosecution offers in evidence a photocopy of the marked P100.00 bills used in the “buy-bust” operation. Ace objects to the introduction of the photocopy on the ground that the Best Evidence Rule prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence in lieu of the original.

Is the photocopy admissible in
evidence?

Answer 17

Yes, the photocopy is admissible in evidence, because the best evidence rule does not apply to object or real evidence. (People v. Tandoy, G.R. No. 80505, December 4, 1990)

Question 18

In a prosecution for rape, the defense relied on Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) evidence showing that the semen found in the private part of the victim was not identical with that of the accused. As private prosecutor, how will you dispute the veracity and accuracy of the results of the DNA evidence? (2010 Bar)

Answer 18

As private prosecutor, I shall try to discredit the results of the DNA test by questioning and possibly impugning the integrity of the DNA profile by showing a flaw/error in obtaining the biological sample, or in the chain of custody of the biological sample obtained; the testing methodology employed; the scientific standard observed; the forensic DNA laboratory which conducted the test; and the qualification, training and experience of the forensic laboratory personnel who conducted the DNA testing.

Question 19

At the Public Attorney’s Office station in Taguig where you are assigned, your work requires you to act as public defender at the local Regional Trial Court and to handle cases involving indigents.
Still in another case, this time for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution has rested but you saw from the records that the illegal substance allegedly involved has not been identified by any of the prosecution witnesses nor has it been the subject of any stipulation. Should you now proceed post haste to the presentation of defense evidence or consider some other remedy? Explain th remedial steps you propose to undertake. (2013 Bar)

Answer 19

A: I will first file a motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence within five (5) days from the time the prosecution rested its case. If the same is granted, then I will file a demurrer to evidence within ten (10) days from notice on the ground of insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution (Sec. 23, Rule 119).
In People v. De Guzman (G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010), the Supreme Court held that in prosecution for violation of the dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction. The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty.

Question 20

May a private document be offered, and admitted in evidence both as documentary evidence and as object evidence? Explain (2005
Bar)

Answer 20

Yes. A private document may be offered and admitted in evidence both as documentary evidence and as object evidence. A document can also be considered as an object for purposes of a case.
Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court (Sec. 1, Rule 130) Documents as evidence consist of writings, recordings, photographs or any material containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of written expression off ered as proof of their contents. Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos. (Sec. 2, Rule 130; Answered under the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rule on Evidence)

Question 21

If the photocopies of official receipts and photocopies of affidavits were attached to the position paper submitted by plaintiff in an action for unlawful detainer filed with Municipal counsel be sustained? Explain.
Trial Court on which basis the court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff? Explain. (2000 Bar)

Answer 21

The claim of defendant is valid, because although summary procedure requires merely the submission of position papers, the evidence submitted with the position paper must be admissible in evidence (Sec. 9, Revised Rule of Summary Procedure). Photocopies of official receipts and affidavits are not admissible without proof of loss or destruction of the original (Sec. 3, Rule 130).

Question 22

Police officers arrested Mr. Druggie in a buy-
bust operation and confiscated from him 10 sachets of shabu and several marked genuine peso bills worth P5,000.00 used as the buy-bust money during the buy-bust operation. At the trial of Mr. Druggie for violation of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002), the Prosecution offered in evidence, among others, photocopies of the confiscated marked genuine peso bills. The photocopies were offered to prove that Mr. Druggie had engaged at the time of his arrest in the illegal selling of dangerous drugs. Invoking the Best Evidence Rule, Atty. Maya Bang, the defense counsel, objected to the admissibility of the photocopies of the confiscated marked genuine peso bills. Should the trial judge sustain the objection of the defense counsel? Briefly explain your answer. (2017 Bar)

Answer 22

No, the trial judge should not sustain the objection that invokes the best evidence rule (now the “original document rule”). The Supreme Court has held that the best evidence rule applies only to documentary evidence, not to object or testimonial evidence. Here, the marked money is object not documentary evidence since it is being offered to prove not its contents but its existence and use in the buy-bust operation. (People v. Tandoy, G.R. No. 80505, December 4, 1990)

Question 23

In a case for specific performance and damages, plaintiff Q presented photocopies of the contracts he had executed with defendant R for the purpose of establishing their existence. Defendant R’s counsel objected to the admission of said photocopies, invoking the best evidence rule.
Would the objection of defendant his counsel be sustained?

Answer 23

No. The best evidence rule (now the Original Document Rule) applies only when the content of the document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need to account for the original.

Question 24

Assuming that the best evidence rule
applies, under what circumstances will the photocopies be admissible in evidence?

Answer 24

If a party desires to present photocopies of the original documents, he must first establish that the presentation of photocopies is justified under Section 3(a), (b), and/or (d), Rule 130. He must establish the presence of all the elements under these provisions. The provision states that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or
cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under
the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice, or the original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures;
x x x x
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.

Question 25

Pedro filed a complaint against Lucio for the recovery of a sum of money based on a promissory note executed by Lucio. In his complaint, Pedro alleged that although the promissory note says that it is payable within 120 days, the truth is that the note is payable immediately after 90 days but that if Pedro is willing, he may upon request of Lucio give the latter up to 120 days to pay the note. During the hearing, Pedro testified that the truth is that the agreement between him and Lucio is for the latter to pay immediately after ninety day’s time. Also, since the original note was with Lucio and the latter would not surrender to Pedro the original note which Lucio kept in a place about one day’s trip from where he received the notice to produce the note and in spite of such notice to produce the same within six hours from receipt of such notice, Lucio failed to do so. Pedro presented a copy of such the note which was executed at the same time as the original and with identical contents. be allowed to testify as to the true . Over the objection of Lucio, will Pedro be allowed to testify as to the true agreement or contents of the writing, document, record, instrument, promissory note? Why?

Answer 25

Yes, because Pedro has alleged in his complaint that the promissory note does not express the true intent and agreement of the parties. This is an exception to the parol evidence rule. (Sec. 9[b], Rule 130, now Sec. 10[b], Rule 130)

Question 26

Over the objection of Lucio, can Pedro
present a copy of promissory note and

have it admitted as valid evidence in his favor? Why? (2001 Bar)

Answer 26

Yes, the copy in the possession of Pedro is a duplicate original, being a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original (Sec. 4[b] Rule 130). Moreover, the failure of Lucio to produce the original of the note is excusable because he was not given reasonable notice, as requirement under the Rules before secondary evidence may be presented. (Sec. 6 Rule 130; Answered under the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rule on Evidence)

Question 27

X states on direct examination that he once knew the facts being asked but he cannot recall them now. When handed a written record of the facts he testifies that the facts are correctly stated, but that he has never seen the writing before. Is the writing admissible as past recollection recorded? Explain. (1996 Bar)

Answer 27

No, because for the written record to be admissible as past recollection recorded, it must have been written or recorded by X or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was correctly written or recorded (Sec. 16, Rule 132). But in this case, X has never seen the on Gregoria for her to be presented for writing before.
the purpose of identifying her cellphone