RemLawRev Final 2021 - Part II (Evidence)

BSU SCHOOL OF LAW
Final Examination
Remedial Law Review [Evidence]
14 May 2021
INSTRUCTIONS: This Part of the questionnaire consists of ten items. Read each question very carefully. Answer legibly, clearly, and
concisely. Write your answer in the Answer box provided below each question. A mere "Yes" or "No" answer without any corresponding
discussion will not be given any credit. You will be given credit for your knowledge of legal doctrine and for the quality of your legal reasoning.
Good Luck!!!
QUESTIONS: PART II
ITEM 1:
(1) A birth certificate was introduced in evidence in a disbarment case against

respondent showing that he fathered children from his mistress. Respondent challenged the
admissibility of the birth certificate citing confidentiality of records in child laws. Is the birth
certificate admissible in evidence? [428]
ANSWER:
No. Jurisprudence state that a birth certificate is inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation.
ITEM 2:
(2) At a trial of accused for violation of dangerous drugs laws, the prosecution offers in
evidence a photocopy of the of the marked P1,000 bill allegedly used in the buy-but operation.
Accused objects to the offer citing the “best evidence rule” as basis which prohibits introduction
of evidence other than the original document. Is the photocopy of the bill admissible in
evidence? [431]
ANSWER:
Yes. Photocopy of the bill is an object evidence because the marked bills are real evidence
and the best evidence rule applies only to documentary evidence not on real evidence.
ITEM 3:
(3) In a kidnapping case, the prosecution witness W testified that he received a ransom
note. W however did not present the note. Accused objects to the testimony arguing that the
best evidence is the note itself. Is the accused’s objection correct? [432]
ANSWER:
No. The rules state that the witness can testify only to those facts which he knows in his own
knowledge. In the problem above, W knows in his own that he received a ransom note and
the presentation of the note is not anymore a testimony but already an object evidence.
Thus, objection is not correct.
ITEM 4:
(4) A photocopy of a tax declaration offered in evidence. The photocopy however bears
the stamped annotation “CERTIFIED TRUE XEROX COPY” and signed by the Municipal
Final Exam 2021 | RemLawRev (Evdience) | Page 2
Assessor. Defendant objected to the admissibility of the photocopy but the trial court admitted
it in evidence. Was the court correct in admitting the photocopy? [440]
ANSWER:
Yes. The general rule state that no documents shall be admissible other than the original
except when the original is a public record or is recorded in a public office. In the case
above, the tax declaration is a public record or recorded in a public office. Thus, the trial
court is correct in admitting the photocopy.
ITEM 5:
(5) Debtor D borrowed P500,000 from Creditor C evidenced by a promissory note.

Witness W witnessed the loan transaction. C assigned the note to the assignee A. Debtor
died. Assignee now brings a money claim against the estate of D.
(a) May A testify on any matter prior to the death of D?

(b) May A present C as witness to testify ante-mortem facts regarding the loan?
ANSWER:
ITEM 6:
(6) The wife of the accused offered P150,000.00 to the rape victim’s mother to dissuade
her from filing a case. May this offer be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt?
[521]
ANSWER:
Yes. The rule provides that in criminal cases an offer of compromised by the accused may
be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. In the problem given, the wife
action in offering a money to the victim’s mother is an act of compromising. Thus, it may be
offer as an evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
ITEM 7:
(7) D and E conspired to rob the house of X. After the robbery, E bragged to W that he
and D had conspired to rob X’s house and had gotten P50,000. D was tried for robbery. A
witness testified that D and E conspired to rob X. The prosecution then offered the testimony
of W to prove what E had bragged to him. May the testimony be admitted in evidence over the
objection that it res inter alios acta? [531]
ANSWER:
No. Res inter alios acta rule provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by a
declaration of another. In the problem above, the bragging of E to W is only binding between
them and cannot be admitted as evidence because it constitute as hearsay. Thus, the
testimony cannot be admitted as evidence.
ITEM 8:
Final Exam 2021 | RemLawRev (Evdience) | Page 2
(8) D and E conspired to rob the house of X. Three days after the robbery, E was
arrested. During the trial of D for robbery, may the prosecution present over objection the
testimony of E that he and D conspired to rob the house of X? [533]
ANSWER:
Yes. The rule states that the act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy,
and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. Thus, in order that the
admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is
necessary that: (a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission
itself; (b) the admission relates to the common object; and (c) it has been made while the
declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.
ITEM 9:
(9) During custodial investigation at the police station, Mario was informed of his
constitutional right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. He
decided to waive his right to counsel and proceeded to make a statement admitting
commission a robbery. In the same statement, he implicated Antonio, his co-conspirator.
(a) Is Mario’s statement admissible in evidence against him?

(b) Is it admissible against Antonio?
ANSWER:
(a) No. The law state that any extrajudicial confession made by a person under custodial
investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his
counsel otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in
any proceeding. In the problem given, Mario’s statement is not in writing and without
the presence of his counsel which violates his right and the evidence is not
admissible.
(b) No. Because Mario’s statement is inadmissible it will follow that the admission
implicating Antonio as his con-conspirator is also inadmissible.
ITEM 10:
(10) Two days before the victim of stabbing incident died, he made a statement to the
police identifying the person who stabbed him. When asked by the police, the victim added
that he did not know if he was going to survive because the many stab wounds he sustained
were very painful.
Is the identification by the deceased of his assailant admissible in evidence as an ante-

morten statement which is an exception to the hearsay rule?
ANSWER:
Yes. Jurisprudence state that the ante mortem declaration is not affected by the fact that the
declarant died hours or several days after making his declaration. It is sufficient that he
believes himself in imminent danger of death at the time of such declaration.

RemLawRev Final 2021 - Part II (Evidence)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RemLawRev Final 2021 - Part II (Evidence)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RemLawRev Final 2021 - Part II (Evidence)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BSU SCHOOL OF LAW

(1) A birth certificate was introduced in evidence in a disbarment case against

(5) Debtor D borrowed P500,000 from Creditor C evidenced by a promissory note.

(a) May A testify on any matter prior to the death of D?

(a) Is Mario’s statement admissible in evidence against him?

Is the identification by the deceased of his assailant admissible in evidence as an ante-

You might also like