1. A threatens B and by means of these threats is forcing B to execute a deed of sale in his favor.

B goes to a
lawyer to obtain his professional advice. In spite of the advice of his lawyer, B executes the deed of sale in favor of
A. B later files an action against A to annul the deed of sale. B presents his own lawyer to show that the deed of
sale was executed under duress. Is this evidence admissible?

2. What is the true test of the hearsay evidence rule?

3. P sues D to collect a loan of P50, 000.00 given a year ago. To strengthen his case, P seeks to introduce W
as a witness to testify to a conversation between P and D several months before the filing of the action:

P. When will you pay me the P50, 000.00?
D. Give me three months more.

If you think the above conversation is admissible, state the reason why it is so, and if not, state why it is not.
What rule of evidence is involved?

4. M, with a knife sticking on his back, reached the gate of his house where he collapsed due to loss of blood.
X, his neighbor, rushed to help him. X then asked the question that he had, for sometime, been asking M: whether
the woman with whom he (M) had been living with was his real wife. To this M said in a whisper: No, then he died.
Is Ms declaration that the woman he was living with was not his lawful wife a dying declaration?

5. On the trial of a case for homicide against J, the fiscal presented an ante-mortem statement of the
deceased which shows that it was J who caused him the fatal wound which caused his death. The counsel for the
defense interposed an objection on the ground that the said statement is inadmissible because it is self-serving. You
are the judge, rule on the objection.

6. A is found by his wife C dying of gunshot wounds. Under a consciousness of impending death, A, before he
collapsed, whispers to his wife C: D SHOT ME BECAUSE HE DISCOVERED THAT HIS WIFE E IS MY
MISTRESS. C goes to the police and makes a sworn statement, including therein the information whispered to her
by A. Through surgical intervention and medical treatment, A is saved the recovered. D is now charged with
frustrated murder of A.

(a) C is presented to prove the declaration made to her by A at the point of death as dying declaration. Is it
admissible as such?

(b) May such declaration be admitted as part of the res gestae?

(c) May the judge trying the case allow C, the wife of A, to testify against him regarding the aforementioned
information received by her, should a charge of adultery be filed by D against A and E?

7. A was wounded by an assailant. Immediately afterwards and while still at the scene of the crime, he told a
police officer questioning him that his assailant is B. He also told the policeman that he did not think his wound was
serious or that he was going to die. But subsequently he died from the wounds. In the prosecution against B for
homicide, B denied that he was the assailant. The prosecution, however, introduced the policeman as a witness and
the policeman testified on his above-said conversation with A. is such testimony admissible against B?



























8. In a criminal action for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, the defendant drive4r was
convicted and sentenced to pay damages to the injured party; the latter secured execution against the driver but he
turned out to be insolvent according to the sheriffs action; whereupon the offended party filed an action for subsidiary
civil liability against the employer of the chauffeur which was a public service transportation company and in the trial
of the civil case, attorney plaintiff presented the same sheriffs return to prove the insolvency of the chauffeur without
calling the sheriff himself to testify on how he came to find out that the chauffeur was insolvent, thereof, attorney for
defendant transportation company objected to the admission of the return calling attention of the court that the sheriff
was present and could be called and cross-examined and the return, therefore, is clearly hearsay and deprived him
of the chance to cross-examine. How do you decide on the admissibility of the return