Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Practice Court

1. What is the weight of the testimony of the expert witness?


The testimony is conclusive

The testimony has great weight
The testimony is merely advisory
The testimony is credible

2. In the prosecution of a criminal case for falsification arising from a forged signature, the
State during the trial could not produce and present the original document containing the
alleged forged signature despite diligent and extra efforts to do so. As a public prosecutor,
what course of action would you initiate in order to save time of the court and avoid the
unnecessary costs and expenses of the trial?

Move to present secondary evidence

Move to archive the case
Move to provisional dismissal
Move to dismiss the case

3. What proper step or action would you take or initiate as a lawyer in a case, where the
court refuses to allow you to present the testimony of a witness which you assessed to be
competent, material and necessary to prove your case?

File motion for reconsideration

Make an appeal
Make an offer of proof
Petition for certiorari

4. What is the primary reason for the rejection of Hearsay Evidence?


It is violative of the Rules of Evidence

It has no probative value
It deprives the right to cross-examine the declarant
It is not credible

5. On the hearing of a criminal case, the prosecution started with the presentation of its
witness on direct-examination and finally completed the same. The accused asked for the

deferment of the cross-examination of the said witness on the ground that counsel need to
be furnished with a copy of the stenographic notes from which he will base his question on
cross-examination. Over the objection of the prosecution, the deferment was granted. In
the interim, the witness died and defense moved to strike out from the record the testimony
of the said witness because of lack of cross-examination. The prosecution vehemently
objected on the ground of implied waiver by the accused. If you were the Judge which of
these rulings on the motion would you consider?
a) Deny the motion because of implied waiver by the accused

6. In the prosecution for rape, the people presented a love letter which was testified to by
the complainant who was likewise cross-examined on said letter which contents were read
into record. During the progress of the trial, said letter was lost and could not therefore be
offered. Under this set of facts, will the lost love letter be considered evidence by the court?

The court will not consider it evidence for failure to formally offer the same
The court will consider it being an exception to the rule
The court will consider it if secondary evidence is offered
The court will consider it if there is no objection from the other party

7. The public prosecutor after finding probable cause against respondent in the preliminary
investigation forthwith prepare and filed the information in court. During arraignment,
accused requested for its postponement because he allegedly filed a Motion for
Reinvestigation with the City Prosecutors Office. The court denied the request and
proceeded with his arraignment. Is the court correct?
a) No, because of the pending motion for reinvestigation
b) Yes, because the instant motion for reinvestigation should have been filed with the
c) No, because courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the Prosecutor in the
finding of probable cause
d) No, because jurisdiction over the case is not yet vested with the court

8. The court issued an order citing a party for direct contempt with the reasons and
contemptuous conduct of the respondent stated therein and judgment was rendered without
hearing. In general, what is the proper remedy of the respondent from the judgment of
said direct contempt?

Make an appeal
Petition for certiorari or prohibition
Apply for bail
Motion for reconsideration for lack of hearing

9. Accused was arrested through an invalid warrant of arrest. After the arrest he posted
bail for his provisional liberty. During arraignment he pleaded not guilty. Before the start
of the trial, he filed a motion to quash the said warrant of arrest and/or information. The
court ruled to deny the motion on the ground that:

By posting the bail bond, he waived his right to question the warrant of arrest
Accused should have asked for the reinvestigation instead
The motion to quash should have been filed before his plea
The motion to quash is not a matter of right

10. What is the proper remedy of the accused from ___________the time of the
commission of the offense__________.
a) Motion to quash - filed before the defendant enters his plea; is anchored on
matters not directly related to the question of guilt or innocence of the accused (Rule
b) Motion for bill of particulars - accused may at or before arraignment, move
for a bill of particulars to enable him to properly plead and prepare for trial (Rule
c) Motion to amend - if an alleged defect in the complaint or information can be cured
by amendment, the court shall order the amendment instead of quashing the
complaint or information. If after the amendment, the defect is not cured, the
motion to quash should be granted.
d) Demurrer to evidence - filed after the prosecution has rested its case; based
upon the inadequacy of evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of the
accusation (Rule 119)

11. What do you understand by Plea Bargaining in criminal cases? At what stage of a
criminal proceeding is it allowed? Is plea bargaining demandable by the accused as a
matter of right? Explain your last answer.
Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process whereby the accused and the prosecution
work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to the approval of the court.
It includes the defendants pleading to guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of
the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lower sentence than that for a graver
It is made at the arraignment, pre-trial, trial proper and even after the prosecution have
finished presenting its evidence and rested its case.
It is demandable by the accused as a matter of right but only when the prosecution does
not have sufficient evidence to establish guilt of the crime charged. But not allowed as a

matter of right when the accused is charged in a drug case where the imposable penalty is
reclusion perpetua.

12. What are the requirements before Trial in Absentia of the accused may be allowed?
Trial in Absentia is allowed only if:
a) The accused has been validly arraigned;
b) Accused has been duly notified of the trial;
c) His failure to appear is unjustifiable

13. Generally, when is an impeachment of a witness made and how? Is a party allowed
to imeach his own witness? Give exceptions, if any.
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, by:
a) Contradictory evidence
b) By evidence that his general reputation for truth honesty or integrity is bad
By evidence that he has made at other times statements which are inconsistent with his
present testimony.
As a general rule, a party is not allowed to impeach his own witness, except for the
following instances:
a) An unwilling witness
b) A hostile witness
c) A witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a
public or private corporation or of partnership or corporation which is an adverse
14. What is Rebuttal Evidence? When is it received by the court?
Rebuttal Evidence is that kind, which is given to explain, repel, counteract or disprove
facts given in evidence by the adverse party. It is evidence in denial of some affirmative
case or fact which the adverse party has attempted to prove.
The court may refuse receipt of the rebuttal evidence if it is repetitive or cumulative. The
court may or may not, on its own discretion, admit such evidence.

15. What is Continuing Objection? How will you actually and properly demonstrate
before the court for it to take note of your continuing objection in the course of the trial?
Under Sec 37 of Rule 132, a single objection to a class of evidence when first offered is
sufficient, and need not be repeated with subsequent offers of the same class of evidence

are made. In such cases, the court may treat the objection as a continuing objection. It is
necessary when the objection was once been distinctly made further to vex the court of
useless objections.

16. What is Demurrer to Evidence? What are the requisites and distinguish a demurrer
in a criminal case to that in a civil case and the effects thereof?
Demurrer to Evidence - is a motion to dismiss due to the insufficiency of the evidence
presented by the prosecution to overturn the presumption of innocence in favor of the
When can it be filed?
After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence:
1. On its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard;
2. Upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without the leave of court.
Civil Case

Criminal Case

When filed

completed the presentation
of his evidence

After the prosecution rests its

case; If made with leave, it
must be filed within a nonextendible period of 5 days
after the prosecutions rests
its case

Leave of Court?

Not required

May be filed with or without

leave of court

Evidence required?

Preponderance of evidence


If granted, appealable?


No (will constitute

If denied?

presentation of evidence

presentation only if filed with
leave of court

If granted but denied on


Defendant loses the right

the present evidence

Accused waives his right to

present evidence if filed
without leave of court


17. What do you understand by a Motion to Strike Out Evidence?

nominated as motion to strike out?



Why is it so

It is a form of objection. It is nominated as such because the evidence has already been
received when the grounds for objection became apparent to the objecting party. It may be
utilized in the following instances:
a) Evidence is admitted conditionally
b) A certain class of testimony which is required by law to be corroborated in order to
be legally effective
c) A document which was not propertly authenticated
d) Any mass of evidence which appears insufficient for the particular issue
e) An answer to an objectionable question is inadmissible and non-repsonsive.

18. What is Incriminating Evidence? On what constitutional provision is it founded?

Who can claim it? Can a party who offered him as witness claim it? Explain your answer in
the last question.
Incriminating Evidence a type of evidence, which when presented, violates the
constitutional right against self-incrimination
Constitutional Provision Right Against Self-Incrimination (Art. III, Sec. 17): No person
shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Who can claim it?
An ordinary witness may invoke the right but he may only do so as each incriminating
question is asked
The accused himself may invoke the right, but unlike the ordinary witness, he may
altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer any and all questions.
But once the accused waives his right and chooses to testify on his own behalf, he
may be cross-examined on matters covered in his direct examination.
He cannot refuse
to answer questions
during cross-examination by claiming that the answer that he will give could incriminate him
for the crime he is being charged.
However, if the question during cross-examination relates to a crime different from that
which he was charged, he can still invoke the right and refuse to answer.
Can a party who offered him as witness claim it?
No. Only the ordinary witness, when asked specific incriminating questions, or the accused
himself prior to his taking the witness stand are the only ones who can claim it.

One of the privileges of a witness is to refuse to answer any question which may tend to
subject him to punishment for an offense. This privilege is founded on the constitutional
right that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself (Art 3 Sec 17).
The privilege of a witness against self incrimination is strictly personal. The party who
offered him cannot claim privilege. The witness must claim it in his own capacity. The
court, however, may apprise the a witness of his constitutional right and the party who
called him may ask the court to do so.

19. What is the scope or extent of cross-examination of a witness?

The witness may be cross examined by the adverse party as to any matters stated in the
direct examination or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his
accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias or the reverse, and to elicit all
important facts bearing the same issue.
Where a witness is called to a particular fact, he is a witness to all purposes and may be
fully examined to the whole case.

20. If

A was arrested not in flagrante delicto or under the circumstances where he has
or given consent to a search but as an incident thereto, the search yielded in his
a prohibited drug. Is the search valid? Is the seized drug admissible in evidence?
your answers.

Yes, the search is valid. The subject, A, has consented to the search which waived his right
against warrantless or unlawful search and seizure. Such consent or waiver if freely, wilfully
and knowingly or intelligibly given will validate the search.
The prohibited drug seized is admissible in evidence because a contraband like the seized
drug is a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 on mere possession of such drug.
No person has the right to possess for the purpose of issue or disposition, and are not
embraced in the protection of the constitutional guaranty.
Sec 13 of Rule 127, search incident to lawful arrest A person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof
in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.



Rule 126:
SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest.A person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a search warrant.[23]
The purpose of allowing a warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest is to
protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be
armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within
reach.13 It is therefore a reasonable exercise of the States police power to protect (1) law
enforcers from the injury that may be inflicted on them by a person they have lawfully
arrested; and (2) evidence from being destroyed by the arrestee. It seeks to ensure the
safety of the arresting officers and the integrity of the evidence under the control and within
the reach of the arrestee.
Are the seized drugs admissible in evidence?
Yes. Since the search yielded in his person the prohibited drugs, the said evidence is within
the accuseds immediate control. As ruled by the court in its jurisprudence, a valid arrest
allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the one
arrested or within the area of his immediate control. The phrase within the area of his
immediate control means the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon
or destructible evidence. Hence, the seized drugs are admissible.