1.
Leticia was estranged from her husband
Paul for more than a year due to his
suspicion that she was having an affair with
Manuel, their neighbor. She was temporarily
living with her sister in Pasig City. For
unknown reasons, the house of Leticia's
sister was burned, killing the latter. Leticia
survived. She saw her husband in the
vicinity during the incident. Later he was
charged with arson in an Information filed
with the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City.
During the trial, the prosecutor called Leticia
to the witness stand and offered her
testimony to prove that her husband
committed the arson. Can Leticia testify
over the objection of her husband on the
ground of marital privilege?
Suggested answer: Leticia cannot
testify. Section 22, of Rule 130 bars her
testimony without the consent of the
husband during the marriage. The
separation of the spouses has not
operated to terminate their marriage
(Note: This is an answer based on the
tenor of the Rules of Court). The
following answer should also be
considered: Leticia may testify over the
objection of her husband. Where the
marital and domestic relations between
her and the accused-husband have
become so strained that there is no more
harmony, peace or tranquility to be
preserved, there is no longer any reason
to apply the Marital Disqualification Rule
(People v. Castaneda, 271 SCRA 504;
Alvarez v. Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72
[October 14, 2005).
2. XYZ, an alien, was criminally charged of
promoting and facilitating child prostitution
and other sexual abuses under Rep. Act
No. 7610. The principal witness against him
was his Filipina wife, ABC. Earlier, she had
complained that XYZ's hotel was being
used as a center for sex tourism and child
trafficking. The defense counsel for XYZ
objected to the testimony of ABC at the trial
of the child prostitution case and the
introduction of the affidavits she executed
against her husband as a violation of
espousal confidentiality and marital privilege
rule. It turned out that DEF, the minor
1 | E V I D E N C E | Suba
daughter of ABC by her first husband who
was a Filipino, was molested by XYZ earlier.
Thus, ABC had filed for legal separation
from XYZ since last year. May the court
admit the testimony and affidavits of the
wife, ABC, against her husband XYZ, in the
criminal case involving child prostitution?
Suggested answer: If the testimony and
affidavit of the wife are evidence of the
case against her husband for child
prostitution involving her daughter, the
evidences are admissible. The marital
privileged communication rule under
Section 24 of Rule 130 as well as the
marital disqualification rule under
Section 22 of Rule 130 do not apply to
and cannot be invoked in a criminal case
committed by a spouse against the
direct descendants of the other. A crime
committed by the husband against the
daughter of his wife is considered a
crime committed against the wife and
directly attacks or vitally impairs the
marital relations (Ordono v. Daquigan, 62
SCRA 270)
3. At the trial of Ace for the violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosecution
offers in evidence a photocopy of the
marked 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 (object) or documentary
evidence?
Suggested answer: The photocopy is
real (object) evidence, because it was
offered not to prove its contents but to
prove the existence of the marked bills.
Being such, it is admissible in evidence
without violation of the best evidence
rule. The rule applies only to
documentary evidence and not to object
evidence.
4. Give the reasons underlying the adoption of
the Best Evidence Rule
The underlying purpose of the best
evidence rule is the prevention of fraud
 or mistake in the proof of the contents of
a writing (29A Am Jur 20, Evidence,
§1049; Please refer to the above
discussion)
The basic premise justifying the rule is
the need to present to the court the exact
words of a writing where a slight
variation of words may mean a great
difference in rights. An ancillary
justification for the rule is the prevention
and detection of fraud. The rule is also
justified by the need to avoid
unintentional or intentional mistaken
transmissions of the contents of a
document through the introduction of
selected portions of a writing to which
the adverse party has no full access
(McCornick on Evidence, 3rd Ed., 703-
705; Bagley v McMickie, 9 Cal 430)
To prevent possible erroneous
interpretations or distortions of a writing,
an objection based on the best evidence
rule prevents a party from proving the
contents of a writing by a copy thereof or
by oral testimony if the original writing
itself is available.
A purpose of the rule requiring
production by the offeror of the best
evidence is the prevention of fraud,
because if a party is in possession of
such evidence and withholds it and
present inferior or secondary evidence in
its place, the presumption is that the
latter evidence is withheld from the court
and the adverse party for a fraudulent or
devious purpose which its production
would expose and defeat. As long as the
original evidence can be had, the court
should not receive in evidence that
which is substitutionary in nature, such
as photocopies, in the absence of any
clear showing that the original writing
has been lost, destroyed or cannot be
produced in court. Such photocopies
must be disregarded, being inadmissible
evidence and barren of probative weight
(Magdayao v. People, 436 SCRA 677)
5. Ajax Powder Corporation, a utility company,
sued in the RTC to enforce a supposed right of
2 | E V I D E N C E | Suba
way over a property owned by Simplicio. At the
ensuing trial, Ajax presented its retired field
auditor who testified that he knows for a fact
that a certain sum of money was periodically
paid to Simplicio for some time as consideration
for a right of way pursuant to a written contract.
The original contract was not presented. Instead,
a purported copy, identified by the retired field
auditor as such, was formally offered as part of
his testimony. Rejected by the trial court, it was
finally made the subject of an offer of proof by
Ajax. Can Ajax validly claim that it has
sufficiently met its burden by proving the
existence of the contract establishing its right of
way?
Suggested answer: Ajax cannot validly make
the claim. When the subject of the inquiry is
the contents of writing, as in the instant case,
the original document must be presented in
evidence. If secondary evidence is to be
offered like a copy thereof, the proponent has
to lay the basis for the admission of the copy
of the document. This Ajax failed to do.
6. When A loaned a sum of money to B, A
typed a single copy of the promissory note,
which they both signed. A made two
photocopies of the promissory note, giving
one copy to B and retaining the other copy.
A entrusted the typewritten copy to his
counsel for safekeeping. The copy with A’s
counsel was destroyed when the law office
was burned. (a) As counsel for A, how will
you prove the loan given by A to B?
Suggested answer: The loan may be
proved by the photocopy as long as A
lays the foundation or lays the basis for
introduction of secondary evidence, to
wit: (a) the existence and due execution
of the original, and (b) the loss of the
original without bad faith on his part
(Sec. 5, Rule 130, Rules of Court)
(a) In an action to collect the promissory
note, which is deemed to be the original
copy for the purpose of the Best Evidence
Rule? – The original is the one typed and
signed by both parties and which was
lost when the office of the counsel of A
was burned.

(b) Can the photocopies in the hands of the
parties be considered duplicate originals? –
The photocopies are not duplicate
originals. They cannot be deemed as
having been made at the same time with
the original because they were not
signed unlike the original.
7. Mr. Seller and Mr. Buyer entered into a written
contract for the sale of a house and lot. The deed
of sale mentions a purchase price of P25M, a
down payment of 70% and the balance payable
within 1 year from the tender of the
downpayment although the actual period agreed
upon orally was two years. The oral agreement
between them also considered the air
conditioners inside each room of the house as
part of the purchase price, but this fact was
inadvertently not mentioned in the written
agreement. Under the parol evidence rule, Mr.
Buyer would not be allowed to show that the
purchase price included the air conditioners
and that the payment period for the balance
was two years. He would not be allowed to do
so because of the rule that the only evidence
of the terms of the agreement between the
parties shall be the contents of the written
agreement itself. Any extrinsic evidence
therefore, that would modify, explain or add
to the writing would be deemed “parol”
evidence and hence, barred. Parol evidence is
inadmissible to establish stipulations other
than those contained in the writing, Thus, all
other evidences of the contents of the writing
are to be ignored.
8. Pedro filed a complaint against Lucio for the
recovery of a sum of money based on a
promissory note executed by Lucio. In his
complain, 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 90 days. Also, since the
original note was with Lucio and the latter
would not surrender to Pedro the original
3 | E V I D E N C E | Suba
note which Lucio kept in a place about one
days’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
the note which was executed at the same
time as the original with identical contents.
Over the objection of Lucio, can Pedro
present a copy of the promissory note and
have it admitted as valid evidence in his
favor?
Suggested answer: Pedro may be
allowed to testify as to the true
agreement between Lucio and him.
Under the parol evidence rule, a party
may present evidence to show that the
written agreement failed to express the
true intent of the parties provided such
matter was put in issue in the pleading.
Pedro complied with this requirement by
putting the matter in issue.
9. X was hired by PhilOil Co. as General
Manager for its oil exploration venture in
Palawan. The employment contract
expressly provided that X was to receive
salary of P10,000.00 a month plus
representation and traveling expenses of
P5,000.00 a month. PhilOil Co. failed to pay
and so X filed an action for specific
performance of the employment contract. At
the trial, PhilOul Co. attempted to prove, by
oral testimony, that the payment of salary to
X was subject to the condition that PhilOil
Co.’s exploration in Palawan was already
successful. Is such oral testimony
admissible? Reasons.
Suggested answer: The oral testimony is
not admissible. Under the parol evidence
rule, no evidence of the terms of a
writing are admissible other than the
contents of the written agreement. Such
contents cannot be modified, altered or
explained by extrinsic or parol evidence
like oral testimony. (Sec. 9, Rule 130,
Rules of Court)
10. In the trial of a case on July 5, 1990, plaintiff
offered in evidence a receipt dated July 7,
1959 issued by defendant company which
 was found in a cabinet for receipts of
payment. It is without any blemish or
alteration. As no witness testified on the
execution and authenticity of the document,
defendant moved for the exclusion of this
receipt notwithstanding that it is a private
writing. Should the said motion be granted?
Suggested answer: The motion should
not be granted. There is no need for a
witness to testify as to its execution and
authenticity. The testimony will only be
for the purpose of identifying the
document and not to prove its
authenticity. There is an exception to the
rule requiring proof of the genuineness
and due execution of a private
document. The exception is in the case
of a private “ancient document” as in the
instant case. When this is done, there is
no need to prove its authenticity.
A private document is considered
ancient when it is more than thirty (30)
years old, is produced from a custody in
which it would naturally be found if
genuine, and is unblemished by any
alterations or circumstances of
suspicion. (Sec. 21, Rule 132, Rules of
Court) Note: While a witness is not
needed to prove the due execution and
authenticity of the document, a witness
is needed to identify the same. Note:
Even if the document is not ancient, it is
submitted that a private document the
authenticity of which has been admitted
by the parties requires no further
authentication.
11. Al was accused of raping Lourdes. Only
Lourdes testified on how the crime was
perpetrated. On the other hand, the defense
presented Al’s wife, son and daughter to
testify that Al was with them when the
alleged crime took place. The prosecution
interposed a timely objection to the
testimonies on the ground of obvious bias
due to the close relationship of the
witnesses with the accused. If you were the
judge, how would you rule on the objection?
Suggested answer: I would overrule the
objection. Interest in the outcome of a
4 | E V I D E N C E | Suba
case which also includes close
relationship, is not a ground to disqualify
a witness (Section 20, Rule 132, Rules of
Court)
12. Louise is being charged with the frustrated
murder of Roy. The prosecution’s lone
witness, Mariter, testified to having seen
Louise prepare the poison which she later
surreptitiously poured into Roy’s wine glass.
Louise sought the disqualification of Mariter
as witness on account of her previous
conviction of perjury. Rule on Louise’s
contention.
Suggested answer: The contention of
Louise has no legal basis. Basic is the
rule that previous conviction is not a
ground for disqualification of a witness,
unless otherwise provided by law.
Mariter’s conviction is not sufficient to
have her disqualified to testify. Her
situation is not one of the exceptions
provided for by law.
13. Maximo filed an action against Pedro, the
administrator of the estate of the deceased
Juan, for the recovery of a car which is part
of the latter’s estate. During the trial,
Maximo presented witness Mariano who
testified that he was present when Maximo
and Juan agreed that the latter would pay
rental of P20,000 for the use of Maximo’s
car for one month after which Juan should
immediately return the car to Maximo.
Pedro objected to the admission of
Mariano’s testimony. If you were the judge,
would you sustain Pedro’s objection? Why?
Suggested answer: The objection of
Pedro should not be sustained. The
testimony is admissible because the
witness is not disqualified to testify.
Those disqualified under the dead man’s
statute or the survivorship
disqualification rule are parties or
assignors of parties to a case, or
persons in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted. The witness is not one of
those enumerated under the rule
(Section 23, Rule 130, Rules of Court)
14. Vida and Romeo are legally married.
Romeo is charged in court with the crime of
serious physical injuries committed against
Selmo, son of Vida, step-son of Romeo.
Vida witnessed the infliction of the injuries
on Selmo by Romeo. The public prosecutor
called Vida to the witness stand and offered
her testimony as eyewitness. Counsel for
Romeo objected on the ground of the
marital disqualification rule under the Rules
of Court. (a) Is the objection valid? (b) Will
your answer be the same if Vida's testimony
is offered in a civil case for recovery of
personal property filed by Selmo against
Romeo?
Suggested answers: (a) The objection is
not valid. While the rule provides that
neither the husband nor the wife may
testify for or against the other without
the consent of the affected spouse, the
prohibition is merely the general rule.
Said rule is subject to certain
exceptions, one of which is in a criminal
case committed by one against the direct
descendant of the other. Romeo is
accused of committing a crime against
Selmo, the son of Vida and the latter's
direct descendant (Section 22, Rule 130,
Rules of Court).
(b) The answer will not be the same. The
rule in a criminal case is not the same as
that in a civil case. In a civil case, for the
marital disqualification rule not to apply,
the case must be by one spouse against
the other. In the case under
consideration, the case is by the son
(Selmo) of one spouse (Vida) against the
other spouse (Romeo). Romeo may thus,
invoke the marital disqualification rule
against Vida's proposed testimony.
15. C is the child of the spouses H and W. H
sued his wife for judicial declaration of
nullity of marriage under Art. 36 of the
Family Code. In the trial, H testified over the
objection of W because of the rule on
marital privilege. Is the objection tenable?
Suggested Answer: The objection
should be overruled. The rule invoked by
W, i.e. the rule on marital privilege, does
5 | E V I D E N C E | Suba
not apply to a civil case by one against
the other. The suit between the spouses
is a civil case against the other.
16. Before the marriage of W to H, she
witnessed the murder of X by H but she
never reported what she witnessed to the
authorities. A year after the murder, H and
W married. Barely six months after the
marriage, W became a battered wife and to
get even with H, she decided to report the
murder to the police. (a) May she testify
against H over the latter’s objection even if
the murder took place before the marriage?
(b) Suppose a year after the marriage, the
marriage is annulled, may W now testify
despite the objection of H?
Suggested Answer: (a) She cannot
testify over the objection of H. The
situation is covered by the marital
disqualification rule.
(b) She can now testify after the marriage
is annulled. The prohibition no longer
applies since the testimony is to be
offered after, not during the marriage.
17. Define Evidence
Evidence is the means sanctioned by
these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter
of fact. (Section 1, Rule 128, Rules of
Court)
18. What is the purpose of evidence?
The purpose of evidence under the Rules
of Court is to ascertain the truth
respecting a matter of fact in a judicial
proceeding. Evidence is required
because of the presumption that the
court is not aware of the veracity of the
facts involved in a case. It is therefore
incumbent upon the parties to prove a
fact in issue thru the presentation of
admissible evidence.
19. When is evidence required?
Evidence is required when the court has
to resolve a question of fact. Where no
factual issues exists in a case, there is no
 need to present evidence because where
the case presents a question of law, such
question is resolved by the mere application
of the relevant statues or rules of this
jurisdiction to which no evidence is required.
20. Are the rules of evidence applicable in
administrative proceedings?
It has been held that administrative
bodies are not bound by the technical
niceties of the rules obtaining in a court
of law. Technical rules of procedure and
evidence are not strictly applied and
administrative due process cannot be fully
equaled with due process in strict judicial
terms. Regardless, findings of facts of
administrative bodies are respected as long
as they are supported by substantial
evidence, even if such evidence is not
overwhelming or preponderant.
21. Distinguish evidence from proof
Evidence is the medium or means by
which a fact is proved or disproved.
Proof is the effect of evidence because
without evidence, there is no proof.
Proof is not the evidence itself. there is
proof only because of evidence. It is
merely the probative effect of evidence
and is the conviction or persuasion of
the mind resulting from consideration of
the evidence.
22. Distinguish Factum Probandum from
Factum Probans
Factum Probandum is the fact or
proposition to be established, and
Factum Probans are the facts or material
evidencing the fact or proposition to be
established.
Factum Probandum is the fact to be
proved; the fact which is in issue and to
which the evidence is directed. On the
other hand, Factum Probans is the
probative or evidentiary fact tending to
prove the fact in issue.
23. Explain the concept of multiple admissibility
6 | E V I D E N C E | Suba
Multiple Admissibility: when a material is
asked by a party to be admitted as
evidence, the party presenting must
inform the court of the purpose which
the material is intended to serve and the
court then admits the material as
evidence. Multiple admissibility may
mean either (i) the evidence is
admissible for several purposes or (ii) an
evidence is not admissible for one
purpose but may be admitted for a
different purpose if it satisfies all the
requirements of the other purpose
Examples of the first concept: (a) a knife may be
admitted to prove the accused was armed with a
deadly weapon; to prove the weapon is far deadlier
than the weapon of the victim; to prove it was the
weapon of the accused which cause the wounds and
not some other instrument; to corroborate the
statement of a witness who claims he saw the
accused holding a bladed instrument.
Example of the second concept: (a). the extra judicial
confession of one of several accused may not be
admitted to prove there was conspiracy among them
or to prove the guilt of the other co-accused but it
maybe admitted to prove the guilt of the confessant
(b) the statement of the victim may not be admitted as
a dying declaration but as part of the res gestae.
24. Distinguish direct evidence from
circumstantial evidence
Direct evidence means evidence which,
if believed, proves the existence of a fact
in issue without interference or
presumption. In short, direct evidence
proves a fact without the need to make
an inference from another fact.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence
that indirectly proves a fact in issue
through an inference which the fact
finder draws from the evidence
established. When evidence is
circumstantial, a fact is established by
making an inference from a previously
established fact.
25. In Criminal cases, is circumstantial evidence
sufficient to convict the accused?
In criminal case, circumstantial evidence
may be sufficient for conviction provided
the following requisites concur:
 (a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences
are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
All the circumstances proved must be
consistent with each other; and they are
to be taken together as proved. Being
consistent with each other, and taken
together, they must point unerringly to
the direction of guilt and mere
suspicions, probabilities, or
suppositions do not warrant a
conviction.
26. Distinguish Cumulative Evidence from
Corroborative Evidence
Cumulative evidence refers to evidence
of the same kind and character as that
already given and that tends to prove the
same proposition.
Corroborative evidence is one that is
supplementary to that already given
tending to strengthen or confirm it. It is
additional evidence of a different
character to the same point.
27. May the parties stipulate waving the rules of
evidence?
Evidence may likewise be dispensed
with by agreement of the parties. The
parties to any action are allowed by the
Rules to agree in writing upon the facts
involved in the litigation and to submit
the case for judgment upon the facts
agreed upon, without the introduction of
evidence. (Sec. 6, Rule 30, Rules of
Court)
28. When is evidence admissible?
Section 3 Rules of Court. Admissibility of
evidence- Evidence is admissible when it
is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by law or these rules.
To be admissible, the evidence must be
relevant, competent and offered in court.
7 | E V I D E N C E | Suba
29. Distinguish admissibility of evidence from
credibility of evidence
Admissible evidence is not necessarily
credible evidence. An evidence is
admissible when it is of such a character
that the court, pursuant to the rules of
evidence, is bound to received it or to
allow it to be introduced at the trial.
Credibility refers to worthiness of belief,
that quality which renders a witness
worthy of belief.
30. If evidence is admissible, does it follow that
it has probative value?
Not necessarily. Admissibility refers to
the question of whether certain pieces of
evidence are to be considered at all,
while probative value refers to the
question of whether the admitted
evidence proves an issue.
Admissibility of evidence depends on its
relevance and competence, while the
probative value of evidence pertains to
its tendency to convince and persuade.
31. When may the court allow evidence on
collateral matters?
As a rule, evidence on collateral matters are
not allowed. It is not allowed because it
does not have direct relevance to the issue
of the case. However, this rule has an
exception where evidence on a collateral
matter is allowed. This is when it tends in
any reasonable degree to establish
probability or improbability of the fact in
issue. In other words, while the evidence
may not bear directly on the issue, it will
be admitted if it has the tendency to
induce belief as to the probability or
improbability of the issues of the case as
when it would have the effect of
corroborating or supplementing facts
previously impeached.
8 | E V I D E N C E | Suba
 2018

Dodo was knocked unconscious in a fist fight

with Dindo. He was rushed to the emergency
room of the Medical City where he was
examined and treated by Dr. Datu. As he was
being examined, a plastic sachet appearing to
contain shabu fell from Dodo's jacket which was
on a chair beside him. Dodo was thus arrested
by the same policemen who assisted him to the
hospital. At Dodo's trial, the public prosecutor
called Dr. Datu to the witness stand. When the
public prosecutor asked Or. Datu as to what he
saw in the emergency room, Dodo's counsel
objected, claiming doctor-patient privilege rule.

How would you rule on the objection? (2.5%)

Dave is on trial for sexual assault of Delly, a law

student who sidelines as a call center agent.
Dave offers the testimony of Danny, who says
that Dave is known in the community as a
decent and discerning person. The prosecution
presents a rebuttal witness, Dovie, who testifies
that, if Dave was reputed to be a good person,
that reputation was a misperception because
Dave had been previously convicted of
homicide.

Is Dovie's testimony admissible as to the

character of Dave? (2.5%)

Denny is on trial for homicide. The prosecution

calls Danilo, a police officer, who interviewed
the victim, Drew, shortly after the shooting.
Danila's testimony is being offered by the
prosecution for purposes of proving that (i)
Drew is now dead; (ii) while in the emergency
room, Drew was posting his medical condition
on Facebook and was "liking" the posts of his
Facebook friends; (iii) Drew asked the nurse for
water but was refused because he was
bleeding, which subsequently angered Drew;
and (iv) that before dying, Drew signed a
statement in which he identified Denny as the
shooter.

Is the proposed testimony of Danilo admissible?

(2.5%)

9 | E V I D E N C E | Suba
 2017 admissibility of the photocopies of the
confiscated marked genuine peso bills.
On the basis of an alleged promissory note
executed by Harold in favor of Ramon, the latter Should the trial judge sustain the objection of
filed a complaint for ₱950,000.00 against the the defense counsel? Briefly explain your
former in the RTC of Davao City. In an answer (5%)
unverified answer, Harold specifically denied
the genuineness of the promissory note. During
the trial, Harold sought to offer the testimonies
of the following: (1) the testimony of an NBI
handwriting expert to prove the forgery of his
signature; and (2) the testimony of a credible
witness to prove that if ever Harold had
executed the note in favor of Ramon, the same
was not supported by a consideration.

May Ramon validly object to the proposed

testimonies? Give a brief explanation of your
answer. (5%)

In an attempt to discredit and impeach a

Prosecution witness in a homicide case, the
defense counsel called to the stand a person
who had been the boyhood friend and next-
door neighbor of the Prosecution witness for 30
years. One question that the defense counsel
asked of the impeaching witness was: "Can you
tell this Honorable Court about the general
reputation of the prosecution witness in your
community for aggressiveness and violent
tendencies?"

Would you, as the trial prosecutor, interpose

Police officers arrested Mr. Druggie in a buy- your objection to the question of the defense
bust operation and confiscated from him 10 counsel? Explain your answer. (4%)
sachets of shabu and several marked genuine
peso bills worth ₱5,000.00 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

10 | E V I D E N C E | Suba
 2016
John filed a petition for declaration of nullity of
his marriage to Anne on the ground of
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the
Family Code. He obtained a copy of the
confidential psychiatric evaluation report on his
wife from the secretary of the psychiatrist. Can
he testify on the said report without offending
the rule on privileged communication? Explain.
(5%)
burned house and whom Walter medically
consulted after the fire, also saw Walter in the
vicinity some minutes before the fire.
Coincidentally, Fr. Platino, the parish priest who
regularly hears Walter’s confession and who
heard it after the fire, also encountered him not
too far away from the burned house.
Walter was charged with arson and at his trial,
the prosecution moved to introduce the
testimonies of Nenita, the doctor and the priest-
confessor, who all saw Walter at the vicinity of
the fire at about the time of the fire.

IX(A) May the testimony of Nenita be allowed

over the objection of Walter? (3%)

IX(B) May the testimony of Dr. Carlos, Walter’s

psychiatrist, be allowed over Walter’s
objection? (3%)

IX(C) May the testimony of Fr. Platino, the

priest-confessor, be allowed over Walter’s
objection? (3%)

No 2015

No 2014

2013

For over a year, Nenita had been estranged

from her husband Walter because of the latter’s
suspicion that she was having an affair with
Vladimir, a barangay kagawad who lived in
nearby Mandaluyong. Nenita lived in the
meantime with her sister in Makati. One day,
the house of Nenita’s sister inexplicably burned
almost to the ground. Nenita and her sister
were caught inside the house but Nenita
survived as she fled in time, while her sister
tried to save belongings and was caught inside
when the house collapsed.

As she was running away from the burning

house, Nenita was surprised to see her
husband also running away from the scene. Dr.
Carlos, Walter’s psychiatrist who lived near the

11 | E V I D E N C E | Suba

Danny filed a complaint for damages against Peter.
In the course of the trial, Peter introduced evidence
on a matter not raised in the pleadings. Danny
promptly objected on the ground that the evidence
relates to a matter not in issue. How should the court
rule on the objection? (1%)
a) The court must sustain the objection.
b) The court must overrule the objection.
c) The court, in its discretion, may allow
amendment of the pleading if doing so would
serve the ends of substantial justice.
d) The court, in its discretion, may order that the
allegation in the pleadings which do not conform
to the evidence presented be stricken out.
e) The matter is subject to the complete discretion
of the court.
II. Which of the following is admissible? (1%)
a) The affidavit of an affiant stating that he
witnessed the execution of a deed of sale but
the affiant was not presented as a witness in the
trial.
b) The extra judicial admission made by a
conspirator against his co-conspirator after the
conspiracy has ended.
12 | E V I D E N C E | Suba
c) The testimony of a party’s witness regarding
email messagesthe witness received from the
opposing party.
d) The testimony of a police officer that he had
been told by his informants that there were
sachets of shabu in the pocket of the defendant.
e) None of the above.
2012
A narrative testimony is usually objected to but the
court may allow such testimony if:
a) it would expedite trial and give the court a
clearer understanding of the matters related;
b) the witness is of advanced age;
c) the testimony relates to family genealogy;
d) the witness volunteers information not sought by
the examiner.
X was shot by Y in the course of a robbery. On the
brink of death, X told W, a barangay tanod, that it
was Y who shot and held him up. In the trial for
robbery with homicide, X's declaration can be
admitted only as a dying declaration:
a) to prove robbery.
b) to prove homicide.
c) to prove robbery and homicide.
d) to prove the "corpus delicti".
Under the Rules of Electronic Evidence, "ephemeral
electronic conversation" refers to the following,
except:
a) text messages;
b) telephone conversations;
c) faxed document;
d) online chatroom sessions;
A private electronic document's authenticity may be
received in evidence when it is proved by:
a) evidence that it was electronically notarized.
b) evidence that it was digitally signed by the
person who purportedly signed the same.
c) evidence that it contains electronic data
messages.
d) evidence that a method or process was utilized
to verify the same.
The Parole Evidence Rule applies to:
a) subsequent agreements placed on issue.
b) written agreements or contractual documents.
c) judgment on a compromise agreement.
d) will and testaments.
Immediately after the witness had been sworn in to
testify, without any formal offer of his testimony, Atty.
A started asking questions on direct examination to
the witness. The court may still consider his
testimony if:
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. (3%)

a) the formal offer is done after the direct

testimony.
b) the opposing counsel did not object.
c) the witness is an expert witness.
d) the opposing counsel offered to stipulate on the
testimony given.

A private document may be considered as evidence

when it is sequentially:
a) marked, identified, authenticated. 2010
b) identified, marked and offered in evidence.
c) marked, identified, authenticated and offered in
evidence. On March 12, 2008, Mabini was charged with
d) marked, authenticated and offered in evidence.
Murder for fatally stabbing Emilio.

To prove the qualifying circumstance of evident

One of the exemptions to the general rule that
evidence not formally offered shall not be
considered is:
a) in judgment on the pleadings.
b) evidence in land registration proceedings.
c) evidence lost/destroyed due to force majeure
after being marked, identified and described in
the record.
d) documentary evidence proving a foreign
judgment.
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.
premeditation, the prosecution introduced on
December 11, 2009 a text message, which
Mabini’s estranged wife Gregoria had sent to
Emilio on the eve of his death, reading: "Honey,
pa2tayin u ni Mabini. Mtgal n nyang plano i2.
Mg ingat u bka ma tsugi k."
a. A subpoena ad testificandum was served on
Gregoria for her to be presented for the
purpose of identifying her cellphone and the
text message. Mabini objected to her
presentation on the ground of marital privilege.
Resolve. (3%)

After trial, he was acquitted on the ground that

his confession was obtained through torture,
hence, inadmissible as evidence.

13 | E V I D E N C E | Suba
b. Suppose Mabini’s objection in question A
was sustained. The prosecution thereupon
announced that it would be presenting Emilio’s
wife Graciana to identify Emilio’s cellphone
bearing Gregoria’s text message. Mabini
objected again. Rule on the objection. (2%)
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’s. As private prosecutor, how will you
dispute the veracity and accuracy of the results
of the DNA evidence? (3%)

c. If Mabini’s objection in question B was

overruled, can he object to the presentation of
the text message on the ground that it is
hearsay? (2%)

Policemen brought Lorenzo to the Philippine

General Hospital (PGH) and requested one of
its surgeons to immediately perform surgery on
him to retrieve a packet of 10 grams of shabu
which they alleged was swallowed by Lorenzo.

Suppose the PGH agreed to, and did perform

the surgery, is the package of shabu admissible
in evidence? Explain. (3%)

d. Suppose that shortly before he expired,

Emilio was able to send a text message to his
wife Graciana reading "Nasaksak ako. D na me
makahinga. Si Mabini ang may gawa ni2." Is
this text message admissible as a dying
declaration? Explain. (3%)

14 | E V I D E N C E | Suba