EVIDENCE

UNIVERSITY OF MANILA COLLEGE OF LAW

APRIL 26, 2024

INSTRUCTION: Type your answers using Bookman Old Style as your font.
The font size must be 14. Afterwards, E-mail your answers to me. E-mail
address: prosecutorcastro@[Link]

Due Date: April 26, 2024 at 9pm.

I.

Juan Tamad overheard Pedro Makulet call

Narciso Masipag a swindler, estafador and
manloloko. In an action for defamation filed by
Narciso Masipag against Pedro Makulet, is the
testimony of Juan Tamad offered to prove the fact
of utterance i.e., that Pedro Makulet called Narciso
Masipag a swindler, estafador and manloloko
admissible in evidence? Explain.

II.

In a case for specific performance and

damages, plaintiff Grimace presented photocopies
of the contracts he had executed with defendant
Barney for the purpose of establishing their
existence. Defendant Barney’s counsel objected to
the admission of said photocopies, invoking the
original document rule.

Should the objection of defendant Barney’s

counsel be sustained? Explain.

III.

It has been said that the Hearsay Rule may be

confused with the Opinion Rule. The latter excludes
an assertion based on, or inferred from, an
observed fact. State whether the given statement
EVIDENCE
UNIVERSITY OF MANILA COLLEGE OF LAW
APRIL 26, 2024
is an excludible opinion or excludible hearsay then
briefly explain your answer.

Petra was impregnated by Mr.

Bigelow when they slept together
last February 14, 2022.

State whether the given statement is an

excludible opinion or excludible hearsay then
briefly explain your answer. Note that the
statement is offered to prove that the parties
(Petra and Mr. Bigelow had an affair).

Marites told me that Petra and Mr.

Bigelow made love last February 14,
2022.

IV.

MODIFIED MULTIPLE CHOICE. Choose the

correct answer and then explain. Question: A
vicarious admission is considered an exception to
the hearsay rule. It, however, does not cover:

a. admission by a conspirator
b. admission by a privy
c. judicial admission
d. adoptive admission

Answer
C. vicarious admission is made out of court.
V.

Mr. Vape was accused of having raped Mrs.

Montero.
EVIDENCE
UNIVERSITY OF MANILA COLLEGE OF LAW
APRIL 26, 2024
Rule on the admissibility of the following pieces
of evidence:

[Link] offer of Mr. Vape to marry

Mrs. Montero; and

2. A pair of cargo shorts allegedly

left by Mr. Vape at the crime
scene which the court, over the
objection of Mr. Vape, required
him to put on, and when he did,
it fit him well.

VI.

Distinguish hearsay from lack of personal or

firsthand knowledge.

VII.

In the given statement below, please state

whether the witness is testifying from firsthand
knowledge or not then explain.

Jepoy told me the accident was

caused when the ten-wheeler truck
ran a red light.

Would your answer be the same if the

aforequoted statement is being offered to prove
that the ten-wheeler truck ran a red light?

What is the proper objection if the witness had

said instead “The accident was caused when the
ten-wheeler truck ran a red light”? Explain.

VIII.
EVIDENCE
UNIVERSITY OF MANILA COLLEGE OF LAW
APRIL 26, 2024

What are the requirements in order that an

admission of guilt of an accused during a custodial
investigation be admitted in evidence?

IX.

At the trial of Annie Batungbakal Natagafrisco

for violation of Section 5 of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2022, a young and dashing
prosecutor offers in evidence a photocopy of the
marked PHP1,000.00 bill used in the entrapment
operation. Atty. Gorilla objects to the introduction
of the photocopy on the ground that the Original
Document Rule prohibits the introduction of
secondary evidence in lieu of the original.

a) Is the photocopy real (object) evidence or

documentary evidence?
b) Is the photocopy admissible in evidence?
Please explain your answers.

X.

May a love letter (a private document) be

offered, and admitted in evidence both as
documentary evidence and as object evidence?
Explain.

XI.

Under the doctrine of adoptive admission, a

third party’s statement becomes the admission of
the party embracing or espousing it. Is this
statement correct? Explain.
EVIDENCE
UNIVERSITY OF MANILA COLLEGE OF LAW
APRIL 26, 2024
Answer: No. An adoptive admission is a party's reaction to a
statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to
treat the party's reaction as an admission of something stated
or implied by the other person.
XII.

Mang Pandoy testified that Gagamboy, charged

with theft, has committed necklace-snatching four
(4) times on the same street in the last seven (7)
months. Can the court admit this testimony as
evidence against Gagamboy? Briefly explain your
answer.

XIII.

MODIFIED MULTIPLE CHOICE. Considering the

qualifications required of a would-be witness, who
among the following is incompetent to testify?
Please explain your answer.

a. A person under the

influence of drugs when the
event he is asked to testify
on took place.
b. A person convicted of
perjury who will testify as
an attesting witness to a
will.
c. A deaf and dumb.
d. A mental retardate.

XIV.

Thor was accused of raping Cinderella. Only

Cinderella testified on how the crime was
committed. On the other hand, the defense
EVIDENCE
UNIVERSITY OF MANILA COLLEGE OF LAW
APRIL 26, 2024
presented Thor’s wife, sons and daughters to
testify that Thor was with them when the alleged
crime took place. A young and dashing prosecutor
interposed timely objection to the testimonies on
the ground of obvious bias due to the witnesses’
close relationship with the accused. If you were the
judge, how would you rule on the objection?
Explain.

XV.

1. If the accused on the witness stand repeats

his earlier uncounselled extrajudicial confession
implicating his co-accused in the crime charged, is
that testimony admissible in evidence against the
latter? Explain.
2. What is the probative value of a witness’
affidavit of desistance or affidavit of recantation?

XVI.

A vessel owned by The House of Wax Services,

Inc. sank in the deep waters of Davao Oriental
while helping tow another vessel, drowning seven
(7) of the crew in the resulting shipwreck. At the
maritime board inquiry, the three (3) survivors
named Aida, Lorna and Fe testified. The House of
Wax Services, Inc. engaged Atty. Bruce Wayne to
defend it against potential claims and to sue the
company owning the other vessel for damages to
the tug. Atty. Bruce Wayne obtained signed
statements from the survivors. He also interviewed
other persons, in some instance making judicial
affidavits. The heirs of the seven (7) victims filed
an action for damages against The House of Wax
Services, Inc.
EVIDENCE
UNIVERSITY OF MANILA COLLEGE OF LAW
APRIL 26, 2024
Atty. Alfred Trudy, plaintiffs’ counsel, sent
written interrogatories to Atty. Bruce Wayne,
asking whether statements of witnesses were
obtained; if written, copies were to be furnished; if
oral, the exact provisions were to be set forth in
detail. Atty. Bruce Wayne refused to comply,
arguing that the documents and information asked
are privileged communication. Is the contention
tenable? Explain.

XVII.

On August 14, 2007, Grimace committed estafa

against Mr. Bane in the amount of nine million
pesos (Php9,000,000.00). Mr. Bane brought his
complaint to the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI), which found that Grimace had visited his
lawyer twice, the first time on August 13, 2007 and
the second on August 15, 2007; and that both
visits concerned the swindling of Mr. Bane. During
the trial of Grimace, the Regional Trial Court issued
a subpoena ad testificandum to Atty. Ravishing
Rick Rude, the lawyer of Grimace, for him to testify
on the conversations during their first and second
meetings. May the subpoena ad testificandum be
quashed on the ground of privileged
communication? Please explain.

XVIII.

A death certificate states the cause of death as

poisoning. Is that death certificate admissible to
prove that the cause of death was poisoning?
Explain.

XIX.
EVIDENCE
UNIVERSITY OF MANILA COLLEGE OF LAW
APRIL 26, 2024
Can you compel a stepmother to testify against
her stepdaughter? Explain.

XX.

Rocky Road was knocked unconscious in a fist

fight with Ivan Drago. He was rushed to the
emergency room of the Asian Hospital and Medical
Center where he was examined and treated by Dr.
Strange. As he was being examined, a plastic
sachet appearing to contain methamphetamine
hydrochloride fell from Rocky Road’s jacket which
was on a bench beside him. Rocky Road was thus
arrested by the same agents of the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) who assisted him to
the hospital.

At Rocky Road’s trial, Public Prosecutor Bruce

Wayne called Dr. Strange to the witness stand.
When the young and dashing prosecutor asked Dr.
Strange as to what he saw in the emergency room,
Rocky Road’s counsel objected, claiming physician-
patient privilege rule.

How would you rule on the objection? Explain.

END OF TAKE HOME QUIZ

EVIDENCE
UNIVERSITY OF MANILA COLLEGE OF LAW
APRIL 26, 2024