SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
EVIDENCE AND TRIAL TECHNIQUE

Handwritten answers on any paper (may even be scratch, any color ink for the
pen, that you have available.

Due Upon resumption of physical classes.

Optional early submission prior to resumption of physical classes –
scanned/pictures of handwritten answers, uploaded in Google Drive for

Be concise. Do not repeat the facts. A mere “yes” or “no” will not warrant any
partial point/s. Unless otherwise provided, answers should be based on the
1997 Rules of Court.

1. Pursuant to a tip obtained from Mr. Sumbungero, SPO1 Kulangot posed

as a buyer of shabu and purchased the illicit drug from Adiktus outside Mercury
Drug Store, Barangay Lagro, Quezon City. After the transaction, SPO1 Kulangot
signaled the other police who then arrested Adiktus without a warrant. The
crystalline substance obtained from Adiktus was marked. To avoid the
commotion, the police then proceeded to Camp Karingal, Quezon City for the
physical inventory and taking of photographs, in the presence of Adiktus, the
buy bust team and a media personnel. The inventory in Camp Karingal included
a sachet of 15 grams marijuana and another sachet for 15 grams crystalline
substance. The drugs were submitted for laboratory examination. The laboratory
report tested positive for shabu for both sachets, stating that each sachet had 12
grams each. Adiktus claims there was no reason why the inventory would take
place 17 kilometers away from the buy bust, but Adiktus failed to present proof
of such distance. Adiktus also claimed there was an invalid warrantless arrest
and the drugs were inadmissible as evidence against him. The prosecution
claimed that the discrepancy were mere clerical errors, that SPO1 Kulangot
testified on in the lower court. SPO1 Kulangot’s testimony explained the mistake
"Nagkamali po yung investigator sir. Nagkasabay kami sa paggawa ng papeles sa crime
lab kaya yung word na shabu siguro sa computer naisulat na marijuana.” The
prosecution also argued that there was a commotion at the time of the arrest,
which necessitated leaving immediately, and that Adiktus’ claim on the distance
was self serving. It was also argued that the drugs were admissible as evidence
since there was a valid warrantless arrest.
a. Are the drugs inadmissible for being obtained pursuant to an
invalid warrantless arrest? (10%)
b. If you were the judge, how should you rule on the case? Give your
reasons, taking into account the accused’s and the prosecution’s
arguments. (15%)

2. Rappy Rapista was charged with 5 counts of rape for committing said
criminal acts against his own daughter, which took place once a year, specifically
every birthday of the child, who is now 5 years and 6 months old. The child
testified on the commission of said crimes. The child is deaf mute. Rappy Rapista
assailed the competency of the child to testify since she is deaf mute and that she
cannot really understand what is rape since she is only a child of tender years.
Rappy Rapista claimed that the child may mistake the hugs and kisses a father
makes to a child with rape if the child is being coached by her mother who has a
vendetta against him. Rappy was convicted of all charges. On appeal, he claims
1
he cannot be convicted on the mere testimony of the child who is also a deaf
mute. Rule on the case. (10%)

3. Ms. Segunda Asawa filed a case for bigamy against Mr. Babaerotothemax,
claiming that she did not know that Mr. Babaerotothemax was also previously
married to Ms. Mimiyehyeh at the time of their marriage. As evidence, Ms.
Segunda presented a print out of a photo of the marriage certificate of Mr.
Babaerotothemax and Ms. Mimiyehyeh, to prove that said first marriage was
existing at the time of the second marriage. Mr. Babaerotothemax objected to the
admissibility of the marriage certificate for being in violation of the Best
Evidence Rule. Ms. Segunda claimed that she could not procure the original
since she was not authorized to do so, as it was only being released to the parties
to the marriage. She explained that her friend, who worked at PSA, allowed her
access so she could take a photo. She argued that anyway, the original was a
public document and hence, it was exempted from the Best Evidence Rule. She
further argued that anyway, the photo was electronic evidence and the print out
was a functional equivalent of the electronic evidence, and hence admissible. Ms.
Segunda nevertheless sought for the issuance of subpoena to compel the PSA to
release a certified true copy. Mr. Babaerotothemax objected to the subpoena on
the ground that she cannot be allowed access to the marriage certificate, since
Ms. Segunda was not a party thereto and hence, it would be inadmissible.
a. Is the print out of the Marriage Certificate admissible in evidence?
(10%)
b. Will your answer be the same under the 2019 Rules of Court? (5%)
c. Should the request for issuance of subpoena be denied? (5%)

4. X, Y and Z raped A. While the crime was being committed, A was able to
text her friend, Kaibigan, who called 911 for her. Right after the crime had been
committed, the police arrived and A pointed to X, Y, Z as the persons who
committed the crime against her, while in their presence. X, Y and Z were
brought to the police station and interrogated together on the rape against A. On
the way to the police station, X broke the silence in the police vehicle and in the
presence of 2 policemen and Y and Z, admitted that he, together with Y and Z
raped A. Y and Z gave X dirty looks, as X cried due to the guilt he felt. At the
police station, X, Y and Z were asked to narrate what how they raped A, and X
readily wrote a statement, reiterating what he said in the car. During trial, X
could no longer testify, as he was already dead by that time. The police who was
present during the arrest and in the car who heard X speak and saw him write
the statement testified on what he witnessed. Y and Z argued that the police’s
testimony and the written statement were all hearsay as to the police, and hence,
inadmissible. They also argued that it violates the dead man’s statute.
a. Rule on the admissibility of X’s oral and written statement and the
testimony of the police. (20%)
b. May the underbar associate in the law firm where X consulted with
and admitted to the acts that transpited and who overheard the
same be subpoenaed to testify on the same? X never engaged said
law firm since the acceptance fee was too expensive. Base your
answer on the 2019 Rules of Court. (5%)
c. The doctor who examined A is being called to testify. However, it
was never shown that A gave any consent to the doctor to testify,
hence, Y and Z objected on the testimony of the doctor. Rule on Y
and Z’s objection. (5%)

2
5. Creditor brought an action for sum of money against Debtor, pursuant to
the Loan Agreement duly executed by the parties, and attached to the
Complaint. Debtor claimed in his Answer that the Loan Agreement was void as
he never received the loan amount, since Creditor undertook to wire transfer the
same after the execution of agreement, which Creditor never did. Debtor testified
on the same allegations, and claimed it was an exception to the parol evidence
rule. As lawyer for the Creditor, how can you counter the admissibility of the
parol evidence? (5%)

6. Mr. Cabati was the owner of the Majority of Stocks of XYZ Corporation,
which was involved in the sale of Meat Products. He learned that his wife,
Estafadora, who was also a stockholder of the Corporation, committed fraud
against the Corporation, by asking one of the customers of XYZ Corporation, to
make the payments directly to her instead of the Corporation. Outraged, Mr.
Cabati, immediately went to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City,
and filed a Criminal Complaint against his wife on behalf of the Corporaton. An
information was filed against Estafadora, who pleaded not guilty. During trial,
XYZ Corporation was going to present as its first witness, Mr. Cabati himself.
Estafadora’s counsel, Atty. Gamgalamgam opposed the presentation of Mr.
Cabati as its witness, alleging that the testimony of Mr. Cabati, constitutes,
privileged Communication. May Mr. Cabati testify against Estafadora. (10%)

NOTHING FOLLOWS