POINTERS FOR FINAL EXAMINATION- PRACTICE COURT II

Judge Gregorio Pimentel, Jr.

10 Questions (MCQ)

1) Expert witness;

Samplex: Reason for admission of an expert witness si that such expert evidence cannot be
provided by an ordinary witness. His evidence is important and crucial because they are facts,
information, opinions that are made bya skilled, knowledgeable, educated person from his well
respected field and tey are important to lead the court and guide the judge on deciding the merits
of the case especially on matters not known by ordinary men or witness.

Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court states that the opinion of
a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training,
which he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence. The use of the word
“may” signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness is permissive and not
mandatory on the part of the courts.Allowing the testimony does not mean, too,
that courts are bound by the testimony of the expert witness. The testimony of an
expert witness must be construed to have been presented not to sway the court in
favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court in the determination of the issue
before it, and is for the court to adopt or not to adopt depending on its appreciation
of the attendant facts and the applicable law.  It has been held of expert
testimonies:
Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may place
whatever weight they may choose upon such testimonies inaccordance with the
facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is
peculiarly within the province of the trial court todecide, considering the ability
and character of the witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and
process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias
in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the
relative opportunities for study and observation of the matters about which he
testifies, and any other matters which deserve to illuminate his statements.  The
opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the
court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common
knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect.  The
problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his
testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not
reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion.[46]
 2) Case for falsification and as public prosecutor confronted with the laws
of the original document, what course of action would you initiate to
save the time of the court and avoid unnecessary cost and expenses;

3) As a lawyer in a case where the court refuses to allow you to present

testimony of a competent witness, what action would you take?

4) Hearsay evidence;

5) If you were the judge and confronted with defense’ motion to strike out
direct testimony of the prosecution’s witness on lack of cross-
examination, how would you rule on the motion;

Sec. 6. Cross Examination. 

A. Concept: The examination of the witness by the opponent after the direct
examination. 

B. Nature:

1.  An essential part of the right to procedural due process i.e. the right of a party to
confront witnesses against him face-to-face. The essence however is not actual cross
examination but that a party be given the opportunity to cross examine. Hence the
consequences are as follows:

a). If the opponent was never given the opportunity to cross examine a witness, the
direct testimony may, on motion of the opponent,  be stricken off as hearsay. 

b). All assertions of facts not based on the personal knowledge of the witness may also
be stricken off as hearsay since the source cannot be subjected to the opportunity of
cross-examination

2. :Limitations:
 

a). The right may however be waived expressly

b). It may be lost through the fault or negligence of the opponent.

c). After a witness has been cross-examined and discharged, further cross-examination
is no longer a right but must  be addressed to the sound discretion of the court

d). The Court may limit the cross-examination if its needlessly protracted, or is being
conducted in a manner which is unfair to the witness or is inconsistent with the decorum
of the court,  as when it degenerates into a shouting match with  the witness

       

3. Effect of the Loss or non-completion of the cross examination

a). If the loss, in whole or in part, was due to the fault of the adverse party, the
testimony of the witness is to be taken into consideration 

b). If the cross-examination cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to

the party offering the witness, the testimony is rendered incompetent

c). If the loss or –non-completion was due to the death or unavailability of the witness
then that part of the testimony which was subjected to cross-examination remains
admissible. 

4. Character of Cross Examination: It is both an Art and a Science 

a). It is an Art because it requires consummate skill which is acquired and developed.
There is no standard method as it is highly personalized, subjective and be adaptive to
who the witness is and to the subject of the cross examination. The length, style of
questioning or approach to a witness requires intuition and understanding of human
nature; of the habits, weaknesses, bias and prejudices of people; their reactions to
situations, their perception of matters, and such other factors that vary  according to
circumstances of time, place, people and occasions.

 
It requires the ability to think quickly, read quickly and to know when to quit. The
lawyer’s antennae must ever be tuned in to the witness: his character, personality;
mannerism, and all traits which will give a favorable clue; to the adverse counsel and to
the Court.      

b). Should a party cross examine or not depends on a full understanding of what to
expect. The following must be considered before a party attempts to cross-examine:

i). Whether the witness has hurt the case or the impact of his testimony on the case

ii). Whether the witness is important, as for example an eye witness, or a party witness

iii). Whether the testimony is credible

iv). The risks that the party undertakes 

2. It is a science. It requires a thorough preparation and mastery of certain

rules/jurisprudence on procedure in the presentation of evidence. 

C. Importance and Purpose of Cross Examination

Cross examination is both a weapon to destroy or weaken the testimony of the

opponent’s witness and a tool to build up or strengthen a party’s case. The conduct of
cross-examination must always be directed towards achieving a specific purpose or
purposes.

Constructive Cross-Examination, where the purposes are: (a) to amplify or expand the
story of the witness so as to place the facts in a different light which is favorable to the
party. Note that the witness of the opponent seldom  volunteer facts favorable to the
cross-examiner, hence the manner of questioning should be “insinuating”, and (b) To
obtain favorable or establish additional facts favorable to the cross-examining party.

 
Destructive Cross-Examination The purposes are: (a) to discredit the testimony of the
witness by showing its absurdity, or that it is unbelievable or contrary to the evidence (b)
To discredit the witness by showing his bias, interest, lapse of or selective memory,
incorrect or incomplete observation of event, and similar situations.

D. Scope of Cross Examination

1. Under section 6 the witness may be examined: (a) As to any matter stated in the
direct examination (b) or any matter connected therewith (c) as to the accuracy and
truthfulness and freedom of the witness from interest or bias, or the reverse and (d)
upon all important facts bearing upon the issue.

2. The English Rule is followed in the Philippines: the cross examination is not confined
to matters subject of the direct examination but extends to other maters, even if not
inquired in the direct examination but are material to the issues. This is distinguished
from the American Rule which holds that the scope of the cross-examination is confined
to the facts and circumstances brought out, or connected with, matters stated in the
direct examination

D.  Questioning by the Court:

1. The Court may ask questions : 1.  To clarify itself on certain points 2. To call the
attention of counsel to points at issue that are overlooked and 3.To direct counsel to
questions on matters to elicit facts and clarify ambiguous answers

2. However, the questioning by the court should not be confrontational, probing and
insinuating. It should not be partisan and not over extensive. The court is not to assume
the role of an advocate or prosecutor.

 
 

BASIC RULES ON CROSS EXAMINATION

 
1. PREPARE. Know what the witness has testified on and its relation to the case and
how it affects your own evidence
 
2. KNOW YOUR OBJECTIVE. What are the points in the testimony of the witness which
are critical and are these points to be brought out and emphasized
 
3. OBSERVE PACING AND PATIENCE . Do not rush the witness and avoid being  over
eager in bringing out an important point.
 
4. LEAD THE WITNESS. State the facts and let the witness ratify. Know how to lead.
Use variation in the phraseology of the questions.
 
5. HAVE A STYLE AND ADAPT IT TO THE OCCASION. Be true to yourself and
develop an approach or style suited to your personality and character. Be able to vary
your style and know when is it effective to use either a booming or soft voice; to move
around or to stay put; to be conversational or confrontational or tough and confident.. 
 
6. KNOW WHEN TO QUIT. Stop when (1) the witness has been discredited or made a
monumental concession. There is no need for an over kill. or when the witness is killing
the case or the counsel.
 
7. KNOW WHAT MATERIALS TO TAKE TO CONFRONT THE WITNESS. Have them
be ready and easily accessible.
 
8. KNOW THE JUDGE. Are you making an impact or are you boring, antagonizing or
confusing the Judge?   
 
9. KNOW THE RULES OF EVIDENCE
 
      
ADDITIONAL PRACTICAL TIPS
 
 
1. BE BRIEF. Confine to the strongest points.
 
2. SHORT QUESTIONS. Use plain words and avoid fancy words or elaborate syntax.
 
3. NEVER ASK A QUESTION to which you do not already  know the answer.
 
4. LISTEN TO THE WITNESS. Tune in if he was contradicted by another witness or
prior testimony; is the testimony contrary to human experience or completely
inconsistent with nature.   
 
5. DO NOT QUARREL WITH THE WITNESS.
 
6. DO NOT PERMIT THE WITNESS TO EXPLAIN
 
7. DO NOT REPEAT HIS TESTIMONY ON DIRECT.
 
8. AVOID QUESTIONS TOO MANY
 
9. SAVE THE EXPLANATION FOR THE MEMORANDUM. Questions should not be
explanations of your position.
 

6) Prosecution for rape and documentary evidence involved was lost and
could not be offered, will the court consider the lost documentary
evidence
Section 5. When original document is unavailable. — When the original document has been lost
or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence
and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy,
or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the
order stated. (4a)

7) 7) As a judge, how will you rule on accused’s motion for postponement

of arraignment because he allegedly file a motion for grave investigation
with the city prosecutor’s office;
WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR SUSPENDING
ARRAIGNMENT? 
1.    The  accused  appears  to  be  suffering  from  an  unsound  mental condition which
effectively renders him unable to fully understand he charge against him and to plead
intelligently thereto. In such 
case,  the  court  shall  order  his  mental  examination  and,  if necessary, his
confinement for such purpose; 

2.    There exists a prejudicial question; and 

3.    A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the
Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; provided, that the period of
suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) 
days  counted  from  the  filing  of  the petition  with  the  reviewing office. 

8) What is the remedy of the accused or the respondent from the judgment
of a direct contempt;

Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides:

SECTION. 1. Direct contempt punished summarily. ─ A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or
so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward
the court, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to
subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so, may be summarily adjudged in
contempt by such court and punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not
exceeding ten (10) days, or both, if it be a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank; or
by a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding (1) day, or both, if it be a lower
court.

SEC. 2. Remedy therefrom. ─ The person adjudged in direct contempt by any court may not appeal
therefrom, but may avail himself of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition. The execution of the judgment
shall be suspended pending resolution of such petition, provided such person file a bond fixed by the
court which rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the judgment should
the petition be decided against him. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Failure to follow basic legal commands as prescribed by law and the rules is tantamount to gross
ignorance of the law. By accepting the exalted position of a judge, respondent ought to have been familiar
with the legal norms and precepts as well as the procedural rules.[17]

What is the remedy of the person adjudged in direct contempt?

A person adjudged in indirect contempt may appeal to the proper court in the same manner as in
criminal cases. (Sec 11, Rule 71)

Section 11. Review of judgment or final order; bond for stay. — The judgment or final order of a
court in a case of indirect contempt may be appealed to the proper court as in criminal cases. But
execution of the judgment or final order shall not be suspended until a bond is filed by the person
adjudged in contempt, in an amount fixed by the court from which the appeal is taken, conditioned
that if the appeal be decided against him he will abide by and perform the judgment or final order.
(10a)
If petitioner is declared not liable, that he did not commit an act of contempt, the adverse party
cannot appeal following the rule in criminal prosecution on double jeopardy.

9) As a judge, how would you rule on defense’ motion to quash the

warrant and/or the information after he pleaded not guilty; and

Section 1. Time to move to quash. – At any time before entering his plea, the accused
may move to quash the complaint or information. 
  

WHEN CAN THE ACCUSED FILE A MOTION TO QUASH? 

>     At  any  time  before  entering  the  plea,  the  accused  may  move  to quash the
complaint or information

Section 2. Form and contents. — The motion to quash shall be in writing, signed by the accused or
his counsel and shall distinctly specify its factual and legal grounds. The court shall consider no
ground other than those stated in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.
(2a)

Section 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor. — The failure of the accused
to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either
because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be
deemed a waiver of any objections based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g),
and (i) of section 3 of this Rule. (8)

The ground relied upon by respondents in their "Motion to Dismiss," which is, that the facts alleged
in the Information do not constitute an offense, is actually one of the grounds provided under a
Motion to Quash in Section 3 (a),  Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
14

It must be emphasized that respondents herein filed their Motion after they have been arraigned.
Under ordinary circumstances, such motion may no longer be allowed after arraignment because
their failure to raise any ground of a motion to quash before they plead is deemed a waiver of any of
their objections. Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 9. Failure to Move to Quash or to Allege Any Ground Therefor. - The failure of the accused to
assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either
because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be
deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs
(a),(b), (g), and (i) of Section 3 of this Rule.

However, since the ground asserted by respondents is one of the exceptions provided under the
above-provision, the timeliness of the filing is inconsequential. The mistake lies inthe RTC's
dismissal of the case.
 10) What is the proper remedy of the accused against a defective
information.

In addition, please see below pointers for essay questions. Baka lang biglang
may essay question sa exam.

ESSAY (15 Questions)

1. Plea bargaining;

WHAT IS PLEA BARGAINING?

> It is the disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecution and the
accused

> The  accused  and  the  prosecutor  in  a  criminal  case  work  out  a mutually 
satisfactory  disposition  of  the  case  subject  to  court approval

> It  usually  involves  the  defendant’s  pleading  guilty  to  a  lesser offense  or  to  only 
one  or  some  of  the  counts  of  a  multi-count indictment in return for a lighter
sentence than that for the graver charge

> It is encouraged because it leads to prompt and final disposition of most  criminal 
cases.    It  shortens  the  time  between  charge  and disposition  and  enhances 
whatever  may  be  the  rehabilitative prospects of the guilty when they are ultimately
imprisoned

WHEN IS PLEA BARGAINING NOT ALLOWED?

> It  is  not  allowed  under  the  Dangerous  Drugs  Act  where  the imposable penalty is
reclusion perpetua to death.

WHAT IF THERE IS A PLEA BARGAINING ARRIVED AT?

1.    Issue an order which contains the plea bargaining arrived at;
2.    Proceed to receive evidence on the civil aspect of the case; and

3.    Render and promulgate judgment of conviction, including the civil liability or
damages duly established by the evidence.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE WAS NO PLEA BARGAINING

AGREEMENT? WHAT WOULD THE COURT DO?

1.    Adopt  the  minutes  of  preliminary  conference  as  part  of  the  pre-trial 
proceedings,  confirm  markings  of  exhibits  or  substituted photocopies   and  
admissions   on   the   genuineness   and   due
execution of documents and list object and testimonial evidence;
2

.    Scrutinize every allegation of the information and the statements in  the  affidavits 
and  other  documents  which  form  part  of  the record  of  the  preliminary 
investigation  and  other  documents
identified   and   marked   as   exhibits   in   determining   farther admissions  of  facts, 
documents  and  in  particular  as  to  the following:

a.    The identity of the accused;

b.    Court's  territorial  jurisdiction  relative  to  the  offense/s charged;

c.     Qualification of expert witness/es;

d.    Amount of damages;

e.    Genuineness and due execution of documents;

f.     The cause of death or injury, in proper cases;

g.    Adoption   of   any   evidence   presented   during   the preliminary investigation;

h.    Disclosure  of  defenses  of  alibi,  insanity,  self-defense,  exercise  of  public 
authority  and  justifying  or  exempting circumstances; and

i.      Such other matters that would limit the facts in issue.

3.    Define factual and legal issues;

4.    Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates and adhere to the flow  chart 
determined  by  the  court  which  shall  contain  the  time frames   for   the   different  
stages   of   the   proceeding   up   to
promulgation of decision and use the time frame for each stage in setting the trial dates;

5.    Require  the  parties  to  submit  to  the  Branch  COC  the  names, addresses  and 
contact  numbers  of  witnesses  that  need  to  be summoned by subpoena; and

6.    Consider  modification  of  order  of  trial  if  the  accused  admits  the charge but
interposes a lawful defense. 

2. Trial absentia;

RIGHT TO BE PRESENT IN TRIAL

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF A VALID TRIAL IN
ABSENTIA? 
1.    The accused has been already arraigned  
2.    He has been duly notified of the trial 
3.    He fails to appear at the trial but his non-appearance at the trial is unjustifiable  

CAN THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT BE WAIVED? 

> Yes, except in the following situations where the presence of the accused at the trial is
required 
1.    During arraignment 
2.    During  promulgation  of  judgment,  except  if  it  is  for  a  light offense 
3.    When the presence of the accused at the trial is required for purposes  of 
identification,  unless  he  admits  beforehand  that he is the same person charged
 Effects of Trial In Absentia on the Rights of the Accused
Trial In Absentia
Trial in absentia is a stage in a criminal proceeding where the trial is being held even
without the physical presence of the accused. Trial in absentia is allowed in our
jurisdiction and is indeed authorized by the Constitution. Section 14 (2), Article III of the
1987 Constitution provides:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary
is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and
public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure
the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided,
that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.” (Emphasis
supplied)
Thus, before a trial in absentia may be had, the following requisites must be present:
1. that there has been an arraignment;
2. that the accused has been notified; and
3. that his failure to appear is unjustified.
Impact on the Rights of the Accused
It was held in a long line of cases that an accused who failed to participate in the course
of his criminal proceedings for an unjustifiable reason loses his constitutional rights i.e.
to present evidence on his own behalf, to confront and cross-examine the witnesses. In
addition, the right to confrontation, of cross-examination and presentation of evidence
may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of such
right. (People v. Seneris, No. L-48883, August 6, 1980)
Section 1(c), Rule 115 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

“(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the
proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may,
however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail,
unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of
identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which
he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an
accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be
present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion,
the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to
the court that he can properly protect his right without the assistance of
counsel.” (Emphasis supplied)
In Estrada v. People (G.R. No. 162371, August 25, 2005), the Supreme Court affirmed
the conviction of the accused for the crime of estafa based only on prosecution evidence
in view of the unexplained failure of the accused to appear at several trial dates.
In this case, the accused argued, among others, that while her non-appearance in the trials
may be deemed to have waived her right to be present during the proceedings, such
waiver does not include a waiver of her right to present evidence. Her conviction by the
trial court is in effect a denial of her constitutional right to be heard and present evidence
in her defense.

In denying the petition for certiorari of the petitioner (accused), the Supreme Court held
that by the mere fact that she jumped bail and could no longer be found, petitioner is
considered to have waived her right to be present at the trial, and she and her counsel
were to be deemed to have received notice. As held in the earlier cases, the Court ruled
that once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a
foreign country, he loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the
jurisdiction of the court he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the
court.

Moreover, with the factual findings of the Court of Appeals that petitioner and her
counsel were duly served with copies of the assailed RTC orders and decision at the
addresses they submitted to the trial court, the petitioner was indeed afforded a fair and
reasonable opportunity to be heard. They cannot now complain of alleged violation of
petitioner’s right to due process when it was by their own fault that they lost the
opportunity to present evidence.

In People v. Tabag (G.R. No. 116511, February 12, 1997) the Court ruled that the trial
court erred for failing to proceed with the trial of some accused who escaped from
preventive detention. Pursuant to the last sentence of paragraph (2), Section 14, Article
III of the Constitution, trial against them should continue and upon its termination,
judgment should be rendered against them notwithstanding their absence unless, of
course, both accused have died and the fact of such death is sufficiently established. The
trial court had the duty to rule on the evidence presented by the prosecution against all the
accused and to render its judgment accordingly.  It should not wait for the fugitives’ re-
appearance or re-arrest.  They were deemed to have waived their right to present evidence
on their own behalf and to confront and cross-examine the witnesses who testified against
them.
In Gimenez v. Nazareno (G.R. No. L-37933, April 15, 1988), the Court holds that an
escapee who has been duly tried in absentia waives his right to present evidence on his
own behalf and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who testified against him. By
his failure to appear during the trial of which he had notice, he virtually waived these
rights. The right of the accused to confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses is a
personal right and may be waived. In the same vein, his right to present evidence on his
behalf, a right given to him for his own benefit and protection, may be waived by him.
Express Waiver of Rights, Limitation
In the case of Carredo v. People (G.R. No. 77542 March 19, 1990), the issue involved is
whether or not an accused who, after arraignment, waives his further appearance during
the trial can be ordered arrested by the court for non-appearance upon summons to appear
for purposes of identification.
The Court ruled that the provision of the Constitution authorizing the trial in absentia of
the accused in case of his non-appearance after arraignment despite due notice simply
means that he thereby waives his right to meet the witnesses face to face among others.
An express waiver of appearance after arraignment, as in this case, is of the same
effect. However, such waiver of appearance and trial in absentia does not mean that
the prosecution is thereby deprived of its right to require the presence of the
accused for purposes of identification by its witnesses which are vital for the
conviction of the accused. Such waiver of a right of the accused does not mean a release
of the accused from his obligation under the bond to appear in court whenever so
required. The accused may waive his right but not his duty or obligation to the court.
(Emphasis supplied)
Thus, while the Court permits the accused to waive his presence at all stages of the
proceeding after arraignment, it can still order the appearance of the accused where
identification of his person by the prosecution witnesses is necessary.

3. Impeachment of a witness;

As a lawyer in a case, I will rehabilitate my impeached witness by presenting

evidence that the witness is in good faith , good moral standing and proof of
his integrity. I will present proof that the witness is indeed telling the truth
and that his testimony is consistent with the facts and merits of the case.

Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. — A witness may be impeached by the party
against whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his general reputation for
truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at other times statements
inconsistent with his present, testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it
may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been
convicted of an offense. (15)

4. Rebuttal evidence;
 5. Continuing objection;

6. Demurrer to evidence;
7. Motion to strike out evidence;
8. Incriminating evidence;
9. Cross-examination;
10. Arrest and seizure;
11. Ordinary witness;
12. Hearsay evidence;
13. Motion rule;
14. Disputable presumption of evidence; and
15. Custodial investigation.