I

Explain the equipoise doctrine in the law of evidence and cite its constitutional and
procedural bases.

II

1. In an illegal detainer case the Municipal Trial Court ruled in favor of plaintiff lessor
who, not being satisfied with the increase of rentals granted him by the court,
appealed praying for further increase thereof. Defendant-lessee did not appeal.

a. Can plaintiff-lessor, as appellant, move for execution pending appeal? Explain.

b. Can defendant-lessee, as appellee, validly resist the immediate execution of the

judgment? Explain.

2. In his appellee's brief, defendant-lessee not only controverted the issue on rentals
raised by plaintiff-lessor but also assailed the judgment of the trial court on the ground
that the same was totally contrary to the admitted evidence showing him to be the
owner of the property entitled to possession of the premises. Can the appellate court
consider the issue of ownership raised by the appellee? Discuss fully.

III

Allan and Narita were married on 1 August 1989. After two months Narita told Allan
in confidence that 10-year old Liza whom she claimed to be her niece was actually
her daughter by a certain Basilio, a married man. In 1992 Narita obtained a judicial
decree of nullity of her marriage with Allan on the latter’s psychological incapacity to
fulfill his marital obligations. When the decree became final, Liza, assisted by Narita,
filed ten (10) cases of rape against Allan purportedly committed in 1991. During the
trial Narita was called to the witness stand to testify as a witness against Allan who
objected thereto on the ground of marital disqualification.

A. As public prosecutor, how would you meet the objection? Explain.

B. Suppose Narita’s testimony was offered while the decision nullifying her marriage
to Allan was pending appeal, would your answer be different? Explain.

C. Suppose Narita died during the pendency of the appeal, and soon after, the legal
wife of Basilio sued for legal separation on sexual infidelity in view of Basilio's love
affair with Narita. At the trial Allan was called by Basilio’s wife to testify that Narita
confided to him (Allan) during their marriage that Liza was her love child by Basilio.
As counsel for Basilio, can you validly object to the presentation of Allan as a witness
for the plaintiff? Explain.
 IV

A sued for annulment of his marriage with B. During trial, A offered in evidence
cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations o£ B with her lover. The tapes were
recordings made by tapping A’s telephone line, with A’s consent and obviously
without B's or her lover's. B vehemently objected to their admission, on the ground
that neither B nor her lover consented to the wire tap. The court admitted the tapes,
ruling that the recorded conversations are nonetheless relevant to the issues involved.
Was the court correct in admitting the cassette tapes in evidence? Explain.

At A’s trial for B’s murder, the defense attempts to present as its witness his widow,
X. She is to testify that just before B died, she approached his sprawled and bloodied
husband and asked who stabbed him. B, conscious of his impending death, named Y
as his assailant. The prosecution moves to stop X from testifying because her
testimony (1) is hearsay, and (2) will be violative of the rule on privileged marital
communication. Rule on the prosecution’s motion. Explain.

VI

In the examination of witnesses, what is meant by “laying the predicate"?

VII

X states on direct examination that he once knew the facts being asked but he cannot
recall them now. When handed a written record of the facts he testifies that the facts
are correctly stated, but that he has never seen the writing before. Is the writing
admissible as past recollection recorded? Explain.

VIII

Distinguish extrajudicial admission from extrajudicial confession in criminal

cases.

IX

X, charged with rape with homicide, offered P 100,000.00 as amicable settlement to

the family of the victim. The family refused. During the trial, the prosecution
presented in evidence X's offer of compromise. What is the legal implication of such
offer? Explain.
 X

Aside from the testimonies of three witnesses positively identifying accused X as

having stabbed to death Y, the prosecution seeks to present another witness, A which
it believes as material and competent to prove its case. X's counsel object to A's
proposed testimony as being irrelevant. The court sustained the objection. If you were
the prosecutor, what course of act ion would you pursue to the end that the proposed
testimony of A would form part of the record for purposes of review? Explain.

XI

Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence:

1. Dead Man Rule?

2. Parol Evidence Rule

3. Best Evidence Rule

4. The rule against the admission of illegally obtained extrajudicial confession.

5. The rule against the admission of an offer of compromise in civil cases.

XII

A. Give three instances when a Philippine court can take judicial notice of a foreign
law.

B. How do you prove a written foreign law?

C. Suppose a foreign law was pleaded as part of the defense of defendant but no
evidence was presented to prove the existence of said law, what is the presumption to
be taken by the court as to the wordings of said law?

XIII

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 photo (xeroxed) copies 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. In an action to collect on the promissory note, which is deemed to be the "original"

copy for the purpose of the "Best Evidence Rule"?

B. Can the photocopies in the hands of the parties be considered "duplicate original
copies"?
C. As counsel for A, how will you prove the loan given to A and B?

XIV

A. Aside from asking a witness to explain and supplement his answer in the cross-
examination, can the proponent ask in re-direct examination questions on matters not
dealt with during cross-examination?

B. Aside from asking the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination, can
the opponent in his re-cross-examination ask questions on matters not dealt with
during the re-direct?

C. After plaintiff has formally submitted his evidence, he realized that he had
forgotten to present what he considered an important evidence. Can he recall a
witness?

XV

A, while driving his car, ran over B. A visited B at the hospital and offered to pay for
his hospitalization expenses. After the filing of the criminal case against A for serious
physical injuries through reckless imprudence. A‘s Insurance carrier offered to pay for
the injuries and damages suffered by B. The offer was rejected because B considered
the amount offered as inadequate.

a. Is the offer by A to pay the hospitalization expenses of B admissible in evidence?

b. Is the offer by A’s insurance carrier to pay for the injuries and damages of B
admissible in evidence?

XVI

A trial court cannot take into consideration in deciding a case an evidence that has not
been ‘'formally offered". When are the following pieces of evidence formally offered?

A. Testimonial evidence
B. Documentary evidence
C. Object evidence

XVII

What are the two kinds of objections? Explain each briefly. Give an example of each.