I

Ajax Power Corporation, a utility company, sued in the Regional Trial Court to enforce a
supposed right of way over a property owned by Simplicio. At the ensuing trial, Ajax
presented its retired field auditor who testified that he know 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 had sufficiently met its burden of proving the
existence of the contract establishing its right of way? Explain.

II

In a civil case, plaintiff filed on April 19, 1991, an ex parte motion for execution of
judgment. Upon receiving it, the presiding judge examined the record and Issued on the
same day an order granting the motion since, as stated in his order, “the Judgment is now
final and executory because the sheriffs return shows that the decision was property served
upon the defendant on April 3, I991, and no appeal was perfected on time." The defendant
then filed a motion to set aside the order of execution, contending that the order is void on
two grounds: (1) it violates the rule on three-day notice for motions; and (2) the date of
service, April 3,1991, entered in the sheriffs return is a typographical error because service
was actually made on April 8. 1991, so that when the court ordered execution on April
19,1991, the decision was not yet final and executory. At the hearing of the motion, the
defendant cited several cases on the heed to notify the adverse party before a contentious
motion can be resolved. He further argued that the sheriff’s return, being hearsay, has to
be confirmed by the sheriff on the witness stand when an entry therein is assailed, because
in that situation the proponent of the return has the burden of proving its correctness. This
cannot be done unless the sheriff testifies in court and is correspondingly subjected to
cross-examination. The sheriff was not presented in court as a witness. Decide the motion
to set aside the order of execution, with reasons.

III
Alejo was stabbed in the abdomen. He immediately called for help and a policeman
promptly approached him. He told the policeman that he felt he would die from the serious
wound inflicted on him by Danilo who has a grudge against him. He was brought to a
hospital for treatment where, on the same day he was shot and killed by someone whose
identity could not be established by an eyewitness. Eventually. Danilo was charged in court
for the death of Alejo. The prosecution had to build its case on circumstantial evidence. At
the ensuing trial, the policeman was presented to testify on the declaration made to him by
Alejo. The defense objected. Meeting the objection, the prosecution argued for the
admissiblity of the evidence as a dying declaration (ante mortem statement) or as part of
the res gestae, either of which, when deemed competent evidence as an exception to the
hearsay rule, would demonstrably be relevant to the ultimate fact in issue, the guilt of
Danilo for the death of Alejo. The defense countered by arguing that no facts relating to the
stabbing can be relevant to the shooting. Is the contention of the prosecution with respect
to relevancy and competency of evidence correct? Discuss fully.

IV

In an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land filed in the Regional Trial Court, the
defendant, through his lawyer, filed an answer therein admitting the averment in the com-
plaint that the land was acquired by the plaintiff through inheritance from his parents, the
former owners thereof. Subsequently, the defendant changed his lawyer and, with leave of
court, amended the answer. In the amended answer, the abovementioned admission no
longer appears; instead, the alleged ownership of the land by the plaintiff was denied
coupled with the allegation that the defendant is the owner of the land for the reason that
he bought the same from the plaintiff’s parents during their lifetime. After trial, the
Regional Trial Court rendered a decision upholding the defendant’s ownership of the land.

On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the defendant is bound by the admission
contained in his original answer.

Is the contention of plaintiff correct? Why?

While sleeping under a tree, Kintanar was stabbed several times by a man, sustaining
multiple stab wounds on his chest with blood spurting therefrom. Bathed in his own blood,
Kintanar rushed to his house where he was met by his wife. Kintanar informed his wife
that it was Gonzales who stabbed him. On the way to the hospital, Kintanar kept on saying
that it was Gonzales who stabbed him. He died while undergoing surgery at the hospital.
Convicted for the killing of Kintanar, Gonzales questioned the admission in evidence of the
ante-mortem statement of Kintanar to his wife. He argued that from the abovecited facts,
there is no indication that the aforesaid statement was made by the victim under
consciousness of an impending death. Can the subject statement be considered a dying
declaration? Why?

VI

During the pre-trial of a civil case, the parties their respective documentary evidence.
Among the documents marked by the plaintiff was the Deed of Absolute Sale of the
property in litigation (marked as Exh. “C"). In the course of the trial on the merits, Exh.
“C" was Identified by the plaintiff, who was cross-examined thereon by the defendant’s
counsel; furthermore, the contents of Exh. “C" were read into the records by the plaintiff.
However, Exh. “C" was not among those formally offered in evidence by the plaintiff. May
the trial court consider Exh. “C" in the determination of the action? Why?

VII
At the homicide trial, the prosecution proposed that accused Joey undergo a series of
paraffin tests to determine whether he fired his service pistol at the time the victim, Lyn,
was shot to death. The defense objected on the ground that Joey's submission of his hands
for paraffin test, or the Inspection of any part of his body for that matter, would violate his
right against self-incrimination.

A. How would you rule on the objection?

B. Is the result of the paraffin test admissible in evidence?

VIII
On the basis of the testimonies of Narcom agents, James and Tony, who spearheaded the
“buy-bust" operation by posing as buyers after a tip from a civilian informer, Steve, Bob
was convicted of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. On appeal. Bob claims that he is
entitled to an acquittal as the prosecution willfully suppressed evidence in not presenting
the informer, Steve, in court. Decide Bob’s contention.

IX
At the trial of Ace for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosecution offers in
evidence a photocopy of the marked P100.00 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.

A. Is the photocopy real (object) evidence or documentary evidence?

B. Is the photocopy admissible in evidence?

X
Why is the “Best Evidence Rule" often described as a misnomer?

XI
At the trial of Ace for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosecution offers in
evidence a photocopy of the marked P100.00 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.

XII

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 A1 was with them when the alleged crime took place. The prosecution 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:
A. How would you rule on the objection?
B. Will the fact that the version of the defense is corroborated by three witnesses suffice to
acquit Al? Why?

XIII
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 for perjury.
A. Rule on Louise’s contention.
B. Can Mariter be utilized as state witness if she is a co-accused in the criminal case?

XIV
Gerry is being tried for rape. The prosecution’s evidence sought to establish that at about
9:00 P.M. of January 20, 1994, Gerry went to complainant June’s house to invite her to
watch the festivities going on at the town plaza. June accepted the invitation. Upon
reaching the public market, which was just a stone’s throw away from June’s house,'
Gerry forcibly dragged June towards the banana grove behind the market where he was
able to have carnal knowledge with June for about an hour. June did not immediately go
home thereafter, and it was only in the early morning of the following day that she
narrated her ordeal to her daughter Liza. Liza testified in court as to what June revealed to
her.

A. Is the testimony of Liza hearsay?

B. Is it admissible in evidence against the objection of the defense?

XV
At Nolan’s trial for possession and use of the prohibited drug known as “shabu," his
girlfriend, Kim, testified that on a particular day, she would see Nolan very prim and
proper, alert and sharp, but that three days after, he would appear haggard, tired and
overly nervous at the slightest sound he would hear. Nolan objects to the admissibility of
Kim's testimony on the ground that Kim merely stated her opinion without having been
first qualified as expert witness. Should you, as judge, exclude the testimony of Kim?

XVI
What is the difference between an offer of testimonial evidence and an offer of
documentary evidence?
XVII
What is the difference between a “broadside" objection and a specific objection to the
admission of documentary evidence?