ESSAY QUESTIONS – 20 ITEMS

ADMISSIBILITY

1. Is direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime necessary to prove conspiracy?

No. Considering the difficulty in establishing the existence of conspiracy, settled jurisprudence
finds no need to prove it by direct evidence (Fernan, Jr. and Torrevillas v. People, G.R. No. 145927, Aug.
24, 2007). It may be deduced from the acts of the perpetrators before, during and after the commission of
the crime which are indicative of a common design, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments
(Serrano v. CA, G.R. No. 123896, June 25, 2003).

2. What is the test to determine where the burden of proof lies?

The test is to ask which party to an action or suit will fail if he offers no evidence competent to
show the facts averred as the basis for the relief he seeks to obtain. If the defendant has affirmative
defenses, he bears the burden of proof as to those defenses which he sets up in answer to the plaintiff’s
cause of action (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Spouses Royeca, G.R. No. 176664, July 21, 2008).

JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

3. When are judicial admissions made?

It may be made by the party himself or by his counsel:

1. In the pleadings filed by the parties;
2. In the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations, including
depositions, written interrogatories and requests for admissions; or
3. In other stages of the judicial proceedings, as in pre-trial.

4. When can admissions in a pleading be considered as extrajudicial admissions?

Admissions in a pleading which had been withdrawn or superseded by an amended pleading,

although filed in the same case, are considered as extrajudicial admissions. The original must be proved
by the party who relies thereon by formally offering it in evidence (Torres v. CA, G.R. Nos. L-37420-21, July
31, 1984).

OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

5. After a full-blown trial, John was found guilty of murder for shooting Gerard. On appeal, John argued that
the trial court should have acquitted him as his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He
contended that the paraffin test conducted on him 3 days after his arrest yielded a negative result. Hence,
he could not have shot Gerard. Is John correct?

No. While the paraffin test was negative, such fact alone did not ipso facto prove that John is
innocent. A negative paraffin result is not conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun. It is possible
to fire a gun and yet be negative for nitrates, as when the culprit is wearing gloves or he washes his hands
afterwards. Here, since John submitted himself for paraffin testing only 3 days after the shooting, it was
likely he had already washed his hands thoroughly, thus removing all traces of nitrates therefrom (People
v. Brecinio, G.R. No. 138534, Mar. 17, 2004).

Law on Evidence: MCQ’s and Essay Q’s with Suggested Answers

Compiled by Benj Hernandez Jr. (Remedial Law Review – Evidence Group - PCU-Law Batch 2013) Page 16