Jeruel D.

Rombaon
4th year BS Criminology

EXAM ON EVIDENCE
Prepared by: Atty. Antonio D. Andres, Jr.

1. When is evidence is required and when is evidence NOT required?

Evidence is typically required by courts in order to prove facts and bolster contentions made
by parties in a dispute. Evidence might not be necessary in other circumstances, though,
such as when parties agree on a set of facts or the court takes judicial notice of a particular
issue. It is necessary to consult individual court rules and relevant legislation in order to
ascertain the precise requirements for evidence in a particular jurisdiction or category of
case.

2. Differentiate as to the quantum of evidence that must be proven between Civil Cases and
Criminal Cases?

As in other civil cases, basic is the rule that the party making allegations has the burden of proving
them by a preponderance of evidence. Moreover, parties must rely on the strength of their own
evidence, not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent,

Yes it is possible to become hearsay evidence because it obviously outside the court which is the
formal place to for admission or confession.

3. The search warrant authorized the seizure of “undetermined quantity of shabu.” During
the service of the search warrant, the raiding team also recovered a kilo of dried
marijuana leaves wrapped in newsprint. The accused moved to suppress the marijuana
leaves as evidence for the violation of Section 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002 since they were not covered by the search warrant. The State justified the
seizure of the marijuana leaves under the “plain view” doctrine. There was no indication
of whether the marijuana leaves were discovered and seized before or after the seizure of
the shabu. If you are the judge, how would you rule on the motion to suppress?

The “plain view” theory, if I were the judge, would be seen as a legal precept that permits
police enforcement to confiscate objects not specifically named in a search warrant if they
are stumbled upon during a legitimate search and their damning nature is instantly obvious.
Establishing whether the marijuana leaves were found before to or subsequent to the shabu
seizure is vital, though, as this could have an effect on how the doctrine is applied. The ”plain
view” theory might not apply if the marijuana leaves were discovered before the shabu, in
which case the petition to suppress the marijuana leaves might be approved. The
admissibility of the seized evidence may require additional examination if the discovery
order is unclear.
 4. As Cicero was walking down a dark alley one midnight, he saw an “owner-type jeepney”
approaching him. Sensing that the occupants of the vehicle were up to no good, he darted
into a corner and ran. The occupants of the vehicle - elements from the Western Police
District - gave chase and apprehended him. The police apprehended Cicero, frisked him
and found a sachet of 0.09 gram of shabu tucked in his waist and a swiss knife in his secret
pocket, and detained him thereafter. Is the arrest legal?

Determining the legality of the search and seizure of the Swiss knife and shabu would also
be crucial. If the authorities conducted a frisk or search based on reasonable suspicion and
discovered the items, it may be approved. But if the search had been carried out without a
good reason, Cicero’s rights might have been infringed, which is why it’s against the law.

5. What is the best evidence rule?

Primary evidence because it is that rule that says that no evidence other than the original
document itself shall be allowed where the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document,
for example the original documents

6. Why do we adopt the parol evidence rule?

It is the parol evidence rule states that when parties have entered into a written agreement,
any prior or contemporaneous oral agreements or other written agreements that are not
included in the written agreement are generally inadmissible as evidence in a court of law
and lastly to avoid or prevent fraudulent claims.

7.An illegally obtained extrajudicial confession is admitted as evidence? True or false and Why.

False. The Philippines' Rules of Court provide that an extrajudicial confession collected
illegally is typically not accepted as evidence. A confession or admission acquired in violation
of the accused's rights is expressly prohibited from being used as evidence against them, as
stated in Rule 113, Section 12.

8. An extrajudicial admission may be hearsay evidence. When may it be possible?

Yes it is possible to become hearsay evidence because it obviously outside the court which is the
formal place to for admission or confession

9. Between an extrajudicial confession and judicial admission, which prevails? Why.

Questions concerning the extrajudicial confessions’ voluntariness, reliability, and the

circumstances surrounding their making may be challenged, even though they are
admissible as evidence. The truthfulness and reliability of both types of statements are
assessed by the court using legal standards; however, judicial admissions are given greater
weight because they occur within the legal system and are subject to scrutiny and cross-
examination. An extrajudicial confession typically loses out to a court admission. A judicial
admission is a statement made by a party during judicial proceedings, such as a trial,
whereas an extrajudicial confession is made outside of the formal legal system.

10.Define Evidence.
is a method approved by these regulations for finding the truth about a fact in a court case.