QUESTION AND ANSWER EVIDENCE

Q: STATE THE TWO AXIONS OF ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

ANS: They are:
1. None but facts having rational probative value are admissible, which is the axiom of relevancy.
2. All facts having rational probative value are admissible when some specific rule forbids, which is the
axiom of competency.

Q: IS THERE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMISSIBILITY AND CREDIBILITY?

ANS: Yes. Admissibility of evidence is determined by the concurrence of the two requisites of relevancy and
competency: credibility is a matter for the court to appreciate.

Q: IF EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE, DOES IT FOLLOW THAT IT HAS PROBATIVE VALUE?

ANS: No, because admissibility of evidence has nothing to do with its probative value or weight. In fact, its
admission is not a guarantee of its being considered or believed by the court. Whether evidence has any
weight is dependent upon the court.

Q: A AND B ARE AMRRIED. B WAS SUSPECTING THAT HER HUSBAND WAS KEEPING A MISTRESS, SO SHE
RAIDED HIS OFFICE AND OBTAINED DOCUMENTS TO SHOW THAT HE HAS A MISTRESS. ARE THE
DOCUMENTS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE? WHY?
ANS: No. evidence obtained by a wife in violation of the privacy of communication and correspondence is
inadmissible against the husband even in a case filed by her against him.

Q: MAY A MENTAL RETARDEE TESTIFY?

ANS:
-Yes. While it is true that the credibility of one who is a mental retardee may be difficult to determine,
still it can be ascertained by deducing from the manner she testifies in court as to the surrounding facts
of the crime committed
-Moreover mental retardation per se does not affect credibility.A mentally retarded may be a credible
witness. The acceptance of her testimony depends on the quality of her perceptions and the manner
she can make them known to the court. (People Vs Tamano)

Q: IS EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION BEFORE A “BANTAY BAYAN” ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE IF THERE IS NO

COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS? EXPLAIN.
ANS: No. The contention that the confession before the bantay bayan is admissible since they are not police
officers is not quite correct, because there was a violation of his constitutional rights under custodial
investigation or the Miranda warnings.

1|Page
Q: X WAS PRESENTED AS A WITNESS AGAINST Y IN A CRIME OF MURDER. Y FAILED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE
WITNESS BECAUSE OF LACK OF MATERIAL TIME. X DID NOT APPEAR ANYMORE. MAY THE TESTIMONY OF X
IDENTIFYING Y AS THE PETPETRATOR OF THE CRIME BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE? WHY?
ANS: No, because Y had no opportunity to cross-examine or confront him at the time of the identification.
(people vs gallo)

Q: WHAT IS MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE?

ANS: It means that evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes. (People vs Animas)

Q: IS THERE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE AND JUDICIAL NOTICE?

ANS: Yes. A fact may be personally known to a judge and yet improper for judicial notice, in the same manner
that a fact may be personally unknown to the judge and yet proper for judicial notice.

Q: AGAINST WHOM IS AN EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION ADMISSIBLE?

ANS: The General rule is that an extra judicial confession is admissible against the maker and is incompetent
evidence against his co-accused, with respect to whom it is hearsay. This rule is not without exception.

Q: WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE DISCRETIONARY?

ANS: A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.

Q: STATE THE RULE WHEN THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT ARE PUT TO WRITING.
ANS: When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the
terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such
terms other than the contents of the written agreement.

Q: MAY PAROL EVIDENCE BE PRESENTED TO SHOW THAT ONE PARTY WAS DEFRAUDED INTO SIGNING IT?
ANS: Yes. Parol Evidence is admissible to show that a contract was fraudulently misread to one not able to
read and write and that he was by such fraud induced to give his signature that were it not for the
misrepresentation, he would not have signed the document. (Dela Cruz Vs. Capinpin)

Q: WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE?

ANS: The parol evidence rule applies to an agreement in writing, regardless of whether the written contract is
a public or private document.

2|Page
Q: WHO MAY BE WITNESSES?
ANS: All person who can perceive and perceiving and can make known their perception to others, may be
witnesses. So Even an insane can testify during his lucid interval. Mentally retarded can testify.

Q: IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF A WITNESS TO A PARTY A GROUND TO THROW ASIDE HIS TESTIMONY?

ANS: No. the mere relationship or intimacy with the victim is no justification for throwing aside that testimony
of a witness.

Q: MAY THE SPOUSES TESTIFY AGAINST EACH OTHER? IS THE RULE ABSOLUTE?
ANS: During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the
consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by the one against the other or the later’s direct descendants or ascendants. (sec 22.)

Q: STATE THE REASON FOR THE DEAD-MAN’S STATUTE.

ANS: Under the Dead Man’s Statute Rule, if one party to alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by
death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the other party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his
own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction. (tan Vs Ca)

Q: X FILED A COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF HIS MARRIAGE WITH Y ON THE GROUND OF
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY. CAN HE TESTIFY ON A CONFIDENTIAL PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION REPORT ON
HIS WIFE WITHOUT OFFENDING THE PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE? WHY?
ANS: Yes. In Krohn vs Ca, it was said that such testimony would not offend the privileged communication rule.

Q: WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF ADOPTIVE ADMISSION?

ANS: Under the doctrine of adoptive admission, a third party’s statement becomes the admission of the party
embracing or espousing it.

Q: X, AN ACCUSED IN A RAPE CASE, ADMITTED HIS GUILT WHILE BEING INTERVIEWED ON T.V. STATE THE
EFFECT OF SUCH ADMISSION.
ANS: An admission by the accused of his participation in a rape case before the presence of the TV Crew and
reporters is indicative of voluntariness of such admission.

Q: STATE THE RULE ON PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE.

ANS: No person shall be compelled to testify against his or her parents, other direct ascendants, children or
other direct descendants, except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against that person or by
one parent against the other.

3|Page
Q: WHAT IS HEARSAY STATEMENT?
ANS: Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered
to proved the truth of the facts asserted therein. (Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise
provided in these rules)

Q: WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY RULE?

ANS: 1. Dying Declaration - - The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an pending
death may be receive in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and
surrounding circumstances of such death. (Sec. 37)

Q: STATE THE RULE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF PARTY OF THE RES GESTAE.

ANS: Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto, under the stress of excitement caused by the occurrence with respect to the
circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae.

Q:MAY A PERSON BE CONVICTED ON THE BASIS OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE?

ANS: No. the settled rule is that conviction can never be based on hearsay evidence.

Q: X WAS APPROACHED BY Y. X LATER ON SHOUTED “ARAY”. HE WAS BROUGHT TO THE HOSPITAL WHERE
HE WHISPERED TO Z THE NAME OF HIS ASSAILANT. HE DIED TWO HOURS LATER. IS HIS STATEMENT
ADMISSIBLE AS DYING DECLARATION?
ANS: No. because it was not made under consciousness of impending death. But if his statement cannot be
admissible as dying declaration, it can be admitted as party of the res gestae having been made immediately
after the incident.

Q: IF AFTER THE RAPE AND KILLING OF A YOUNG GIRL, THE ACCUSED ADMITTED TO THE BRGY. OFFICIALS
AND TANOD THAT HE WAS THE ONE WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME, IS THE ADMISSION ADMISSIBLE
AGAINST HIM?
ANS: Yes. it is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Accused’s statements infront of the Brgy.
Officials are admissible for being part of the res gestae.

Q: IS THERE ANY DISCTINCTION BETWEEN AN INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENT AND HEARSAY

STATEMENT?
ANS:
- Yes. independently relevant statements should be distinguished from hearsay statements.
- Where the out of court statements are introduced in evidence for the purpose of establishing the
truth therein stated, they are hearsay.
- When out of court statement is introduced in evidence not for the purpose of establishing the truth
of the statement but only the fact of its utterance of such fact is relevant to the issue, they are
Independently relevant evidence.
4|Page
Q: MAY THE COURT CONSIDER AN EVIDENCE NOT OFFERED?
ANS: No. the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the
evidence is offered must be specified.

Q: ARE THE RULES IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES IN THE MATTER OF RAISING OBJECTIONS?
ANS: Yes. the rules on examination of witnesses and objecting to them are not separate for civil and criminal
cases. A witness whether in a criminal or civil case, is presented to support and prove the allegations made by
the party presenting him or her. The witness must be competent, and his or her testimony must be relevant
and material. whether the case is civil or criminal, objection or failure to offer the testimony of a witness must
be made immediately (Rule 132, Sec36)

Q: MAY A DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BE ADMISSIBLE EVEN IF NOT OFFERED?

ANS: Yes, if the subject document was pleaded in defendants answer, copy attached thereto and its
authenticity and due execution had not been denied under oath.

5|Page