16.

The principal function of judicial

notice is to:

A. Abbreviate the evidence;

B. Abbreviate the proceeding;
C. Dispense the proceeding;
D. Dispense the evidence.
To abbreviate litigation by the admission of matters that need no
evidence because judicial notice is a substitute for formal proof of a matter
by evidence. It takes the place of proof and is of equal force.

shall be dispensed

Evidence

with because the matter is so well known and is

of common knowledge not to be disputable. (Riano)

17. If the evidence bears such relation to a fact in issue as to

induce belief in its existence of non existence, then it is said
to be relevant. In a homicide case wherein A was accused of
killing B, the following are relevant except one:

A. A is suffering from a psychiatric disorder making him

vulnerable to hurt other persons;
B. The weapon used in the killing was found in the
house of A;
C. Personal effects of A were found in the crime scene;
D. A has a bad character.
Refer to Sec. 4 of Rule 128.

rational relationship between the

evidence and the fact to be proved . Thus, the evidence adduced
Relevance

deals

with

the

should be directed to the matters in dispute and any evidence which has

neither direct nor indirect relationship to such matters must

be set aside as irrelevant.

18. P filed a paternity case against D. P presented evidence

showing that D is a promiscuous person (playboy) which was
objected to by D. If P will argue that such evidence may
establish that D sired the child of P and this will be allowed
by the court, this illustrates the rule on:

A.
B.
C.
D.

Absolute Admissibility;
Multiple Admissibility;
Curative Admissibility;
Conditional Admissibility.

It happens frequently enough that the relevance of a piece of evidence is not

apparent at the same time it is offered, but the relevance of which will readily
be seen when connected to other pieces of evidence not yet offered. The
proponent of the evidence may ask that the evidence be conditionally
admitted in the meantime subject to the condition that he is going to establish
its relevancy and competency at a later time. If the connection is not shown as
promised, the court, may upon motion of the adverse party, strike out from the
record the evidence that was previously conditionally admitted.

19. If evidence is not excluded by the rules of evidence and

substantive law it is said to be competent. In a homicide case,
the following are competent pieces of evidence except for one:
A. Accused was identified by the witness as the killer in a police lineup
without the assistance of a lawyer;
B. Accused admitted to a news reporter that he killed B without
assistance of a lawyer;
C. Accused talked to the relatives of B for possible settlement of the
homicide case without assistance of a lawyer;
D. Accused was interrogated by the police about the killing without
assistance of a lawyer.
A police line-up is not part of the custodial inquest so at this stage, they have no right to
counsel yet. They are not being held to answer for criminal offense for which they are
being charged or convicted. (People v. Dimaano)
We have held that statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a
televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. (People v.
Andan)
In criminal cases, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence
as an implied admission of guilt. (Sec. 27, Rule 130)
Letter D because the right to counsel attaches at the start of the investigation
(when investigating officers elicitinformation/ admission/ confession. (Gamboa v.
Cruz)

20. In a homicide case, it was alleged that A hacked

and killed PEDRO using a bolo. What is the factum
probandum (fact or proposition to be established)?

A. That A has a motive to commit a crime;

B. That A used a bolo in committing the
crime;
C. That Pedro died;
D. That Pedro was hacked to death.
The ultimate fact or the fact sought to be established.

21. In the same a homicide case, what is the factum

probans (fact or material evidencing the fact or
proposition to be established)?

A. That Pedro was hacked to death;

B. That A has a motive to commit a crime;
C. That Pedro died;
D. . That A used a bolo in committing the
crime.
The totality of the evidence to prove the liability refers to the
factum probans. (Riano)

22. Which of the following cannot be disputably

presumed under the rules of evidence?
A. That a writing is truly dated.
B. That the thing once proved to exist continues as long as it is
usual with things of that nature.
C. That the law has been obeyed.
D. That a young person, absent for five years, it being
unknown whether he still lives, is considered dead for
purposes of succession.

A. u, Sec. 3, Rule 131.

B. y,
C. ff,
*w. That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or
not the absentee still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except
for those of succession. Relate it to the presumptions of death in the NCC.

23. Considering the qualifications required of a

would-be witness, who among the following is
INCOMPETENT to testify?
A. A person under the influence of drugs when the
event he is asked to testify on took place.
B. A mental retardate.
C. A deaf and dumb.
D. A person convicted of perjury who will testify as an
attesting witness to a will.
Art. 821. The following are disqualified from being witnesses to
a will:
(1) Any person not domiciled in the Philippines;

(2) Those who have been convicted of falsification of a document,

perjury or false testimony. (n)

24. Z charged her husband, Y, with bigamy for a prior

subsisting marriage with X. Z presented W and V, neighbors
of Y and X in Tarlac City, to prove, first, that Y and X
cohabited there and, second, that they established a
reputation as husband and wife. Can Z prove the bigamy by
such evidence?

A. No, at least one direct evidence and two circumstantial

evidence are required to support a conviction for bigamy.
B. No, the circumstantial evidence cannot overcome the lack of
direct evidence in any criminal case.
C. Yes, the circumstantial evidence is enough to support a
conviction for bigamy.
D. No. The circumstantial evidence is not enough to support a
conviction for bigamy.

Bigamy is a criminal offense which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Thus, circumstantial evidence is not enough to support a conviction of bigamy.

25. Which of the following matters is not a proper

subject of judicial notice?

A. Municipal ordinances in the municipalities

where the MTC sits;
B. Persons have killed even without motive;
C. Teleconferencing is now a way of
conducting business transactions;
D. British law on succession personally known
to the presiding judge..
It is well-settled that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like
any other facts, they must be alleged and proved. Australian marital laws for
example, are not among those matters that judges are supposed to know by
reason of their juridical functions (Garcia v. Garcia-Recio, 366 SCRA 437).

26. During trial, P offered evidence that appeared irrelevant

at that time but he said he was eventually going to relate to
the issue in the case by some future evidence. The
defendant objected. Should the trial court reject the evidence
in question on ground of irrelevance?

A. A. No, it should reserve its ruling until the relevance is

shown;
B. Yes, since the plaintiff could anyway subsequently
present the evidence anew;
C. Yes, since irrelevant evidence is not admissible;
D. No, it should admit it conditionally until its relevance is
shown.
The proponent of the evidence may ask that the evidence be conditionally
admitted in the meantime subject to the condition that he is going to establish
its relevancy and competency at a later time. If the connection is not shown as
promised, the court, may upon motion of the adverse party, strike out from the
record the evidence that was previously conditionally admitted.

27. In which of the following situations is the declaration of a

deceased person against his interest NOT ADMISSIBLE
against him or his successors and against third persons?

A. Declaration of a joint debtor while the debt

subsisted;
B. Declaration of a joint owner in the course of the
partnership;
C. Declaration of an agent within the scope of his
authority;
D. Declaration of a former co-partner after the
partnership has been dissolved.

Sec. 29, Rule 130. Admission by co-partner or agent. The act or declaration of a
partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of
the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the
partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The
same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person
jointly interested with the party.

27. In which of the following situations is the declaration of a

deceased person against his interest NOT ADMISSIBLE
against him or his successors and against third persons?

A. Declaration of a joint debtor while the debt

subsisted;
B. Declaration of a joint owner in the course of the
partnership;
C. Declaration of an agent within the scope of his
authority;
D. Declaration of a former co-partner after the
partnership has been dissolved.

Sec. 29, Rule 130. Admission by co-partner or agent. The act or declaration of a
partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and during the existence
of the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the
partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same
rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly
interested with the party.

28. To prove the identity of the assailant in a crime of

homicide, a police officer testified that, B, who did not testify
in court, pointed a finger at the accused in a police lineup. Is
the police officers testimony regarding B's identification of he
accused admissible evidence?

A. Yes, since it is based on his personal knowledge of Andys

identification of the accused;
B. No, since the police had the accused identified without warning
him of his rights;
C. Yes, since it constitutes an independently relevant statement;
D. No, since the testimony is hearsay.

Sec. 36, Rule130. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay

excluded. A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise
provided in these rules. (30a)
The party against whom it is presented is deprived of his right and opportunity to
cross-examine the persons to whom the statements or writings are attributed.
Consequently, if a party does not object to the hearsay evidence, the same is
admissible, as a party can waive his right to cross-examine.(People v. Ola)

29. To prove payment of a debt, B testified that he heard A

say, as the latter was handing over money to C, that it was in
payment of debt. Is Bs testimony admissible in evidence?
A. No, since what A said and did was not in response to a startling
occurrence;

B. Yes, since what A said and did is an independently

relevant statement;
C. No, since Bs testimony of what A said and did is hearsay;
D. Yes, since As statement and action, subject of Bs testimony
constitutes a verbal act.

The act of receiving money in itself has no definite meaning or significance. But the act of
receiving money acquires legal significance when the A said it was in payment of debt.

Now, the witness is testifying to that out-of-court statement and it is

offered to prove the truth of that statement, that the money handed over is
a loan to the defendant. It is hearsay, but it is admissible hearsay as part of
the res gestae.

30. Which of the following is NOT REQUIRED of a

declaration against interest as an exception to the
hearsay rule?
A. The declaration relates to a fact against the interest of the
declarant.
B. The declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such
declaration to be true.
C. The declarant is dead or unable to testify.
D. At the time he made said declaration he was unaware that
the same was contrary to his aforesaid interest.
Section 38. Declaration against interest. The declaration made by a person
deceased, or unable to testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact is
asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's
own interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the
declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against
himself or his successors in interest and against third persons. (32a)

***declarant MUST KNOW that it is against his interest