Law on Evidence

(2012 BAR EXAM QUESTION)

To prove the identity of the assailant in a crime of homicide, a police officer testified that, Andy, who did not testify in court, pointed a finger at the accused in a police lineup.

Is the police officer’s testimony regarding Andy's identification of the accused admissible evidence?

• A. Yes, since it is based on his personal knowledge of Andy’s identification of the accused.

• B. Yes, since it constitutes an independently relevant statement

• C. No, since the police had the accused identified without warning him of his rights

• D. No, since the testimony is hearsay.

(2012 BAR EXAM QUESTION)

When caught, X readily admitted to the Forestry Ranger that he cut the trees.

Such a statement may be admitted and is not necessarily hearsay because:

• A. It is a judicial admission of guilt

• B. It shows the statement was true

• C. It is an out-of-court statement

• D. It proves that such a statement was made

Immediately before he died of gunshot wounds to his chest, Venancio told the attending physician, in a very feeble voice, that it was Arnulfo, his co-worker, who had shot him. Venancio added that it was also Arnulfo who had shot Vicente, the man whose cadaver was lying on the bed beside him. In the prosecution of Arnulfo for the criminal killing of Venancio and Vicente, are all the statements of Venancio admissible as dying declarations?

• A. Yes, all statements are admissible since no person would make a false accusation at his point of death.

• B. No, since a dying declaration must relate to the cause of the declarant’s death.

• C. Yes, since the statement was made under a consciousness of an impending death.

• D. No, since there was no proof that the declarant believe that he will die in that instance.

1ST STATEMENT: The admissibility of a spontaneous statement is anchored on the theory that the statement was uttered under circumstances where the opportunity to fabricate is present.

2ND STATEMENT: Spontaneous statements, in order to be admissible must be made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise a falsehood.

• A. TRUE; FALSE

• B. FALSE; FALSE

• C. FALSE; TRUE

• D. TRUE; TRUE

Which of the following may be received as basis to prove family reputation and tradition regarding pedigree?

• A. Moral Character

• B. Entries in family bibles

• C. Common reputation

• D. Word of mouth

Filiation may be proven by pictures of the putative father cuddling the child on various occasions.

• TRUE

• FALSE

Which of the following situation may a Character Evidence admissible in criminal cases?

• A. When the accused prove his good moral character if pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.

• B. When the prosecution prove the bad moral character of the accused to prove his criminal predisposition

• C. Under certain situations, but not to prove the bad moral character of the offended party.

• D. When it is evidence of the good character of a witness even prior to his impeachment as witness

In a case, the prosecutor asked the medical expert the question, "Assuming that the assailant was behind the deceased before he attacked him, would you say that treachery attended the killing?"

Is this hypothetical question permissible?

• A. Yes, but conditionally, subject to subsequent proof that the assailant was indeed behind the deceased at that time.

• B. Yes, since hypothetical questions may be asked of an expert witness

• C. No, since it asks for his legal opinion

• D. No, since the medical expert has no personal knowledge of the fact.