Understanding Evidence: Key Concepts and Principles

GERALD M.
ROYO
1. Define Evidence.
1 2 3
the truth sanctioned by the Rules of Court of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding
4 5
It is the means respecting a matter of fact.
a. 5-3-2-1-4
b. 2-3-1-5-4
c. 4-1-3-2-5
d. 4-2-3-1-5
e. 3-1-4-2-5
2. The Rules on Evidence are guided by the principle of _____________.
a. Similarity
b. Congeniality
c. Individuality
d. Plurality
e. Uniformity
3. ______________ is the effect or result of evidence.
a. Factum Probans
b. Factum Probandum
c. Judicial Notice
d. Proof
e. Judicial Admission
4. ________________ is the fact or proposition to be established.
a. Factum Probandum
b. Factum Probans
c. Evidence
d. Proof
e. Competence
5. __________________ is the facts or material evidencing the fact or proposition
to be established.
a. Factum Probandum
b. Factum Probans
c. Evidence
d. Proof
e. Relevance
6. What are the requisites for admissibility of evidence?
a. Uniform
b. Relevance
c. Competent
d. A & B
e. B & C
7. Evidence to be ______________ must have such a relation to the fact in issue
as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
a. Uniform
b. Admissible
c. Competent
d. Relevant
e. Acceptable
8. _________________ depends on the relevancy of evidence in the issue and if
such evidence is not excluded by law or rules.
a. Uniform
b. Admissible
c. Competent
d. Relevant
e. Acceptable
9. _____________________ is the balance of evidence and in whose favor it tilts.
a. Uniformity of Evidence
b. Admissibility of Evidence
c. Competency of Evidence
d. Relevancy of Evidence
e. Weight of Evidence
10. _____________________ is on a parallel or diverging line, merely additional
or auxiliary.
a. Factum Probandum
b. Factum Probans
c. Evidence
d. Proof
e. Collateral Matter
11. _____________________ determines the relation of the evidence to the fact in
issue as to induce belief of its existence or non-existence.
e. Weight of Evidence
12. _____________________ determines the relation of evidence directly proving
the fact in issue.
e. Materiality of Evidence
13. _____________________ is the determination of admissibility of evidence based
on rules or law.
e. Materiality of Evidence
14. ___________________ is when evidence is admissible for two or more
purposes.
a. Conditional Admissibility
b. Curative Admissibility
c. Corrective Admissibility
d. Multiple Admissibility
e. Materiality
15. ___________________ it is the doctrine of admissibility that allows a party to
introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to answer the opposing partys
previous introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would remove any unfair
prejudice caused by the admission of the earlier inadmissible evidence.
a. Conditional Admissibility
b. Curative Admissibility
c. Corrective Admissibility
d. Multiple Admissibility
e. Materiality
16. __________________ proves the fact without the aid of any inference or
presumption.
a. Circumstantial Evidence
b. Positive Evidence
c. Negative Evidence
d. Conclusive Evidence
e. Direct Evidence
17. ___________________ also known as indirect evidence, which indirectly proves
a fact in issue through an inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence
established.
e. Direct Evidence
18. In criminal cases, circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for conviction
provided that the following requisites concur:
a. There is more than one circumstance
b. The fact from which the inferences are derived are proven
c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt
d. Only A & C
e. All of the above.
19. ___________________ when a witness affirms in the stand that a certain state
of facts does exist or that certain event happened.
e. Direct Evidence
20. ___________________ when the witness states that an event did not occur or
that the state of facts alleged to exist does not actually exist.
e. Direct Evidence
21. _________________ are evidence that is not excluded by law or rules.
e. Competent Evidence
22. __________________ are evidence not only admissible but also believable and
used by the court in deciding a case.
b. Credible Evidence
23. _________________ refers to that which is discovered after trial could not have
been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable
diligence; is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and is
of such weight that would probably change the judgment if admitted.
c. Newly Discovered Evidence
24. ___________________which are suffices for proof of a particular fact, until
contradicted and overcome by another evidence.
d. Prima Facie Evidence
25. __________________ that which is incontrovertible or one which the law does
not allow it to be contradicted. It is insurmountable evidence.
26. _________________ is one that is supplementary to that already given tending
to strengthen or confirm it. It is additional evidence of a different character to the
same point.
e. Corroborative Evidence
27. _________________ refers to evidence of the same kind and character as that
already given and that tends to prove the same proposition.
c. Cumulative Evidence
28. ________________ is that which affords the greatest certainty of the fact in
question.
b. Primary Evidence
29. _________________ is that which is necessary inferior to primary evidence and
shows on its face that better evidence exists.
d. Secondary Evidence
30. __________________ is that which is addressed to the senses of the court, as
where it is exhibited for the personal observation of the judge.
a. Object Evidence
b. Testimonial Evidence
d. Documentary Evidence
31. _________________ consists of writing, or any material containing letters,
words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression offered
as proof their contents.
a. Object Evidence
32. ________________ consists of narration or deposition by one who has observed
or has personal knowledge of that to which he is testifying.
a. Object Evidence
33. _______________ is that which is given to explain, repel, counteract or disprove
facts given in evidence by the adverse party.
a. Object Evidence
c. Rebuttal Evidence
34. _______________ or onus probandi is the duty of a party to present evidence
on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of
evidence required by law.
a. Admissibility of Evidence
b. Weight of Evidence
c. Burden of Proof
d. Relevance of Evidence
e. Burden of Evidence
35. ________________ is the duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to
overthrow the prima facie evidence against him.
a. Admissibility of Evidence
b. Weight of Evidence
c. Burden of Proof
d. Relevance of Evidence
e. Burden of Evidence
36. __________________ the right of the accused to be presumed innocent until
proven guilty.
a. Preponderance of Evidence
b. Substantial Evidence
e. Proof Reasonable Doubt
37. __________________ is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence
on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term greater
weight of the evidence or greater weight of credible evidence.
38. _________________ is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It means such
relevance evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine
otherwise.
39. ___________________ it is less than proof beyond reasonable doubt for criminal
cases but greater than preponderance of evidence of civil case. The believability
is higher than that of an ordinary civil case.
a. Corroborative Evidence
c. Clear and Convincing Evidence
e. Rebuttal Evidence
40. __________________refers to the act of the court in taking cognizance of
matters as true or as existing without need of the introduction of evidence, or
authority of the court to accept certain matters as facts even if no evidence of
their existence has been presented.
a. Judicial Presumption
b. Judicial Admission
c. Judicial Assumption
d. Judicial Notice
e. None of the Above
41. ________________ those facts related to the case under consideration and
which may affect the outcome thereof.
c. Adjudicative Matters
d. Judicial Notice
e. Legislative Matters
42. ______________ those facts which relates either to: (1) the existence of a law or
legal principle (2) the reason, purpose or philosophy behind the law or of a legal
principle as formulated by the legislative or the court (3) the law or principle itself.
c. Adjudicative Matters
d. Judicial Notice
e. Legislative Matters
43. Requisites of Judicial Notice.
a. The matter must be one of common and general knowledge
b. It must be well and authoritatively settled and doubtful or uncertain
c. It must be one which is not subject to a reasonable dispute.
d. Only A & B
e. All of the above
f. None of the above
44. When is Judicial Notice Discretionary?
a. Matters of public knowledge
b. Capable of unquestionable demonstration
c. Ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions
d. Only A & B
e. All of the above
f. None of the above
45. What are the requisites for admissibility of object evidence?
Object evidence must:
a. Be relevant to the fact in issue
b. Be authenticated before it is admitted
c. Not be hearsay
d. Not be privileged
e. Meet any additional requirement set by law
f. Only A, B, & C
g. Only B,C, & D
h. All of the above
46. __________________is tangible evidence that merely illustrates a matter of
importance in the litigation.
a. Corroborative Evidence
c. Demonstrative Evidence
e. Rebuttal Evidence
47. What are the requisites for admissibility of documentary evidence?
a. The document must be relevant
b. The document must be authenticated
c. Authenticated by a competent witness
d. Document is formally offered as evidence
e. Only A, B, & C
f. Only B,C, & D
g. All of the above
48. __________________________ is when the terms of agreement have been
reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and
there can be as between the parties and their successor-in-interest, no evidence
of such terms than contents of the written agreement.
a. Equipoise Rule
b. Electronic Evidence Rule
c. Parol Evidence Rule
d. Best Evidence Rule
e. None of the above
49. How do you prove the genuineness of handwriting?
a. The witness has seen the person write
b. The witness has seen writing purporting to be which the witness has acted
or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of
such person
c. By a comparison made by a witness or the court, with writings admitted or
treated as genuine by the party against whom the document is offered, or
proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge
d. Only A & B
e. Only B & C
f. All of the above
50. _________________may be presented in evidence without further proof, the
certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the
instrument or document involved.
a. Notarized Documents
b. Electronic Documents
c. Judicial Records
d. Judicial Admission
Andrew Ivan C. Niedo

1. Section 4, Rule 1 provides for non-applicability of the Rules of Court, including
necessarily the Rules on Evidence to certain specified proceedings. These Rules
shall not apply to:
a. Election cases, land registration, annulment, cadastral, and insolvency
proceedings only
b. Land registration, Election cases, cadastral, naturalization, and
insolvency proceedings and other cases not herein provided.
c. Land registration, Election cases, cadastral, naturalization, annulment, and
insolvency proceedings and other cases not herein provided.
d. None of the above
2. What is the scope of exclusionary rule?

a. The right against unreasonable search and seizure
b. The right to privacy and inviolability of communication
c. The righs of person under investigation for an offense
d. All of the above
3. What are the requisites for admissibility of evidence?

a. The evidence must be relevant
b. the evidence must competent
c. the evidence must be either competent or relevant
d. the evidence must be competent and relevant
4. A filed an action for recovery of ownership of a parcel of land against D. the

complaint alleged that A is the owner of the property. During trial, Mr. A testified
and adduced evidence that sometime in 1995, the property subject of the action
was bought by O from a certain M. D objected on the ground that the evidence is
irrelevant to support the claim of ownership of A. May A ask the court to
conditionally allow the testimony?
a. Yes. Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be immaterial
or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other facts to be
subsequently proved, such evidence may be received on the condition
that the other facts will be proved thereafter; otherwise, the evidence
given wil be stricken out. (Riano, evidence, supra at 30)
b. No. the court should not not allow the testimony of A. The evidence at the
time of its offer has already prescribed, hence immaterial and irrelevant to the
facts.
c. None of the above.
5. On what instance does evidence on collateral matters admitted?

a. In civil cases of moral character of a party is admissible, when it is not
pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case
b. In civil cases of moral character of a party is admissible, when it is
pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case
c. Evidence of the good character of a witness is admissible if his character has
been previously objected.
d. Evidence of the good character of a witness is admissible if his character has
not been previously impeached.
6. What is meant by circumstantial evidence?

a. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence that directly proves a fact in issue
through an inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence
established
b. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence that indirectly proves a fact in
issue through an inference which the fact finder draws from the
evidence established
c. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence that directly proves a fact in issue
through competent and relevant objects or testimonies which the fact finder
draws from the evidence established
d. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence that indirectly proves a fact in issue
through an offer of substantial circumstances which the fact finder draws from
the evidence established
7. What is meant by proof beyond reasonable doubt?

a. This the quantum of evidence that has application to criminal prosecutions.
b. It does not mean such degree of proof, as, excluding the possibility of error,
produces absolute certainty.
c. Only moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
d. All of the above
8. What are matters need not be proved?

a. Facts presumed
b. Facts not admitted or denied
c. Agreed and admitted facts
d. Material allegations
9. When is judicial notice discretionary?

a. Matters capable of questionable demonstration
b. Matters not ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions
c. Matters which are of public knowledge
d. All of the above
10. When may the court view an object or crime scene outside the courtroom?
a. Where the object is immovable or inconvenient to remove, the court may go
to the place where the object is located.
b. An inspection made outside the courtroom should be made in the presence of
the parties
c. At least the previous notice to them of the time and place thereof.
d. All of the above.
11. Post conviction DNA testing may be available without need of prior court order,
to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment
provided that:
a. A biological sample exist
b. Such sample is competent to the case
c. The testing would probably result to the upholding of the judgement of
conviction
d. It needs to have a prior court order because it violates the constitutional right
of a party against self-incrimination.
12. When is the best evidence rule applicable?

a. When the subject of the inquiry are the testimony made by a third party
b. When the subjects testimony are the documents in possession of the
adverse party
c. When the subject of the inquiry are the contents of the document, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document
d. When the subject of the inquiry are the contents of the adverse partys
testimony
13. What are the requisites for admissibility of documentary evidence?

a. The document must be competent
b. The document must be duly signed by the adverse party
c. The document must be authenticated by a clerk of court.
d. The document must be formally offered in evidence
14. Secondary evidence may be admitted only by laying the basis for its production
which requires compliance with:
a. The offeror must prove the execution and existence of the original document
b. The offeror must show the cause of its unavailability
c. The offeror must show that the unavailability was not due to his bad faith
15. What is the probative value of electronic documents?

a. Electronic evidence is considered as the functional equivalent of electronic
based documents. Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term of writing,
document record, instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing, such
term shall include an electronic document as defined in the rules.
b. Electronic evidence is considered as the functional equivalent of paper
based documents. Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term of
writing, document record, instrument, memorandum or any other form
of writing, such term shall include an electronic document as defined in
the rules.
c. Electronic evidence thru a leave of court is considered as the alternative of
paper based documents. Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term of
writing, document record, instrument, memorandum or any other form of
writing, such term shall include an electronic document as defined in the
rules.
d. None of the above.
16. Evidence to modify explain or add to the terms of the written agreement can be
introduced by a party if he puts in issue in his pleadings:
a. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement
b. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement
of the parties thereto
c. The validity of the written agreement
d. All of the above
17. Y was hired by a company named AAA as a general manager for its oil
exploration venture in Mindoro. The employment contract expressly provided that
Y was to receive a salary of !0,000.00php a month plus representation and
traveling expenses of 5,000.00php a month. AAA failed to pay and so Y filed an
action for specific performance of the employment contract. At the trial, AAA
attempted to prove, by oral testimony that the payment of salary to Y was subject
to the condition that AAAs oil exploration in Mindoro was already successful. Is
such oral testimony admissible?
a. No. under the parol evidence rule, no evidence of the terms of writing is
admissible other than the contents of the written agreement. Such
content cannot be modified, altered or explained by extrinsic or parol
evidence like oral testimony.(ROC,Rule 130, sec. 9)
b. No. under the corroborating evidence rule, no evidence of the terms of writing
is admissible other than the contents of the written agreement. Such content
cannot be modified, altered or explained by extrinsic or parol evidence like
oral testimony.
c. No. under the best evidence rule, no evidence of the terms of writing is
admissible other than the contents of the written agreement. Such content
oral testimony.
d. No. under the circumstantial evidence rule, no evidence of the terms of writing
is admissible other than the contents of the written agreement. Such content
oral testimony.
18. What is the importance of knowing whether a document is public or private?

a. Because a public document is inadmissible without proof of its due execution
and authenticity.
b. Because a public document is objectionable without proof of its due execution
and authenticity.
c. Because a public document is admissible without proof of its due
execution and authenticity.
d. Because a public document is questionable without proof of its due execution
and authenticity.
19. The records of public documents, when admissible for any purpose may be
evidenced by:
a. A copy thereof attested by the officer having the custody of the record or his
deputy
b. An official publication
c. A & B
20. What must the attestation of copies of public records or documents state?
a. An attestation of a copy must state that it is a correct copy of the original or a
specific part thereof, as the case may be.
b. it must be under the official seal of the attesting officer
c. if there be any or if he be a clerk of court having a seal of such court.
21. Who may not testify by reason of privileged communication?

a. Husband and wife
b. Physician and patient
c. A & B
22. A leading question is one which suggests to the witness the answer which the
examining party desires. It is generally not allowed, except:
a. When there is no difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a
witness who is a child of tender years, or is not of feeble mind.
b. Unwilling or hostile witness
c. Witness is an officer, director, or managing agent f a public or private
corporation or of a partnership of association which is not an adverse party.
23. For a dying declaration to be admissible, it must be:

a. that the declaration refers to the cause and circumstances surrounding
the death of the declarant and not of anyone else
b. That the declaration was made by said dying person under a disoriented
consciousness of his imminent death
c. That declaration can be a partial expression of all the declarant intended to
say
d. That the declaration is presented in a case where the declarants death is the
subject of inquiry
24. What are the requisites in order for common reputation to be admissible?
a. The common reputation involves facts of public or general interest more than
30 years old
b. That the reputation is ancient
c. That the reputation must come from persons in a position to know such
matters
d. A & B
e. All of the above
25. Under the present rule, family reputation or tradition may also be established
through entries in:
a. Family treasures
b. Family engravings or rings
c. Family bible
d. B & C
26. What are the requisites in order for commercial lists to be admissible?
a. Statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation
b. The statements must be contained in a well-documented files, not published
c. That compilation is not published for use by persons engaged in that
occupation
27. A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of law history, science

or art may be admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein
if:
a. The court has not taken judicial notice of it
b. A witness, who has an idea in the subject testifies that the writer of the
statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet.
c. A witness who is an expert in the subject, testifies that the writer of the
statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his
profession or calling as expert in the subject
d. A & C
28. Who is a child witness?
a. A child witness is any person who at the time of giving testimony is below 21
years for male and 18 years for female
b. A child witness is any person who at the time of giving of testimony is
found to be unable to fully take care of himself or protect himself from
abuse
c. A & B
d. All of the above
29. As a general rule, opinion of an ordinary witness is not admissible. Witnesses

must give the facts and not their inferences, conclusions or opinions except:
a. The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge
b. A handwriting with which he is familiar with
c. The witness mental sanity with whom he is acquainted
30. When is character evidence admissible in criminal cases?

a. The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged.
b. The prosecution may not prove the bad moral character of the accused
unless in rebuttal when the latter opens the issue by introducing evidence of
his good moral character.
c. As to the offended party, his good or bad moral character may be proved as
long as it tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense
charged.
31. What is the scope of the Rule on the Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. No.
04-07-SC)?
a. It shall not apply to all criminal and non-criminal proceedings involving child
witnesses
b. Victims of crime
c. Accused of a crime
d. Corroborating witness to a criminal case
e. B & C
32. Privies are person who are partakers or have an interest in any action or thing, or
any relation to another. What are the requisites for admission by privies?
a. There must an act, declaration or an omission by a predecessor in
interest
b. Act, declaration or omission must have occurred after he was holding the title
to the property
c. Act, declaration or omission must not be related to the property
d. None of the above.
33. What is an independent relevant statement?

a. An in court declaration which while having certain characteristics of hearsay
evidence, is not actually hearsay but is original evidence
b. These are statements which are relevant independently whether they
are true or not, it is also called apparent hearsay
c. Those statements of which the issues are not in the actual facts
d. Those statements which are not circumstantial of the fact in issue.
34. What are dying declarations?

a. Only oral which could be interpreted and testified by a witness thereto
b. Not a part of the res gestae as they were made after the startling occurrence
without the opportunity for the fabrication or concoction.
c. Are considered confidential communication between spouses
d. May be attacked on the ground that any of the requisites for its
admissibility are not present and the same may be impeached in the
same manner as the testimony of any other witness on the stand.
35. In spontaneous statements, there must be a startling occurrence and statement

must relate to the circumstances of the occurrence wherein the same should be
unconscious and unpremeditated. What are the factos to be considered in
determining spontaneity of a statement?
a. Time that elapsed between occurrence and the making of the statement
b. Condition of the declarant when he made the statement
c. Presence or absence of intervening occurrence
d. Nature and circumstances of the statement itself
e. All of the above
36. When could a Live-Link TV Testimony of a child applies?

a. If there is a circumstantial likehood that the child would suffer trauma
from testifying in the presence of the accused, his counsel or the
prosecution
b. Trauma may be a kind which substantially impair the truthfulness of the
childs testimony
c. Trauma must be a kind which would impair the completeness and
truthfulness of the childs testimony
d. All of the above
37. Pursuant to section 28 of the Rule on Examination of Child witness, an exception

in child abuse cases are:
a. Proponent of hearsay statement may not make known to the adverse party
the intention to offer such statement and its particulars
b. If the child is available, court shall require the child to be present at the
presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-examination by the
adverse party
c. The fact if unavailable may not be proved by the proponent and his hearsay
testimony must be included in another admissible evidence.
d. B & C
Under the Sexual abuse shield rule, there are evidence that are inadmissible in any
criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse.
38 what are these evidence?
a. Evidence not offered to prove that the alleged is not engaged in other sexual
behavior
b. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim is engaged in other sexual
behavior
c. Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim
d. A & C
39. what are the exceptions under this rule?

a. evidence of non-determinate sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove
that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury or the
likes.
b. evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to
prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury
or the likes.
c. evidence of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other
than the accused was the source of semen, injury or the likes.
d. A & B
40. Sec. 38, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides rules on objection, what are those
rules?
a. the ruling should be given immediately after the objection is made, unless the
court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented.
b. the reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated
c. reservation of a ruling by the court on an objection to the admissibility of
evidence, without subsequently excluding the same amount to a denial of an
objection
d. A & B only
e. All of the above
41. The rule on Repetition of an objection provides that a court may, motu proprio
threat the objection as a continuing one, and that an objection must be seasonably
made at the time it is formally offered, as long as:
a. objection prior to the formal offer is not premature and could be considered by
the court as basis for continuing one
b. objection after the formal offer is premature and could be considered by the
court as basis for a continuing one
c. objection prior to the formal offer is premature and could not be
considered by the court as basis for a continuing one.
d. objection after the formal offer is premature and could not be considered by
the court as basis for a continuing one.
42. In Striking out an answer, pursuant to section 39, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court; in
a motion to strike, the court may sustain an objection and order the answer given to be
striken off the record, if:
a. witness answers the questions before the adverse party had the opportunity to
object
b. such objection is found to be meritorious
c. A & B
d. none of the above
43. The court may also, upon motion, order the striking out of answers which are:
a. incompetent, irrelevant and improper
b. competent, relevant and proper
c. questionable, immaterial, and ambiguous
d. clear and convincing
44. the Judicial affidavit rule provides that it shall apply to all actions proceedings, and
incidents requiring the reception of evidence. In effect also applies to all courts other
than the Supreme Court and certain non judicial bodies. Pursuant to this rule, what
are the contents to be found?
a. name, age, residence, or business address and occupation of the witness.
b. name and address of the lawyer
c. the place where the examination is being held
d. all of the above
e. A & B only
45. When is character evidence admissible in criminal cases?
a. The accused may not prove his good moral character which is pertinent to
the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
b. The prosecution may not prove the bad moral character of the
accused unless in rebuttal when the latter opens the issue by
introducing evidence of his good moral character.
c. As to the offended party, his good or bad moral character may not be
proved as long as it tends to establish the probability or improbability of
the offense charged.
46. What are the situation/s where the judicial affidavit rule may apply in criminal cases?
a. the maximum penalty exceeds six (6) years
b. the maximum penalty does not exceed six (6) years
c. regardless of the penalty involved, with respect to the civil aspect of the
actions or where the accused agrees to use of the rule
d. all of the above
e. B & C only
47. Evidence to modify explain or add to the terms of the written agreement can be
introduced by a party if he puts in issue in his pleadings:
a. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement
b. The nature of the written agreement to express the agreement of the
parties thereto
c. The prescription of the written agreement
d. All of the above
48. AM No. 11-9-4-SC or the Paper Rule recognize that the judiciary uses excessive
quantities of costly paper, hence the Supreme Court issued the efficient use of paper
rule. Pursuant to this rule, where is it applicable?
a. this rule applies only in MTC and RTC
b. this rule applies in quasi judicial bodies
c. this rule applies in all courts and quasi judicial bodies under the
administrative supervision of the Supreme Court
d. this rule applies only to the supreme court
49. Secondary evidence may be admitted only by laying the basis for its production
which requires compliance with:
a. The offeror may not prove the execution and existence of the original
document
b. The offeror must show the cause of its unavailability
c. The offeror may not show that the unavailability was not due to his bad faith
50. In examining a child witness presumption of competence applies, wherein every

child is presumed to be a qualified witness, if you were the legal counsel of the
opposing party, how would you rebut the said presumption?
a. by capacity of observation, recollection, and communication
b. by mere challenging the intellectual capabilities of the child witness
c. by objection on the grounds of immateriality of the child witness statements
due to age.
d. none of the above.
CAYEN CERVANCIA CABIGUEN
1. The following shall be the effect of failure of submission of judicial affidavits and
exhibits on time except:
a. The party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and
exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their submission.
b. The judicial affidavits and exhibits submitted late shall be
accepted and admitted by court but shall require first the filing of
a notice and certification for the allowance of such in court.
c. The judicial affidavits and exhibit in effect could not be offered in
evidence.
d. If the waiver extends to the required affidavits of all the witnesses of a
party because all of the judicial affidavits were not filed and served,
then said party is deemed to have not presented his evidence-in-chief
for his case.
2. The following describes a leading question except:
a. A leading question is one that is framed in such a way that the

question indicates to the witness the answer desired by the party asking
said question.
b. Leading questions are not appropriate in the direct and re-direct
examinations particularly when the witness is asked to testify
about the major cause of action or defense.
c. Leading questions are allowed in cross and re-cross examinations. In
fact, leading questions are the types of questions that should be
employed in cross examinations.
d. Under the rule on the examination of a child witness, the court may
allow leading questions in all stages of examination of a child under the
condition that the same will further the interest of justice.
3. Under the Rules of Court, a witness may be impeached through the following
manners except:
a. By clear and convincing evidence.
b. By contradictory evidence.
c. By evidence that his reputation for truth, honesty and integrity is bad.
d. By evidence that he has made at other times inconsistent statements
with his present testimony.
4. In general, parol evidence rule is designed to give certainty to written

transactions, preserve the reliability and protect the sanctity of written agreements. For
said rule to apply there must be a writing. All but one of the following rules is correct:
a. All writings shall trigger the application of the parol evidence rule.
b. Parol evidence shall apply to written as well as to oral agreements
made between parties.
c. The writing that embodies the agreement of the parties shall be in a
particular form.
d. Parol evidence rule applies to wills.
5. A judicial admission requires no proof, however all of the following the elements
must be considered except:
a. The judicial admission must be made by a party to the case.
b. The admission to be judicial must be made in the course of the
proceedings in the same case.
c. A particular form of judicial admission is required by the courts
and material to the case.
d. The stipulations of the facts at the pre-trial of the case constitute
judicial admissions.
6. All but one of the following erroneously describes preponderance of evidence.

a. It is the evidence that is more convincing and credible than the one
offered by the adverse party.
b. It means greater or superior weight of evidence.
c. It requires that in order to establish a fact, the evidence should
constitute that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
d. It means that the evidence a s whole adduced by one side is superior
to that of the other.
7. Among the significant example of a disputable presumption under the Rules of
Court is the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. All but one of
the following shall not be applicable to this presumption.
a. Credence is given to prosecution witnesses, who are police

officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in
regular manner.
b. The exception to the preceding statement is when there is evidence to
the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of police officers or
deviation from the regular performance of their duties.
c. Frame up and extortion without clear and convincing evidence to
support the same is not deemed to sufficient to rebut the presumption
that their official duty has been regularly performed.
d. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties
will stand if the plaintiff failed to present clear and convincing
evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their
duty or that they were inspired by improper motive.
8. As between a private and public document, which of the following is admissible in

evidence without further proof of due execution or genuineness?
a. Documents acknowledged before a Notary Public in Hawaii

b. Certificate of baptism obtained from the records officer the parish
church.
c. Official record of the Philippine Embassy in Dubai, United Arab
Emirates certified by the Vice- Consul with official seal.
d. A clear and well-kept acknowledgment receipt dated July 13, 1985
signed by the creditor, showing payment of a loan, found among the
preserved file of the debtor.
9. The following matters are proper subjects of judicial notice except?
a. An administrative regulation or order pending effectivity.
b. Quezon City is located in the Natioinal Capital Region.
c. Municipal ordinances in force the municipalities where the MCTC sits.
d. Video conferencing or teleconferencing such as the use of Skype is
now a way of conducting business transactions.
10. In which of the following cases is the testimony in a case involving a deceased
barred by the Survivorship Disqualification Rule or Dead Man Statute?
a. The testimony of a mere witness who is neither a party to the case
nor is in privity with the latter.
b.) The testimony of an oppositor in a land registration case filed by the
decedents heirs.
c.) The testimony is offered to prove a claim less than what is established
under a written document signed by the decedent.
d.) Testimony against the heirs of the deceased defendant who are
substituted for the latter.
11. In a criminal case of murder by stabbing, the factum pobans is?
a. The act of stabbing.
b. The liability of the accused to causing death to his victim.
c. The knife used.
d. The fact that the accused fled.
12. The declaration of a dying person may be admissible in evidence for several
purposes such as being offered as a dying declaration, a statement part of res gestae
and or a dying declaration against interest. In such case, it is considered as an example
of?
a. Curative admissibility
b. Circumstantial evidence
c. Multiple admissibility
d. Corroborative evidence
13. Juan testifies that the gun marked as Exhibit A was the same weapon used in
shooting Kulas. The findings of the crime laboratory yielded that the same gun bears the
fingerprints of the accused Kanor. The result of the findings of the laboratory is an
example of?
a. Conclusive evidence
b. Positive evidence
c. Corroborative evidence
d. Newly discovered evidence
14. Which among the following is not a disputable presumption?
a. That a court or judge acting as such solely in the Philippines, was

acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction.
b. That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter.
c. That private transactions have been fair and regular
d. That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient
consideration.
15. Judicial notice can either be mandatory or discretionary. All but one of the
following is an example of a discretionary judicial notice.
a. The matter is of common knowledge.
b. The matter is capable of unquestionable demonstration.
c. The matter involves the laws of nation.
d. The matter must be settled beyond reasonable doubt.
16. Object evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. They can be
categorized as follows except one:
a. Unique objects or objects that have readily identifiable marks.
b. Tangible and unique objects which appeals indirectly to the senses
of the court.
c. Objects that are made unique.
d. Objects with no identifying marks and cannot be marked.
17. Judge Solo was on the verge of deciding whether or not he will allow the parties
in a case lodged before his sala to view the crime scene. Before his act of allowing the
parties to visit and inspect the scene all but one of the following must be observed.
a. The inspection must be made strictly only in the presence of the
parties.
b. A prior notice regarding the viewing should be furnished to all parties
concerned.
c. There must be previous knowledge of all the parties.
d. The viewing however is discretionary on the part of the judge, either to
grant or refuse such.
18. The following pertains the concept of the chain of custody rule embodied in
Section 21 of the Comprehensive Drug Act of 2002 except:
a. The purpose of the chain of custody rule is to preserve the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items.
b. The links in the chain of custody are the people who actually handled or
had custody of the seized items.
c. The fact of an unauthorized possession of illegal drugs shall be
sufficient to create moral certainty that would sustain the finding of
guilt.
d. The identity of the prohibited drug essentially should be established
beyond reasonable doubt.
19. In all but one of the following instances, the rule on DNA evidence shall apply:
a. Criminal actions
b. Administrative proceedings
c. Civil actions
d. Special proceedings
20. The Rules of Court provides that a documentary evidence to be admissible must
comply with the following requirements except:
a. The document must be relevant.
b. The document must be authenticated.
c. The document must be authenticated only by an expert witness.
d. The document must be formally offered in evidence.
21. When the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a document, the best evidence
admissible is the original document itself. This however is not an absolute rule. All but
one of the following are the exceptions to the best evidence rule.
a. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is

recorded in a public office.
b. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter produce it after
reasonable notice.
c. When the original has been lost, or destroyed or cannot be produced in
court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror.
d. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents
which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact
sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole.
22. Section 42 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court defines verbal act as?
a. Statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue and giving

it legal significance.
b. A statement that concerns a startling event, made by the declarant when the
declarant is still under stress from the startling event.
c. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the
declarant perceived the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, except
when made under circumstances indicating a lack of trustworthiness.
d. An act made by a person in response to a startling or shocking event or
condition. It is an unplanned reaction to a "startling event".
23. The party producing the document as genuine but which bears alteration after its
execution has the duty to account for any alterations found in a document purported to
be genuine. For such purpose, he may show any of the following except:
a. That the alteration was made with the consent of the parties affected by it.
b. That the alteration was properly or innocently made.
c. That the alteration was made by another with his concurrence.
d. That the alteration did not in any way changed the meaning or language of
the instrument.
24. Atty. Reshyl asked the court for her to be allowed in presenting and offering
secondary evidence. Under the Rules of Court Atty. Reshyls evidence may be admitted
only by laying the basis for its production. Specifically, laying such basis requires all of
the following except?
a. Atty. Reshyl, being the offeror must prove the execution and existence of
the original document.
b. She must show the cause of its unavailability.
c. Atty. Reshyl must show that the unavailability was not due to her bad faith.
d. She must present witnesses that such original document has been
lost, destroyed or otherwise cannot be produced in court.
25. In the actual case of Estrada vs Desierto, 356 SCRA 108, the Court held that the
alleged admissions made by President Estrada when his options dwindled when the
Armed Forces of the Philippines withdrew its support from him as President and
Commander-in-Chief and his act of not objecting to the suggestions that he should
consider a dignified exit or resignation is a clear example and manifestation of what kind
of admission?
a. Admission by silence.
b. Adoptive admission
c. Extrajudicial admission
d. Admission against interest.
26. A motion to strike out an answer in case a witness answers the question before
the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same and such
objection is found to be meritorious is allowed and may be availed in the following
instances except?
a. When the answer is premature
b. When the answer is unresponsive
c. When the witness becomes unavailable for direct examination
d. When the witness; answers are irrelevant, incompetent or otherwise
improper.
27. In a suit for a collection of sum of money, Bam was allowed to introduce
evidence that Sarah did not pay her debt as shown by her refusal to pay her
indebtedness to Hazel, Sharon and Anne. Sarah however, may introduce evidence that
she paid her debts to Jun, Cha and Kennard. The act of Sarah is considered under the
law as?
a. Multiple admissibility
b. Corroborative admissibility
c. Conditional admissibility
d. Curative admissibility
28. The Offer of Proof Rule or the tender of excluded evidence rule provides for the
following except?
a. Where the evidence involved is documentary or object evidence, the
tender is made by having the document or object attached to or made part of
the record.
b. If the evidence excluded is testimonial, the offeror may state for the record
the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the
substance of the proposed testimony.
c. The tender is meant to be a mere manifestation to the court in mere
general terms.
d. The offer must make reference to the details of the excluded testimony or
excluded document.
29. Considering the qualifications required of a would-be witness, who among the
following is INCOMPETENT to testify?
a. A mental retardate.
b. A person who is deaf and dumb.
c. A person under the influence of drugs when the event he is asked to
testify on took place
d. A person convicted of perjury who will testify as an attesting witness
to a will.
30. During trial, plaintiff 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. No, it should admit it conditionally until its relevance is shown.
b. No, it should reserve its ruling until the relevance is shown.
c. Yes, since irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
d. Yes, since the plaintiff could anyway subsequently present the evidence
anew.
31. Which of the following admissions made by a party in the course of judicial
proceedings is considered as a judicial admission?
a. Admissions made in a complaint superseded by an amended complaint.
b. Admissions made in a pleading signed by the party and his counsel
intended to be filed.
c. Admission made by counsel in open court.
d. An admission made in a pleading in another case between the same
parties.
32. In a suit to enforce a foreign judgment what defenses may be raised?
a. That extrinsic fraud afflicted the judgment.
b. That the judgment is contrary to Philippine procedural rules.
c. None, the judgment being entitled to full faith and credit as a matter of
general comity among nations
d. That the foreign court erred in the appreciation of the evidence.
33. April charged her husband, Jed, with bigamy for a prior subsisting marriage with
Mel. Capril presented Josh and James, neighbors of Jed and Mel in Puerto Princesa
City, to prove, first, that Jed and Mel cohabited there and, second, that they established
a reputation as husband and wife. Can April prove the bigamy by such evidence?
a. No, the circumstantial evidence cannot overcome the lack of direct
evidence in any criminal case.
b. Yes, the circumstantial evidence is enough to support a conviction for
bigamy.
c. No, at least one direct evidence and two circumstantial evidence are
required to support a conviction for bigamy.
d. No, the circumstantial evidence is not enough to support a
conviction for bigamy.
34. For the testimony or deposition at a former proceeding as contemplated in

Section 47 of the Rules of Court to apply, the following except one must be satisfied.
a. The witness id dead or unable to testify.
b. The former case involved the same subject as that in the present
case, with the same cause of action.
c. The issue being testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same
issue involved in the present case.
d. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the
former case.
35. All but one of the following pertains to the disqualification of witness by privileged
communication in an attorney-client relationship.
a. The privilege is extended to communications made for the purpose of

securing the services of counsel even if the counsel later refuses the
professional relationship.
b. The privilege shall apply only in the course of actual professional
employment.
c. The communication may be oral or written but is deemed to extend to
other forms of conduct like physical demonstration as long as they are
intended to be confidential.
d. It is commonly acknowledged that the privilege does not extend to
communications where the clients purpose is the furtherance of a future
intended crime or fraud.
36. Corpus delicti refers to all but one of the following:
a. To the fact of the commission of the crime charged.
b. To the ransom money in a crime of kidnapping with ransom.
c. To the body or the substance of a crime.
d. To material substance of a crime
37. Onyok witnessed the killing of Benny by Joaquin. A subpoena was served to
Onyok but because of the fear for his life, he refuses to testify in court. Can the court
punish Onyok for contempt?
a. Yes, since litigants need help in presenting their cases.
b. No, since no person can be compelled to be a witness against another.
c. Yes, since public interest in justice requires his testimony.
d. No, since Ramon has a valid reason for not testifying.
38. In all but one of the following instances, the quantum of evidence was
WRONGLY applied?
a. To rebut the presumptive validity of a notarial document, substantial
evidence.
b. In Writ of Amparo cases, substantial evidence.
c. To overcome a disputable presumption, clear and convincing evidence.
d. To satisfy the burden of proof in civil cases, preponderance of evidence.
39. To prove payment of a debt, Celine testified that she heard Rezel say, as the
latter was handing over money to Marivic that it was in payment of debt. Is Celines
testimony admissible in evidence?
a. Yes, since Rezels statement and action, subject of Celines testimony,

constitutes a verbal act.
b. No, since Celines testimony of what Ambo said and did is hearsay.
c. Yes, since what Rezel said and did is an independently relevant
statement.
d. No, since what Rezel said and did was not in response to a startling
occurrence.
40. In a civil action for specific performance, the presentation of the original Deed of
Sale as an evidence of the terms of the agreement between the parties is considered
as?
a. Positive evidence
b. Competent evidence
c. Credible evidence
d. Direct evidence
41. Lola Flora testified that Cardo, charged with robbery, has committed bag-
snatching and theft five times on the same barangay in the last eight months. Can the
court admit the testimony of Lola Flora as evidence against Cardo?
a. No, since evidence of guilt of a past crime is not evidence of guilt of a

present crime.
b. Yes, as evidence of his past propensity for committing robbery.
c. No, since there is no showing that Ben witnessed the past three robberies.
d. Yes, as evidence of a pattern of criminal behavior proving his guilt of the present
offense.
42. In a murder case, Ras testified that she saw Sam hacked Tom several times
causing the latters demise. The testimony of Ras is an example of?
a. Rebuttal evidence
b. Circumstantial evidence
c. Positive evidence
d. Prima facie evidence
43. The burden of proof or the onus probandi refers to the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the
amount of evidence required by law. In an administrative proceeding, the burden of
proof lies with the:
a. Complainant who must be able to show such by preponderance of evidence.

b. Party who alleges the fact.
c. One who filed the action who must be able to show this by
substantial evidence.
d. Employer who must be able to show that acts against him was made for a
valid and just cause.
44. Reign testified that a week after the robbery Arkyn, one of the accused, told her
that Elo was one of those who committed the crime with her. Is Reigns testimony
regarding what Arkyn told her admissible in evidence against Elo?
a. No, since Arkyn did not make the statement during the conspiracy
b. Yes, since the statement is part of the res gestae.
c. No, since it is hearsay.
d. Yes, since it constitutes admission against a co-conspirator.
45. Which of the following CANNOT be disputably presumed under the rules of
evidence?
a. The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between.
b. That a person is innocent of a crime or wrong.
c. That the thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with
things of that nature.
d. That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.
The Rules of Court provides that character evidence is admissible in all but one of the
following instances
a. When it is evidence of the good character of a witness even prior to

impeachment.
b. In criminal cases, the accused may prove his good moral character if
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
c. In criminal cases, the bad moral character of the offended party may not
be proved.
d. In criminal cases, the prosecution may prove the bad moral character of
the accused to prove his criminal predisposition.
According to Section 3, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, all of the following are the rights
and obligations of a witness except?
a. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue.

b. To be protected from irrelevant, improper or insulting questions, and from
harsh or insulting demeanor.
c. Not to be detained except when the judge requires.
d. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it to be
the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be
presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final
conviction for an offense.
48. Niezel a partner in the Kalayaan Ltd., after the partnership is dissolved and
liquidated, admits before a police investigator that she and her partners were engaged
in smuggling of highly dutiable imported cigarettes while the partnership was operating
a buy and sell business. The admission made by Niezel is an example of?
a. Adoptive admission
b. Admission by an agent or partner
c. Admission by a conspirator
d. Admission by privies
49. Which of the following is NOT REQUIRED of a declaration against interest as an
exception to the hearsay rule?
a. At the time he made said declaration he was unaware that the same was
contrary to his aforesaid interest.
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. The declaration relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant.
50. The following are the effects and consequences of an order allowing new trial
except?
a. The evidence taken upon the subsequent trial, if material and competent,
shall remain in use.
b. The court shall vacate the judgment as well as the entire proceedings had in
the case.
c. The courts decision shall be held in suspension until the defendant could
show at the reopening of trial that it has to be abandoned.
d. The court shall maintain the part of its judgment that is unaffected and void
the rest.
JUMAQUIO, JAYVEE ANNE T.
1. Marco shot Polo 3 times with his gun in a dark alley of Quiapo, Manila. With the
thought that the victim was already dead, Marco fled the scene. Nilo, a passer-
by, immediately attended to Polo who uttered the words, Walangyang Marco
yan, ginawa nya to, and brought him to the hospital. The victim did not die. But
unfortunately for Marco, he was caught by policemen who were running rounds
around the area. May Polos statement be admissible in evidence against
Marco?
a. Yes, as part of res gestae if there is no showing in the records that the victim was
under a consciousness of an impending death at the time of his declaration that the
accused was the one who shot him
b. Yes, as part of res gestae if it was made shortly after a startling occurrence
and under the influence thereof
c. Yes, as a dying declaration since the rule provides that the declarant does not
necessarily have to die. His impending death is already deemed sufficient.
d. Yes, as a dying declaration since the victim in this case was under
consciousness of an impending death. The immediate action of bringing him to the
hospital was only a supervening circumstance.
2. If evidence is admissible, does it necessarily mean that it has probative value?

a. Yes, because its admission is a guarantee of its being considered or believed by
the court.
b. No, because admissibility of evidence has nothing to do with its probative
value or weight.
c. Yes, because admissibility of evidence always goes together with its probative
value, or weight. Evidence must be both admissible and probable.
d. No, because an evidence, in order to be admissible, must not only be given
probative value or weight. It must also be both relevant and competent.
3. Petra borrowed money from Juana amounting to Php 10,000 evidenced by a

promissory note, signed by both of them. Petra made 2 photocopies of said note, one
for her, and one for Juana. She entrusted the original copy of the promissory note to her
counsel, Atty. Kulasa, for safekeeping purposes. On one fateful night, the copy given to
the counsel was destroyed when the law office was completely burned down. How then
shall Atty. Kulasa prove that Petra borrowed money from Juana?
a. There can be no way of proving the act of borrowing the money absent the
original copy of the promissory note since the original is always the best evidence a s a
rule.
b. A photocopy of the original is sufficient as long as the adverse party will be
notified about it.
c. It may be proved by a photocopy as long as Petra lays the basis for the
introduction of secondary evidence, which are the existence of the original and
its loss without bad faith on her part.
d. The act of borrowing money can be supported by oral testimony of witness, if
there are any.
4. The party producing the document as genuine but which bears alterations after
its execution has the duty to account for any alteration found in a document purported to
be genuine. He must show any of the following, except:
a. That the alteration was made by another with his concurrence
b. That the alteration did not in any way change the meaning or language of the
instrument
c. That the alteration was properly or innocently made
d. That the alteration was made with the consent of the affected parties
5. As a rule, a leading question may not be allowed. Below, however, are the
instances wherein it could be allowed, except:
a. On preliminary matters
b. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing
agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is
an adverse party
c. On direct and cross-examination
d. Of an unwilling or hostile witness
6. JJ made a confession with respect to the arson case that he is involved in. May
this confession be admissible against his co-accused, KK?
a. Yes, since a confession is a declaration of an accused acknowledging not only
his guilt, but also his co-accused, if there are any, of the offense charged, which may be
given in evidence against them.
b. No, a confession cannot be used as evidence against a co-accused for the
same is considered hearsay.
c. Yes, if the confession is accompanied by any other evidence which will support
such fact.
d. No, a confession cannot be used as evidence against a co-accused absent any
conclusive evidence with respect to such matter.
7. The following are instances where there is disputable presumption, except:
a. That of the tenants title at the time of the commencement of the relation of
landlord and tenant
b. That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere,
was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction
c. That prior rents or instalments had been paid when a receipt for the later ones is
produced
d. That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a
particular person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary
to perfect the title of such person or his successor-in-interest
8. UU was charged with the crime of theft of a red Toyota car. The value was not
shown at the trial. Can he still be convicted of such offense absent its valuation?
a. No, because the valuation of the thing taken in case of theft is material.
b. Yes, because the court may take judicial notice that the value of said car is
more than a hundred thousand.
c. No, because the law requires that in the case of theft, the value of the object
must be provided in order to determine the amount of damages to be awarded.
d. Yes, because what is punishable in the crime of theft is the taking of the thing
itself and having control over it.
9. May a witness be disqualified on the ground of political, or religious belief or

interest?
a. Yes, because it is a ground for disqualification of a witness as provided by law.

b. No, because such ground is a violation of ones constitutional rights.
c. Yes, because it is an exercise of police power.
d. No, because the law provides that it shall not be a ground for
disqualification unless otherwise provided.
10. LL was charged with rape of MM, a young girl, whose age was proven by
testimonies of the MM herself, her grandmother and on the judges assumption based
on her appearance. LL was then convicted of said crime. Was the evidence sufficient?
a. No. The age of the victim must be indubitably proved by the prosecution
since it is an essential element of statutory rape.
b. Yes. Conviction based on oral testimony as to age is already deemed sufficient,
as provided by the rules on evidence.
c. No. The age of the victim must be corroborated by documentary evidence alone.
d. Yes. The oral testimonies are conclusive evidence of victims age.
11. The prosecution presented in evidence a newspaper clipping of the report to the
reporter who was present during the press conference stating that Lucia admitted the
robbery. Can the newspaper clipping be held admissible against Lucia?
a. Yes, the statement made by Lucia may be held admissible against her
under Rule 130, Section 26 which states that the act, declaration or omission of a
party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against said party.
b. No, unless it is proven that the statement that Lucia made was relevant and
competent to her case.
c. Yes, because a newspaper clipping, which is a form of documentary evidence, is
the best evidence to support this case.
d. No, because the newspaper clipping may be regarded as hearsay evidence
which, under Rule 130, Section 36, is not admissible in evidence.
12. Parole evidence is an:

a. Agreement included in the document
b. Oral agreement not included in the document
c. Agreement not included in the document
d. Oral agreement in the document
13. As a rule, suppression of evidence has the effect that if presented, it would be
adverse to the one who suppressed it. It is, however, not absolute, as it admits of the
following exceptions, except:
a. It is merely corroborative
b. When the suppression is an exercise of a privilege
c. It is at the disposal of both parties
d. There is wilful suppression
14. PP was charged with illegal recruitment of (15) people. During the trial of the
case, only 8 were presented. He was, however, convicted of having recruited (10). He
now questions his conviction contending that the trial court violated his right to confront
the witnesses against him. Decide.
a. The contention is not correct. The Rules on Evidence provides for the
compulsory presentation of a complainant as a witness.
b. The contention is not correct. The accused cannot question his conviction in this
case as it has already become final and executory.
c. The contention is not correct. Compulsory presentation of complainant as a
witness must be accompanied by their corresponding affidavits.
d. The contention is not correct. Confrontation applies only to witnesses who
actually testify in a trial against the accused.
15. A vicarious admission is considered an exception to the hearsay rule. It,

however, does not cover:
a. Judicial admission
b. Admission by a privy
c. Adoptive admission
d. Admission by a conspirator
16. AA and BB are married. BB, suspecting that her husband was cheating on her,
raided his office and obtained documents to show that he has a mistress. Are the
documents admissible in evidence?
(a) Yes, the documents are relevant and not excluded by any of the rules of
evidence or by the law.
(b) Yes, because its credibility is a matter for the court to appreciate.
(c) No, it is inadmissible because it is illegally obtained by the wife. The husband
was not caught in flagrante delicto.
(d) No, because the evidence is obtained in violation of the husbands
constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence.
17. May a party impeach his own witness?

a. No, on the ground of estoppel.
b. As a general rule, no, except if the witness is hostile or if he/she is an
adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private
corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.
c. As a general rule, no, except if contradictory evidence is presented.
d. No, since there is no provision of the law or of the Rules of Court that would
prevent a party to impeach his own witness.
18. CC was presented as a witness against DD in a crime of homicide. DD failed to

cross-examine the witness because of lack of material time. CC did not appear
anymore. May the testimony of CC identifying DD as the perpetrator of the crime be
admissible in evidence?
(a) No, because DD had no opportunity to cross-examine or confront him at

the time of the identification.
(b) Yes, because DDs failure to cross-examine CC was not the latters fault.
(c) No, because it is subject to the condition that the testimonys connection with
other facts subsequently to be proved will be established.
(d) Yes, because the testimony of CC is relevant and competent to the case.
19. The following are the requisites for the admissibility of documentary evidence,
except:
a. Document must be relevant
b. Evidence must be authenticated
c. Document must be authenticated by an expert witness
d. Document must be formally offered in evidence
20. EE filed a complaint against FF who filed an answer with admission. The
complaint was dismissed. State the effect of FFs admission in his responsive pleading.
(a) The admission of FF in his responsive pleading has no effect at all.

(b) Admission made in this case, although dismissed, is still considered a judicial
admission
(c) Admission made in responsive pleadings to claims that have been
dismissed is not judicial admissions, but they are merely extrajudicial
admissions.
(d) The effect of the admission made in this case could not be determined due to
insufficient facts.
21. May a person who has been convicted of a crime be a witness?

a. No, because any statement he makes in relation to the crime may no longer
qualify as a credible one, on account of his history and record.
b. Yes, because the fact that he has been previously convicted of a crime
does not necessarily disqualify him as a witness for he may still prove to be a
truthful one.
c. No, because the law strictly provides for the prohibition of a person convicted of a
crime to be a witness.
d. Yes, as long as he be a witness for a crime unrelated to his previous offense.
22. During the trial, GG moved for the production of a document. Is it obligatory for
him to offer it in evidence?
a. No, because the offer of evidence is immaterial in this case.

b. No, because a party who calls for the production of a document and
inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence.
c. Yes, because it does not admit any liability on GGs part even if it is offered in
evidence.
d. Yes, because it is mandated by law.
23. May a person over eighteen years old be considered as a child?

a. Yes, in child abuse cases, if found by the court that he is unable to fully
take care of himself or protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation,
or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.
b. Yes, in certain cases, if upon the reasonable judgement or assessment of the
court.
c. Yes, in child abuse cases, provided that the child or his guardian assents that he
be admitted as one who is unable to fully take care of himself or if he is mentally
disabled.
d. Yes, in certain cases where the law itself strictly provides for its applicability.
24. Is the rule, a document written in unofficial language shall not be admitted as
evidence, absolute?
a. No, so long as it is accompanied by a translation into English or Filipino.
b. Yes, for it may be treated as a mere scrap of paper.
c. No, because said rule may be relaxed upon discretion of court.
d. Yes, for it may prejudice the adverse parties
25. HH filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of his marriage with II on the ground
of psychological incapacity. Can he testify on a confidential psychiatric evaluation report
on his wife without offending the privileged communication rule?
(a) Yes, such testimony would not offend the privileged communication rule since
there is no prohibition of said matter.
(b) Yes, such testimony would not offend the privileged communication rule since
it is material to the case.
(c) Yes, such testimony would not offend the privileged communication rule since
it is relevant to the case.
(d) Yes, such testimony would not offend the privileged communication
rule since it is a civil case of one against the other.
26. When is there a need to prove the motive in the commission of the offense?
a. It becomes material only when the evidence is conclusive or amply direct, and
there is no doubt whether a crime has been committed or whether the accused has
committed it.
b. It becomes material only when the evidence is conclusive or indirect, and there is
no doubt whether a crime has been committed or whether the accused has committed
it.
c. It becomes material only when the evidence is inconclusive or not circumstantial,
and there is doubt whether a crime has been committed or whether the accused has
committed it.
d. It becomes material only when the evidence is inconclusive or
circumstantial, and there is doubt whether a crime has been committed or
whether the accused has committed it.
27. XX confided to Director Juan that he committed adultery. Is the given statement
a. Yes, since the given statement is relevant evidence in the case of adultery.
b. No. Director Juan is not a peace officer or investigating officer and is, therefore,
not a competent witness. There is a violation of the constitutional right to remain silent
or to counsel.
c. Yes. Director Juan is not a peace officer or investigating officer and is,
therefore, a competent witness. There is no violation of the constitutional right to
remain silent or to counsel.
d. No, since the given statement is irrelevant in the case of adultery.
28. In examining forged documents, are the testimonies of handwriting experts

mandatory?
a. Yes, because an opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge,
skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence.
b. No, because a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on their
testimonies since judges must also exercise independent judgement in
determining the genuineness of the signature in question.
c. Yes, as far as forged documents are concerned.
d. No, because the judge alone must decide on said matter. After all, the decision is
all up to him.
29. YY, an accused in a murder case, admitted his guilt while being interviewed on
TV. State the effect of such admission.
a. An admission by the accused of his participation in a murder case before
the presence of the TV crew and reporters is indicative of voluntariness of such
admission.
b. An admission by the accused of his participation in a murder case before the
presence of the TV crew and reporters has no effect at all to the case.
c. An admission by the accused of his participation in a murder case before the
presence of the TV crew and reporters increases the penalty of said accused.
d. An admission by the accused of his participation in a murder case before the
presence of the TV crew and reporters may not be given in evidence against him.
30. May a person be convicted on the basis of hearsay evidence?

a. No, since the law provides that a witness can only testify to those facts that
he knows of his personal knowledge.
b. As a general rule, no. However, there are certain cases wherein this rule could
be relaxed.
c. Yes, since this is discretionary upon the court.
d. As a general rule, yes. However, the witness should have been presented in
court to prove the truth of the matter surrounding the appellants alleged involvement in
the crime.
31. If there is an inconsistency between an affidavit and the testimony, which shall
prevail?
a. The affidavit shall prevail because being taken ex parte, it is complete and
accurate.
b. The testimony shall prevail because it is always complete and accurate, being
taken ex parte or not.
c. The affidavit shall prevail because a testimony, being taken ex parte, is almost
incomplete and inaccurate.
d. The testimony shall prevail because an affidavit, being taken ex parte, is
almost incomplete and inaccurate.
32. Suppose a person has already been convicted under a final and executory
judgement, may he still avail of DNA testing?
a. No, because the rule on DNA testing does not allow a post-conviction DNA
testing.
b. Yes, because post-conviction DNA testing is allowed as long as a relevant
biological sample exists.
c. No, since the case has already attained res judicata.
d. Yes, so long as a relevant biological sample exists and that the subsequent
test would result in the reversal or modification of the judgement of conviction.
33. Lisa filed an action against Ana, the administratrix of the estate of the decedent
Minda, for recovery of title of a house located in Baguio, which is a part of the latters
estate. Lisa presented witness Nelia during trial who testified that she was present when
Lisa mortgaged said property to Minda, with the agreement that she will get it back in 2
months. Ana objected to the admission of Nelias testimony. Should Anas objection be
sustained?
a. Yes, the objection should be sustained because the witness is disqualified to

testify. An administrator under the rule on survivorship disqualification or dead mans
statute, could not testify on such matters.
b. No, the objection should not be sustained. Those disqualified under the
dead mans statute or the survivorship disqualification rule are parties or
assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf case is prosecuted.
Said witness is not one of those enumerated under the rule.
c. Yes, the objection should be sustained because oral testimony is not admissible
in evidence in estate proceedings.
d. No, the objection should not be sustained because the testimony was given by a
party not privy to the case.
34. When is good or bad moral character of the decedent in a homicide case
allowed?
a. Character evidence is allowed in all cases of homicide.

b. Character evidence is allowed only to show that is has produced a reasonable
belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused. No justifiable conviction for a
prompt defensive action was necessary.
c. It is allowed only to show that it has produced a reasonable belief of
imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a
prompt defensive action was necessary.
d. It applies only when the act was committed through treachery.
35. Can the prosecution prove the bad moral character of the accused?
a. Yes, but only in rebuttal.

b. Yes, but only through documentary evidence.
c. Yes, but only in certain crimes.
d. Yes, at all times, especially when pertinent to the offense charged.
36. In a prosecution for rape, the defense portrayed the victim as a disobedient and
wayward child. Does this then affect her credibility?
a. Yes, because moral character is material in the prosecution and conviction of

persons accused of rape, as even prostitutes can be the victim of rape.
b. No, because moral character is immaterial in the prosecution and conviction of
persons accused of rape.
c. Yes, because moral character is material and relevant in the prosecution and
conviction of persons accused of rape, as even prostitutes can be the victim of rape.
d. No, because moral character is immaterial in the prosecution and
conviction of persons accused of rape, as even prostitutes can be the victim of
rape.
37. If a person who made a dying declaration did not die immediately, is the dying
declaration still admissible?
a. Yes, since it can be admitted as part of the res gestae having been made before
the impending death.
b. Yes, since the rule does not require that the person should be at the time in
the throes of death, or that he should die immediately, or within any specified
time thereafter, in order to give the declaration probative force.
c. Yes, since the occurrence of a dying declarants death immediately thereafter is
not indispensable.
d. Yes, if the dying declaration made expresses in full all that he intended to say as
conveying his meaning in respect of such fact.
38. How may an admission be contradicted?

a. An admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made
b. An admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake.
c. An admission may be contradicted only by an adverse testimony.
d. An admission may be contradicted only by an adverse testimony or by showing
that no such admission was made.
39. As a rule, the attorney-client privilege precludes inquiries into the fact that the
lawyer was consulted. Is the rule absolute?
a. Yes, because attorney-client relationship is a very sensitive matter that must not
be compromised with.
b. No, because non-privileged information, such as the identity of the client,
is protected if its revelation would necessarily reveal privileged information.
c. Yes, because any exchange between a lawyer and his client is considered
privilege at all times.
d. No, because the privilege depends upon the nature of the consultation itself.
40. ZZ offered to plead guilty to a lower offense, but later, withdrew it. Is it admissible
in evidence against him?
a. No, because the law provides that a plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an accepted
offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against the
accused who made the plea or offer.
b. No, because the law provides that a plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an
unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense, has no effect at all.
c. No, because the law provides that a plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an
unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense, is not admissible in
evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer.
d. No, because the law provides that a plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an accepted
offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense is indeterminate of its admissibility.
41. If one spouse kills the other spouse, what is the best proof of their relationship?
a. Testimony of accused-appellant
b. Marriage certificate
c. Testimony of ascendants and descendants within the 4th civil degree
d. Marriage license
42. MM, an accused in an illegal recruitment case, was convicted. He now questions
his conviction since complainants NN and OO failed to present the receipts that he
allegedly issued. Is his contention correct?
a. Yes, the Rules of Evidence as well as the Statute of Frauds provide that in order
to prove the existence of recruitment agreements and the procurement of fees in illegal
recruitment, the presentation of receipts is required.
b. No, the absence of receipts in a case for illegal recruitment is not fatal, as
long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonial evidence
that the accused has been engaged in illegal recruitment.
c. Yes, the absence of receipts in such a case is fatal since it was held that it
necessarily follows that the appellant has probably not accepted or received such
payments.
d. No, the absence of receipts is not fatal in this case as long as there is a
competent and credible documentary evidence that will prove that the accused has
been engaged in illegal recruitment.
43. How may the examination of a witness be done?
a. It shall be done in open court, where taking an oath or affirmation is deemed

unnecessary.
b. It shall be done in the presence of the adverse parties.
c. It shall be done in the presence of the judge hearing the case, even in the
absence of the adverse parties.
d. It shall be done in open court, under oath or affirmation.
44. Notarized documents may be presented in evidence without further proof, the
certificate of acknowledgement being prima facie evidence of the execution of the
instrument or document involved. How may you overcome such presumption?
a. Substantial evidence
b. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
c. Preponderance of evidence
d. Clear and convincing evidence
45. What is the effect if a witness is not impeached on cross-examination with a

statement that he made prior to his testimony?
a. His testimony must be taken as any other testimony, with the presumption
of truthfulness as it was given under oath.
b. The trial court may motu proprio use a joint affidavit, which has more strength
than testimony given in open court.
c. A testimony given by a witness who was not impeached has no presumption of
truthfulness.
d. The trial court may motu proprio use a joint affidavit, as well as other supporting
documents, to corroborate the testimony given by said witness in open court.
46. RR was presented as a witness by Atty. SS without prior offer of his testimony.
He was allowed by the court to do so. Atty. TT did not object but later on contended that
the testimony is inadmissible. Is Atty. TTs contention tenable?
a. No, because there is already a waiver of the requirement of Rule 132,

Sections 34 and 35, pertaining to offer of evidence, in this case.
b. No, because the rule on estoppel applies.
c. Yes, because the law does not provide for any prescription with respect to raising
an objection.
d. Yes, because the general rule that the court shall consider no evidence which
has not been formally offered under Rule 132, Section 34, is absolute.
47. Is a mentally retarded person disqualified from being a witness?
a. Yes, it automatically renders the victim disqualified from being a witness because
said condition lessens his credibility as a witness.
b. No, it does not automatically render the victim disqualified from being a
witness so long as he is capable of perceiving and makes known his perception
to others.
c. Yes, because the law provides for his disqualification.
d. No, because mental retardation does not impair his credibility as a witness so
long as he is assisted by a competent counsel.
48. A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written
agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading the following, except:
a. Validity of the written agreement
b. Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors-in-interest
after the execution of the written agreement
c. Failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement
of the parties thereto, with wills excluded
d. Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement
49. Marcela is the child of the spouses Mar and Mikaela. Mar filed a civil case
against his wife for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage. Marcela, Mar and Louisa, a
doctor of medicine who used to treat Mikaela, all testified during the trial. Mikaela
objected that her husband cannot testify against here on the ground of the marital
privilege rule. Was her objection tenable?
a. No, because the rule on marital privilege does not apply to a civil case by
one against the other.
b. Yes, because the rule on marital privilege covers both civil and criminal cases, as
long as it is by one against the other.
c. No, because the objection made is insufficient absent any documentary evidence
to support the matter.
d. Yes, because the objection was timely made. Moreover, it is relevant and
material to the case.
50. Is a witness bound to answer all questions asked of him?
a. Yes, because it is a well-settled rule that a witness has an obligation to answer

questions, although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him.
b. Yes, but only if the witness is also the accused.
c. No, if the question tends to subject him to a penalty for an offense or if it
will degrade his reputation.
d. No, so long as he is assisted by a competent counsel.
Violeta L. Miralles
1. The Rules of Court defines evidence as the means, sanctioned by the rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. Based on
the tenor of the definition, which of the following is considered evidence?
a. The testimony of a witness who swears that the accused killed the victim
because his ever truthful boyhood friend told him so.
b. In a civil case, for a collection of sum of money, the testimony of an eyewitness
that the debtor had frequent bouts of dizziness.
c. Sole testimony of a rape victim, credible, convincing and consistent with
human nature and normal course of things.
d. A community tax receipt to prove the identity of a person who wishes to have his
document notarized.
2. The burden of proof, under the clear terms of Sec 1, Rule 131, is the duty of a
party to present evidence not only to establish a claim but also a defense. Which of the
following statements is in consonance with the principles of burden of proof?
a. In a labor case, the burden of proving payment of minimum wage by the
employer to the employee is on the employee.
b. In an eminent domain case, the local government that seeks to expropriate
private property must prove that the elements for valid exercise of eminent
domain have been complied with.
c. In suits against common carrier, the passenger has the burden of proving the
common carriers observance of ordinary diligence.
d. Where the plaintiff alleged non-payment of debt, the burden to prove payment as
a general rule rests on the creditor.
3. The function of judicial notice is to abbreviate litigation by the admission of

matters that need no evidence because judicial notice is a substitute for formal proof of
a matter of evidence. The following are matters subject to mandatory judicial notice,
except:
a. Law of nations
b. Foreign laws
c. Existence and territorial extent of states
d. Laws of nature
4. The rule against hearsay testimony rests mainly on the ground that there was no
opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Exceptions to hearsay rule are hearsay but
they are deemed admissible hearsay for certain reasons. A dying declaration is an
evidence of the highest order. The following are the elements of admissible dying
declaration except:
a. The declaration is made by a dying person.
b. The declaration is offered in a case where the declarants death is the subject of
inquiry.
c. The declarant survived.
d. The delarant is competent as a witness had he survived.
5. In an attorney-client privilege, an attorney cannot, without the consent of his

client be examined, as to any communication made by the client to him. Which of the
following is not within the ambit of the privilege?
a. When the advice sought from the attorney is not legal but involves
accounting services.
b. There exists an attorney and client relationship.
c. The communication was made by the client to the lawyer in the course of
professional employment.
d. The communication is intended to be confidential.
6. In a case, the petitioner disputes that she is a common carrier, admitted in her
answer that she did business under the name Bataan Trucking and that she was in the
trucking business. What is the legal effect of her answer?
a. It is an implied admission of actionable document.
b. Her answer denied that she is a common carrier.
c. Her answer is judicial admission, it is conclusive and no evidence is
required to prove the same.
d. Her answer required corroborative evidence to prove that she is not a common
carrier.
7. Which of the following is an example of direct evidence?

a. Fingerprints of the accused found in the crime scene of murder.
b. A pair of short pants allegedly left by the accused at the crime scene.
c. The suspect did not join in the search for the missing victim
d. Original deed of sale as evidence of the terms of agreement of the parties.
8. Which of the following is a matter not subject to mandatory judicial notice?

a. Law of nations
b. Measure of time
c. Geographical divisions
d. Foreign Laws not alleged and proved.
9. Six armed men staged a hold up at a gasoline station. Two members of the
group went to the cashiers office and at point of gun took the money worth P10,000.00.
The other robber, shot the guard Peter in the stomach, who later died. All of these
events were actually seen by Mark, a customer who was buying kerosene gas at that
time. Which of the following will disqualify Mark as a witness?
a. Mark refused to take an oath or affirmation.
b. Mark is a deaf-mute but he can communicate his ideas through a qualified
interpreter.
c. Mark finished grade four elementary education.
d. Mark cannot write legibly his name.
10. Dodong stabbed his wife 5 times, who died instantaneously with a kitchen
knife. The stabbing incident was seen by Juan, a neighbour. Which of the following is
not a requisite for the admissibility of the kitchen knife as object evidence?
a. Juan should identify the knife to be the actual knife used in the killing.
b. The kitchen knife has a relationship to the fact in issue.
c. Juan is a non-Catholic.
d. The kitchen knife must be formally offered in evidence.
11. There are questions which a witness is not bound to answer because a witness
has certain rights. Choose from the following, what is not included In the rights of a
witness.
a. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense.
b. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh
or insulting demeanor.
c. Not to be examined except as to matters pertinent to the issue
d. The witness can be detained for an indefinite period which will be
determined by the court.
12. What remedy is available to the convict if the results of the post DNA testing are
favourable to him?
a. File with Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari.
b. File an action to annul judgment or final order.
c. File an appeal with the Court of Appeals.
d. File a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin.
13. Best Evidence as embodied in the Rules of Evidence means:

a. It is the highest and most reliable evidence in the hierarchy of evidence.
b. It is the most superior evidence.
c. When the contents of a writing is the subject of judicial inquiry, the best
evidence is the writing itself.
d. That the weaker evidence may be substituted by stronger evidence.
14. If the proper law has not been properly pleaded and proved, the court has the
right to:
a. Interpret the foreign law
b. Presume that the applicable law is the same as the internal or domestic law
of the forum and should therefore, apply the latter law;
c. Refer the case to the United Nation
d. Take judicial notice of the foreign law.
15. Evidence is not admissible when:

a. It is relevant.
b. It is competent.
c. It is not excluded by the rules.
d. They are illegally obtained as when evidence is illegally seized.
16. When Aleli loaned a sum of money to Tessa, Aleli typed a single copy of the
promissory note, which they both signed. Aleli made 2 photocopies of the promissory
note, giving one copy to Tessa and retaining the other copy. Aleli entrusted the original
copy to her counsel for safekeeping. The copy with Alelis counsel was destroyed when
the law office was burned. In an action to collect the promissory note, which is deemed
to be the original copy for the purpose of the Best Evidence Rule?
a. The original is the one typed and signed by both parties and which was lost
when the office of the counsel of Aleli was burned.
b. The photocopy given to Tessa.
c. The photocopy retained by Aleli.
d. The photocopy given to Alelis husband.
17. If several copies of a document are made at the same time by inserting on each
page a carbon paper and only one of them is signed, which is the original?
a. All of the copies are original.

b. The signed copy is the original.
c. The copy retained by the typist.
d. The copy given to the lawyer.
18. Andy was hired by Palawan Oil Corp as General Manager for its oil exploration
venture in Palawan. The employment contract expressly provided that Andy was to
receive a salary of P50,000.00 a month plus representation and travelling expenses of
P15,000.00 a month. Palawan Oil Corp. failed to pay and so Andy filed an action for
specific performance of the employment contract. At the trial, Palawan Oil Corp,
attempted to prove by oral testimony, that the payment of salary of Andy was subject to
the condition that Palawans Oils exploration in Palawan was already successful. The
oral testimony is not admissible because:
a. A written form is not required for the existence of a contract, because contracts
are perfected by mere consent.
b. 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 successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the
contents of the written agreement.
c. Before executing a written agreement, the parties normally engage in preliminary
oral negotiations.
d. When the minds of the parties finally agree on the object and cause or
consideration, a contract is born.
19. Best Evidence Rule is different from Parole Evidence. The distinctions are the
following except:
a. The best evidence rule precludes the admission of second evidence if the
original document is available. The parole evidence rule precludes the admission of
other evidence to prove the terms of a document other than the contents of the
document itself for the purpose of varying the terms of the writing.
b. The best evidence rule can be invoked by any litigant to an action whether or not
said litigant is a party to the document involved. The parole evidence rule can be
invoked only by the parties to the document and their successors-in-interest.
c. The best evidence rule applies to all forms of writing. The parole evidence rule
applies to written agreements (contracts) and wills.
d. The best evidence rule is not concerned with the primacy of evidence but
presupposes that the original is available. Parole evidence establishes a
preference for the original document.
20. In a case, a weapon, a .38 calibre revolver is found in the crime scene. To be
admissible in evidence it must be authenticated which means that:
a. It must be shown to the satisfaction of the court that the weapon is the very
same weapon found in the crime scene and the proponent of the evidence must
call someone and affirm: This is the weapon I found in the crime scene.
b. The proponent of the evidence must keep the weapon until the first hearing is
conducted.
c. The proponent of the evidence must himself identify the weapon.
d. The proponent of the evidence must submit a picture of the .38 calibre as
evidence.
21. Which of the following is admissible as electronic evidence?

a. Facsimile transmission
b. Digitally signed documents and any print-out, readable by sight or other
means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic
document.
c. Telegraph, telex and telecopy
d. Photocopies of facsimile transmissions
22. Maria approaches Cherry to borrow P200,000.00 to be paid exactly a year after.
Without hesitation, Cherry gives Maria the amount requested. Cherry does not require
Maria to execute a promissory note. They have been very good friends for as long as
they can remember. Years ago, when Cherrys meat shop business was on the verge of
bankruptcy it was the generosity of the then wealthy Maria that bailed her out. Exactly a
day before the agreed date for payment, Maria died without paying the debt. What is the
effect of the death of Maria in relation to the Dead Mans Statute?
a. Cherry being the survivor, is competent to testify on the transaction between her
and Maria.
b. Dead mans Rule will apply where the plaintiff is the executor or administrator.
c. Dead mans Rule will apply also in criminal cases.
d. The persons entitled to invoke the protection of the dead mans statute are
the executor, administrator, and any other representative of Maria, when they are
the defendants in a claim against the estate of the deceased.
23. The marital disqualification rule under Sec 22 of Rule 130, forbids the husband or
wife to testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse except
in those cases authorized by the rule. In order that the husband or wife to claim the
privilege, it is essential that:
a. The husband and wife are validly married at the time the witness spouse
gives testimony.
b. The marriage is dissolved on the ground of annulment or declaration of nullity.
c. The spouse gives testimony in favor of the spouse.
d. The testimony is offered before marriage.
24. Karla and Raymond are legally married. Raymond is charged in court with the
crime of serious physical injuries committed against Alex, son of Karla, step-son of
Raymond. Karla witnessed the infliction of the injuries to Alex by Raymond. The public
prosecutor called Karla to the witness stand and offered her testimony as eyewitness.
Counsel for Raymond objected on the ground of marital disqualification. Rule on the
objection.
a. The objection is not valid. Raymond is accused of committing a crime
against Alex, the son of Karla, a direct ascendant of the latter.
b. The objection is valid. Karla and Raymond are legally married.
c. The objection is valid because this is a criminal case committed by Raymond ,
the husband.
d. The objection is not valid because the case is a criminal case by one spouse
against the other.
25. Marilou was estranged from her husband David for more than a year due to his
suspicion that she was having an affair with Manolo, their neighbour. She temporarily
lived with her sister in Pasig City. For unknown reasons, the house of Marilous sister
was burned, killing the latter. Marilou survived. Marilou saw David in the vicinity during
the incident. Later David was charged with arson in Information filed with RTC, Pasig
City. During the trial, the prosecutor called Marilou on the witness stand and offered her
testimony to prove that her husband committed the arson. Can Marilou testify over the
objection of her husband on the ground of marital privilege?
a. No, because it was Marilous sisters house which was burned and has no
connection with the marital relation of Marilou and her accused husband.
b. Yes, Marilou may testify over the objection of her husband. The marital and
domestic relations between her and the accused husband have become so
strained that there is no more harmony, peace or tranquillity to be preserved,
there is no longer any reason to apply the marital disqualification rule.
c. No, Marilou can not testify because she was having an affair with another man.
d. Yes, Marilou can testify because she saw David in the vicinity during incident.
26. Under the rules on evidence, the husband or the wife cannot be examined
without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one
from the other during their marriage. Enumerated below are the elements for the
application of marital privilege rule, which one is not?
a. There must be a valid marriage between the husband and wife.
b. There is a communication received in confidence by one from the other;
c. The confidential communication was received during the marriage;
d. Information acquired by a spouse before the marriage if received in
confidentiality.
27. On March 5, 2008, Mabini was charged with murder fatally stabbing Dante. To
prove the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, the prosecution introduced
on Dec 11, 2009, a text message, which Mabinis estranged wife (2 years estranged)
Mayumi had sent to Dante on the eve of his death, reading: Honey, pa2tayin u ni
Mabini. Mtgl na nyang plano ito. Mg ingat u bka ma tsugi k. A subpoena ad
testificandum was served on Mayumi for her to be presented for the purpose of
identifying her cell phone and the text message. Mabini objected to her presentation on
the ground of marital privilege. Resolve.
a. Objection should be sustained, the communication was received in confidence
by one from the other;
b. Objection should be sustained because this is a criminal case.
c. The objection should be overruled. The marital relations are so estranged
that the reason for the marital privilege rule no longer exists.
d. Objection should be overruled.
28. Sec 5 of P.D. 1612 or the Anti-fencing Law provides - Mere possession of any
good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or
thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. Prima facie evidence means:
a. Is any evidence that explains, repel, counteract, or disprove adversarys proof
b. Is evidence addressed to the senses of the court
c. Evidence elicited from the mouth of the witness
d. Evidence which if unexplained or uncontradicted , is sufficient to sustain a
judgment in favor of the issue it supports, but which may be contradicted by
other evidence.
29. In a petition for a writ of amparo, what is the quantum of evidence required?
a. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
b. Substantial evidence
c. Preponderance of evidence
d. Clear and convincing evidence
30. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence . In agrarian cases, all that is required is mere substantial
evidence. Distinguish preponderance of evidence from substantial evidence.
a. Substantial evidence is the quantum of proof required in civil cases while
preponderance evidence is the one required in a petition for a writ of amparo
b. Preponderance of evidence is evidence as a whole adduced by one side is
superior to that of the other while substantial evidence constitute that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion
c. In substantial evidence, moral certainty is required while in preponderance of
evidence the claim must be based on mere probability .
d. In criminal cases, where there is substantial evidence, the accused must be
acquitted while if there is preponderance of evidence the accused must be convicted
31. Rules of evidence provide that when private document is offered in evidence as
authentic, there is a need to prove its due execution and authenticity. Which among the
following evidence need not observe the authentication process?
a. a notarized declaration of gross sales submitted to Valenzuela City for the
purpose of renewal of business license
b. a sinumpaang salaysay executed by a creditor who defaulted in her payments
c. A contract of lease signed by the lessor and the lessee but not notarized
d. Sales invoices which acknowledged receipt of goods duly signed by the debtor
32. In attorney-client privilege, the statements of the client need not be made to
attorney in person. Who among the following employees of the lawyer is not covered by
the privilege?
a. Ms. Daria Ramirez, the secretary
b. Mrs. Pai Santos, the stenographer
c. Mang Pandoy, the driver
d. Mr. Juan dela Cruz, the clerk
33. The physician-patient privilege applies to civil cases only. It is designed to

promote health not truth. It encourages free disclosure in the sickroom by preventing
disclosure in the courtroom. The privilege applies to the following except
a. Any advice given to patient by Dra. Damalerio acting in her professional capacity
b. Result of autopsy
c. The patient is seriously ill and the physician treats him
d. Medical findings of Dr. Alkuino that would tend to blacken the reputation of
patient Amelita Canilao.
34. A confession is the declaration of the accused acknowledging his guilt while
admission, there is merely a statement of fact not directly involving an acknowledgment
of guilt. Which of the following is considered an admission and not confession?
a. Tito declared in his counter- affidavit that he shot Roman but denied that
he did so with criminal intent because the shooting was done in self-defense
b. Win Tan acknowledged that he indeed stabbed Rex Chua because of jealousy
c. Petra Dolorito admitted in her sinumpaang salaysay that it was she who stole
the earrings of Carol Santos
d. An extra judicial written statement signed by Manolito in the presence of his
counsel Atty. Perez, declaring that he raped and killed the victim.
35. Jose was charged with rape. Joses father, Ignacio, approached Domingo, the
victims father, during the preliminary investigation and offered P1million to Domingo to
settle the case. Domingo refused the offer. Is Ignacios offer to settle admissible against
Jose as an implied admission of guilt ?
a. No, Ignacios offer to settle is not admissible in evidence as an implied
admission of guilt of Jose, because the rules requires that it must be an offer of
compromise by the accused.
b. Yes, Ignacios offer is admissible against Jose as implied admission of guilt
because Ignacio is the father of the accused.
c. No, Ignacios offer was without the knowledge and written consent of the
accused.
d. No, Ignacios offer is just an act of rendering voluntary aid to a suffering person.
36. The rules on evidence, being components of the Rules of Court, apply only to?
a. Labor cases
b. Cases before the Board of Medicine
c. Petition for naturalization
d. Judicial proceedings
37. In a case, two of the suspects were presented to the declarant before the latter
expired. In the presence of justice of the peace, the mortally wounded man declared
that they were not the perpetrators and authors of his wound. When, third suspect was
presented to him, he pointed to the accused and said: This is the man who wounded
me. Is the declaration admissible in favor of the first two suspects?
a. No, it is not admissible because the statement does not refer to the cause of
death of the declarant.
b. No, because the statement was not made under consciousness of an impending
death.
c. No, because the declarant was not conscious of what he was saying.
d. Yes, because the declaration was made by a dying person under a
consciousness of his impending death and the declarant died.
38. Which among the following statements would qualify as a dying declaration?
a. Pedros statement that Maria told him that it was Pepe who hacked him in the
back with a bolo.
b. Declarants statement that he was attacked while lying in bed but on another
occasion declared that he was attacked while lying on the bench.
c. Before expiring, Ruben told Bejamin , a passerby who came to his rescue,
I was shot by Pablo, our neighbour.
d. The statement of Joaquin before he expired that he and his friend were
responsible for robbing the convenience store at the street corner the day before.
39. It is provided in Sec 36 of Rule 132 of the rules of court that Objection to
evidence offered orally must be made at the time the witness is called to testify. . . . In
any case the grounds for the objection must be specified. Which among the following is
an example of a specific objection?
a. Objection, the evidence is incompetent!
b. Objection: incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial!
c. Objection: Improper!
d. witness can not testify on a privileged communication
40. There are witnesses who are quick to answer even before the question is over.
Before the adverse counsel can react and object to the question, the answer comes in
rapid fire fashion preventing counsel from inserting himself neatly between the question
and the answer. What does counsel do in this case?
a. Counsel must object, state his reason and move to strike out the answer.
b. Counsel may keep quiet, and made the objection for the first time on appeal.
c. Waive the objection
d. Accept that the testimony is credible.
41. As provided by Sec 20 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the following are the
basic qualifications of witnesses. Which one is not included?
a. He or she can perceive
b. In perceiving, can make known to others his perception
c. He must take an oath or affirmation
d. He or she must be a religious person
42. Admission is an act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact. It is

a statement of the accused , direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue, and
tending, in connection with proof of other facts to prove his guilt. Which among the
following is admissible in evidence against the accused/offeror?
a. An offer of compromise by the accused in criminal cases
b. An offer of compromise in civil cases
c. An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned
by an injury
d. A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a
lesser offense
43. Sec 12 of the Bill of Rights 1987 Philippine Constitution provides: (1) Any person
under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed
of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably
of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of a counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence
of counsel. Which among the following is admissible evidence against an accused?
a. Admission under custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel.
b. A suspects confession , whether verbal or non-verbal , taken without the
assistance of counsel regardless of the absence of coercion , given voluntarily and such
confession is gospel truth.
c. Spontaneous statements , not elicited through questioning by authorities ,
but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused orally admitted having
committed the crime.
d. Written waivers by the accused or detained persons without the assistance of a
lawyer.
44. The Judicial affidavit rule took effect January 1, 2013. Judicial affidavit rule
applies to the following criminal cases, except:
a. Where the maximum imposable penalty does not exceed six years
b. Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the
penalty involved
c. With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are
d. Where the maximum imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua even if the
accused does not agree.
45. Hearsay evidence presupposes lack of personal knowledge of the truth of the
fact asserted by a witness, the purpose for which the evidence is offered is a vital
element of hearsay evidence. Which among the following is not an exception to the
hearsay rule?
a. Entries in the official record
b. Dying declarations
c. Part of the gestae
d. Examination of a child witness
46. The efficient use of paper rule shall apply to:

a. Metropolitan Trial Courts
b. All courts and quasi judicial bodies under the administrative supervision of
the Supreme Court
c. Regional Trial Courts
d. Supreme Court
47. As provided in the Efficient Use of Paper Rule, what is the rule regarding
margin and prints?
a. A left hand margin of 1.2 inches from the edge; an upper margin of 1.0 inch from
the edge; a right hand margin of of 1.5 inches from the edge; and a lower margin of 1.0
inch from the edge.
b. Every page must be numbered.
c. All margins must be 1.2 inches from the edges.
d. A left hand margin of 1.5 inches from the edge; an upper margin of
1.2inches from the edge; a right hand margin of 1.0 inch from the edge; and a
lower margin of 1.0inch from the edge. Every page must be consecutively
numbered.
48. The rules on evidence provide for the right of the adverse party to make
objections to the formal offer of evidence filed by defendant. When can an objection to
an offer of evidence in writing be made?
a. Objection to an offer of evidence in writing must be made immediately after the
offer is made.
b. Objection to an offer of evidence in writing must be made after the presentation
of a partys testimonial evidence.
c. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within in three days
after notice of the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court.
d. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within in thirty days after
notice of the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court.
49. Upon admission of evidence, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision,
unless the court directs the parties to argue or to submit their respective memoranda or
any further pleadings. What is a memorandum?
a. It is a pleading summarizing the arguments of counsel on issues involved in
litigation.
b. A memorandum is not a pleading. It is a formal or written summary of
arguments of counsel on issues involved in litigation.
c. It is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is
presented after the parties rest their case.
d. It is a coercive process issued by the court or judge requiring a person to attend
the hearing on the trial of an action.
50. May the court allow late submission of the judicial affidavit, when?
a. Yes, the court may allow late submission of the judicial affidavit only once,
when the delay is for a valid reason, the delay would not prejudice the adverse
party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more
than P5,000.00 at the discretion of the court.
b. No, the court cannot allow late submission of judicial affidavits because it is not
allowed by the rules of court.
c. No, the court may not allow the late submission of judicial affidavits and the
defaulting party pays a fine of P5,000.00.
d. Yes, the court may allow late submission of judicial affidavits provided the
defaulting party pays a fine of P10,000.00.
MARY ARMIN OFELIA B. MORALES

1. Which among the following are matters which the court may take cognizance of
without evidence:
a. The existence and territorial states, their political history and forms of
government.
b. The history of the Philippines and official acts of departments.
c. The symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
rights of the world.
d. The laws of nature, the measure of time and the geographical divisions.
Answer: D (Rule 129, Section 1)
2. Is the print out of facsimile transmissions admissible in evidence under the Rules
on Electronic Evidence?
a. Yes, because it is an electronic evidence document and, therefore,
the best evidence under the law and the Rules.
b. Yes, because the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of
R.A. No. 8792 defines the Electronic Data Message refers to information
generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means,
but not limited to, electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail,
telegram, telex or telecopy. The phrase but not limited to covers the
facsimile transmission.
c. No, because facsimile transmissions are not paperless but
originally are paper-based.
d. No, because to be admissible in evidence as an electronic data
message or to be considered as the functional equivalent of an original
document under the Best Evidence Rule, the writing must foremost be an
electronic data message or an electronic document.
Answer: C
3. Which phrase best complete the sentence, The best evidence rule is a misnomer
a. because it merely requires the best evidence available and in the absence
thereof, allows the introduction of secondary evidence.
e. because it is applicable only to documentary evidence and object
evidence and not to testimonial evidence.
f. because it is a use of a wrong or inaccurate term.
g. because it does not suit what it refers to under the Rules on
Evidence.
Answer: A
4. Spongebob was accused of committing serious physical injury against Patrick.

Only Patrick testified on how the crime was perpetrated. On the other hand, the
defense presented Spongebobs wife, son and daughter to testify that Spongebob
was with them when the alleged crime took place. The prosecution interposed timely
objection to the testimonies on the ground of obvious bias due to the witnesses
close relationship with the accused. Is the prosecutions contention correct?
a. No. Close relationship to a party is not a ground to disqualify a

witness.
b. Yes. Close relationship to a party is a ground to disqualify a
witness.
c. Yes. Aside from close relationship, Spongebobs wife is disqualified
to testify for Spongebob pursuant to Section 22 of Rule 130 -
disqualification by reason of marriage.
d. No. Close relationship to a party may not disqualify the witness in
the interest of justice.
Answer: A
5. In the same set of facts above, will the version of the defense if corroborated by 3
witnesses suffice to acquit Spongebob?
e. Yes. The testimonies of the 3 witnesses thereon corroborate the fact that
Spongebob was not there when the crime took place.
f. No. Witnesses are not numbered but weighed. Positive
identification prevails over the defense of Alibi.
g. Yes. Witnesses are not numbered but weighed. Alibi is easily fabricated and
must be proved clearly and convincingly.
h. No. The testimonies of the 3 witnesses thereon corroborated the
fact that Spongebob was not there when the crime took place.
Answer: B
6. An 8-year old child named Dora was allowed to testify as to the killing of her
father after a number of questions was asked of her by the trial prosecutor and the
Court as to her intelligence, education, memory and understanding. The defense
objected to the reception of her testimony because she was so young as to comprehend
the obligation of an oath. Convicted, Diego appealed claiming that the court a quo erred
in giving credence to Doras testimony. Is Doras testimony credible?
i. No. Doras testimony must be disqualified not because of her tender age,
but of her lack of intelligence to understand the obligation of an oath.
j. No. Dora at her age as a child witness may be said to be incapable of receiving
accurate impressions and narrate them correctly and truthfully.
k. Yes. Dora was an unusually intelligent child of her age, she is
capable of understanding the obligation of an oath after thorough
examination and explanation to her by the trial prosecutor and the court.
l. Yes. Dora was an unusually intelligent child of her age, as a witness, the age
does not matter but her intelligence. Her competency will depend on her intelligence at
the time she is produced for examination.
Answer: D
1. The rule is that the original writing must be produced if the subject of the inquiry is
the contents thereof. The following are the reasons why the writing is the best,
except:
a. The precision or exact words of the writing is a concomitant safeguard against

falsification or fabrication, such as wills, since a slightest variation in words works
disadvantageous to the terms thereof.
b. The hazards of human memory are likely to put the terms of the writing asunder.
c. There is no risk of error when the terms of the writing are committed to memory
than any attempt at preserving the sacredness of instructions.
d. The dangers of transmission occasioned by the use of copies or recollection
may be avoided by presenting the writing itself.
Answer: C (the risk of error is greater)
5. May the recollection of a witness as evidence be presented without accounting

for the unavailability or in disregard of the first two kinds of secondary evidence?
a. No, because it is easier for the offering party to state that he is

without a copy, or a recital thereof is unavailable, or the original can not be
produced, or it is in the custody of the adverse party who refuses to
produce the original despite reasonable notice.
b. Yes, because any of the 3 degrees of secondary evidence may be
presented not necessarily in the order stated and without preference to
others.
c. Yes, because it is easier for the offering party to state that he is
d. No, because any of the 3 degrees of secondary evidence may be
others.
Answer: A
6. ____________ is that which is supplied by writings, or derived from symbols by
which ideas are represented such as but not limited to letters, deed, or contract.
a. Cumulative Evidence
b. Direct Evidence
c. Testimonial Evidence
Answer: D
7. An affidavit or deposition of an eyewitness as to Bs stabbing is an example of
a. Direct or Positive Evidence

b. Indirect or Circumstantial Evidence
c. Testimonial Evidence
Answer: C
11. Immediately after stabbing Alden, a blood-drenched knife is found in the hands of
Maine which demonstrates
b. Corroborative Evidence
c. Indirect or Circumstantial Evidence
d. Negative Evidence
Answer: C
8. To what degree is evidence relevant, material, or competent to make up for the

requirement of admissibility?
e. If it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability of the

fact in issue.
f. If it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or non-
probability the fact in issue.
g. If it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the non-probability of
the fact in issue.
h. If it tends to establish the probability or non-probability of the fact in
issue.
Answer: B
9. Sam testified that he saw Rick stab Sams father with viente nueve around 3:00
in the morning of December 14, 2006 in Tondo, Manila. Is Sams account
improbable?
i. No. Sams testimony is not such as the common experience of mankind

can approve as probable under the circumstances because it is incredible
that Sam, having just roused from sleep and his eyes dimmed by the unlit
room, could have possibly seen the attacker and the dagger as well.
j. Yes. Sams testimony was credible as he was able to witness first-
hand how he saw Rick stabbed his father.
k. No. Sams testimony was credible as he was able to witness first-
hand how he saw Rick stabbed his father.
l. Yes. Sams testimony is not such as the common experience of mankind can
approve as probable under the circumstances because it is incredible that Sam, having
just roused from sleep and his eyes dimmed by the unlit room, could have possibly seen
the attacker and the dagger as well.
Answer: D
10. The following illustrate judicial admission except:
m. Admissions of a fact in the Answer filed by counsel in another suit which is

not ratified by the party making them.
n. Consent by the accused to the entry of judgement against him.
o. Mere denial by respondent of the genuiness or due execution the
promissory note or merely questioning his signature thereon without
denying them under oath.
p. Admission in open court by counsel for defendant that he has filed a motion
for the extension of time to submit the Answer, and the court seeing the
merit of the motion granted it.
Answer: A - An admission of a fact in the Answer filed by counsel in another suit

is not evidence against the party making them when it is not ratified or authorized
by him (Rama v. Benedicto, 5 Phil. 512)
11. Can the court take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of the lands?
q. Yes. The court can take judicial notice of the government assessors
assessment on the property.
r. No. The court can take judicial notice of the government assessors
assessment on the property.
s. Yes. Hearing with notice to the parties is necessary to ascertain such fact
in issue and in order to determine which court has jurisdiction over the
case.
t. No. Hearing with notice to the parties is necessary to ascertain such fact in
issue and in order to determine which court has jurisdiction over the case.
Answer: D
12. Which among the following statements would best explain the presumption that
evidence willfully suppressed by a party would be adverse to said party if the
evidence is produced.
u. Evidence to be admissible, must not only relevant and material to the fact
in issue, but competent as well.
v. The best evidence rule, is a protective shield against mans tendency to
commit fraud for it may be fairly assumed that a party, according to same
authority, may have some sinister motive for not producing the best evidence,
because its presentation would necessarily blow the lid off such partys plan,
design, or scheme.
w. The best evidence obtainable is the rule rather than the memory or
recollection of a witness, which is unreliable and unsatisfactory.
x. When the original is lost, the proponent is burdened to show proof of due
execution and the loss or destruction of the original before he is allowed to
prove its contents by a coy, or a recital of its contents in some authentic
document, or the testimony of the witnesses in the order stated.
Answer: B
13. Mario Tandoy was charged with violation of RA 9165 for unlawfully selling
marijuana who was caught in a buy-bust operation. Tandoy pleaded not guilty. After
trial, he was convicted by the RTC. On appeal, he invoked the best evidence rule
and that the Court erred in admitting in evidence the photocopy of the PhP 10.00 bill
used as the buy-bust money. Is the contention that the best evidence rule applies in
the case of marked money correct?
y. Yes. The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the
documents are the subject of inquiry. Since the aforesaid marked money
was presented by the prosecution solely for the purpose of establishing its
existence and not its contents, other substitutionary evidence, like a xerox
copy thereof, is therefore admissible without the need of accounting for
the original.
z. Yes. The Court erred in admitting in evidence a mere photocopy of the
P10.00 bill. It violates the best evidence rule.
aa. No. The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the
documents are the subject of inquiry. Since the aforesaid marked money
was presented by the prosecution solely for the purpose of establishing its
existence and not its contents, other substitutionary evidence, like a xerox
copy thereof, is therefore admissible without the need of accounting for
the original.
bb. No. The Court erred in admitting in evidence a mere photocopy of the
P10.00 bill. It violates the best evidence rule.
Answer: C (People vs. Tandoy, G.R. #80505, Dec. 4, 1990)
14. A, a 32 year old farm girl and deaf mute was allegedly raped by B six times. The
prosecution labored under the handicap that it could prove the alleged rape only
through the sign language of the victim. The victims sister, C, who has
communicated with her since childhood by means of sign language, was the sole
witness available who could make known to her the questions on direct and cross-
examination and could articulate her alleged answers for the record. The defense
counsel vehemently objected to Cs role as interpreter, regarding her as biased and
as lacking the cold neutrality of a third person acting as interpreter. Is C credible to
interpret the sign language of A?
cc. Yes. The probability of error or fabrication in such case was very manifest
and that the story was not recounted directly in her own words but via
interpretation of the sign language the trustworthiness of which is very
doubtful.
dd.Yes. C is a credible witness to interpret the sign language of A because C
communicated with A since childhood. Hence, C therefore, can clearly
interpret the sign language of A.
ee. No. C is a credible witness to interpret the sign language of A because C
communicated with A since childhood. Hence, C therefore, can clearly
interpret the sign language of A.
ff. No. The probability of error or fabrication in such case was very manifest
and that the story was not recounted directly in her own words but via
interpretation of the sign language the trustworthiness of which is very
doubtful.
Answer: D (People v. Hayag L-3865635, Nov. 17, 1980)
15. Parol evidence is admissible under the following instances except:
gg.Verbal renewal of a lease to qualify the terms of the written agreement.

hh.To prove the conditions and stipulations antecedent to the existence of the
contract of guaranty.
ii. To show by clear and convincing evidence, not by preponderance of
evidence, that the mortgage was executed without any consideration.
jj. To prove that parol contract is the motivating or driving cause of the
written agreement without which the latter would not have been executed.
Answer: A - instance when parol evidence is not admissible. (Inter Asia v. CA, 263
SCRA 408)
16. An 8-year old child named Dora was allowed to testify as to the killing of her
father after a number of questions was asked of her by the trial prosecutor and the
Court as to her intelligence, education, memory and understanding. The defense
objected to the reception of her testimony because she was so young as to comprehend
the obligation of an oath. Convicted, Diego appealed claiming that the court a quo erred
in giving credence to Doras testimony. Is Doras testimony credible?
a. No. Doras testimony must be disqualified not because of her tender age,
but of her lack of intelligence to understand the obligation of an oath.
b. No. Dora at her age as a child witness may be said to be incapable of
receiving accurate impressions and narrate them correctly and truthfully.
c. Yes. Dora was an unusually intelligent child of her age, she is capable of
understanding the obligation of an oath after thorough examination and
explanation to her by the trial prosecutor and the court.
d. Yes. Dora was an unusually intelligent child of her age, as a witness, the
age does not matter but her intelligence. Her competency will depend on
her intelligence at the time she is produced for examination.
Answer: D
17. M sold the whole of the land to C evidenced by Exhibits A, B, E, and H. Invoking
fraud, M said he did not intend to sell the whole parcel of land but only its eastern
half, and he signed Exhibit A without reading it, because of his trust to C. Is Ms
contention tenable?
kk. Yes. Cs testimony is clear and convincing to establish his claim, since he
executed no less than five public documents showing that he sold the
whole land to M.
ll. Yes. Ms testimony is clear and convincing to establish his claim, since he
executed no less than five public documents showing that he sold the
whole land to M.
mm. No. Cs testimony is not clear and convincing to establish his claim,
since he executed no less than five public documents showing that he
sold the whole land to M.
nn.No. Ms testimony is not clear and convincing to establish his claim, since
he executed no less than five public documents showing that he sold the
whole land to C.
Answer: D
18. The husband entered into a contract for lease of services during his lifetime. The
wifes testimony was offered to prove the existence of the contract but was objected
to because of the disqualification by reason of marriage. May the wife testify?
oo.No.
pp.Yes.
qq.It depends.
rr. I dont know.
Answer: B - The husbands death puts an end to marriage, and the wife certainly
is not disqualified to testify.
19. The husband, accused of killing his own son, denied that he was the killer but his
wife. Should the wife be allowed to testify in rebuttal?
ss. Yes and No.
tt. Yes.
uu.No.
vv. It depends.
Answer: B - Yes, because by giving such testimony, the husband must be
considered as intending the natural consequences of his act and must, therefore,
be deemed to have waived all objections to his wifes testimony on rebuttal.
(People v. Francisco)
20. Which among the following are matters which the court may take cognizance of
without evidence:
a. The existence and territorial states, their political history and forms of
government.
b. The history of the Philippines and official acts of departments.
c. The symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
rights of the world.
d. The laws of nature, the measure of time and the geographical divisions.
Answer: D (Rule 129, Section 1)
21. May the recollection of a witness as evidence be presented without accounting

for the unavailability or in disregard of the first two kinds of secondary evidence?
a. No, because it is easier for the offering party to state that he is
b. Yes, because any of the 3 degrees of secondary evidence may be
others.
c. Yes, because it is easier for the offering party to state that he is
d. No, because any of the 3 degrees of secondary evidence may be
others.
Answer: A
22. The rule on the dead mans statute does not apply to the following except:
ww. The claim of private respondents is based not on the
supposed dealings with the deceased while he was still living but on the
Deed of Extra Judicial Partition.
xx. A controversy no involving a claim or demand against the estate of
the decedent, or a person of unsound mind.
yy. Land registration cases where the opposing parties are considered
defendants and may, therefore, testify against the petitioner.
zz. Any matter of fact occurring before the death of a person, or before
a person becomes of unsound mind.
Answer: D
23. On grounds of public policy, the wife cannot bear witness against the husband as
to any communication made to him by reason of marriage. The disqualification,
however, does not apply to the following, except:
aaa. Dying declaration by the husband to the wife as to the
identity of a person who killed him.
bbb. Any communication made in the presence of, or overheard
accidentally or by design by a third party.
ccc. Any communication or information received in confidence by one
from the other.
ddd. Any communication between husband and wife on matters of
business.
Answer: C
24. A stabs B. When arrested, A admits the act of stabbing. While on detention, he
asks forgiveness. During trial, he disclaims the fact of stabbing. Is As declaration
admissible?
eee. No.
fff. It depends.
ggg. Yes.
hhh. I dont know.
Answer: C - Yes, being an express admission of his guilt. The plea of forgiveness
is an implied admission thereof. The disclaimer is self-serving and therefore,
inadmissible. So, the act of declaration must be made against interest to be
admissible.
25. When A, having completed repairs on a lighter (a large, open vessel), presented
the bill to B, and believing the same to be rather jacked up he proposed a
compromise, but the same having failed to materialize A took the matter to court,
presenting evidence showing the abortive negotiations towards a compromise. Was
the proposed compromise an admission of liability?
iii. Yes, because of the intention of the parties to the suit is the proper guide.
jjj. Yes, because B having admitted liability was bound to pay the reasonable value
of the repairs.
kkk. Yes, because of mutual concessions involved in the proposed compromise.
lll. Yes, because of the manifestation of willingness to compromise which may be
received as evidence.
Answer: B - Yes, because B having admitted liability was bound to pay the
reasonable value of the repairs. Bs liability was independent of the negotiated
but failed compromise. (Varadero v. Insular Lumber, 46 Phil. 176)
26. To A, the highest bidder was sold parcels of land foreclosed by judgment. B
offered to redeem such land. Meantime, A sold the same parcels of land to C. B
sought to cancel such sale. C contended that Bs offer amounted to admission of
liability. Is Cs contention correct or tenable?
mmm. No.
nnn. Yes.
ooo. It depends.
ppp. I dont know.
Answer: A - No, because Bs offer to redeem is at most an offer of compromise to
avoid the suit and can not be said to be admissible as evidence against B making
such offer. (Buiser v. Cabrera, 81 Phil. 669)
27. A was charged with raping B. Presumably to avoid the inconvenience of

imprisonment, A proposed an offer of marriage, claiming innocence of the crime. B
turned it down as they were not sweethearts. Is such an offer inadmissible against A
since he claims innocence?
qqq. No, because B rejected As offer of marriage.
rrr. Yes, because A claims innocence.
sss. No, because such an offer constitutes implied admission of guilt.
ttt. I dont know.
Answer: C - No, not because B rejected As offer of marriage, but such an offer
constitutes an implied admission of guilt. (People v. Valdez, 150 SCRA 405)
28. A, B, and C were accused of robbery. The attorney for A offered X, the victim,
P200 because A was innocent. X turned it down twice. Is As offer of compromise
admissible against him even if he claimed innocence?
uuu. No.
vvv. Yes.
www. It depends.
xxx. I dont know.
Answer: B - Yes, because As repeated offer was indicative of an implied
admission of guilt. (People v. Sope, 75 Phil. 810)
29. The rule is that the act, declaration, or omission by one party does not operate to
prejudice the rights of another. For the act or conduct of a party binds no one else
but himself and is evidence against him only. So, the acts of a stranger cannot be
allowed to control another.
yyy. Admission by co-partners.

zzz. Admission by agent.
aaaa. Admission by third party.
bbbb. Res inter alios acta.
Answer: D
30. Plaintiff, in a civil case, sought to recover possession of a parcel of land, alleging
extra-judicial partition thereof and producing the deed. None of the defendants,
however, participated in such partition. Can plaintiff assert his right over the
possession of the land?
cccc. No.
dddd. Yes.
eeee. It depends.
ffff. I dont know.
Answer: A - No, because the deed of partition does not bind the defendants
absent their imprimatur or participation. (Briones v. Platon, 12 Phil. Reports 275)
31. A sold a parcel of land to X, Y, and Z. The purchase price thereof was to be paid
in three equal installments. X, Y, and Z paid the first and second installments, but
not the third, because X, Y, and Z agreed in a separate instrument that the third
installment was to be paid only by X and Y. As administrator sought to recover the
third unpaid installment. Can such administrator claim the balance?
gggg. No.
hhhh. Yes.
iiii. It depends.
jjjj. I dont know.
Answer: B - Yes, because A is not bound by the separate agreement of X, Y, and
Z. (Pacia v. Santos, 46 Phil. Reports 514)
32. A testifies in open court, implicating Bs participation in the conspiracy

responsible for killing C. B interposes objection to As testimony being inadmissible.
Is B correct?
kkkk. No.
llll. Yes.
mmmm. It depends.
nnnn. I dont know.
Answer: A - No, because the principle of res inter allies acts does not apply to
testimonial evidence presented at the witness stand where the party adversely
affected has all the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. As testimony in
open court, therefore, is admissible against B who may cross examine A if he so
desires. (People v. Comiling, 2004)
33. A, B, and C were partners of X Company. The said company was dissolved, and
all the accounts and indebtedness of Y were transferred to A for collection. When A
sought to recover Ys indebtedness amounting to P5,500, the latter claimed that his
indebtedness had been extinguished with the document of release signed by B. Does
Bs act of releasing Ys indebtedness bind X Company, particularly A?
oooo. No.
pppp. Yes.
qqqq. It depends.
rrrr. I dont know.
Answer: A - No, because the release was made after the dissolution of X
Company, and also because A did not authorize B to condone Ys indebtedness.
Y, therefore, could still be made to pay his indebtedness to A. (Ormachea v.
Trillana, 13 Phil. 194)
34. A died leaving a fortune. B offered for probate of As will. An attorney for C, son
of A, opposed such probate. During the trial, said attorney withdrew and consented to a
confession of judgment. The court approved the probate and accordingly appointed B
as administrator. C sought to vacate such judgment claiming that the withdrawal by his
attorney was without prior authority from him. Do the compromise and the consequent
confession of judgment based on such compromise bind C?
ssss. No. C did not authorize his attorney to withdraw opposition to
the probate of As will.
tttt. Yes. As the attorney of C, he has authority to withdraw the opposition to the
probate of As will.
uuuu. It depends.
vvvv. I dont know.
Answer: A
35. The arresting officer asks A, who are your other companions in robbery with
homicide, and he pointed to B who remained silent. Which among the following
statements is true?
wwww. Bs failure to appear in the court is deemed an implied
admission that As answer was nothing but true.
xxxx. Bs failure to appear in the court is deemed an implied admission that As answer
was nothing but false.
yyyy. Bs failure to make a reply is deemed an implied admission that As answer was
nothing but true.
zzzz. Bs failure to make a reply is deemed an implied admission that As answer was
nothing but false.
Answer: C
36. H was charged with P his concubine. The case was tried, and the prosecution
sought to prove that H, having cohabited with P five years back before his marriage with
W, did the same thing (cohabitation) at another time during his marriage with W. May
the trial court in a petition for mandamus be compelled to admit such evidence?
aaaaa. No.
bbbbb. Yes.
ccccc. It depends.
ddddd. I dont know.
Answer: A - No, because the previous cohabitations between H and P do not
necessarily follow that they did cohabit even after and during the marriage of H
and W.
37. A brought an action for recovery of his professional fees for treating the eyes of
B. During trial, C testified that B told him that A had agreed to cure B for P200 and
would not charge him anything if no cure was effected. Is Cs testimony anything worth
admissible?
eeeee. Yes, because C corroborated the testimony of B.
fffff. No, because C was not there when A treated B.
ggggg. Yes, because it is hearsay as to B.
hhhhh. No, because it is hearsay as to A.
Answer: D
38. A sought to recover an indebtedness of P10,000 from Bs estate. C, son of B and

knowing such fact, declared that his fathers liability was true. C died and his declaration
was presented as evidence. Is Cs declaration admissible?
iiiii. No.
jjjjj. Yes.
kkkkk. It depends.
lllll. I dont know.
Answer: B - Yes, because he would not have declared it so if he did not know it to
be true. Cs knowledge of such indebtedness, therefore, need not be actual or
adequate. It is sufficient if he knew it to be true. (Sec. 32, Rule 130)
39. W sought to register in her name a large tracts of land purportedly granted to H
by the Spanish government based on a documentary evidence she presented. X, Y and
Z, being children of H by the first wife, opposed the petition claiming, inter alia, that said
lands were acquired by the first wife and H during their marriage. During trial, W
presented a statement made by H one month before his death declaring that the lands
in question were her separate properties and that she acquired them by inheritance
from her deceased father and that the title was issued in his name only as the
representative of W. Is the statement of H competent and possible?
mmmmm. Yes, because he would not have declared it if he did not
know it to be true.
nnnnn. No, because the lands were acquired during the first marriage.
ooooo. Yes, because the statement of H is a declaration against his interest.
ppppp. No, because it is an extra-judicial admission.
Answer: C - (Leonardo v. Santiago, 07 Phil. 401)
40. Spontaneous statements made while a startling occurrence is taking place is

admissible, except:
qqqqq. The principal event constituting the res gestate is startling.
rrrrr. The statements are made while a startling occurrence is taking place.
sssss. The statements must relate to the circumstances of the startling
occurrence.
ttttt. The statements are made after the declarer could deliberate.
Answer: D - The statements are made made BEFORE the declarer could
deliberate.
41. Steamship A while getting on at the dock in Pasig River ran into steamship B. To
prove damages, the owner of steamship B presented as evidence the testimony of C,
the master of another launch, who witnessed the accident.
Question: Could the collision between A and B have been avoided had
the master of A taken the necessary precautionary measures?
Answer: Yes, Sir
Question: Through whose fault was the collision attributed?
Answer: That of the master of A.
Is Cs testimony admissible?
uuuuu. Yes. He is a credible witness.
vvvvv. No. He is not a credible witness.
wwwww. Yes. Cs testimony is admissible.
xxxxx. No. Cs testimony is inadmissible.
Answer: D - The evidence quoted from the testimony of C that the master of
steamship A was negligent is a mere opinion, because he did not testify to the
facts on which his opinion was based. Cs testimony is, therefore, inadmissible.
(Manila v. Rodriguez)
42. A witness is qualified as an expert if he has the following, except:

yyyyy. Has adequate training and education on the subject under
examination.
zzzzz. Is familiar with the facts of the case.
aaaaaa. Gives an opinion regarding a conclusion of law.
bbbbbb. Presents authorities or standards on which his opinion is based.
Answer: C
43. A was charged with the crime of rape. He admitted having had illicit relations with
B prior to the act complained of, but put up the defense that B was a person of unchaste
character. Is As defense tenable?
cccccc. Yes, because A was able to establish in a reasonable
degree the improbability of the crime charged.
dddddd. No, because regardless of the bad character of B, A is just the same
guilty, as evidence tends to shot the illicit relations complained of took place with force,
intimidation, or violence.
eeeeee. Yes, because regardless of the bad character of B, A is just the same
guilty, as evidence tends to shot the illicit relations complained of took place with force,
intimidation, or violence.
ffffff. No, because A was not able to establish the probability of the criminal offense.
Answer: B
44. In a contract of sale, A sold to B two lots to be paid in 120 equal installments.
Failing to pay later installments, A cancelled the contract and the payments so paid
were forfeited. B sued A for the recovery of the forfeited amount. A contends that their
contract was still in force and demands that B pay the balance due. Is A estopped from
cancelling the contract of sale?
gggggg. No. A can occupy two inconsistent positions to approbate
and reprobate.
hhhhhh. Yes. A cannot repudiate his representation that he had already cancelled
the contract and that B was already relieved of his obligation under the contract.
iiiiii. No. A cannot repudiate his representation that he had already cancelled the
contract and that B was already relieved of his obligation under the contract.
jjjjjj. Yes. A can occupy two inconsistent positions to approbate and reprobate.
Answer: B
45. A holding himself out as the owner of a share in the undivided estate sold his
share to B. Subsequently, A also sold the same share to C who had knowledge of the
previous sale of the same share by A to B. A denies ownership of the share. Is A
estopped from denying ownership of the share?
kkkkkk. Yes. A, being led by B into believing that he is the owner thereof, is
entitled to the share in the estate.
llllll. Yes. A, being led by B into believing that he is the owner thereof, is not entitled to
the share in the estate.
mmmmmm. Yes. B, being led by A into believing that he is the owner thereof, is
nnnnnn. Yes. B, being led by A into believing that he is the owner thereof, is not
Answer: C
46. A sued for the recovery of a sum of money. To prove his claim, he presented
entries in the book in question showing the balance of credit he was claiming against C,
because of the deed of assignment by B to A. C questions the admissibility of the
entries therein. A, on the other, contends that the entries are evidence of the facts
stated in the book. Bs clerk who wrote the entries is dead. May the book in which the
entries showing the account of C be admitted as evidence that a balance is still due?
oooooo. Yes.
pppppp. No.
qqqqqq. Yes and No.
rrrrrr. I dont know.
Answer: B - No. The due execution and authenticity of the writings (entries) by
Bs clerk were not positively proved, because:
1. No one had testified having seen Bs clerk write the entries in
question.
2. The lone witness in the person of B did not make any similar
positive statement, although he merely stated that his clerk kept the book and
made the corresponding entries.
3. Bs statements proved nothing but gave rise to the presumption
that someone else other than his clerk might have made such entries.
4. There was no conclusive proof that Bs clerk alone and no one
else could have made such entries.
5. No comparison of the handwriting of the entries with the actual
handwriting of the now dead clerk was ever made.
6. There was no indication as to the exact date upon which entries
were made, since the rule requires that the manuscript intended to be utilized as
evidence should be made at or near the time of the transaction. (Nolan v. Salas, 7
Phil. 1)
MARGERY CARREON
1. Amendments in Rules on Evidence may be validly made applicable to cases

pending such time of change, except:
a. In civil cases where parties have vested rights in accordance with the rules on
evidence.
b. In criminal cases where the accused pleads guilty to a lesser crime necessarily
included in the crime charged.
c. In criminal cases where the amendment would permit the reception of a lesser
quantum of evidence to convict the accused.
d. In all cases where reception of evidence is applicable.
2. The following are the requisites for the disqualification based on attorney-client
privilege, except:
a. There is an attorney and client relation.
b. The attorney is hired to represent the client in court.
c. The privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential communication between
them in the course of professional employment.
d. The client has not given consent to the attorneys testimony.
3. A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party
desires, is NOT allowed, except:
a. On redirect examination
b. Where the witness is the spouse of the opposing party.
c. On stipulation of facts
d. On preliminary matters
4. When is the presumption of suppression of evidence not applicable?
a. When the evidence is material.
b. When the suppression of evidence is an exercise of privilege
c. When the party had the opportunity to produce the same
d. When the said evidence is available only to said party
5. A party can impeach a witness of an adverse party by:
a. Evidence of incompetence
b. Evidence of hostility or a certain wrong act
c. Evidence of conviction of a prior crime involving moral turpitude.
d. Proving that the conduct of the witness is consistent with his testimony.
6. Self-defense must be proved by what kind of evidence?
a. Clear and convincing
b. Substantial evidence
c. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
d. Preponderance of evidence
7. The following are the scope of the right against self-incrimination, except:
a. It is granted not only in favor of individuals.
b. No person should be compelled to be a witness against himself.
c. May be invoked in any court proceedings
d. Covers only testimonial compulsion and production by him of incriminating
documents and articles.
8. Authentication of a document Is not required, except:
a. Last wills and testaments
b. Deed of absolute sale
c. Actionable documents
d. 1960s Land title
9. Motion to strike out or expunge is proper in what case?
a. Unresponsive answers
b. Substantiated evidence previously admitted conditionally.
c. Where the witness is cross-examined
d. Corollary answers
10. Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved. Testimony of handwriting experts are
mandatory in proving due execution and authenticity of private documents.
a. Both statements are correct.
b. Both statements are incorrect.
c. Only the first statement is correct.
d. Only the second statement is incorrect.
11. Other instances of privileged communications are, except:
a. Source of new report or information appearing in an official publication i.e.
newspaper, magazine, or periodical of general circulation
b. State secrets
c. All information and statements made at conciliation proceedings in accordance
with the Labor Code.
d. Confession with a priest
12. When can parol evidence be admitted?
a. When there is existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.
b. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement.
c. The validity of the agreement.
d. The enforceability of the agreement
13. The technical Rules on evidence is applicable on the following proceedings,
except:
a. In MTC proceedings.
b. In CTA proceedings.
c. In DARAB proceedings
d. In Sandiganbayan proceedings
14. Which of the following in not an example of judicial admission?
a. Act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact.
b. Material allegations in the complaint specifically denied by the opposing party
c. Admission by silence
d. Implied admission of guilt in an offer of compromise by the accused in criminal
cases.
15. Exceptions to the best evidence rule are the following, except:
a. The original is a private document is in custody of a private individual.
b. The original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without
bad faith on the part of the offeror
c. The original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from
them is only the general result of the whole.
d. The original is recorded in a public office
16. Offer of compromise is inadmissible in evidence in the following circumstances
except:
a. Tax cases
b. Accepted offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense
c. Criminal negligence quasi-offenses
d. Payment of expenses occasioned by an injury
17. Opinion of a witness as a general rule is not admissible in evidence except, for
instance, the witness has a sufficient familiarity with the handwriting in question.
Character evidence is also, as a general rule, not admissible in evidence.
a. Both statements are correct
18. When can character evidence be admitted?
a. When the moral character of the accused if pertinent to the moral trait involved in
the offense charged.
b. Character of an impeached witness
c. In rebuttal by the prosecution, the bad moral character of the accused may be
proved if pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
d. In all civil cases.
19. The following presumptions are satisfactory if not contradicted, except:
a. The unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent
b. A person takes extraordinary care of his concerns
c. Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced
d. The thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter
a. Prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later ones is
produced
b. A person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act
c. Facts presented are admitted
d. There was a sufficient consideration for a contract
a. Negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration
b. A writing is duly dated
c. 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
d. Debts are duly paid.
22. Questions propounded to a witness must be, except:
a. Relevant
b. Not be misleading
c. Not be repetitious
d. Calls for a narration
23. It is the right of a witness to
a. Be examined only as to matters pertinent to the issue
b. Give an answer which will degrade him
c. Be detained longer that the 3 months
d. Give an answer which may subject him to a penalty
24. Can a witness refuse to answer questions material to the issue?
a. Yes, if it will establish a claim against him
b. Yes, under the right against self-incrimination
c. No, even if it will have a direct tendency to degrade his character
d. Yes, if refusal is seasonably invoked.
25. When can the right against self-incrimination be availed of?
a. Paraffin test
b. Police line up
c. Judicial admission
d. Testimonial evidence
While passing by a dark alley, PO1 Matulis observed shadows and heard
screams from a distance. He then hid behind a car and saw a man beating a
woman whom he recognized as his neighbor, Malambot. She was thereafter
stabbed. Upon falling to the ground, the man hurriedly left.
PO1 Matulis immediately went to Malambots rescue. Malambot, who was then in
a state of hysteria, kept stating Si Kilabot, ang sumaksak sa akin! Gusto nya
akong patayin! When PO1 Matulis was about to bring her to the
hospital, she refused and said hulihin mo sya. Iwanan mo na ako, kaya ko ang
sarili ko
The following day, Kilabot learned of Malambots death and, bothered by his
conscience, surrendered to the authorities with his counsel. As his surrender was
broadcasted all over media, Kilabot opted to release his statement to the press
which goes:
I believe that I am entitled to the presumption of innocence until my guilt is proven
beyond reasonable doubt. Although I admit that I performed acts that may take ones
life away, I hope and pray that justice will be served the right way. God bless us all.
(Sgd.)
Kilabot
Can the court in this case convict Kilabot of Homicide on the basis of the following:
26. Matulis testimony and Malambots statements?
a. Yes. It is a dying declaration.
b. No. the statement made by malambot is excluded by the hearsay rule
c. No. because of the lack of opportunity to cross
d. Yes. It is a statement made immediately subsequent to a startling occurrence is
excepted from the hearsay rule as part of the res gestae
27. What is the nature of Kilabots statement to the press?
a. It is a confession which, standing alone, would be sufficient to warrant conviction
is meritorious.
b. It is a coerced admission.
c. It is a corroborated admission.
d. It amounts to an extrajudicial confession.
28. An order of the court requiring a retroactive re-dating of an order, judgment or
document filing be entered or recorded in a judgment is: (1%)
a. pro hac vice
b. non pro tunc
c. confession relicta verification
d. nolle prosequi
29. At the trial of Randy Z for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosecution
offers in evidence a photocopy of the marked P100.00 bills used in the buy-bust
operation. Randy Z objects to the introduction of the photocopy on the ground that the
Best Evidence Rule prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence in lieu of the
original. Should the objection be overruled?
a. Yes. The marked bills contain writings, thus considered documentary evidence
embraced in the Best Evidence Rule.
b. No. The marked bills are real evidence, Best evidence rule is inapplicable.
c. Yes. The marked bills are real evidence, Best evidence rule is inapplicable.
d. No. The marked bills are documentary evidence, Best evidence rule applies.
A was accused of having raped X. Rule on the admissibility of the following

pieces of evidence:
30. An offer of A to marry X;
a. A's offer to marry X is admissible in evidence as an Implied admission of guilt

because rape cases are not allowed to be compromised.
b. A's offer to marry X is inadmissible in evidence as the Constitution regards highly
of the sanctity of marriage.
c. A's offer to marry X is admissible in evidence even if A approves of the marriage.
d. A's offer to marry X is inadmissible in evidence as rape cases may be
compromised.
31. (Same facts as 31.) A pair of short pants allegedly left by A at the crime which
the court, over the objection of A, required him to put on, and when he did, it fit him well.
a. No. Clear violation of right against self-incrimination.

b. Yes. A may be convicted by that fact alone.
c. Yes. But is merely a circumstantial evidence, not sufficient to convict A.
d. No. A cannot be compelled by the court to wear the shorts.
32. Abdul and Jabar are two muslims being tried in a Shariah District Court in a case
involving commercial transactions. The counsel of Jabar raised that Abdul failed to file
his Judicial Affidavit when he submitted his shuhud (statement of witnesses) and
bayyina (other evidence pertinent to the issue). Should Abdul be deemed to have
waived his right to file a Judicial Affidavit and be considered at not present during the
pre-trial?
a. No. The court may allow its belated submission provided the requisites are
met.
b. No. Judicial Affidavit Rule is not applicable in commercial cases.
c. No. Judicial Affidavit Rule is not applicable in Shariah Courts
d. Yes. He already lost his right to submit his Judicial Affidavits
33. In a criminal case, the witness invokes the filial privilege, claiming that she is the
stepmother of Petitioner. Is the filial privilege applicable in the case?
a. No. a witness cannot invoke filial privilege, it should be invoked by the counsel.
b. Yes. A stepdaughter is of the same ancestry as that of her stepmother
c. Yes. Filial privilege is applicable in criminal case only.
d. No. privilege cannot apply to them because the rule applies only to direct
ascendants and descendants, a family tie connected by a common ancestry
34. Armed with a search warrant, PNP Team Bato searched the den of Mr. Yap for
shabu and other drug paraphernalia. However, Team Bato was not able to finish the
operation on such date. They returned the next day to complete the search and seizure
operations. It yielded 100 kgs of marijuana, 50 kgs of shabu and other drug
paraphernalia which were later on offered as evidence against Mr. Yap. He opposed the
offer on the ground that the search warrant was only good for one day of operation and
the purpose for which is was issued has already been carried out. Are the pieces of
evidence seized during the second day of operation inadmissible in evidence?
a. No. The exception is if the search wasnt finished within 1 day, the
warrant can still be used the next day, provided it is still within the 10-day period.
b. No. It is admissible, no law excludes presentation of shabu and other drug
paraphernalia in court.
c. Yes. The purpose for which the search warrant was issued was already carried
out. It cannot be used for more than one time.
d. No. search warrants can be used for as many times as the operatives would
deem fit provided the operation is within the 10 day period.
35. When the lifeless body of A was discovered, several witnesses saw B in
possession of a balisong. An NBI autopsy report stated that the wounds sustained by A
were inflicted with the use of a weapon only one side of which was sharp, such as a
balisong. B shirts were found with type O blood. The trial court convicted B for Homicide
citing that the circumstances of the case prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. B, on
appeal, argued only direct evidence may be used to convict him. Should B be
acquitted?
a. Yes. Only direct evidence can convict the accused.
b. Yes. The facts from which circumstances in the case were derived are not
proven
c. No. There should only be two circumstantial evidence.
d. No. individual pieces of evidence, when taken together, are more than enough to
establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crime of
homicide.
36. An exception to the general rule requiring corroboration is that, the
uncorroborated testimony of a state witness may be sufficient when it is shown to be
sincere in itself because it is given unhesitatingly and in a straightforward manner and
full of details which, by their nature, could not have been the result of deliberate
afterthought. This exception does not apply if:
a. The witness is an eyewitness since the testimony would then be direct evidence
b. there is no other direct evidence, except the testimony of the said accused
c. There are other pieces of evidence which may corroborate the same.
d. The witness is a state witness.
37. Jeffrey, an eight year old grade 1 pupil, recounted that he was brought to the
police station where his sworn statement was taken and he signed it in the presence of
Mayor Bartolome Miranda of Rizal town. He said he was accompanied by his Lola Nena
who read to him what was written in the statement because he did not know how to
read. He testified that the killer of his mother, Remedios and brother Melvin, is their
neighbor Kuya Willie. However, he recanted that he did not see the incident, but rather,
he heard the cough of the killer and he was so certain that it was Kuya Willie. During
trial, Jeffreys testimony is offered against the accused. Willie opposed stating that
Jeffrey had no personal knowledge of the incident and because of his tender years, he
could not be a witness. Is he correct?
a. Yes. Jeffrey does not have personal knowledge
b. Yes. Jeffrey is excluded to be a witness because he cannot read.
c. No. Jeffrey is a credible witness because he is accompanied by his lola.
d. No. The determination of a child's intellectual preparedness to be a witness rests
primarily with the trial judge, who assesses the child's manners, his apparent
possession or lack of intelligence, as well as his understanding of the obligations of an
oath.
38. A party may impeach the credibility of his/her adverse partys witness by proving
that on former occasions, they made statements inconsistent with the statements made
during the trial where such statements are material to the issues in the present case.
The bias of a witness is not a collateral issue and extrinsic evidence is admissible to
prove that a witness has a motive to testify falsely.
39. In a case, Malayan Insurance contends that even without the presentation of the
police investigator who prepared the police report, said report is still admissible in
evidence, especially since respondents failed to make a timely objection to its
presentation in evidence. Respondents counter that since the police report was never
confirmed by the investigating police officer, it cannot be considered as part of the
evidence on record, it is prohibited by the hearsay rule. Is the police report admissible in
evidence even if the police investigator who prepared it was not present in court?
a. Yes. Respondents failed to make a timely objection, considered as waiver of
admissibility.
b. No. there is no sufficient personal knowledge on the part of the investigator
c. Yes. Provided it was made in the performance of his official duty.
d. No. Police reports are not admissible for being hearsay
e. Both a and c.
40. Alice was a retardate. When the trial was ongoing, she died. Her sister Amalia
testified to prove the case of rape against Romy. As recounted by Amalia, she heard
Alice cry out tama na, tama na! When Fallones opened the door upon Amalias
incessant knocking, Alice came out from behind him, uttering Amalia, may napkin na
binigay si Romy o. The trial court convicted the Romy based on the testimony of
Amalia stating that Alices statements were made out of a startling occurrence which is
rape, thus part of the Res Gestae. Is the court correct?
a. No. Alice is a mental retardate, she does not understand the sanctity of an oath.
b. Yes. Fallones act of forcing himself into Alice is a startling event.
c. Yes. Fallones took advantage of Alice due to the fact that she was a mental
retardate.
d. No. Amalia cannot testify on matters which she does not have personal
knowledge of.
e. Both a and d.
41. In a Prosecution for Illegal Possession of Firearms, can the accused be
convicted even without the presentation of the gun in court?
a. Yes. The non-presentation of the subject firearm is not fatal for the prosecution
as long as the existence of the firearm can be established by testimony.
b. Yes. Its existence can be established by testimony.
c. Yes. If the prosecution is able to prove the existence of the subject firearm and
the fact that the accused does not have the corresponding permit to possess.
42. RRCG bus was plying its usual route when 2 suspicious men got on the bus.
They sat away from each other. As soon as the bus reached a stoplight at the corner of
Ayala Avenue and Edsa, the 2 men got off the bus. Moments thereafter, the bus
conductor felt an explosion. Abu Sayyaf group admitted the bombing. During a GMA
interview, Trinidad, one of the two men, confessed his participation in the bombing
incident. The bus conductor positively identified him and Asali as the perpetrators.
Several members of the Abu Sayyaf group were then arrested and were charged of
multiple murders. Asali became a state witness and confessed the participation of the
arrested members of the Abu Sayyaf group. The accused argued that the conspiracy
had long been terminated prior to the criminal case. Is the testimony of Asali against the
other members of the Abu Sayyaf group admissible in evidence against them?
a. Yes. It is an admission given on the witness implicating his co-accused.
b. No. The conspiracy is no longer existent, the testimony is inadmissible.
c. Yes. He is a member of the group.
d. No. The testimony cannot stand on its own.
43. A recantation is disfavor as it can be easily secured from a poor and ignorant
witness for monetary consideration. Sweetheart theory is never accepted as rebuttal in
a criminal proceeding of rape.
44. The doctrine under which extra-judicial confessions independently made without
collusion which are identical with each other in their essential details and are
corroborated by other evidence on record are admissible, as circumstantial evidence,
against the person implicated to show the probability of the latters actual participation in
the commission of the crime.
a. Doctrine of admissible confessions
b. Doctrine of interlocking confessions.
c. Doctrine of Judicial admissions
d. Doctrine of extrajudicial confessions
45. The adverse party may cross-examine a witness for the purpose of eliciting all
important facts bearing upon the issue. From this, it may be inferred that a party may
cross examine a witness on matters only embraced in his direct examination.
46. A deaf-mute is not incompetent as a witness. All persons who can perceive, and
perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. "When a
deaf-mute testifies in court, the manner in which the examination of a deaf-mute should
be conducted is a matter to be regulated and controlled by the trial court in its
discretion, and the method adopted will not be reviewed by the appellate court in the
absence of a showing that the complaining party was in some was injured by reason
of the particular method adopted. Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses where they,
except:
a. Can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath
b. Can comprehend facts they are going to testify on
c. Can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter.
d. Can understand English or Filipino language.
47. While the witnesses may differ in their recollections of an incident, it does not
necessarily follow from their disagreements that all of them should be disbelieved as
liars and their testimonies completely discarded. It is not a positive rule of law. The
witness must have a conscious and deliberate intention to falsify a material point. This is
the liberal application of the legal maxim:
a. Dubio pro reo
b. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus
c. Res ipsa loquitur
d. Res inter alios acta
48. A candid narration by a victim of how she was raped bears the earmarks of
credibility. No woman in her right mind would admit to having been raped unless the
charges are true.
49. In a killing incident, more than two years had elapsed before German and Crispin
reported the crime to the authorities. Implicated are four policemen and a barangay
captain of the place where the witnesses resided. Can the court take judicial notice of
the facts such that the delay in reporting will be justified?
a. No. crimes must be reported immediately as they are imbued with public interest.
b. Yes. The natural reticence of most people to get involved in a criminal case is to
keep silent, especially in the case at bar where authorities are involved.
c. No. Matters of Judicial Notice are only those enumerated in the Rules of Court.
d. No. They should be held civilly liable for failing to report a crime.
50. During the testimony of Witness A, the accused objected as there are
inconsistencies in the formers testimonies regarding the incident which took place
about three years ago. He moved to strike out the totality of Witness As testimonial
evidence. Should the Court grant the motion?
a. Yes. Inconsistencies of testimony are a ground for the impeachment of a witness.
b. No. Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses when referring only to minor
details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their
veracity, or the weight of their testimony.
c. Yes. It is a violation of the right to due process of the accused.
d. No. Inconsistencies are not material, if the court does not notice.
51. Conspiracy may be proved circumstantial evidence, it may be deduced from the
mode, method, and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the
acts of the accused themselves, when such acts point to a joint purpose and design,
concerted action, and community of interest. Alibi is one of the weakest of defenses in
criminal prosecution because the same is easy to concoct through relatives, friends and
even those not related to the offender.
52. Rosemarie testified in court that she was present when accused Orias and
Elarcosa shot to death her brother and her father in the living room. She also positively
identified the two during a police line up. The accused appealed their conviction on the
ground that the credibility of the witness was not assessed. How should the credibility of
a witness be assessed?
a. Credibility of a witness is best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.
b. Absent a clear showing that trial courts finding is tainted with arbitrariness,
capriciousness or palpable error, it is accorded with great weight.
c. Witness must not only be credible, her testimony must foremost be credible itself.
53. Alex was convicted of possession of shabu. The lone testimony of PO3 Perez
was the basis of his conviction. The Court of Appeals even affirmed the decision of the
trial court holding as basis the well-settled doctrine that the testimony of a lone witness
so long as it is credible and positive, can prove the guilt of the accused. Is the CA
correct?
a. No. the doctrine does not apply to drug cases.
b. Yes. PO3 Perez is presumed to have acted in an official capacity and regularly,
absent any showing that he did so otherwise, the lone testimony may be used to convict
an accused in a drug case.
c. No. Other testimony may be had.
d. No. the corpus delicti must be shown during trial.
54. Petitioners as Sangguniang Panglungsod members prepared a resolution
appropriating money for the purpose of building a barangay clinic. They were charged of
falsification of public documents. On their defense, the resolutions were mere draft not
acted upon by the sangguniang for lack of quorum and that the barangay seal was not
affixed thereto. Should the draft be considered a public document for the purpose of
convicting the accused?
a. No. they were mere drafts signifying nothing.
b. No. the draft, even if signed, does not bear the seal of the barangay.
c. Yes. Public documents include written official acts or records of official acts of the
sovereign authority. Their acts are made in the exercise of legislative authority.
d. No. they never had any criminal intent when they signed such proposed
resolution.
55. The guiding principles in rape cases are the following, except:
a. The testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost caution
b. Accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove and even more difficult to
disproved
c. Victim must positively identify the accused in court.
d. Evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own merits and cannot draw
strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.
56. Mary was indebted to Pam, she made a promissory note evidencing the loan.
The promissory note was photocopied by Pam, one for her and the other for Mary.
Pams lawyer kept the possession of the promissory note. Unfortunately, due to a
fortuitous event, the note was destroyed. Are the photocopies considered original
document for the purpose of the best evidence rule?
a. Yes. They were photocopied at the time when the original was made. Hence,
equally regarded as original.
b. Yes. The original having been destroyed, the photocopies take the place of the
original.
c. Yes. As both parties acquires a photocopy of the note.
d. No. it was not stated that the photocopies are signed, only considered as
secondary evidence.
57. The rules on evidence under the Revised Rules of Court are not applicable in
proceedings other than civil and criminal. Does that rule extend to rules on electronic
evidence?
a. No. Rules on electronic evidence shall apply whenever an electronic data
message is offered or used in evidence.
b. No. Rules on evidence shall apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as
quasi-judicial and administrative cases.
c. Yes. As provided by the Rules of Court.
d. Both a and b.
EMER ORTEGA
1. In a petition for naturalization, a judgment was rendered in favor Aba Panalo, the
petitioner, on the basis of documents which were not formally offered during the trial.
On appeal, Lou Ser, the respondent, argued that under Sec. 34, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court, only evidence that has been formally offered shall be considered. Is
the contention of B correct?
a. Yes, it is mandatory that evidence should be formally offered before it can be
considered.
b. Yes, the Rules of Evidence is applicable by analogy or in a suppletory character
and whenever practicable and convenient.
c. No, formal offer of evidence is not mandatory.
d. No, the rule on fomal offer of evidence is not applicable in cases involving
petition for naturalization.
2. Juan, Maria and Anna are the children of Inay Kopo and Itay Kopo. Itay Kopo
sued Inay Kopo for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage. During the trial, Juan, Itay
Kopo and Albularyo, Inay Kopos doctor. Inay Kopo objected on the testimony of
Albularyo on the ground of the doctrine of privilege communication of physician-patient.
Is Inay Kopo correct?
a. No, Albularyo can testify because it is applicable to a civil case.

b. No, the objection has no merit.
c. Yes, Albularyo cannot testify because it does not apply to a civil case.
d. Yes, Albularyo cannot testify where the subject of the testimony is the advice or
treatment given by him in his professional capacity.
3. A case for illegal dismissal was filed by Kawa Waako against Abusado
Corporation. In support of Kawa Waakos material allegations, he presented mere
photocopies of several documents. Hence, Abusado Corporation interposed a protest
against the documentary evidence submitted and invoked the Best Evidence Rule. Is
the contention of Abusado Corporation correct?
a. Yes, the Best Evidence Rule requires that original documents must be produced
when the subject of inquiry is the contents of the document.
b. Yes, the Rules on Evidence is the means of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding
the truth respecting a matter of fact.
c. No, the technical rules of evidence do not apply in the proceedings before the
NLRC.
d. No, the Rules on Evidence should not be strictly applied.
4. In a prosecution for homicide, the defense witness Chiz Mosa testifies under oath
that Mama Matay, the accused, killed the victim by firing a .45 balibre gun thrice having
heard the story of his best friend Kai Bigan to Dodong. Mama Matay, objected on the
ground that the testimony is hearsay, thus, excluded by the rules. Is the testimony of
Chiz Mosa competent, thus admissible?
a. No, because the witness is not testifying based on his personal knowledge.
b. No, the testimony is hearsay, because the witness is not testifying based on his
personal knowledge, one excluded by the rules, thus not competent.
c. Yes, the testimony is relevant and competent, thus admissible.
d. Yes, the testimony is made by a qualified witness, thus the testimony is
admissible.
5. Pala Boy testified that he saw Lam Pa lying on the street with a wound caused by
a stabbing incident and shouted for help, but to no avail. Pala Boy further stated that he
hurriedly transported Lam Pa to Byaheng Langit General Hospital. That on their way to
the hospital and upon inquiry, Lam Pa stated that Mama Matay is the one who had
stabbed him. As a consequence of the incident, Lam Pa died an hour after his
admission made in the emergency room. Durint trial, Mama Matay objected on the
admissibility of Pala Boys testimony on the ground that it is hearsay. Is Mama Matay
correct?
a. No, the admission made by Lam Pa can qualify as both a dying declaration and
as part of the res gestae, an exception to the rule on hearsay, hence, admissible.
b. No, the admission made by Lam Pa is admissible because he testified based on
his personal knowledge.
c. Yes, the testimony made by Pala Boy is a hearsay, because as a rule, the
witness should testify only based on his personal knowledge.
d. Yes, the utterances made by Lam Pa are not among those excepted on the rule
on hearsay.
6. Manya Kis was convicted for committing the crime of rape against Kalad Karin.
The basis of conviction was the sole witness of the prosecution, the victim herself, who
positively identified Manya Kis as the perpetrator of the crime. On the other hand,
Manya Kis argued that it was physically impossible for him to commit the said crime and
further presented Manya Kis' wife to corroborate his testimony and testified that Manya
Kis was with her at that time. Is the judgment of conviction proper?
a. Yes, the defense of alibi and denial are self-serving negative defense and
inherently weak to overcome the testimonies of the prosecution.
b. Yes, the accused must establish by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it
was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of crime and not
merely that he was somewhere else.
c. No, the prosecutions witness should at least be corroborated by another witness.
d. Both A and B
7. In a prosecution for rape, the victim Anak Anakan, testified that her stepfather
Abusado Masyado had been raping her since December 2014 but failed to report the
incidents becuase of fear and humiliation on her person. She was able to report the
incident only on January 2017. On the other hand, the accused argued that the victim's
testimony was fabricated and has no probative value for her having failed to report the
incident as soon as possible or as early as 2014 when the incident happened. Is the
contention of Abusado Masyado meritorious?
a. Yes, delay by a witness in divulging the crime is a setback to the evidentiary

value of the testimony.
b. Yes, delay by a witness in divulging the crime can easily lead to fabrications and
may impair the credibility of the testimony.
c. No, delay in reporting does not necessarily impair the credibility if such is
satisfactorily and sufficiently justified by any acceptable explanation.
d. No, there is no law or principle holding that delayed testimonies has no probative
value and inadmissble.
8. Donya Galante, the lessor and Nangu Ngupahan, the lessee, entered into a
lease agreement for a period of 2 years. During the existence of their lease agreement,
Nangu Ngupahan discovered that Donya Galante has no title; hence, she assailed the
lessor's title of better right of possession and claimed that between them, Nangu
Ngupahan has a better right of possession. Is the contention of Nangu Ngupahan
tenable?
a. No, because there is a conclusive presumption which estopped the lessee from
questioning the lessor regarding its title or better right of possession.
b. Yes, the right of the lessor to lease the property is dependent on the formers title
or right of possession.
c. No, because there is a conclusive presumtion which estopped the lessee from
going back on their own acts and representations, to the prejudice of others who relied
on them.
d. Yes, the right of the lessor to lease the property should be based on the
conclusiveness of the title and better right of possession.
9. Settled is the rule that, in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act,
credence is given to prosecution witnesses, who are police officers, for they are
presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. What kind of proof
can overcome this presumption?
a. Proof beyond reasonable doubt.

b. Clear and convincing evidence.
c. Preponderance of evidence.
d. Substantial evidence.
10. Magna Nakaw is arrested for carjacking and information was subsequently filed
against him. The prosecution sought to introduce the fact that Magna Nakaw has two
other pending cases for carjacking against him and one pending case for Estafa. Magna
Nakaw objects to the admission of these other pending cases. Is the evidence
presented by the prosecution admissible?
a. Yes, the court should admit the evidence because they tend to show the criminal
disposition of Magna Nakaw.
b. Yes, but the court should only admit the fact of the other two carjacking cases
since the Estafa case has no bearing in the case against Magna Nakaw.
c. No, the evidence is irrelevant.
d. No, because the other pending cases are hearsay evidence.
11. A resident Chinese named Kim Chui executed a will where she stated that it is
executed in accordance with her national law (Law of China) and instituted her Filipino
husband Gerald Anderdasaya as her sole heir. Upon her death, Gerald presented the
will for probate. Judge Matalino, a law graduate of China and Philippines, granted the
probate of the will without the introduction of formal evidence and based on his personal
knowledge of the Law of China. Is Judge Matalino correct?
a. Yes, introduction of formal evidence is not necessary because the Judge has
personal knowledge of the foreign law to be applied.
b. Yes, personal knowledge by the Judge of the foreign law is one of the exceptions
requiring judicial notice.
c. No, foreign laws must be alleged and proved.
d. No, personal knowledge of the judge is immaterial and irrelevant.
12. In a prosecution for Robbery, Magna Nakaw admitted material facts in the pre-
trial. In order to be admissibe in court as against him, in what manner and form should
the admission be made?
a. The admissions should be made in open court with the assistance of the counsel.
b. The admissions should be in writing and signed by the accused and counsel.
c. The admissions should be stated in the Pre-trial order.
d. The admissions should be judicial in nature.
13. In a case involving minors or a person alleged to be incompetent, can the minor
sue and be sued?
a. Yes, provided the minor or the person alleged to be incompetent is represented.

b. Yes, provided the minor or the person alleged to be incompetent is assisted.
c. Yes, provided the minor or the person alleged to be incompetent is accused.
d. Yes, provided the minor or the person alleged to be incompetent is impleaded.
14. Manya Kis was charged with rape. During the pre-trial, he personally offered to
settle the case for 10 Million to the private prosecutor. Is Manya Kis' offer a judicial
admission of guilt?
a. Yes, a judicial admission is one that is verbal or written made by a party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case.
b. Yes, a judicial admission is one that is verbal or written made by a party in the
course of the proceedings, regardless whether it is in the same case or not.
c. No, judicial admissions must be alleged in the pleadings.
d. No, judicial admissions must be alleged in the pleadings to be considered as an
implied admission of guilt.
15. The best evidence rule applies when the subject of the inquiry is?
a. The due execution and authenticity of the document.
b. The contents of the document.
c. The faithful reproduction of the original.
d. The veracity of a public or notarized document.
16. A case was filed against Mandaram Bong for serious physical injuries committed
against Mata Pang. During the trial, the prosecution presented the victim and exhibited
his wounded arm and legs. Is the wounded arm and legs admissible?
a. Yes, a human being may be a form of object or real evidence where the racial
characteristics are at issue.
b. Yes, there is no law or principle prohibiting the admission of a human being as
object or real evidence.
c. No, it is contrary to law, customs, public policy and public morals.
d. No, a human being is not and cannot be a form of object or real evidence.
17. A judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by:

a. A person in the course of the proceedings in the same case.
b. A party in the course of the proceedings in the same case.
c. The judge in the course of the proceedings in the same case.
d. A witness in the course of the proceedings in the same case.
18. Inay Kopo sued Itay Kopo for child support. During the trial of the case, Inay
Kopo intends to present witnesses who will testify that Itay Kopo has also been
defaulting on child support due to his two other children with Kabit Ako. In order to be
admissible as testimonial evidence, what should be the purpose of the offer of the
testimonies?
a. The purpose must be to prove that Itay Kopo defaulted on child support due to
Inay Kopo's child.
b. The purpose must be to prove Itay Kopo's habit of defaulting on child support due
to his children.
c. The testimony is irrelevant, hence inadmissible.
d. The testimony is hearsay, hence inadmissible.
19. Under the consciousness of an impending death while lying on the hospital bed
in Byaheng Langit General Hospital, Madal Dal revealed to Chiz Mosa that he killed
Walang Malay. Fortunately, Madal Dal survived. During the trial of the murder case,
Chiz Mosa testified that the accused Madal Dal confesses to him that he killed Walang
Malay. Is the testimony of Chiz Mosa admissible in court?
a. No, the testimony of Chiz Mosa is hearsay.

b. Yes, the testimony of Chiz Mosa is a dying declaration.
c. Yes, the testimony of Chiz Mosa is part of the res gestae.
d. Yes, the testimony of Chiz Mosa is an independent relevant statement.
20. Can the testimony of Manghuhula, a recognized paranormal expert, be

a. Yes, provided it is relevant.

b. Yes, provided he is qualified as an expert.
c. No, because it is unreliable.
d. No, because his testimony can never be relevant.
21. During a media interview, Madal Dal confessed that he killed Walang Malay. In
the trial, the prosecution presented only the media confession to prove the crime of
homicide. Is the media confession enough to convict the accused?
a. Yes, it is a declaration of the accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense

charged.
b. Yes, the act, declaration or omission of a party as to relevant fact may be given
in evidence against him.
c. No, the media confession is only an extrajudicial confession and not a judicial
confession.
d. No, an extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient
ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
22. In a case involving a court employee who sent a text message to a litigant
demanding Five Million Pesos (Php 5,000,000.00) in exchange for a favorable judgment
and during the trial, the text messages were presented but the defendant objected to its
admissibility. Are the text messages admissible as evidence?
a. Yes, text messages are considered "electronic evidence" under the Rules of
Electronic Evidence.
b. No, only text messages from post-paid account are considered admissible
evidence.
c. Yes, text messages are considered "ephemeral electronic communication" under
the Rules of Electronic Evidence.
d. No, only text messages from pre-paid account are considered admissible
evidence.
23. In a case, the police officers entered Negosyante's theater and took pictures of
an obscene film and seized the film without securing a warrant. During the trial, the
prosecution presented the pictures of the obscene films to prove the contents of the
film. Negosyante objected invoking the best evidence rule. Is Negosyante correct?
a. No, the best evidence rule does not apply.

b. Yes, because the best evidence rule requires the production of the film itself.
c. Yes, because the Rules on Electronic Evidence require the production of the film
itself.
d. Yes, because the Rules of Court require the best evidence available must be
produced.
24. The testimony of a child witness is:
a. admissible even if hearsay.

b. Not admissible if hearsay.
c. Sufficient to convict an accused even if hearsay.
d. Admissible only after his competency is establihed.
25. Bilang Go was under detention that entered a plea of not guilty. Before the
prosecution rested its case, Bilang Go told the jail warden, Chiz Mosa, that he killed
Walang Malay. The prosecution then presented the jail warden, Chiz Mosa, to take the
witness stand to prove Bilang Go's extrajudicial statement to the jail warden. Is the
testimony of Chiz Mosa admissible?
a. No, the testimony is hearsay.

b. No, because the Miranda Rights was not read to the accused.
c. Yes, since it is an extrajudicial admission.
d. Yes, since it is presumably credible coming from a public officer.
26. Walang Malay is found dead in his house. When the police came, the driver and
the maid were present. The police officers then ask them what happened and the driver
responded, ''Ako po ang pumatay." Consequently, information for homicide was filed
and during the trial, the prosecution seeks to present the extrajudicial statement of the
driver through the police officer. Is the extrajudicial statement admissible?
a. Yes, because it is relevant to the case.

b. Yes, because it is a part of the res gestae.
c. No, because the driver and the maid were not informed of their right to remain
silent.
d. No, because it is hearsay.
27. Which of the following most likely may not be a witness?
a. A drug addict.
b. A seven year old child.
c. A blind deaf-mute.
d. A pathological liar.
28. Yayamanin, a creditor, filed a petition for the settlement of the estate of Donya
Maria. He claimed that the deceased is indebted to him and to his sister Kapatid Ako.
Another creditor, Negosyante, also filed his claim. Yayamanin and Kapatid Ako testified
in support of each others claim while Asawa Ako, wife of Negosyante, testified for her
husband. Julalay, appointed administratrix, objected to the testimonies of the witness
invoking the Dead Mans Statute. Is the Dead Mans Statute applicable to Yayamanin
and Kapatid Ako who testified in support of the subject claims against the estate?
a. Yes. Testimonies of co-parties fall under the prohibition.

b. No. Yayamanin and Kapatid Ako are third parties with respect to each others
claim. One is not thus disqualified to testify on the others transaction.
c. Yes. The indebtedness did not occur prior to the death of the deceased.
d. No. The Rules of Court is silent in such instance.
29. Is the testimony of Asawa Ako incompetent under the same rule, thus,
inadmissible?
a. No. Asawa Ako is not a party to the case. Neither is she an assignor nor a
person in whose behalf the case is being prosecuted.
b. Yes. She is a family member of the creditor. She is incompetent to testify.
c. Yes. However she was cross-examined. It is a waiver of the objection.
d. No. Dead Mans Statute is only applicable in criminal cases.
30. The accused was convicted of libel. One of the evidence was a tape recording of
the radio broadcast which recording was made by the daughter of the complainant, but
the daughter was not however presented as a witness. Should the tape recording be
admitted.
a. No. The person who actually recorded should be presented in order to lay the
foundation for the admission of the tape recording.
b. Yes. It is an object evidence, it does not need the recorder to testify for the same
c. No. a tape recorder is not admissible in evidence.
d. No. it is a fruit of a poisonous tree.
31. In a trial, respondents witness was not cross-examined by the petitioner because
of several postponements attributable to the latter. One, when the petitioner failed to
appear during a hearing and another, when his counsel was abroad. Petitioner sought
to strike out the testimony of said witness as he was not cross-examined by him. Should
his motion be granted?
a. No. Right to cross-examination is not an absolute right which a party can demand
at all times.
b. Yes. Due process dictates that a witness must be cross-examined by the
opposing party.
c. Yes. Where there was no opportunity and the want of it is caused by the party
offering, the testimony shall be stricken out.
d. No. Cross-examination is indispensable because it is when the court observes
the decorum of the parties.
32. For pedigree evidence to be admissible:
a. It is essential that the declarant is deceased or unable to testify.

b. It is not essential that the declarant is deceased or unable to testify.
c. It is essential only that the declarant is deceased.
d. It is essential only that the declarant is unable to testify.
33. After a police chase rooting from a shooting incident, PO2 Matapang spotted the
car of the shooter, Mayabang. The former saw firearms inside the vehicle when he
opened the door. During trial of Mayabang, said firearms were offered in evidence.
Mayabang objected arguing that they are inadmissible in evidence being incompetent.
Is Mayabang correct?
a. Yes. They were inadmissible because Mayabang was not arrested prior to the
seizure.
b. No. Since a shooting incident just took place and it was reported that petitioner
was involved in the incident, it was apparent to the police officers that the firearms may
be evidence of a crime.
c. Yes. The firearms are excluded by the exclusionary rule.
d. No. It was a valid seizure by virtue of search of a moving vehicle.
34. Which of the following is admissible in evidence?
a. Seized screwdriver, camera and cellphone during a drug raid by virtue of a

search warrant.
b. Video recording of the altercation of an MMDA traffic enforcer and a private
individual charged with traffic violation.
c. Bank account information.
d. Coerced confession.
35. Mandarambong and Matapang were charged with murder. Matapang was
discharged from the information to be a state witness. During the trial, Matapang was
presented but the prosecution forgot to state the purpose of his testimony much less
offer it in evidence. The testimony of Matapang was the only material evidence
establishing the guilt of Mandarambong. After the prosecution rested its case, the
defense filed a motion for demurrer to evidence on the ground that the testimony of
Matapanag should be excluded because it was not formally offered in evidence. Should
the testimony of Matapang be excluded?
a. Yes, it is hearsay.
b. Yes, failure to object constitute a waiver.
c. No, under the rules, the court shall consider no evidence which has not been
formally offered.
d. No, under the rules, it is mandatory to state the purpose of the testimony and to
formally offer it in evidence.
36. Any admission made during the pre-trial cannot be used against the accused,
unless:
a. It was recorded in the minutes of the pre-trial conference.

b. It was made in writing signed by the accused and counsel.
c. Accused was present and assisted by counsel.
d. Accused affirms such admissions during trial.
37. Juan, Maria and Anna are the children of Inay Kopo and Itay Kopo. Itay Kopo
sued Inay Kopo for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage. During the trial, Juan, Itay
Kopo and Albularyo, Inay Kopos doctor, testified which was properly objected by Inay
Kopo on the ground of marital privilege. Is Inay Kopo correct?
a. No, it does not apply to a civil case.

b. No, it does not apply to a civil case by one against the other.
c. Yes, it applies to all cases.
d. Yes, it applies to all cases where the husband and wife are involved.
38. A witness is required to testify orally in open court:
a. Only in criminal cases.

b. In both civil and criminal cases.
c. In civil, criminal and labor cases.
d. Only on cross-examination in civil and criminal cases because cross-examination
is vital to arriving at the truth.
39. Alpha Kapalmuks was charged with rape committed against Ateng Mahalay. He
took the stand on his own behalf and testified on the alleged rape. On what matters may
the prosecution cross examine Alpha Kapalmuks?
a. Only matters touched upon by Alpha Kapalmuks in his direct testimony.

b. All matters involving the alleged rape.
c. All matters involing Alpha Kapalmuks and other relevant matters.
d. Only matters which are relevant and competent.
40. An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital and other expenses
occasioned by an injury:
a. Is admissible as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.

b. Is admissible as proof of liability only in civil cases.
c. Is admissible as proof of liability only in criminal cases.
d. Is inadmissible as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
41. In an action for support, Inay Kopo and her son Anak Kopo moved for the
issuance of an order directing all of them to submit to DNA testing. However, the Itay
Kopo objected by invoking his right against self-incrimination and for lack of cause of
action. Rule on the objection of Itay Kopo.
a. The objection of Itay Kopo has merit because it will violate his constitutional right.
b. The objection of Itay Kopo has merit becauase DNA testing has not yet accorded
official recognition by Philippine courts.
c. The objection has no merit, DNA testing is a valid means of determining
paternity.
d. The objection of Itay Kopo has no merit because DNA testing is the best
evidence.
42. In a prosecution for rape against the accused Abusado, the defense relied on
DNA testing evidence showing that the semen found in the private part of the victim
Mahalay was not identical with that of the accused. As private prosecutor how will you
dispute the veracity and accuracy of the DNA evidence?
a. To impugn the probative value by showing errors on the procedure followed in

analysing the samples.
b. To impugn errors on the possibility of contamination of the samples.
c. To impugn errors on how the samples were collected and handled.
e. None of the above.
43. Abusado has already been convicted under a final and executory judgment for
the crime of rape against Mahalay, can Abusado still avail of DNA testing?
a. Yes, because it is relevant and competent.

b. Yes, he may still avail a post conviction DNA testing.
c. No, it is no longer allowed because he was already convicted under a final and
executory judgment.
d. No, it is no longer relevant and competent.
44. In the trial of a case on February 14, 2010, plaintiff Mangagantso offered in
evidence a receipt dated August 10, 1970 issued by defendant Negosyante Company in
its regular course of business which was found in a steel cabinet for receipts of
payment. During the trial, no witness testified in the execution and authenticity of the
document. Hence, Negosyante Company moved for the exclusion of the receipt. Should
the motion be granted?
a. Yes, a witness is required to prove the due execution and authenticity of the
document.
b. Yes, because it is not self-authenticating.
c. No, because it is an ancient private document.
d. No, because a witness is not required to prove the due execution and
authenticity of the document.
45. The following are other factors that do not affect the competency of a witness,
except one:
a. Religious belief.
b. Conviction of a crime.
c. Interest in the outcome of the case.
d. Political belief.
46. Itay Kopo and Inay Kopo are legally and happily married. However, Itay Kopo is
charged in court with the crime of serious physical injuries committed against Junior, the
son of Inay Kopo in her previous relationship, hence the step-son of Itay Kopo. The
prosecutor called Inay Kopo to the witness stand and offered her testimony as
eyewitness. Itay Kopo objected on the ground of the marital disqualification rule. Is the
objection valid?
a. Yes, the marital disqualification rule is absolute.

b. Yes, under the Rules of Court, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or
against the other without the consent of the affected spouse.
c. No, the marital disqualification rule is only the general rule.
d. No, under the Rules of Court, if the crime is committed by one against the other
or direct descendant of the other, the rule will not apply.
47. Inay Kopo was estranged from her husband Itay Kopo for more than a year due
to several indifference' in life. Inay Kopo was temporarily living with her friend Chiz
Mosa in Mandaluyong City. On January 1, 2017, the house of her friend Chiz Mosa was
burned, killing the latter. Luckily, Inay Kopo survived the incident because she was
outside the house to buy Datu Puti. During the incident, she saw Itay Kopo in the
vicinity. Later, Itay Kopo was charged with arson in an information. During the trial, Inay
Kopo was called to take the witness stand, however, Itay Kopo objected on the ground
of marital privilege or martigal disqualification rule. Is the objection valid?
a. Yes, the marital disqualification rule is absolute.

b. No, the marital disqualification rule is only the general rule.
c. Yes, under the Rules of Court, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or
against the other without the consent of the affected spouse during the existence of the
marriage.
d. No, under the Rules of Court, the marital disqualification rule will no longer apply
in a case where the husband and the wife have become estranged.
48. The following are some of the instances where leading questions are allowed in a
direct examination, except one:
a. On preliminary matters.
b. When the witness is ignorant or child of tender years, or is feeble-minded or
deaf-mute and there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers.
c. When the witness is a hostile witness.
d. When the witness is an adverse party, or an officer, director, or managing agent
of a corporation, partnership of association which is an adverse party.
49. Mahalay's body was discovered near a dump site. Manyakis was arrested due to
witnesses attesting that he was the last person seen with Mahalay when she was still
alive. While in the police custody, Manyakis orally confessed to the investigator and in
the presence of an assisting counsel that he indeed raped and killed Mahalay. During
the trial, the prosecution presented the investigator to testify. Is the confession made by
Manyakis admissible as evidence of guilt?
a. Yes, because it is a declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the

offense charged.
b. Yes, because it was made in the presence of an authorized officer and the
assisting counsel.
c. No, because it is in the nature of an extrajudicial confession under custodial
investigation.
d. No, because it is in the nature of an extrajudicial confession which does not
comply with the mandatory provisions of the law.
50. Barumbado was charged with homicide committed against Kawaa Wako. Before the
case could be tried, Barumbado and his family discussed the possibility of
settlement and offered ten (10) million pesos which was accepted by the heirs of
Kawaa Wako. Is the agreement to settle as well as the accepted offer of ten (10)
million pesos admissible in evidence as an implied admission of guilt?
a. Yes, under the rules on evidence, an accepted offer of compromise and

settlement in a criminal case by the accused is an implied admission of guilt.
b. Yes, under the rules on evidence, an offer of compromise in a criminal case by
the accused is an implied admission of guilt.
c. No, under the rules on evidence, an offer of compromise in a criminal case by the
accused is not an implied admission of guilt.
d. No, under the rules on evidence, an accepted offer of compromises is
tantamount to acquittal.
RHODA DAMO
1. All except one of the following is disputable presumption:
a. A negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient

consideration.
b. A letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the
mail.
c. A person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act.
d. A tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of
the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
2. In an action for recovery of ownership of a parcel of land of X against Y which

alleges that X is the owner of the property. During the trial, X testifies and adduces
evidence that sometime in 2000, said property was bought by A from a certain B. Y
objects on the ground that the evidence is irrelevant to support the claim of ownership of
X. Is the objection of Y be granted?
a. No. X may ask the court to conditionally allow his testimony with the
undertaking to show later that he bought the property from A, who in
turn bought it from B.
b. No. The evidence adduced by X is relevant to the case.
c. Yes. The testimony given by X is irrelevant to the issue on ownership of the
said property. To be admissible as evidence, the testimony must be relevant
to the issue and not otherwise excluded by law.
d. Yes. The testimony given by X is immaterial to the issue on ownership of the
said property.
3. In a rape case, is the pair of short pants allegedly left by the accused in the crime
scene be admissible as evidence?
a. No. There is not enough proof to support that the short pants in the crime
scene belongs to the accused.
b. Yes. The short pants may be admissible as circumstantial evidence of
the liability of the accused.
c. No. The short pants cannot be admitted as evidence because it is immaterial
to the case.
d. Yes. The short pants can be admitted as evidence if coupled with a
testimony from the victim.
4. Among the requisites of a newly discovered evidence, which is the most

important?
a. That the evidence is discovered after trial.
b. That the evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial
even with the exercise of reasonable diligence.
c. That the evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or
impeaching.
d. That the evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the
judgment if admitted.
5. When the presentation of an additional evidence of a different kind and character

which tends to prove the same point is referred to as:
b. Circumstantial Evidence
c. Corroborative Evidence
6. In an insurance recovery claim dated September 2009, it was not alleged in the
claim that the loss happened on the day Typhoon Ondoy struck Manila. Can the other
party request the court to take judicial notice of this fact?
a. Yes. During hearing, every matter can be subject of judicial notice.
b. No. The court cannot take judicial notice of factual matters.
c. Yes. The fact sought to be established can be a subject of judicial notice.
d. No. The fact sought to be established cannot be a subject of judicial notice.
7. The accused was charged of the crime of rape with homicide of certain
AAA. The prosecution witnesses identified the accused as the one who entered and
went out of the room of AAA as they are familiar with the accused because they were
neighbors. They also corroborated each others testimony that the victim had a stab
wound in her breast but was declared dead on arrival when brought to the
hospital. Moreover, the medico-legal testified that he found several stab wounds and
contusions and hymenal lacerations on the body of the victim. Circumstantial evidence
shall be sufficient for conviction when the following requisites are present, EXCEPT:
a. More than one circumstance.
b. Facts from which inferences are derived are proven.
c. The witnesses testify directly of their own knowledge as to the main
facts to be proved.
d. The combination of all the circumstances such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
8. An inference or conclusion drawn from facts observed is called:

a. Opinion
b. Expert Evidence
c. Hypothetical Question
d. Laying the Proper Basis or Predicate
9. It is a deduction which the law expressly directs to be made from particular facts:
a. Presumption of Facts
b. Prima facie Evidence
c. Presumption of Law
d. Presumption
10. An objection directed against the alleged defect in the formulation of the
question:
a. General Objection
b. Specific Objection
c. Substantive Objection
d. Formal Objection
11. Jose with treachery, without any justifiable cause and with deliberate intent to
take the life of Pepe with a sharp pointed instrument thereby inflicting the mortal wound
in the chest causing Pepes untimely demise. Jose claimed killing Pepe in self-
defense. When self-defense is invoked, who has the burden of evidence?
a. Accused
b. Prosecution
c. Both a and b
12. Any extrajudicial statement or conduct (act or omission) by a party that is

inconsistent with the position the party presently takes:
a. Confession
b. Admission by Silence
c. Declaration
d. Admission
13. The following are examples of admissible confessions, EXCEPT:
a. Confession obtained by leading questions.

b. Those made under the influence of parental sentiment.
c. Those made under the influence of spiritual advice or exhortation.
d. Those made by accused while intoxicated if he was not physically able
to recollect the facts and state them truly.
14. The following are requirements for a valid Post-conviction DNA Testing without
need of prior court order to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and
executor judgment, EXCEPT:
a. Biological sample exist.

b. The DNA Testing uses a scientifically valid technique.
c. Sample is relevant to the case.
d. Testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment
of conviction.
15. The notes, writings, memoranda of a lawyer taken in the performance of his
professional duty form part of his confidential file and privilege cannot be subject of
written interrogatories:
a. Attorney Client Privilege

b. Work Product Rule
c. Documentary Evidence
d. Secondary Evidence
16. A partys reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is

reasonable to treat the partys reaction as an admission of something stated or implied
by the other person:
a. Doctrine of Independent Relevant Statement

b. Res inter alios acta
c. Res Gestae
d. Doctrine of Adoptive Admission
17. This refers to telephone conversation, text messages, chat room sessions,
streaming audio/video and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of
which is not recorded or retained:
a. Electronic Evidence
b. Documentary Evidence
c. Ephemeral Electronic Communication
d. Electronically Notarized Document
18. Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in

evidence, its authenticity must be proved by:
a. Evidence that a method or process was utilized to verify the same.

b. Evidence that it was electronically notarized.
c. Evidence that it was digitally signed by the person who purportedly
signed the same.
d. Evidence that it contains electronic data messages.
19. An abandoned house owned by spouses Ronnie and Leila Go was being
searched by PDEA agents in Quezon City. In order for the search to be valid, the
chain of custody provides that the search must be made in the presence of:
a. The Barangay Chairman and a Barangay Tanod.

b. Any relative of the owner of the house.
c. The Director of the PDEA and a member of the media.
d. Any elected Quezon City official.
20. As provided for in Rule 132, Section 20, before any private document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be
proved. Hence, said private document may be considered as evidence when it is
sequentially:
a. Marked, authenticated and offered in evidence.

b. Marked, identified, authenticated and offered in evidence.
c. Identified, marked and offered in evidence.
d. Marked, identified and authenticated.
21. A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the
existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and
symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world
and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of
the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature,
the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. Which of the following can the
court may take judicial notice of:
a. The Twitter account of President Duterte.

b. A Committee Report issued by the Congressional Committee on Labor
Relations.
c. The effects of taking aspirin everyday.
d. The arbitral award issued by International Court of Arbitration.
22. After a Post-Conviction DNA Testing, Ricardo Dalisay, a convict, was able to get
a favorable result showing that he could not have committed the crime of murder. In
order to gain freedom, what shall be his remedy:
a. File a Motion to annul judgment of conviction on the ground of fraud.

b. Apply for full pardon.
c. File a Motion for New Trial under Rule 121 of the Rules of Court.
d. File a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus before the court of origin.
23. Police officer Edgar Matobato was arrested for extortion after an entrapment
operation. Matobato was compelled to undergo a drug test by submitting his urine
sample. The urine sample tested positive for drugs and Matobato was charged before
the RTC with the crime of use of dangerous drugs. Matobato challenged the
admissibility of the drug report on the ground that it violated his right against self-
incrimination. The trial court brushed aside Matobatos objection and convicted him,
relying primarily on the drug test result. Was the drug test result admissible in evidence
against Matobato?
a. No, the drug test violated Matobatos right against self-incrimination.

b. Yes, the drug test is prima facie evidence of Matobatos guilt.
c. No, the drug test is not relevant to the extortion case against Matobato.
d. Yes, the drug test is relevant to the issue in the case.
Police officer Cardo responded to a phone call and arrived at the crime scene. He
interviewed Benny who had a big gunshot wound and asked him about his
injury. Benny said that his injury did not look too good and said that it was Joaquin who
shot him. Blood then spewed out of Bennys mouth and he died immediately. Cardo
put down what Benny said in his police investigation report. Joaquin was prosecuted for
murder. During the trial, the records custodian of the police station identified the report,
narrated how Cardo acquired the information therein, stated that he (the custodian) was
the one in charge of filing police investigation reports and that the report came from his
custody. On cross-examination, the records custodian admitted that he was not familiar
with Cardos signature. Cardo was not presented as a witness since he was abroad on
a training course. The prosecution formally offered the police investigation report. The
defense objected to the offer of the police investigation report on the grounds that: (1) it
was hearsay, in fact, double hearsay, and (2) it was not properly authenticated.
24. In the above situation, is the police investigation report considered a hearsay and
therefore not admissible as evidence?
a. Yes, the police investigation report is a double hearsay.

b. No, the police investigation
c. Yes, the police investigation report, although considered a hearsay, is
considered an exception being an entry made in the performance of a
duty by a public officer.
d. Yes, said declaration by Benny is considered a dying declaration.
25. On the second objection, is the objection correct on its premise that the police
investigation report is not properly authenticated?
a. No, the police investigation report is a public document which does not
need to be authenticated.
b. Yes, documentary evidence must be properly authenticated before it can be
admitted as evidence.
c. No, the police investigation report is credible enough and need not be
authenticated.
d. Yes, it must be testified by the one who made the police investigation report
in order to be authenticated.
26. Eric was charged and convicted before the Sandiganbayan of the violation of the
Anti Graft Law. Eric initially hired Abner as his lawyer and Abner filed a petition for
review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. Eric later on fired Abner and engaged the
services of Patrick to handle the appeal before the Supreme Court. Eric confided to
Patrick that the annexes attached to the petition filed before the Supreme Court
contained falsified documents. Subsequently, Eric was charged with falsification of
documents. Patrick was subpoenaed by the prosecution and he was asked whether
Eric had confided to him regarding the falsified documents. Patrick objected on the
ground that the matter asked concerned confidential attorney-client
communication. Should the court sustain Patricks objection?
a. No, there was no showing that the information is intended to be confidential.

b. Yes, Erics revelation to Patrick is privileged and may not be inquired
into without Erics consent.
c. No, in the interest of justice, the revelation of Eric to Patrick should not be
considered as privileged.
d. Yes, the information might incriminate his client Eric.
27. Allan presents Maine as his witness in the civil case Allan filed against
Alden. Maine testified on direct examination that Alden entered the intersection when
the traffic light was red against him. On cross-examination, Aldens counsel asks
Maine, Isnt it true that on four occasions, you failed lie detector tests? If you were the
counsel for Allan, what would you do?
a. If I were the counsel for Allan, I would object on the ground of leading question.
b. If I were the counsel for Allan, I would object on the ground of immaterial
question.
c. If I were the counsel for Allan, I would object on the ground of improper
impeachment.
d. If I were the counsel for Allan, I would object on the ground of incompetency.
28. Carmen wrote an email to Rachelle offering for sale a specific parcel of land for
Php5 million. Rachelle replied also by email accepting the offer. Five days later,
Rachelle sent a text to Carmen saying that she was revoking her acceptance for
lack of funds. Carmen sued Rachelle for specific performance. Carmen offered
in evidence a photocopy of the print-out of Rachelles emailed reply. Carmen did
not account for the non-production of the original print-out. Rachelle objected to
the admission of the photocopy of the email on the ground that it violated the
Best Evidence Rule. Is the objection of Rachelle tenable?
a. No, a copy of an electronic document is considered as the equivalent of the

original.
b. Yes, the photocopy of the email is not considered as the original document
being merely a reproduction of such.
c. No, it is sufficient that a reproduction of the evidence is produced.
d. Yes, due to the fact that the original print-out was not produced.
Pia filed a civil case for oral defamation and damages against Mara. Pia presents as
witness Maxine. Maxines testimony is offered to prove that she saw Pia looking
extremely agitated and reading something from her cellphone, that she (Maxine) asked
Pia what she was reading, that Pia said it was a text message from Mara stating that
Pia was a prostitute and a husband snatcher. Maras lawyer objects on the following
grounds:
1. The best evidence is the text message;
2. The text message is an ephemeral electronic communication and
Maxine was not a party thereto nor did she have personal knowledge
thereof; and
3. The testimony relates to hearsay.
29. In the given case, does the objection of Maras lawyer on the text message as
best evidence with merit?
a. No, the Best Evidence Rule applies only to documentary evidence and not
to testimonial or oral evidence.
b. Yes, the text message is considered an oral evidence.
c. No, the text message cannot be said to be the original document.
d. Yes, the testimony of Maxine was offered to prove the contents of the text
message.
30. In the above case, does the objection of Maras lawyer on the premise that the
text message is an ephemeral electronic communication with merit?
a. Yes, text message is considered as an ephemeral electronic communication.

b. No, the text message is not considered as an ephemeral electronic
communication.
c. No, the text message is prima facie evidence of the testimony.
d. Yes, Maxine is not a party to the case and therefore she cannot testify
according to her personal knowledge.
31. In the case give, does the objection of Maras lawyer on the ground that the
testimony relates to hearsay is with merit?
a. No, Maras statement in her text message is not covered by the hearsay
rule.
b. Yes, party-admissions are not covered by hearsay rule.
c. Yes, the testimony done thru a text message cannot be authenticated.
d. No, the statement is made during a startling event.
32. Alden leased a house and lot to Meng. After the lease contract had been signed,
Meng lerned that Alden had mortgaged the house and lot to Julia who later acquired it
at the foreclosure sale. Meng bought the house and lot from Julia. Meng then ignored
demands for payment of rental from Alden. Alden thus filed an unlawful detainer case
against Meng. During the trial, Alden objects to the presentation of evidence by Meng
that she had acquired the title over the house and lot from Julia. Alden argues that
Meng is not permitted to deny his title over the house and lot in accordance with Sec.
2(b) of Rule 131 which provides that the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his
landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant
between them. Is Aldens argument correct?
a. No, Mengs title was subsequent to the commencement of the lease

contract. Hence, she can deny her landlord Aldens title.
b. Yes, the title of the landlord is considered as a conclusive presumption which
cannot be rebutted.
c. No, Meng purchased the land from the mortgagee-purchaser in the
extrajudicial foreclosure sale.
d. Yes, the title of the landlord cannot be denied by a subsequent issuance of
title.
33. The totality of an individuals DNA is unique for the individual, except identical
twins. DNA Testing is conclusive proof of non-paternity. What is the value of probability
of paternity in order to consider it as a disputable presumption of paternity?
a. Less than 99.9%

b. 99.9% or higher
c. 90 95%
d. 95 100%
34. The husband or wife cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to
any confidential communication received from the other during the marriage except in a
civil case by one against the other or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one
against the other or the latters ascendants or descendants:
a. Marital Communication Privilege

b. Marriage Disqualification Rule
c. Attorney-Client Privilege
d. State Secrets
35. The attorney-client privilege provides that an attorney cannot, without the
consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or
his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional
employment. This privilege extends to the following, EXCEPT:
a. Paralegal
b. Stenographer
c. Clerk
d. Janitor
36. In the physician-patient privilege, the physician cannot in a civil case, without the
patients consent, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any
information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional
capacity. Which of the following field of specialization is not covered by the said
privilege:
a. Medicine
b. Surgery
c. Obstetrics
d. Rehabilitation
37. Where a party, by his words or conduct, voluntarily adopts or ratifies anothers
statement. Evidence of the statement would then be admissible against the party. This
admission is called:
a. Adoptive Admission
c. Admission by Silence
d. Admission by a Party
38. The following instances are considered hearsay evidence and shall not be
admissible in court, EXCEPT:
a. A medical certificate that plaintiff suffered whiplash and the physician who
executed the same is not presented in court.
b. The affiant failed to identify his affidavit in the administrative case before the
OMB.
c. The declarant cannot be produced in court by a party despite diligent
efforts as when he could no longer be located.
d. The testimony of the NBI agent that Joaquin had identified in a police line-up
the accused as one of the perpetrators of the robbery and killing where
Joaquin did not testify in court as well as the NBI agent.
39. Records of any business, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind,
whether or not conducted for profit or for legitimate purposes:
a. Business records
b. Business entries
c. Occupational records
d. Professional entries
40. The deceased declarant had stated that he alone was the one responsible for the
death of the victim and that the accused was free from blame. The said declaration
shall be admissible as:
a. Dying declaration
b. Res Gestae
c. Declaration against interest
d. Former testimony or deposition
41. The following can be considered as part of the Res Gestae and therefore
admitted as an exception to the Hearsay Rule, EXCEPT:
a. Excited utterances made 11 hours after the incident

b. Verbal acts
c. Spontaneous exclamation
d. Excited utterances made a day after the startling incident
42. A hearing is necessary before the court can take judicial notice of:
a. Matters which are of questionable demonstration.

b. Matters which are of public knowledge.
c. Geographical divisions
d. Laws of Nature
43. It is a means to destroy or put in doubt the credibility of the witness or his
testimony. It is not necessary to show that witness is lying but that witness may be
mistaken in her observation or narration.
a. Impeachment
b. Rebuttal
c. Misleading
d. Contradiction
44. If the witness testified that defendants car entered the intersection when the
stoplight was green in his favor but a video recording showed otherwise. This evidence
is called:
a. Corroborative evidence
b. Contradictory evidence
c. Cumulative evidence
d. Conclusive evidence
45. Impeachment by inconsistent statement requires that the predicate be laid. The
laying of the predicate is done as follows, EXCEPT:
a. If the statements are in writing, they must first be shown to the witness before
any question is asked of him.
b. The statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the time
and place and the persons present.
c. He must be asked whether he made such statements.
d. If so, he need not be asked to explain the inconsistency.
46. All kinds of evidence, not just documentary, should be authenticated before it is
received in evidence. Authentication means establishing that the exhibit is in fact what
it purports to be. In authentication of documents, the following are considered PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS, EXCEPT:
a. Acknowledgment defective where person who appeared before notary

public not indicated in the acknowledgment.
b. NSO certification of marriage or death certificate.
c. Certification as to the income of the deceased, executed by his employer the
USAID.
d. Chemistry report showing a positive result of the paraffin test.
47. Where the objectionable feature was not apparent from the question or where the
witness answered instantly without giving the lawyer a chance to object, the remedy
available to a party is:
a. Substantive Objection
b. Motion to Strike Out
c. Continuing Objection
d. Tender of Excluded Evidence
48. When a party has previously objected to a question, whether sustained or

overruled, and succeeding questions are of the same class as those to which objection
has been made, it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection. This rule is known as:
a. Continuing Objection
b. Substantive Objection
c. Formal Objection
d. Specific Objection
49. According to the Ancient Document Rule, a private ancient document is
exempt from proof of due execution and authenticity when the following requisites are
satisified, EXCEPT:
a. Unblemished by any alteration.

b. The document is at least fifty (50) years.
c. Produced from a custody which it would naturally be found if genuine.
d. Free from suspicion.
50. The Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE) took effect on:
a. October 14, 2002

b. September 24, 2002
c. August 1, 2001
d. July 1, 1997
Mark Anthony G. Bautista

1. Kiko, a suspected drug addict, was caught by the apprehending police officers in an
abandoned building while using prohibited drugs. He was coerced to confess that he is
indeed a long-time drug dependent. The police officers told Kiko that if he will not make
a confession, he will be summarily executed with the tag adik ako, wag tularan
hanged in his neck. Is Kikos confession admissible in evidence?
a. YES, because it corresponds to the truth that he is indeed a long-time drug

dependent.
b. NO, because it is obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.
c. YES, because it is relevant to the fact that he is a drug addict.
d. NO, as the confession was made because he was just afraid to die.
2. In a land registration case before the RTC, Atty. Bago, a newly admitted member of
the bar, opposed in a respectful manner the non-observance by the judge of the rules
on evidence during the proceedings. Is Atty. Bagos opposition correct?
a. YES, because the rules on evidence, being components of the Rules of Court, apply
to judicial proceeding.
b. NO, because land registration case is one of the specified proceedings where
the Rules of Court are not applicable.
c. NO, because a land registration case is not a judicial proceedings where the rules on
evidence is applicable.
d. YES, because the rules on evidence in the Rules of Court are guided by the principle
of uniformity.
3. While on her way home in Barrio Madilim, Jojo pulled Joy, a high school student, who
will be turning 18 y.o., towards the grassy part of the road and right then and there
raped her. Which of the following evidence of the accused is admissible?
a. Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior of the offended party to

prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen found in
the victims body
b. Evidence offered by the accused to prove that the offended party engaged in other
sexual behavior.
c. Evidence offered by the accused that the offended party is a prostitute.
d. Evidence offered by the accused to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged
victim.
4. In a trial for murder, the counsel for the accused has failed to formally offer a
supposed evidence that would undoubtedly show the innocence of the accused. In its
decision, the court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Should the court
consider the supposed evidence that would establish the innocence of the accused?
a. NO, the court is not authorize to consider evidence which has not been
formally offered.
b. YES, in the interest of justice, the court should consider the evidence even though it
was not formally offered.
c. YES, the accused will be deprived of his life and liberty just because his counsel
failed to offer the evidence that will establish his innocence.
d. NO, the case has been decided.
5. In an administrative proceeding before the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the CSC
admitted in evidence documents which cannot be admitted in a judicial proceeding. Is
the CSC correct in admitting such documents?
a. YES, because an administrative proceeding is different from a judicial proceeding

where the rules on evidence apply.
b. NO, because an administrative proceeding partakes of the nature of a judicial
proceeding where the rules on evidence apply.
c. YES, because administrative bodies are not bound by the technical rules on
evidence.
d. NO, because such documents are not trustworthy as they are not admitted in a
judicial proceeding.
6. Lee Min Ho, a Korean actor, filed an application with attached pertinent documents
therewith for naturalization with the RTC of Nueva Vizcaya. The RTC judge denied his
application because he failed to formally offer the documents which could be the basis
of his naturalization in the trial court. Is the RTC judge correct in denying his application
for naturalization?
a. YES, because courts are not authorized to consider an evidence which is not formally
offered.
b. YES, because the documents presented were not authenticated.
c. NO, because the rule on formal offer of evidence is not applicable to a case
involving a petition for naturalization.
d. NO, because the documents were already attached with his application for
naturalization.
7. Mang Kepweng filed a labor case against his employer allegedly for illegal dismissal.
He submitted an affidavit to support his claim. However, due to an emergency, he
notified his counsel that he cannot appear and personally testify on his affidavit on the
scheduled hearing. The opposing counsel contended that Mang Kepwengs affidavit is
hearsay. Is the opposing counsel correct?
a. NO, Mang Kepwengs failure to appear and personally testify on his affidavit was due
to an emergency.
b. NO, Mang Kepweng gave prior notice of his absence to his counsel.
c. NO, the counsel can testify on the affidavit of Mang Kepweng.
d. NO, in a labor case, it is not necessary for an affiant to appear and testify, and
be cross-examined by counsel for the adverse party on his affidavit.
8. In an action for the collection of a sum of money plus interests and damages, Ms.
Banawa, plaintiff, and Ms. Awanab, defendant, agreed in writing executed in the
presence of the judge during the proceeding that both parties are waiving the
presentation of evidence. Is such an agreement valid?
a. NO, the plaintiff cannot establish his claim and the defendant cannot interpose his
defense without the presentation of evidence.
b. NO, the presentation of evidence is an integral part of any trial and therefore, it
cannot be dispensed with.
c. YES, the parties to any action are allowed by the Rules to agree in writing upon
the facts involved in the litigation and to submit the case for judgment upon the
facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence.
d. YES, presentation of evidence may be dispensed with but the parties need to take an
oath attesting that they are waiving the presentation of evidence.
9. After the new year celebration in their province in Isabela, Fernan rode a Florida bus
to Cubao. While passing Dalton Pass in Sta. Fe, Nueva Vizcaya, the bus collided with a
ten-wheeler tanker which resulted to Fernan breaking his neck. He then filed a
complaint for breach of contract of carriage against Florida bus. During the trial, the
court allowed Fernan not to present evidence to prove the negligence of Florida bus.
Florida bus contended that the judge is bias because the judge relieved Fernan from
proving its negligence. Should the court order Fernan to present evidence to prove the
negligence of Florida bus?
a. YES, so that the court may remove the bias as asserted by Florida bus.
b. YES, because the rules on evidence provides that the complainant should provide
evidence to establish his claim.
c. NO, because evidence is not required when a law or rule presumes the truth of
a fact.
d. NO, because Fernan is the injured party.
10. A Korean businessman was kidnapped by some police officers who were asking
ransom money from Sandara, the victims wife. After the kidnappers negotiated with
Sandara who agreed to give them the ransom, the kidnappers sent thru facsimile the
address where Sandara should bring the money. Later, the kidnappers were
apprehended through some informants. During the trial, Sandara presented as evidence
the facsimile she received from the kidnappers. If you were the judge, should you admit
the facsimile as evidence?
a. YES. The facsimile, being an electronic evidence, is admissible in evidence.

b. NO. The Rules on Electronic Evidence does not apply to criminal actions.
c. YES. The facsimile does not have to be authenticated.
d. NO. The facsimile has to be authenticated before it should be admitted in evidence.
11. Dao Ming Si and San Sai just got married. Dao Ming Si told San Sai that he
accidentally killed their maid when he was parking their car. The incident happened
when San Sai was not in their house for a business meeting. Because of his fear to be
imprisoned, he threw the body of their maid in the Pasig river where it was found. Dao
Ming Si was never identified as the killer. However, their marriage was soon dissolved
for some reasons. Because Dao Ming Si withheld the share of San Sain in their
conjugal property, San Sai went to the police and inform them that the victim found in
the Pasig River was killed by his ex-husband, Dao Ming Si. He was subsequently
charged with Homicide. Should San Sai be allowed to testify?
a. San Sai should be allowed to testify in the interest of justice

b. San Sai cannot testify against B because she has no personal knowledge of the facts
and circumstances of the case
c. San Sai cannot testify because she did not actually witness the incident; thus, his
testimony is only hearsay
d. San Sai cannot testify because of privilege communication
12. While Tonyo was walking along the side of Maginhawa St., a car driven by Amot
who was heavily drunk side swept him causing injuries to his head that led him to have
amnesia. The parents of Tonyo filed a suit for reckless imprudence resulting to serious
physical injuries against Amot who immediately offered to settle the case through
compromise. During the trial, the complainant, through their counsel, offered in
evidence the offer of compromise by Amot positing that it is an admission of guilt by the
accused. The trial court admitted it in evidence against Amot. Is the trial court correct?
a. The trial court is INCORRECT because an offer of compromise by the accused

in cases involving criminal negligence, may not be received as an implied
admission of guilt.
b. The trial court is CORRECT because an offer of compromise in absolutely all criminal
cases may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
c. The trial court is CORRECT to expedite the administration of justice.
d. The trial court is INCORRECT because Tonyo made the offer not during the
proceedings.
13. As part of the Oplan Tukhang Operation of the PNP, the MPD went to an apartment
located in Tondo, Manila which was identified as one of the places where users, usually
college students, buy prohibited drugs. The occupant in the said apartment was
arrested during the successful buy bust operation. The marked money offered as
evidence is considered as:
a. Testimonial Evidence
b. Autoptic Evidence
c. Best Evidence
d. Parol Evidence
14. Lola Basyang, 65 years old, was stepping on the rear stepboard of the passenger
jeepney driven by Ulaga who suddenly moved forward to get another passenger without
checking if Lola Basyang has already came in and sat down in the jeepney. When the
passengers felt the jeepney was moving forward, they shouted Hinto! May sumasakay
pa! Because Ulaga was surprised, he immediately stepped on the break causing Lola
Basyang to lose her balance and fell on the road with the back of her head hitting the
ground first. Lola Basyang was brought to the hospital but was declared dead on
arrival. At the initial stage of the trial for breach of contract of carriage, the defendant
invoked his right to be presumed innocent and therefore asking the court to give the
burden to the complainant to establish his guilt. Is the defendant correct?
a. YES. The constitution guarantees the presumption of innocence to persons accused

of crimes.
b. YES. The complainant has the burden to prove Ulagas liability for the death of Lola
Basyang.
c. NO. Ulagas negligence is already obvious and therefore there is no need to present
evidence against him.
d. NO. in civil cases, the concept of presumption of innocence does not apply and
generally there is no presumption for or against a party in certain cases
provided for by law.
15. At the trial for murder against Piping, the primary witness who executed an affidavit
that points to Piping as the culprit, failed to personally appear before the trial court and
to testify on his affidavit. Notwithstanding his absence, the complainants counsel
presented the witness affidavit without the objection of the defense. The trial court
admitted it in evidence. Is the trial court correct?
a. The trial court is INCORRECT because that is tantamount to the deprivation of the
defense of its right to cross-examine the witness.
b. The trial court is CORRECT because it has the discretion of whether or not the
presence of the witness is necessary during the trial.
c. The trial court is INCORRECT because it is not stated whether the absence of the
witness is valid and reasonable.
d. The trial court is CORRECT in admitting it in evidence because when an
otherwise objectionable evidence is not objected to, the evidence becomes
admissible because of waiver.
16. Yoyoy found Pipoy lying in the kitchen of his own blood due to a stub in his breast
and stomach area. Yoyoy was still conscious when Pipoy asked him who did the
stubbing. Because he can no longer speak, Yoyoy pointed to Dodong using his finger.
Thereafter, Yoyoy died. Dodong was then charged for killing Yoyoy. The prosecution
presented the dying declaration of Yoyoy as evidence against Dodong. The defense
counsel objected and argued that the pointing of fingers cannot be considered as a
dying declaration and that the same should be spoken. Is the defense correct?
a. NO, the dying declaration should be admitted as evidence because it is not
limited to declaration only
b. NO, it may not be admissible as a dying declaration but it is admissible as res gestae
c. YES, it is not admissible because it is hearsay
d. YES, the dying declaration is inadmissible because it is not made verbally.
17. In a civil case for collection of sum of money filed by Khan against Sam, Amir, a
common friend of Khan and Sam, testified that he (Amir) also lent Sam certain amount
of money. Is the testimony of Amir admissible in evidence against Sam?
a. Amirs testimony is not admissible because it is not competent.

b. Amirs testimony is not admissible because it is not relevant in the case at bar.
c. Amirs testimony is admissible because it establishes the fact that Sam is a notorious
borrower of money.
d. Amirs testimony is admissible because being a common friend of the two, he is just
being fair and true to them.
18. After the presentation of the pieces of evidence by the opposing parties in a civil
case, Judge Balanse has weighed the evidence of both parties to be equally at the
same level. What shall Judge Balanse do?
a. Judge Balanse should ask for more evidence from both parties until a party is able to
provide greater evidence.
b. Judge Balanse should rule in favor of the one who has the burden of proof.
c. Judge Balanse should rule against the one who has the burden of proof.
d. Judge Balanse should render judgment based on who he thinks is telling the truth.
19. Brad , also known as the greatest pretender, is well known by his friends and
neighbors as a liar as there have been many occasions when he was tested by them to
tell the truth but to no avail. In a trial for theft, he was presented as a witness against the
accused. He took an oath that he will tell the truth and nothing but the truth. However,
during the cross-examination, his answers corroborate the testimonies of another
witness although some inconsistencies were found in his testimonies. Should the court
believed his testimony?
a. The court should not believe his testimony because evidence to be believed
must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but must credible
in itself.
b. The court should not believe his testimony because he is well known as the greatest
pretender.
c. The court should believe his testimony because it corroborates the testimony of
another witness.
d. The court should believe his testimony because he has taken an oath that he will tell
the truth and nothing but the truth.
20. Don Emilio hired Aguinaldo as all-around houseboy who fell in love with their
neighbors maid, Teodora. Don Emilio treated Aguinaldo as a son and trusts him a lot.
When Don Emilio left for a business trip to Taiwan, Aguinaldo took a piece of jewelry of
Don Emilios wife. Aguinaldo gave the piece of jewelry to Teodora as a gift for their 3 rd
monthsary. When Don Emilio learned what Aguinaldo did, he asked Aguinaldo to tell
him the truth. Aguinaldo admitted the taking. Don Emilio condoned it. However, the
same incident was repeatedly done by Aguinaldo every time Don Emilio goes abroad.
Because of that, Don Emilio caused Aguinaldo to sign a confession with Teodora as a
witness, to whom Aguinaldo always gives what he takes from Don Emilio. To teach him
a lesson, Don Emilio charged Aguinaldo with Theft. The signed confession was later
presented as evidence. Is the written confession of Aguinaldo admissible in evidence?
a. The confession should be declared inadmissible because it is an extrajudicial
confession.
b. The confession is admissible because it was not elicited by peace officers.
c. The confession is a piece of trash because it was not done during the course of the
trial.
d. The confession is admissible because it was witnessed by Teodora.
21. In a criminal case for rape, Mr. Labog, through his counsel, presented documents
that will prove that he and the victim are already engaged. The court admitted in
evidence such documents but later the court did not believe in it. Finding that the court
is bias in favor of the victim for not believing in the documents he presented although
the same were earlier admitted, Mr. Labog went to the appellate court citing among
other things, the judges bias as one of the grounds for his appeal. Is Mr. Labog correct?
a. NO, because it is illogical to conclude that the judge is bias simply because he did not
believe on the documents admitted.
b. YES, because admitting the documents in evidence implies that the same are
believable.
c. NO, because a particular item of evidence may be admissible but its evidentiary
weight depends on judicial evaluation.
d. YES, because should the judge has thought that the evidence are not believable, he
should not have admitted the same.
22. The Office of the Ombudsman filed an administrative case against a municipal
engineer of the Municipality of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya allegedly for using sub-standard
materials in the construction of several classrooms in Solano East Central School. The
municipal engineer filed a motion to quash information on the ground that the Office of
the Ombudsman should present proof beyond reasonable doubt all pieces of evidence
relative to the case. Is there a need to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
administrative charge against the municipal engineer?
a. YES, in any civil, criminal or administrative cases proof beyond reasonable doubt is
required.
b. YES, because the conviction of the municipal engineer will deprive his family from
support coming from him.
c. NO. In administrative cases, the fact must be supported and established by
substantial evidence.
d. It depends. The court has liberty to determine whether there is a need to present
evidence to prove his administrative liability beyond reasonable doubt or not.
23. John-john bought a residential lot from Ton-ton. Two years later, Don-don filed an
action for recovery of ownership of the residential lot against John-john. Don-don
alleged that he is the lawful owner of the subject lot. During the trial, John-John testified
that the lot was bought by May-may from Ning-ning. Don-don objected that the evidence
is irrelevant to support the claim of John-john. What is the proper remedy of John-john
to overcome the objection of Don-don?
a. John-john may ask the court to conditionally allow his testimony with the
undertaking to show later that he bought the residential lot from Ton-ton who in
turn bought the same from May-may.
b. John-john may ask the court to allow Don-don later to introduce irrelevant evidence.
c. John-john may introduce evidence other than that objected to by Don-don.
d. John-john may request for postponement of hearing to gather relevant evidence.
24. Gas Abelgas, the host of S.O.C.O. interviewed Tukmol as to the killing of his
landlady. Tukmol confessed that he indeed killed his landlady because the latter kept on
asking him to pay his rentals every after an hour of the day when the killing took place.
During the trial, the prosecution presented only the media confession to prove the crime
of homicide against Tukmol. Is the media confession of AA enough to convict him of
the crime of homicide?
a. NO. The media confession of Tukmol is only an extrajudicial confession.

b. YES. The declaration of Tukmol acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged may
be given in evidence against him.
c. YES. The declaration of Tukmol as to relevant fact may be given in evidence against
him.
d. NO. An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient
ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
25. When the barangay officials reviewed the CCTV footage of an alleged taking of a
motorcycle in Tan St. corner Tinio St., they found out who the culprit it. In the trial of the
case against the culprit, the CCTV footage was presented in court. What has to be done
in order that the same may be admissible in evidence?
a. It shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the
recording.
b. It shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person competent to testify on
the accuracy thereof.
c. It shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who was a party to the
same.
d. It shall be identified, explained or authenticated by either (a) or (b).
26. Judge Mali-mali admitted an incompetent evidence, despite objection of the

opposing party, during his hearing in a collection of sum of money case. During the
continuation of the hearing, the opposing party asked the court to allow it to introduce
incompetent evidence that would tend to negate the incompetent evidence offered by
the other party. Should Judge Mali-mali admit the evidence?
a. Judge Mali-mali should admit the evidence because he admitted the incompetent
evidence of the other party.
b. Judge Mali-mali should not admit the evidence because the mistake he committed in
allowing the admission of the incompetent evidence cannot be cured by another
mistake of admitting another incompetent evidence.
c.Judge Mali-mali should not admit the evidence because it is incompetent.
d. Judge Mali-mali should admit the evidence because a party may be allowed to
introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to answer the opposing partys
previous introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would remove any unfair
prejudice caused by the admission of the earlier inadmissible evidence.
27. Because of an alleged scam committed by a recruitment agency owned by

Domeng, a Pastor of a certain religious sect, he was charged of Estafa. During the trial,
Pastor Domeng presented evidence of his good moral character. According to him,
being a Pastor, he could not do such crime. The prosecution objected, positing that
character evidence is not admissible in evidence. In general, is character evidence
a. YES, the good or bad moral character of the offender may be proved if it tends to
establish any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense
charged.
b. NO, the moral character is not admissible in evidence as provided in Sec. 51 Rule
130
c. NO, but the prosecution may prove his bad moral character
d. YES, the accused may prove his moral character if it is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged
28. Judge Mali-mali admitted an incompetent evidence during his hearing in a collection
of sum of money case. He later realized that such an admission was done because of
his inadvertence. During the continuation of the hearing, the opposing party, who did not
object to the presentation of the incompetent evidence by the other party, asked the
court to allow it to introduce incompetent evidence that would tend to negate the
incompetent evidence offered by the other party. Should Judge Mali-mali admit the
evidence?
a. Judge Mali-mali should admit the evidence because it was through his inadvertence
that the previous incompetent evidence was admitted.
b. NO, because the opposing party did not object in the presentation of the
incompetent evidence by the other party.
c. NO, because the other party did not know that the evidence it presented was
incompetent.
d. Judge Mali-mali should admit the evidence to be fair with the opposing party.
29. Langku-Langku, a 25 year-old boy with mental illness was the only son of a rich
couple. Langku-langku was playing in the living room when their gardener who was
armed with a bolo, hacked his father and mother right before his eyes until he killed
them. The gardener took all their money and jewelries in the unlocked vault of his
parents. The gardener did not mind killing Langku-Langku because of his condition.
Considering that he has mental illness, is Langku-Langku disqualified for being a
witness?
a) YES, because the testimony of mentally ill persons are not credible.
b) NO, because not because he has mental illness, it follows that what he says is 100%
false.
c) YES, because a person with mental illness does not know what is real and what is
not real.
d) No, as long as Langku-Langku is capable of perceiving and making known his
perception to others, then he in not disqualified or incompetent to be a witness.
30. Awras jewelry box was stolen in her apartment. She asked her neighbors if they
saw someone entered her house when she was in vacation in Baguio. Her neighbors
however answered in the negative. When she called the police, the investigators saw an
ID card owned by one of Awras neighbors. The ID card was allegedly used to unlock
the door of her room as it was possible to be done through the use of a hard thin object
such as the ID. Is the identification card of her neighbor found in the room of Awra
sufficient for conviction?
a. NO, for circumstancial evidence to be sufficient, there must be multiplicity of

the same which if combined, will produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.
b. NO, the ID may be used by some other person other than the owner thereof.
c. YES, the ID undoubtedly points to who the culprit is and it is sufficient to convict the
suspect.
d. YES, her neighbor knows that she was in vacation and no one is left in the house.
Hence, together with his ID found in the house of Awra and his knowledge that Awra is
not in there, he should be convicted.
31. In a case where the issue is the admissibility or evidentiary weight of an electronic
document, such matters may be established:
a. by either authentic records or by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal

knowledge.
b. by both authentic records or by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal knowledge
c. only by authentic records.
d. only by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal knowledge.
32. Tikboy, known by his neighbors as a hired killer, had an argument with the victim
who is the father of the boy who bullied his son. The argument ended up with Tikboy
shooting the victim on his head resulting to his immediate death. The incident was
witnessed by a Takatak boy who reported to the police only after two weeks because
according to him, he feared for his life as Tikboy is a well known hired killer. Does his
reluctance to report the crime renders his testimony incredible?
a. YES, for the Takatak boy may have just invented the information he reported to the
police considering that he had time to do so.
b. NO, because the Takatak boy is not a credible witness.
c. NO, for the delay may be explained by the fear of the Takatak boy for his life.
d. YES, because his reluctance renders him unworthy of belief.
33. The 10-year old son of a driver-body guard was raped by the employer of his father,
Don Silahis, a 50-year old gay and a philanthropist, when the victim was left by his
father in the mansion to do a task ordered to him. Because the maids in the mansion
where on leave, no one witnessed the incident. In the hearing of the criminal complaint
for rape against Don Silahis, is the testimony of the 10-year old boy sufficient to convict
Don Silahis for the crime of rape?
a. Yes, because Don Silahis has been known to be a gay.

b. Yes, because the truth may be established not by the number of witnesses but
by the quality of their testimony.
c. No, because Don Silahis is known to be a philanthropist.
d. No, there is a need for corroborating evidence through the presentation of other
testimonies in order to convict a person for crime with heavier penalty.
34. Betong, defendant in a criminal case for raping a grade school pupil, was convicted
by the trial court based on circumstantial evidence. There were no witnesses presented
that Betong indeed committed the crime nor the victim was able to point at him as the
culprit because she can no longer speak due to the trauma that the incident caused her.
Can a defendant be convicted without direct evidence?
a. A defendant cannot be convicted without direct evidence with which the trial court
may draw its conclusions.
b. NO, because resort to direct evidence is indispensable in criminal cases.
c. YES, even in the absence of direct evidence, conviction can be had if the
established circumstances constitute an unbroken chain, consistent with each
other and to the hypothesis that the accused is guilty to the exclusion of other
hypothesis that he is not.
d. A defendant may be convicted without direct evidence because there are no
witnesses available and the victim herself is no longer capable of testifying.
35. A commotion between Mokong, a jeepney driver, and Astig, a taxi drvier, ended up
with Astig shooting Mokong in the head which caused Mokongs sudden death. Astig
was then charged with murder. The incident was witnessed by a tricycle driver, Kilo.
Kilo, witness for the prosecution, testified that he saw Astig shot Mokong to the head.
He also testified that after the shooting, he saw Astig grabbed the wallet, cellphone and
a box of coins located in the dash board of the jeepney. The defense counsel objected
to the testimony with respect to the taking of the properties of Mokong. Is the defense
counsel correct?
a. YES, such testimony is prejudicial to his client

b. YES, such testimony is not relevant because it has no logical connection with
the crime charged.
c. NO, the witness must be allowed to disclose everything that he saw
d. No, the testimony is related to the incident
36. Kingkong, a construction worker, was accused for the murder of his co-worker,
Butchoy. Based on the testimony of their foreman, he saw the two having an argument
because Butchoy did not follow the instructions given by Kingkong in mixing the cement
that will be used in the foundation of the house they were constructing. The foremen
told them to cool off by resting for the meantime. Suddenly, he saw Kingkong running
towards the street. He then looked for Butchoy whose bloody body was already on the
ground and the screw driver personally owned by Kingkong was found on the neck of
Butchoy. At the trial, the foreman alone was presented as the witness for the
prosecution. Is the testimony of the foremen sufficient to convict Kingkong?
a. The testimony of the foreman is not sufficient to convict the accused because the
rules require that there should be corroborating pieces of evidence.
b. The testimony of the foreman is sufficient to convict the accused because he was at
the site when the crime was committed.
c. The testimony of the foreman is not sufficient to convict the accused without
presenting other witnesses that would affirm his testimony.
d. The testimony of the foreman, where credible and positive, is sufficient to
convict the accused.
37. Bong is charged of Theft. To strengthen their assertion that Bong is guilty, the
prosecution presented evidence of similar acts of Bong in previous crimes. They
presented records of police blotter where Bong was accused of committing theft in
several occasions although he was not arrested. Bong objected to the presentation of
such evidence. May such evidence be admissible as evidence?
a. YES, if it is not hearsay
b. YES, it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan,
system and the like
c. YES, if previous acts are based on personal knowledge
d. YES, evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is admissible to
prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time
38. Because of some inconsistencies in the answers of the sole witness during the
cross-examination done by the defendants counsel in a qualified theft case, the trial
court judge ordered the prosecution to present other evidence that would corroborate to
the testimony of the sole witness. The prosecution posited however that there is no
need to corroborate the testimony of their sole witness because according to the
prosecution, the witness is to be weighed, not to be numbered. Is the prosecution
correct?
a. NO. The judge has reasons to believe that the witness falsified the truth
because of his inconsistencies during the cross-examination. Hence, the need
for corroborating witness.
b. NO. The rules require that in all cases, corroborating witnesses are necessary to
validate the testimony of a witness.
c. YES. The testimony of a single prosecution witness is sufficient to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
d. YES. All other facts were confirmed to be true during the cross-examination except
only those which the court found to be inconsistent.
39. Don Romantico was found dead in his rest house located in Baguio City. The
persons present then were the caretaker, gardener and the cook when the SOCO
arrived at the scene of the crime. Upon entering the house, the operatives asked if the
three know who did the crime. The gardener responded and confessed that he did the
crime. Thereafter, an information for homicide was filed against the gardener. During
the trial, the prosecution presented the gardeners extrajudicial statement. Is the
gardeners statement admissible.
a. The gardeners statement is admissible because it is relevant.
b. It is inadmissible because it is hearsay, having been made not during the trial
court.
c. Inadmissible because the gardener was not promptly informed of their right to remain
silent and to counsel.
d. Admissible as a part of the res gestae.
40. Billy was accused of carnapping the taxi of Manong parked along Maceda St.,
Sampaloc, Manila. During the trial, 3 barangay tanods testified that they saw Billy
walking back and forth along Maceda St. and stood beside the taxi few minutes before
the said carnapping incident. Billy, however, denied the allegation positing that he was
staying in their house at the time said carnapping incident took place. Does the denial of
Billy has greater weight than the positive identification of the barangay tanods?
a. The denial of Billy has greater weight as he cannot be physically present in two
different places at the same time.
b. Billys denial has greater weight because it is an assertion based on his personal
knowledge.
c. Billys denial has lesser weight because he is only one testifying for himself while
there are 3 tanods testifying against him.
d. The denial of Billy is a weak form of defense and cannot overcome the
affirmative or positive testimony made by the barangay tanods.
41. As a general rule, a witness cannot refuse to answer questions during examinations.
She/he has the obligation to answer questions, although his answer may tend to
establish a claim against him. She/he may validly refuse to answer questions under:
a. No rule provides that A witness may invoke the right against self-incrimination
nor the right against self-degradation. It is not available for a witness during
examination.
b. Right against self-incrimination only
c. Right against self-degradation only
d. Right against self-incrimination or right against self-degradation
42. Alonzo offers in evidence the recorded statement from a public lecture of Mayor
Pugong in a case against the latter for libel. If you were the judge, are you going to
admit the said evidence?
a.NO, because the Anti-Wire Tapping Law considers it unlawful to record open and
public communications.
b. YES, the evidence is admissible because the Anti-Wire Tapping Law does not
consider it unlawful to record open and public communications.
c. NO, because Mayor Pugong has not consented to the recording of his public lecture.
d. YES, because the recorded statement is intended to be heard by the public.
43. In a collection for a sum of money case, one of the issues before the court is the
admissibility or evidentiary weight of an electronic document. How may such matters be
established?
a. Such matters may be established only by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal
knowledge.
b. Such matters may be established only by authentic records.
c. Such matters may be established by both authentic records or by an affidavit stating
facts of direct personal knowledge
d. Such matters may be established by either authentic records or by an affidavit
stating facts of direct personal knowledge.
44. Kram, a waiter in a disco bar, murdered Chong, the owner of the disco bar, for
allegedly denying the request of Kram to grant him a 2-day advance salary due to an
emergency. Kram was arrested and was detained. During the trial, Kram entered a plea
of not guilty. Before the prosecution rested its case, Kram told Jail Officer Kabo , that he
killed Chong. The prosecution called Kabo to the stand to prove Krams extra-judicial
statement. However, Krams counsel objected. If you were the judge, how would you
decide on the objection?
a. I will reject Kabos testimony since Kram was not read his Miranda rights.
b. I will admit the testimony of Kabo since it is an extrajudicial admission.
c. I will reject Kabos testimony since it is hearsay; he will be merely testifying on
what Kram told him.
d. Admit the testimony since it comes from a Jail Officer who is a credible witness
45. Two NBI agents where authorized through a written order to conduct a covert
investigation on the alleged plan to commit rebellion by a group of soldier stationed at
Camp Bonifacio. The NBI agents recorded the private communications of the identified
leaders of the group. Through the recordings, they found out that the leaders of the
group were coordinating with the NPA to ensure the attainment of their objectives. Is the
recording made by the NBI agents admissible in evidence.
a. It is admissible in evidence because the operation conducted by the NBI agents is a

covert one.
b. It is admissible in evidence because it is done by agents authorized by written
order and the case involved is to commit rebellion.
c. It is inadmissible because the soldiers did not consent to the recording.
d. It is inadmissible because what was recorder was their private communication and
therefore their right to privacy was violated.
46. The neighbors of the couple, Mr. and Mrs. Chew, were standing by the gate of the
couples house when they heard some commotions taking place inside the house of the
couple. When they heard a gunshot, they immediately dispersed. Miling, who was just
living adjacent to the couples house and who was one among those who were standing
by the gate of the couples house, went inside their house immediately and told her
husband that Mr. Chew shot Mrs. Chew. Milings husband, was repeatedly shouting Mr.
Chew shot Ms. Chew! while he was running towards the Barangay hall to report the
incident. The declaration of Milings husband is:
a. Inadmissible as hearsay
b. Admissible as part of res gestae
c. Inadmissible as a mere opinion on his part
d. Admissible as the same was relevant evidence
47. General Bato ordered the the top 5 SAF Police officers to conduct a covert
operation on the activities of the identified members of the ISIS group in the Philippines.
The 5 SAF troopers installed surveillance and tracking devices on the meeting places of
the group. Fortunately, they were able to record and listen on conversations made
among the members of the ISIS group. Is the recording of their conversations
admissible in evidence against the members of the group who will be held in trial?
a. YES, under the Human Security Act of 2007, a police officer may listen to any
communication between members of judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
organization such as the ISIS.
b. NO, under the Human Security Act of 2007, it is absolutely prohibited to listen to any
communication between members of judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
organization .
c.YES, because the ISIS group is a great threat to national security.
d. NO, because every single member of the ISIS group has their right to privacy.
48. John-john bought a residential lot from Ton-ton. Two years later, Don-don filed an
action for recovery of ownership of the residential lot against John-john. Don-don
alleged that he is the lawful owner of the subject lot. During the trial, John-John testified
that the lot was bought by May-may from Ning-ning. Don-don objected that the evidence
is irrelevant to support the claim of John-john. John-john , however, asked the court to
conditionally allow his testimony with the undertaking to show later that he bought the
residential lot from Ton-ton who in turn bought the same from May-may. The court
granted the motion of John-john. Later, John-john failed to comply with the condition.
What is the remedy available for Don-don?
a. Don-don may ask the court to allow him to introduce irrelevant evidence.
b. Don-don may ask John-john to withdraw his (Johnjohn) conditionally admitted
testimony from the record of the case.
c. Don-don may ask the court to declare John-john in contempt of court.
d. Don-don may ask the court to strike out from the record the evidence that was
previously conditionally admitted.
49. Awras jewelry box was stolen in her apartment. She asked her neighbors if they
saw someone entered her house when she was in vacation in Baguio. Her neighbors
however answered in the negative. When she called the police, the investigators saw an
ID card owned by one of Awras neighbors. The ID card was allegedly used to unlock
the door of her room as it was possible to be done through the use of a hard thin object
such as the ID. Is the identification card of her neighbor found in the room of Awra
admissible in evidence against her neighbor?
a. NO, because no witness attested that they saw someone, not even the suspect,
entered the house of Awra.
b. YES, such an evidence is admissible although not sufficient in itself to support
a conviction because there is only one circumstance.
c. YES, because her neighbors ID undoubtedly points to who the culprit is
d. NO, because the ID may have been used by the real culprit other than the owner of
the ID.
50. Girlie, a grade 3 pupil, told Boyong, her bestfriend and classmate, that she has been
molested by his stepfather. Because of his concern to his bestfriend, he gave
a statement to the police describing the acts of the stepfather of her bestfriend. May
Boyongs testimony be admitted in evidence?
a. The statement cannot be admitted in evidence on hearsay grounds if Girlie is not

available for cross-examination.
b. The statement of Boyong is admissible even if he is unavailable provided his
statement is corroborated by other admissible evidence.
c. The statement may be admitted in evidence even if not corroborated because the
statement was made by a child.
d. The statement is not admissible in a civil case.
Bonus. SPO3 Sta. Isabel apprehended 3 Korean robbery suspects whom he allegedly
able to convince during the investigation to go with him to BOD, the bank which was
robbed. The 3 Koreans showed a re-enactment of how they were able to robbed the
bank without much effort exerted. Is their reenactment admissible in evidence?
a. NO, since the re-enactment is irrelevant evidence.

b. NO, since it amounts to a waiver of their right to remain silent without the
assistance of a counsel.
c. NO, since the re-enactment was not accompanied by any Sinumpaang Salaysay.
d. YES, since the re-enactment was voluntary.
ACOBA, MILAGROS D.
1. The lifeless body of Aliw was found in a vacant lot in Bgy. Patiis. Witnesses
claimed that they saw Ador with Aliw a few hours before the lifeless body was
found. Immediately thereafter, the police immediately arrested Ador. The crime
lab findings revealed that Aliw had been raped. Ador broke down, and without
the presence of counsel, finally confessed to the investigator that he raped and
then killed Aliw afterwards. During the trial, the prosecutor presented the
investigator to testify on the oral confession of Ador. Is the oral confession of
Ador admissible in evidence of his guilt?
a. Yes. The declaration of the accused acknowledging his guilt may be given in
evidence against him and there are witnesses to prove it.
b. Yes. The presence of the assisting counsel may be dispensed with as Ador had
already confessed his guilt.
c. No. Custodial confession may not be used as evidence against him without an
assisting counsel as it violates his right to due process of law.
d. No. Ador was only made to confess of the crime for fear of his life in the hands
of the police.
2. Bato Bato and his group of policemen brought Cardo to the nearest government
hospital to perform emergency surgery on his stomach to recover a packet containing
15 grams of cocaine which they saw he swallowed. The surgery was done and the
packet containing cocaine was retrieved. Is the packet of cocaine admissible in
evidence?
a. Yes. The retrieved cocaine is evidence enough that Cardo is carrying illegal
drugs, absent due process.
b. Yes. The police and the surgeon can testify to the veracity of the fact that Cardo
has swallowed the subject cocaine.
c. No. The packet of cocaine recovered in Cardos stomach was planted by the
police.
d. No. the packet of cocaine extracted from Cardos stomach without his consent
violates his fundamental rights to due process.
3. Under the Rules on Evidence, the following presumptions are satisfactory if

uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence.
a. A tenant cannot deny his landlords title during the tenancy period
b. That a person is innocent of crime or wrong
c. That an unlawful act was done with lawful intent
d. A writing is duly dated
4. Rico Sto. Isobel was charged with kidnapping Mr. Eick Joo. During the
preliminary investigation, Sto. Isobels wife approached Mrs. Joo, the victims wife,
offering five million pesos plus a share to their lucrative insurance. Mrs. Joo refused the
offer. During the trial, prosecution presented Mrs. Joo to testify on Mrs. Sto. Isobels
offer and thereby establish and implied admission of guilt. Is Mrs. Sto. Isobels offer to
settle admissible in evidence?
a. Yes. The offer to settle by Mrs. Sto. Isobel is admissible in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt.
b. Yes. The offer to settle is evidence that they are buying the victim
c. No. It was Mrs. Sto. Isobel who made the offer and not Rico Sto. Isobel (Sec. 27,
Rule 130)
d. Yes. The act is an offer of compromise
5. In a prosecution for murder, the prosecutor asked accused Dumlao if he had

been previously arrested for extortion. If you object as a defense counsel, on what
grounds can you object?
a. That it was hearsay and it assumed a fact not yet established
b. The fact sought to be elicited by the prosecution is irrelevant and immaterial to
the offense under prosecution and trial
c. The Rules do not allow the prosecution to adduce evidence of bad moral
character of the accused pertinent to the offense charged
d. b and c
6. Kind of evidence which is considered under the Rules as the best evidence
a. Prima facie evidence
b. Positive evidence
c. Presumptive evidence
d. Primary evidence
7. Ming hacked her husband Fidel with a jungle bolo because of his
womanizing. His sister Shahani witnessed the incident. Fidel was brought to the
hospital and while waiting in the emergency room, Shahani told Baby that it was Ming
who hacked Fidel. Fidel died while being treated. At the trial for parricide against Ming,
prosecutor presented Baby to testify on what Shahani told her. Can Babys testimony
be admissible?
a. Yes. The disclosure received by Baby may be regarded as independently
relevant statement which is not covered by hearsay rule.
b. No. the disclosure made by Shahani to Baby is inadmissible for being hearsay.
c. No. Baby was not a credible witness
d. Yes because Shahani told Baby it was Ming who hacked Fidel
8. Which of the following statements is not accurate?

a. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of
another
b. A plea of guilty later withdrawn is not admissible in evidence against the accused
who made the plea or offer
c. An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses
occasioned by an injury is admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for
the injury
d. In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is
not admissible in evidence against the offeror
9. The rules of evidence are specifically applicable only in

a. Judicial proceedings
b. Administrative proceedings
c. Quasi-judicial proceedings
d. All of the above
10. BM files a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against W. In the
course of the trial, BM marked her evidence but her counsel failed to file a formal offer
of evidence. W then presented in evidence tax declarations in the name of her mother
to establish that her mother is a co-owner of the property. The court ruled in favor of W,
saying that BM failed to prove sole ownership of the property in the face of Ws
evidence. Was the court right?
a. Yes. Tax declarations are in itself evidence of ownership
b. Yes. BMs failure to make a formal offer of her evidence means a failure to prove
the allegations in her complaint.
c. No. Tax Declarations are not by themselves evidence of ownership; they are not
sufficient evidence to warrant that a judgment that Ws mother is a co-owner of the
property
d. No. the court should still consider evidence which is not offered
11. Sto. Isobel and Dumlao were accused of killing Ji Ike Loo. However, only Sto.
Isobel was arrested since Dumlao flew out of the country to hide. After trial, Sto. Isobel
was acquitted by Judge Leila. Subsequently, Dumlao was arrested and brought to trial.
After trial, Dumlao was found guilty of homicide in a decision rendered by Judge
Gardan, the judge who replaced Judge Leila after she retired. On appeal, Dumlao
argues that Judge Gardan should have taken judicial notice of the acquittal of Sto.
Isobel by Judge Leila. Is Dumlaos contention correct?
a. Yes. The succeeding judge who heard the same case against the other accused
should automatically make the same conclusion
b. No. the appreciation of one judge of a testimony of a certain witness is not
binding on another judge who heard the testimony of the same witness on the same
matter.
c. Yes. It is illogical that one judge should make a different decision on the same
matter
d. a and c is correct
12. In which of the following circumstances may the court delegate the reception of
evidence to the clerk of court
a. When the judge is on vacation
b. In default or ex-parte hearings
c. Upon motion of a party on reasonable grounds
d. When a question of fact arises upon a motion
13. During Romy Halohos trial for rape, the prosecution sought to introduce DNA
evidence against him, based on forensic laboratory matching of the materials found at
the crime scene and Romy Halohos hair and blood samples. Romy Halohoss counsel
objected, claiming that DNA evidence is inadmissible because the materials taken from
his client were in violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination. Should the
DNA evidence be admitted?
a. Yes. The right against self-incrimination is applicable only to testimonial evidence
b. No. It is a violation of his right of privacy and personal integrity
c. Yes. The grant of DNA testing should be automatically admitted as evidence in
the case sought for
d. No. The proper procedure and standards were not followed in conducting the
tests.
14. Which of the following is admissible in evidence without further proof of due
execution or genuineness
a. Birth certificates
b. Documents acknowledged before a notary public in Singapore
c. Official record of the Philippine embassy in US certified by Vice Consul with
official seal
d. A signed dated unblemished receipt showing payment of a loan
15. Joma was declared in default by the MTC in an action for unlawful
detainer. Plaintiff, Gracie, was allowed to present evidence in support of her
complaint. Photocopies of official receipts and original copies of affidavits were
attached to the position paper which Gracie submitted. Said documents were offered
by Gracie and admitted in evidence by the court on the basis of which the court
rendered judgment in favour of Gracie. Joma appealed to the RTC claiming that the
judgment is not valid because the MTC based its judgment on mere photocopies and
affidavits of persons not presented in court. Is the claim of Joma valid?
a. Yes. Photocopies of official receipts and affidavits are not admissible in evidence
without proof of loss of the originals
b. No. rules on summary procedure requires merely the submission of position
papers
c. Yes. Affidavits of persons not presented in court is not admissible
d. Yes. Affidavits not testified on by the affiants are hearsay, and therefore
inadmissible in evidence.
16. ____ is one of the requisites for the admission of secondary evidence when the
original consists of numerous accounts
a. The original must consist of numerous accounts or other documents
b. They can be examined in court without great loss of time
c. The fact sought to be established from them is the specific result of the whole
d. Should be on official publication
17. Cesar had been estranged for more than a year from his wife Sunshine because
of the latters suspicion that he was having an affair with Madonna, his secretary. Cesar
lived in the meantime with his cousin in Alabang. One rainy evening, the house of
Cesars cousin was burned. Both Cesar and his cousin were inside the house already
sleeping when the incident happened. Cesar was able to get out alive from the fire but
his cousin did not. As he was running away from the burning house, Cesar saw
Sunshine also running away from the place holding an empty gallon of gasoline.
Sunshine was charged with arson and during the trial, the prosecution moved to
introduce the testimony of Cesar who saw Sunshine in the vicinity of the fire
when it happened. Can the testimony of Cesar be allowed over the objection of
his wife Sunshine?
a. Yes. It is well settled that the marital disqualification rule does not apply when the
marital and domestic relations between spouses are strained
b. Yes. Cesar and Sushine have been separated for more than a year
c. No. Under the Marital Disqualification Rule, neither the husband nor the wife
may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse
d. No. Cesar is not the offended party and his cousin is not his direct ascendant or
descendant for him to fall within the exception
18. The Clerk of Court, when directed by a judge, can receive evidence addressed
by the parties in:
a. election cases
b. land registration proceedings
c. small claims proceedings
d. cases where parties agree in writing
19. Witness Martinez was examined on direct examination by the defense counsel.
The prosecutor, however, employed dilatory tactics and numerously motioned to
postpone Martinezs cross examination. Martinez acquired a brain disease
incapacitating him for cross-examination. His uncompleted testimony may be:
a. Held in abeyance until he recovers
b. Stricken from the record
c. Allowed to remain in the record
d. Not be given probative weight
20. A court may take judicial notice of:

a. Committee Report issued by Congressional Committee on Finance
b. The effect of everyday traffic on commuters
c. Facebook account of Digong
d. The foreign judgment awarded to the Filipino OFW by the Saudi government
21. Immediately after the witness had been sworn to testify, without any formal offer
of her testimony, prosecutor X started asking questions on direct examination to the
witness. The court may still consider her testimony if:
a. The witness is an expert witness
b. The witness is an ordinary witness
c. The opposing counsel did not object
d. The formal offer is done after the direct testimony
22. Martina is the lone witness on the kidnapping incident of a Korean businessman
in Pampanga. Her testimony is:
a. Always credible
b. Never credible
c. Credible only if corroborated
d. May be believed even if not corroborated
23. The Parole Evidence Rule applies to:

a. Compromise agreements
b. Wills and testaments
c. Written agreements
d. Additional agreements placed on issue
24. Atty. Asunto drafts a pleading for his client Menor wherein Menor admits certain
facts prejudicial to his case. The pleading was never filed but Atty. Asunto signed
it. Opposing counsel got hold of the pleading and presents the same in court. Which
statement is the most accurate?
a. Prejudicial statements are not admissible because Menor did not sign the
pleadings
b. Prejudicial statements are not admissible because it was not filed and is
therefore not considered a pleading
c. Prejudicial statements are not admissible because they were made outside the
proceedings
d. Prejudicial statements are not admissible because it was not done in open court
25. A private electronic documents authenticity may be received in evidence when

proved by:
a. Evidence that a method or process was utilized to verify the same
b. Evidence that it was electronically notarized
c. Evidence that it contains electronic data messages
d. Evidence that it was digitally signed by the person who purportedly signed the
same
26. Based on the Rules of Electronic Evidence, ephemeral electronic conversation

refers to the following except:
a. Online chat room sessions
b. Skype conversation
c. Messages on yahoo messenger
d. Faxed document
27. When confronted, Oro readily admitted that he killed the dog. Such
statement may be admitted and is not a hearsay because
a. It shows the statement was true
b. It is a judicial admission of guilt
c. It shows the statement was true
d. It proves that such a statement was made
28. During a hold-up, Bingo was shot by Hansel. On the brink of death, Bingo told
Fita that it was Hansel who shot him. During the trial for robbery with homicide, Bingos
declaration can be admitted only as a dying declaration
a. To prove robbery and homicide
b. To prove robbery
c. To prove homicide
d. To prove the corpus delicti
29. In default of parents, the court may appoint a guardian for a minor giving first
preference to:
a. Paternal grandparent
b. Godmother or father
c. Actual custodian over 18 years old
d. Brother or sister who is 18 years old or older
30. A narrative testimony is usually objected to but the court may allow such
testimony if:
a. The witness is a senior citizen
b. Witness divulge other information not being asked
c. It would expedite trial and give the court a clearer understanding of the matters
related
d. Testimony relates to family history
31. To prove that T stabbed B, D testified that she saw and heard E telling her
neighbour that T is stabbing B. Is Es testimony as told by D admissible?
a. Yes, as part of the res gestae
b. Yes, as an independently relevant statement
c. No, since the event has passed
d. No, since the statement as told to the neighbour is itself hearsay.
32. A child witness under the Rules on Examination of a Child witness is one:
a. Who is 18 years of age in child abuse cases
b. Who is below 18 years of age at the time of the giving of testimony
c. Who is 18 years of age or below at the time of testifying
d. Who is below 18 years of age at the time of the crime to be testified on
33. The prosecution moved for the discharge of Dayan as state witness in a drug
case filed against Lilac, Anton and him. Dayan testified, consistent with the sworn
statement which he gave the prosecution. After hearing Dayan, the court denied the
motion for his discharge. How will denial affect Dayan?
a. The court can convict him based on is testimony
b. His liability
c. His testimony shall remain on record
d. Dayan will be prosecuted together with Lilac and Anton
34. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed except:

a. When the party rests his case and the real evidence consists of objects exhibited
in court
b. When it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue
c. When the objection to its admissibility shall be considered waived
d. When it is formally offered by the proponent immediately before he rests his case
35. Marcia pointed a finger at the accused in a police line up to identify the assailant
in the crime of murder. Marcia did not testify in court. The police officer testified that
Marcia positively identified the assailant. Is the polices testimony admissible evidence?
a. No, the testimony is hearsay
b. No, the police had the accused identified without warning him of his rights
c. Yes since it is based on his personal knowledge of Marcias identification of the
accused
d. Yes since it constitutes an independently relevant statement
36. Which is not required of a declaration against interest as an exception to the

hearsay rule
a. Declaration relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant
b. At the time he made said declaration he was unaware that the same was
contrary to his aforesaid interest
c. Declarant is dead
d. Declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to be true
37. Which of the following is not a proper subject of judicial notice

a. Miss Philippines won the Miss Universe contest
b. Skype conference is now a cheap way of reaching loved ones abroad
c. British law on succession personally known to the judge
d. Persons have killed without clear motive
38. Character evidence is admissible

a. In criminal cases, the bad moral character of the offended party may not be
proved
b. When it is evidence of the good character of a witness prior to impeachment
c. In criminal cases, the prosecution may prove the bad moral character of the
accused to prove his criminal predisposition
d. In criminal cases, the accused may prove his good moral character if pertinent to
the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
39. Which of the following cannot be disputably presumed under the Rules on
Evidence
a. A writing is truly dated
b. The ordinary course of business has been followed
c. Private transactions have been fair and regular
d. That a young person, absent for five years it being unknown whether he still
lives, is considered dead for purposes of succession
40. Cardo testified that a week after the robbery, Kernel, one of the accused, told him
that Albert was one of those who committed the crime with him. Is Cardos testimony
regarding what Kernel told him admissible in evidence against Albert?
a. Yes, since it constitutes admission against a co-conspirator
b. Yes since it is a part of the res gestae
c. No, since it is hearsay
d. No, since Kernel did not make the statement during the conspiracy
41. In which of the following situations is the declaration of the deceased person
against his interest not admissible against him or his successors and against third
persons?
a. Declaration of a former co-partner after the partnership has been dissolved
b. Declaration of a joint debtor while the debt subsisted
c. Declaration of an agent within the scope of his authority
d. Declaration of a joint owner in the course of ownership
42. In which of the following instances is the quantum of evidence erroneously

applied
a. To satisfy the burden of proof in civil cases, preponderance of evidence
b. To overcome disputable presumption, clear and convincing evidence
c. To rebut the presumptive validity of a notarial document, substantial evidence
d. In writ of Amparo cases, substantial evidence
43. Lilia filed a petition for writ of amparo against Batobato relative to her husband
Dayans involuntary disappearance. Lilia said that Batobato is a policeman who
threatened to get rid of Dayan days before her husbands disappearance. Batobato
however, denied that he was involved in Dayans disappearance and even commanded
his men to investigate on the matter. What is the quantum of evidence required to
establish the parties respective claims?
a. For Lilia, proof beyond reasonable doubt; for Batobato, ordinary diligence
b. For both, substantial evidence
c. For Lilia, preponderance of evidence; for Batobato, substantial evidence
d. For Lilia, probable cause; for Batobato, substantial evidence
44. Mar testified that Pinoy, charged with homicide, has stabbed three other people
on three different places in the last five months. Can the court admit this testimony as
evidence against Pinoy?
a. Yes, as evidence of his past propensity to commit homicide
b. Yes, as evidence of a pattern of criminal behaviour proving his guilt of the
present offense
c. No, since evidence of guilt of a past crime is not evidence of guilt of the present
crime
d. No, since there is no showing that Mar witnessed the past three stabbing
45. During trial, plaintiff Panyero 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. Defendant Trilly objected. Should the trial court reject the evidence in
question on ground of irrelevance?
a. No, it should reserve its ruling until the relevance is shown.
b. No, it should admit it conditionally until its relevance is shown
c. Yes, since the Panyero could anyway subsequently present the evidence anew
d. Yes, since irrelevant evidence is not admissible
46. Who among the following is incompetent to testify

a. A mental retardate
b. A person under the influence of drugs when the event he is asked to testify took
place
c. Insane person
d. Person convicted of perjury who will testify as an attesting witness to a will
47. Selya was asked to testify as witness that she saw Delfin handed money to
Puring saying bayad sa utang ko, proof that it is a payment of debt. Is Selyas
testimony admissible in evidence?
a. Yes, since what Delfin said and did is an independently relevant statement
b. Yes, since Delfins statement and action, subject of Selyas testimony, constitutes
a verbal act
c. No, since Selyas testimony of what Delfin said and did is hearsay
d. No, since what Delfin said and did was bot in response to a startling occurrence
48. Which of the following is not a stage wherein judicial notice may be taken
a. During the trial of the case
b. After the trial of the case
c. Before the trial of the case
d. Before judgment of the case
49. Rebecca charged her husband, Dayan, with bigamy for a prior subsisting
marriage with Leila. Rebecca presented Boy Girl Abunda and Lolit Soli, neighbors of
Dayan and Leila in Paranaque, to prove first, that Dayan and Leila cohabited there and,
second, that they established a reputation as husband and wife. Can Rebecca prove
the bigamy by such evidence?
a. No, the circumstantial evidence is not enough to support a conviction for bigamy
b. No, at least one direct evidence and two circumstantial evidence are required to
support a conviction for bigamy
c. Yes, the circumstantial evidence can overcome the lack of direct evidence in any
criminal case
d. Yes, the circumstantial evidence is enough to support a conviction for bigamy
50. Which of the following admissions made by a party in the course of judicial
proceedings is a judicial admission
a. Admissions made in a complaint
b. Admission made by counsel in open court
c. Admission made in a pleading between the dame parties in another case
d. Admissions made in a pleading signed by the party and his counsel

Understanding Evidence: Key Concepts and Principles

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Understanding Evidence: Key Concepts and Principles

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

GERALD M.

Andrew Ivan C. Niedo

2. What is the scope of exclusionary rule?

3. What are the requisites for admissibility of evidence?

4. A filed an action for recovery of ownership of a parcel of land against D. the

5. On what instance does evidence on collateral matters admitted?

6. What is meant by circumstantial evidence?

7. What is meant by proof beyond reasonable doubt?

8. What are matters need not be proved?

9. When is judicial notice discretionary?

12. When is the best evidence rule applicable?

13. What are the requisites for admissibility of documentary evidence?

15. What is the probative value of electronic documents?

18. What is the importance of knowing whether a document is public or private?

21. Who may not testify by reason of privileged communication?

23. For a dying declaration to be admissible, it must be:

27. A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of law history, science

29. As a general rule, opinion of an ordinary witness is not admissible. Witnesses

30. When is character evidence admissible in criminal cases?

33. What is an independent relevant statement?

34. What are dying declarations?

35. In spontaneous statements, there must be a startling occurrence and statement

36. When could a Live-Link TV Testimony of a child applies?

37. Pursuant to section 28 of the Rule on Examination of Child witness, an exception

39. what are the exceptions under this rule?

50. In examining a child witness presumption of competence applies, wherein every

a. A leading question is one that is framed in such a way that the

4. In general, parol evidence rule is designed to give certainty to written

6. All but one of the following erroneously describes preponderance of evidence.

a. Credence is given to prosecution witnesses, who are police

8. As between a private and public document, which of the following is admissible in

a. Documents acknowledged before a Notary Public in Hawaii

a. That a court or judge acting as such solely in the Philippines, was

a. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is

a. Statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue and giving

34. For the testimony or deposition at a former proceeding as contemplated in

a. The privilege is extended to communications made for the purpose of

a. Yes, since Rezels statement and action, subject of Celines testimony,

a. No, since evidence of guilt of a past crime is not evidence of guilt of a

a. Complainant who must be able to show such by preponderance of evidence.

a. When it is evidence of the good character of a witness even prior to

a. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue.

JUMAQUIO, JAYVEE ANNE T.

2. If evidence is admissible, does it necessarily mean that it has probative value?

3. Petra borrowed money from Juana amounting to Php 10,000 evidenced by a

7. The following are instances where there is disputable presumption, except:

9. May a witness be disqualified on the ground of political, or religious belief or

a. Yes, because it is a ground for disqualification of a witness as provided by law.

12. Parole evidence is an:

15. A vicarious admission is considered an exception to the hearsay rule. It,

17. May a party impeach his own witness?

18. CC was presented as a witness against DD in a crime of homicide. DD failed to

(a) No, because DD had no opportunity to cross-examine or confront him at

(a) The admission of FF in his responsive pleading has no effect at all.

21. May a person who has been convicted of a crime be a witness?

a. No, because the offer of evidence is immaterial in this case.

23. May a person over eighteen years old be considered as a child?

28. In examining forged documents, are the testimonies of handwriting experts

30. May a person be convicted on the basis of hearsay evidence?

a. Yes, the objection should be sustained because the witness is disqualified to

a. Character evidence is allowed in all cases of homicide.

a. Yes, but only in rebuttal.

a. Yes, because moral character is material in the prosecution and conviction of