REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 2

POINTERS FOR MID TERM EXAMINATION (THE LAW ON EVIDENCE)

JUDGE GLOBERT J. JUSTALERO

21. Policemen brought Lorenzo to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) and requested
one of its surgeons to immediately perform surgery on him to retrieve a packet of 10
grams of shabu which they alleged was swallowed by Lorenzo. Suppose the PGH agreed
to, and did perform the surgery, is the package of shabu admissible in evidence?
Explain.

ANSWER
No, the package of shabu extracted from the body of Lorenzo is not admissible in
evidence because it was obtained through surgery which connotes forcible invasion
into the body of Lorenzo without his consent and absent due process. The act of
the policemen and the PGH surgeon in involved, violate the fundamental rights of
Lorenzo, the suspect.

22. A was accused of having rape X. Rule on the admissibility of the following pieces of
evidence:

a. An offer of A to marry X; and

b. A pair of short pants allegedly left by A at the crime scene which the court, over
the objection of A, required him to put on, and when he did, it fit him well.

ANSWER
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. The pair of short pants which fit the accused well is circumstantial evidence of
his guilt, although standing alone it cannot be the basis of conviction. The accused
cannot object to the court requiring him to put the short pants on. It is not part of
his right against self-incrimination because it is a mere physical act.

23. If the accused on the witness stand repeats his earlier uncounseled extrajudicial
confession implicating his co-accused in the crime charge. Is that testimony admissible
in evidence against the latter?

ANSWER
Yes. The accused can testify by repeating his earlier uncounseled extrajudicial
confession, because he can be subjected to cross-examination.

24. What is the probative value of a witness’ Affidavit of Recantation?

 ANSWER
On the probative value of an affidavit of recantation, courts look with disfavor
upon recantations because they can easily be secured from witnesses, usually
through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. Recanted testimony is
exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that it will be repudiated.

25. What are the two kinds of objections? Explain each briefly. Give an example of each.

ANSWER
The kinds of objections are: (1) the evidence being presented is not relevant to
the issue; and (2) the evidence is incompetent or excluded by the law or the rules.
An example of the first is when the prosecution offers as evidence the alleged
offer of Insurance Company to pay for the damages suffered by the victim in a
homicide case.

Examples of the second are evidence obtained in violation of the Constitutional

prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and confessions and
admissions in violation of the rights of a person under custodial investigation.

26. Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence:
a. Dead Man Rule
b. Parol Evidence Rule
c. Best Evidence Rule
d. The Rule against the admission of illegally obtained extrajudicial confession
e. The Rule against the admission of an offer of compromise in civil case.

ANSWER
A. DEAD MAN RULE – if death has closed the lips of one party, the policy of the law
is to close the lips of the other. This is to prevent the temptation to perjury
because death has already sealed the lips of the party.

B. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE – It is designed to give certainty to a transaction which

has been reduced to writing, because written evidence is much more certain and
accurate than that which rests on fleeting memory only.

C. BEST EVIDENCE RULE – This rule is adopted for the prevention of fraud and is
declared to be essential to the pure administration of justice. If a party is in
possession of such evidence and withholds it, the presumption naturally arises that
the better evidence id withheld for fraudulent purposes.

D. THE RULE AGAINST THE ADMISSION OF ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EXTRAJUDICIAL

CONFESSION – it nullifies the intrinsic validity of the confession and renders it
unreliable as evidence of the truth. It is the fruit of a poisonous tree.

E. THE RULE AGAINST THE ADMISSION OF AN OFFER OF COMPROMISE IN CIVIL CASE –

The parties are encouraged to enter into compromises. Courts should endeavour to
persuade the litigants in a civil case to agree upon some fair compromise. During
 pre-trial, courts should direct the parties to consider the possibility of an amicable
settlement.

27. Distinguish extrajudicial admission from extrajudicial confession in criminal cases.

ANSWER
An extrajudicial admission is a statement of fact which does not directly involve an
acknowledgment of guilt or criminal intent, while an extrajudicial confession is a
declaration of an accused that he has committed or participated in the commission
of a crime.

28. In the examination of witnesses, what is means by “laying the predicate”?

ANSWER
“Laying the Predicate” is the procedure of impeaching a witness by evidence of
prior inconsistent statements. Before such a witness can be impeached, the prior
statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places
and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements,
and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing they must be
shown to him before any question is put to him concerning them. (Sec 13 of Rule
132)

29. At A’s trial for B’ murder, the defense attempts to present as its witness the victim’s
widow, X. She is to testify that just before B died, she approached his sprawled and
bloodied husband and asked who stabbed him. B, conscious of his impending death,
named Y as his assailant. The prosecution moves to stop X from testifying because her
testimony: (1) is hearsay, and (2) will be violative of the rule on privileged marital
communication. Rule on the prosecution’s motion. Explain.

ANSWER
I will deny the prosecution’s motion. The testimony of X is admissible as a dying
declaration, which is an exception to the hearsay rule (Sec 37 of Rule 130).
Moreover, it is not a privileged marital communication.

30. X charged with rape with homicide, offered P100, 000. 00 as amicable settlement to
the family of the victim. The family refused. During the trial, the prosecution
presented in evidence X’s offer of compromise. What is the legal implication of such
offer? Explain.

ANSWER
The offer of P100,000.00 as amicable settlement in a criminal case for rape with
homicide is an implied admission of guilt. It does not fall within the exceptions of
quasi-offences or those allowed by law to be compromised.