1.

Sison vs People (250 S 88 [1995[) about photographs

2.

Photographs when presented in evidence must be identified by the photographer,

as to its production and as testified as to circumstances under which they were
produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct
representation or reproduction of the original and its admissibility is
determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime. The
photographer is not the only witness who can identify the pictures he has taken.
The correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of the object
portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who
made it or by the other competent witness, after which the court can admit it
subject to impeachment as to its accuracy. Can either be identified by the
photographer or by any other competent witness.
People vs Tan 105 Phil 1242[1959]) carbon copy

The Court said that the admissibility of duplicates or triplicates has long been
a settled question. It quoted with approval the opinion of Moran, a commentator on
the Rules of Court. When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of
writing paper so that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet, including the
signature of the party to be charged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the sheets
beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the same stroke of the pen
which made the surface or exposed the impression, all of the sheets so written on
are regarded as duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in
evidence as such without accounting for the non-production of the others.

3.
What is the common denominator in the following exceptions of the hearsay
evidence rule?

a.

Dying declaration

b.

Declaration against interest

c.

Part of res gestae

Atty Famador answer there is less probability to lie.

Naa pud answer si riano sa iya book aning number 3

Part II 10 pts each

1.

People vs. Francisco (78 Phil 694 [1941]) when husband imputes crime
against wife, he waives the marital disqualification rule

The reasons given by law text-writers and courts why neither a husband nor
wife shall in any case be a witness against the other except in a criminal
prosecution for a crime committed by one against the other have been stated thus:
First, identity of interests; second, the consequent danger of perjury; third, the
policy of the law which deems it necessary to guard the security and confidences of
private life even at the risk of an occasional failure of justice, and which rejects
such evidence because its admission would lead to domestic disunion and
unhappiness; and, fourth, because, where a want of domestic tranquility exists,
there is danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of the other.
However, as all general rules, this one has its own exceptions, both in civil
actions between the spouses and in criminal cases for offenses committed by one
against the other. Like the rule itself, the exceptions are backed by sound reasons
which, in the excepted cases, outweigh those in support of the general rule. For
instance, where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no
more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed,
the reason based upon such harmony and tranquility fails.
The defendant, who was accused of killing his son, testifying in his own
behalf, not only limited to himself to denying that he was the killer, but went further
and added what was really a new matter consisting in the imputation of the crime
upon his wife. Thus in giving such testimony, the husband must in all fairness, be
held to have intended all its natural and necessary consequences. By his said act,
the husbandhimself exercising the very right which he would deny to his wife
upon the ground of their marital relationsmust be taken to have waived all
objection to the latters testimony upon rebuttal, even considering that such
objection would have been available at the outset.

2.

3.

In a buy bust operation, vince swallows the sachet of shabu. The police
authorities requested the NBI surgeon to extract the sachet of shabu from
Vinces body. Is the evidence admissible
No, the evidence is not admissible.
W,X,Y, and Z charged with robbery. Witness B testified that he heard during
the conversation between Y and Z that W entered the house to rob. Is the
testimony of B admissible?

Yes, the testimony of B is admissible for purposes of proving the fact that
he heard the conversation but not the material fact that indeed robbery
was committed.
4.
Sylvias husband killed Kenneth in the latters apartment. Sylvia told her husband
that Kenneth attempted to rape her. The husband claimed self defense. The police
authorities recorded an interview with Sylvia who revealed that Kenneth did not have
anything in his possession when her husband killed Kenneth. Her husband was
charged. However, Sylvia did not testify in view of martial disqualification rule. The judge
allowed the replay of the tape recording of Sylvias interview without her being crossexamined. Is the trial judge correct?
Part I True or False ( 3 pts each) Justify Reason Provide exception/general rule
1.

A negative allegation needs to be proved

d

Section 2, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court which, provide that in criminal cases the burden
of proof as to the offense charged lies on the prosecution and that a negative fact alleged by t
he prosecution must be proven if "it is an essential ingredient of the offense charged", the bu
rden of proof was with the prosecution in this case to prove that the firearm used by appellan
t in committing the offense charged was not properly licensed.
It cannot be denied that the lack or absence of a license is an essential ingredient of the
offense of illegal possession of a firearm. It was the prosecution's duty not merely to allege th
at negative fact but to prove it. This view is supported by similar adjudicated cases.
The mere fact that the adverse party has the control of the better means of proof of the fa
ct alleged, should not relieve the party making the averment of the burden of proving it. This i
s so, because a party who alleges a fact must be assumed to have acquired some knowledge
thereof, otherwise he could not have alleged it.
Proving negative fact in civil cases
Besides the allegation of petitioner that it had no knowledge of the accident is a negative alle
gation and needs no evidence to support it, not being an essential part of the statement of the rig
ht on which the cause of action is founded. It is therefore the respondent Tobias who has the burd
en of disproving the claim of petitioner that he has no knowledge of the accident when it made the
offer to respondent either to pay the balance on the promissory note or to surrender the truck. Re
spondent failed in this.

2.

The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered

3.

The rules provide that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been
formally offered.
Last wills and testaments need to be proved although notarized
Wills notwithstanding the fact that they are notarized shall be proved in a
probate proceedings to determine its due execution.

4.

The witness may be cross examined as to any matter stated in the direct
examination or connected therewith
True.

5.

6.

7.

A witness has the right not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his
reputation
True. Unless it 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.
If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse
present may contract a subsequent marriage.
True so long as he/she obtains a judicial decree of presumptive death.
In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff

8.

Facts that are presumed need to be proved.

9.

The prosecution may prove the bad moral character of the accused

10. The angara diary is a hearsay evidence in the case of Estrada vs. Disierto
11. The witness may also testify on his impressions of the behavior condition or
appearance of a person
12. Expert evidence is not conclusive upon the court
13. Hearsay evidence is admissible in evidence
14. Bad moral character of a victim in a murder case may be admitted in evidence
In cases of self-defense, as evidence of aggression of deceased and state of mind of
the accused.
15. Bad moral character of a victim in a rape through force may be admitted in
evidence
False. It is irrelevant and is immaterial.
16. Laying a predicate is laying the foundation of a question.
True. Its is the act of relate previous statements of

Focus on Rights of a witness and presentation

Character
Burden of Proof