EVIDENCE

Write your answers in your exam notebook.

Submit next meeting.

Answer the following questions correctly, briefly and concisely. Support your answer/s
with reason/s citing the applicable law, rule or the case/s upon which you anchored your
answer/s.

1. A, a Chinese national was granted naturalization by the Regional Trial Court. The
decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals on the ground that A failed to state in his
petition among others that he was engaged in lucrative trade or occupation and his
previous incomes have been insufficient or misdeclared. To support its opposition, the
Solicitor General attached in his brief documents not presented before the court. A
opposed the presentation ofthe documentary evidence attached to the Solicitor
General’s brief. Accordingly, such evidence should not be considered in the appeal they
being not formally offered before the trial court pursuant to Rule 132, Sec. 34 of the
Rules of Court. Are the documents admissible? Explain.

2. In the course of serving a search warrant in relation to a complaint for illegal drugs,
the police chanced upon an unlicensed firearm. Can the police take the firearm even if it
is not covered by the search warrant? In the event the searched warrant is quashed, is
the firearm still admissible in evidence?

3. While accused was being transported to the crime laboratory, he admitted to his
police escorts that he fired a gun on the night of the killing and that the gun is being
hidden in his house. Thus, the police went to his house to retrieve the gun. Ballistic
examination showed that the slug recovered from the head of the victim was fired from
the gun surrendered by the accused. At the time the admissions were made, accused
was not assisted by counsel. Are his admissions and the seized objects competent
evidence? Explain.

4. In a complaint for annulment of marriage based on psychological incapacity, the

plaintiff-husband presented cassette tapes of alleged conversations between defendant-
wife and unidentified persons. These tape recordings were made and obtained when
the husband allowed his friends from the military to wire tap his home telephone without
the knowledge of his wife. Is the evidence admissible? Explain.

5. L and R are married. L is suspecting that R is having an affair with M. Together with
her alalays, L raided her husband’s office and there she obtained love letters. Are the
documents admissible in evidence?

6. A was found guilty of murder by the RTC for the killing of B. The conviction was
based mainly on the testimony of B’s seven-year old son, who testified that he was
awakened from sleep at around 3:00 o’clock dawn and saw his father being stabbed in
the heart with a “veintenueve” knife by A. There being no testimony that the crime scene
was illuminated, the appellate court did not believe the testimony of the boy. Is the
appellate court correct?
7. In its complaint, plaintiff Republic of the Philippines claimed it entered the subject
property subject of the expropriation in 1956. In their answer, defendants admitted the
truth of the allegation. Likewise in their Pre-trial Brief, defendants stated that plaintiff has
been occupying the property “for many years now”. May defendants nevertheless
present evidence that the property was occupied by plaintiff at a later date?

8. Accused was charged with qualified rape of her own daughter who was 12 years old.
During the pre-trial, the age of the victim was stipulated upon and her birth certificate
was pre-marked. The parties, however, did not sign the pre-trial order. Likewise, the
birth certificate of the victim was not offered in evidence. As regards his relationship,
this fact was admitted by the accused during trial. Can the court appreciate the victim’s
minority and the accused’s relationship with the former be considered to qualify the
charge of rape?

9. When the agent was sued together with the buyer of the property, he maintained that
he was duly authorized to sell by the corporation. Eight years later, while the case was
on review by the Supreme Court, he manifested that he acted solely and without proper
authority from the corporation. Should the Supreme Court disregard his earlier
admissions in his pleadings?

10. Bannered on the front page of the Manila Bulletin is an alleged pronouncement of
Pres. Duterte that he has decriminalized possession of unlicensed guns. Taking judicial
notice of said pronouncement, Judge Maawain dismissed all cases of illegal possession
of firearms pending before his sala. Accordingly, the new law can be applied
retroactively since it is favorable to the accused. Is the judge correct?

11. At around 7:00 o’clock in the evening, a cargo van hit a cigarette vendor along Rizal
St., Digos City. The van sped away leaving behind the victim. A concerned citizen,
however, was able to call the police giving the latter the description and plate number of
the van. After a brief chase, SPO2 Magalang was able to corner the van. He introduced
himself to the driver and informed the latter that he is being arrested for reckless driving.
When Magalang peered through the window of the van, he noticed several plastic bags
containing white crystalline substances. Suspecting that the substances were shabu,
the police confiscated the same. After laboratory tests showed that indeed the
substances were shabu, a case for violation of R.A. 9165 was filed against the driver of
the van. Before his arraignment, accused filed a motion to suppress evidence.
Accordingly, the shabu confiscated from him were illegally seized. a) If you were the
judge, will you grant the motion?; b) Can the seizure be justified under “warrantless
search as an incident to a lawful arrest”

12. At about 9:00 o'clock in the evening of August 9, 2016, police operatives were
dispatched to conduct patrol to verify reports on the presence of armed persons
roaming around the City of Digos. Upon reaching Luna Extension, the operatives
chanced upon a group of four (4) persons who appear to be drunk. Upon seeing the
policemen, the four persons scampered at different directions. Accused, however,
stumbled upon a stone which caused his fall giving the police opportunity to hold him.
Search conducted on the body of the accused yielded a gun tucked on his waist.
Charged with illegal possession of firearm, accused was convicted by the trial court. On
appeal, accused faulted the trial court for admitting the subject firearm in evidence as it
was allegedly the product of an unlawful warrantless search. He maintained that the
search made on his person violated his constitutional right to be secure in his person
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Is the trial court correct in
admitting the subject firearm in evidence?

13. On December 3, 2015, the PNP Maritime Command received reports that a boat
was fishing by "cyanide" within the Davao Gulf. Several maritime police, thus,
immediately proceeded to the area and found a fishing boat thereat. The police boarded
the boat and inspected it. In the course of their inspection, the police confiscated
several kilos of fish which, upon laboratory tests, yielded positive for sodium cyanide. A
case for illegal fishing was, therefore, filed against the boat owner, captain, the crew
and the fishermen. Appealing their conviction by the trial court, the accused question
the admissibility of the evidence against them in view of the warrantless search of the
fishing boat and their subsequent arrest. More concretely, they contend that the finding
of sodium cyanide in the fish specimens should not have been admitted and considered
by the trial court because the fish samples were seized without a search warrant. Rule.

14. Plaintiff landowner filed a petition for determination of just compensation of his
agricultural land subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) with the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR). During the pre-trial, the parties agreed to submit the case for
decision on the basis of position paper. Since no evidence was presented by the parties
to prove value of the subject land, the court took judicial notice of the market value of
the adjoining lands without apprising the parties of its intention to take judicial notice
thereof. Is the trial court correct?

15. At about 10 P.M. on August 10, 2015, Police Operatives, while on a routine patrol in
Bansalan, Davao del Sur, spotted a passenger jeep loaded with banana leaves.
Suspecting that the jeep was loaded with smuggled goods, the two police officers
flagged down the vehicle. When the driver was asked what was loaded on the jeep, he
did not answer; he appeared pale and nervous. Suspicious of the driver’s reaction, the
police officer removed the banana leaves, checked the cargo and they discovered
cartoons of banana fruits. The driver and the vehicle with the bananas were brought to
the Police Station. Convicted of theft, accused questions the validity of the search
conducted on the vehicle. According to him, the search was invalid and the evidence
obtained are inadmissible in evidence. Rule.