Witness DQ
Y/N. A wife voluntarily testified for her husband in a criminal case for concubinage. During cross-examination, she was asked about private letters her husband sent during their marriage. She refused, invoking marital privilege. Is her refusal valid?
No. While testimonial disqualification ends once a spouse voluntarily testifies, the marital communication privilege remains — but only for confidential communications. Since the letters were sent to his paramour, not to her in confidence, privilege does not apply.
Y/N. X, father of Z, while the former is still alive, openly told his friends that the land where his house stood had already been sold to Y. Is X's declaration admissible against Z?
No, because the statement was made after X held title to the land.
Y/N. During trial, a nurse testifies that the attending doctor told her the patient was already dead. The doctor has since died. Is the nurse’s statement admissible?
No. It is hearsay because the nurse’s testimony merely repeats what the doctor said, and it does not fall under any recognized exception (e.g., dying declaration, official record, or learned treatise).
Y/N. A witness testified: “I think the man was mentally unstable because he was talking to himself.” The defense objects under the Opinion Rule. Should the court admit it?
Yes. It qualifies as an opinion of an ordinary witness, based on personal observation of behavior and appearance—one of the exceptions under Rule 130, Sec. 53.
Y/N. In a civil case for child custody, the father offers proof that the mother previously posed for obscene photos. The mother objects on the ground of inadmissible character evidence. Should the objection be sustained?
No. In custody and psychological incapacity cases, character evidence is admissible when pertinent to parental fitness or moral character, since these traits are in issue.
True or False. In disqualification by reason of marriage, a spouse may testify about confidential information received before the marriage once they are married.
False. The disqualification applies only while the marriage exists.
True or False. A confession that was obtained with the assistance of counsel, but after continuous interrogation and without rest, may still be considered voluntary as long as the accused signed it.
False. Even with counsel, a confession must be voluntary in substance, not just formally signed. If obtained through coercion, fatigue, intimidation, or prolonged questioning, it becomes involuntary and inadmissible.
True or False. A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial and is subject to cross-examination about that statement.
True. Under Rule 130, a statement is not hearsay if the declarant personally testifies in court and can be cross-examined about the statement.
True or False. The testimony of a medical student on the cause of death may be received as expert opinion if he has studied the subject in class but has not yet practiced medicine.
False. An expert witness must have special knowledge, skill, experience, or training actually possessed and proven, not merely academic exposure.
True or False. In a homicide case, the prosecution may initially prove the accused’s violent character to show a tendency to commit the crime charged.
False. The prosecution cannot attack the accused’s character unless the accused first opens the issue by introducing his good moral character.
MCQ. In a civil case, a patient confided in a guidance counselor she believed was a psychologist. Can physician–patient privilege apply?
a. Yes, if the belief was reasonable.
b. No, only licensed physicians are covered.
c. Yes, if the counselor had medical training.
d. No, privilege applies only in criminal cases.
a. Yes, if the belief was reasonable. The Rule covers not only licensed physicians or psychotherapists but also those reasonably believed by the patient to be authorized to practice medicine or psychology, and only in civil cases.
MCQ. Which of the following is NOT considered an admission?
a. A statement made by a party acknowledging a relevant fact against their interest
b. A statement made by a co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy
c. A confession made by an accused admitting the commission of an offense
d. A statement made by a witness who is not a party to the case
d. Only statements made by a party or someone whose acts are attributable to them are admissions. Statements of mere witnesses are not.
MCQ. A witness testified that she heard a bystander shout, “Si Marco ang pumatay!” The statement is offered to prove that Marco really killed the victim. What rule applies to this statement?
a. Admission by co-conspirator
b. Confession
c. Hearsay
d. Independently relevant statement
c. Hearsay. The statement is being offered to prove the truth of what was said — that Marco really killed the victim.
MCQ. A lay witness testifies that “the man looked drunk while being questioned.” Under the Opinion Rule, this statement is:
a. Inadmissible, since it invades the province of the court
b. Admissible, as an opinion of an ordinary witness based on perception
c. Admissible only if the man later confessed
d. Inadmissible unless supported by an expert on behavior
b. The witness’s statement is based on personal perception of emotion or behavior, which is one of the exceptions for ordinary witnesses under Rule 130, Sec. 53.
MCQ: Character evidence of the accused’s good moral trait is admissible:
a. To prove that he always acts morally
b. Only when it pertains to the moral trait involved in the offense charged
c. Whenever the accused’s honesty or decency is questioned
d. Whenever the defense raises it first in any case
b. Rule 130, Sec. 54(a): Character must be pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
Simple recall: Aside from "furtherance of crime or fraud/ 'future crime-fraud exceptions", give one case when the attorney-client privilege is not applicable.
2. Claimaints through some deceased client (validity or interpretation of the client’s will) 3. Breach of duty by lawyer or client/self- defense exception 4. Documents attested by the lawyer 5. Joint clients
Identify the kind of admission: The accused was unresponsive when police officers confronted him with the statement, “You were seen selling drugs last night.”
Admission by Silence. When a person hears a statement made in his presence and does not deny it, even if he reasonably could, his silence can be taken as an admission.
Identify the hearsay exception: A statement made by a person who believes he is about to die, regarding the cause and circumstances of his death, is admissible in evidence in a case where his death is the subject of inquiry.
Dying Declaration. This is an exception because it is presumed that a person who believes death is near will not lie.
Simple recall: Enumerate one instance where opinion of ordinary witness may be received in evidence.
1. Identity of a person; 2. Handwriting; 3. Mental sanity of a person; 4. Impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition, or appearance of a person.
Identification: It refers to evidence showing a person’s moral qualities or traits to prove the probability of his conduct on a specific occasion.
Character Evidence
Identification: This rule exempts a person from being compelled to testify against his or her direct ascendants or descendants, but does not extend to relationships without common ancestry, such as that between a stepparent and stepchild.
Parental and filial privilege
Identify the doctrine: An admission made by one person becomes the admission of another because the latter manifested his assent or adopted the statement as his own, either by words, gestures, or conduct.
Adoptive Admission. Silence, nodding, or agreeing to a statement made by another may turn that statement into your own admission.
Identify the doctrine described: Statements that are relevant regardless of whether they are true or not. They are not hearsay because they are offered not to prove the truth of their contents, but merely to prove that the statement was made or to show its effect on the listener.
Independently Relevant Statements. These include verbal acts, statements showing intent, or statements showing effect on the hearer.
An expert witness testified that a document was forged. The judge, however, formed a different view after examining it personally. What should prevail?
a. The expert’s opinion
b. The judge’s own examination
c. Neither. Both are inadmissible
d. The party who presented the expert
b. The court is not bound by the expert’s opinion; the judge must make an independent examination of the evidence.
Identification: This doctrine prevents the introduction of the complainant’s past sexual conduct or reputation in rape cases, unless the court finds it material and relevant to the issue.
Rape Shield Rule. Embedded under Rule 130, Sec. 54(a)—it bars evidence of a rape victim’s past sexual behavior to protect against prejudice.