EVIDENCE_3M-3SR_FINAL_EXAM ID: AdDU130689
ID: AdDU130689
Name: EDJAN S. PARREÑO
Exam Name: EVIDENCE 3M-3SR FINAL EXAM
Exam Date: Oct 21, 2023
AdDU130689_EVIDENCE 3M-3SR FINAL
File Name: EXAM_20231021190944197_final.xmdx
1 of 7
EVIDENCE_3M-3SR_FINAL_EXAM ID: AdDU130689
1. B is the ANSWER
2. D is the ANSWER
3. C is the ANSWER
4. A is the ANSWER
5. C is the ANSWER
6. A is the ANSWER
7. C is the ANSWER
8. D is the ANSWER
9. D is the ANSWER
10. D is the ANSWER
11. A is the ANSWER
2 of 7
EVIDENCE_3M-3SR_FINAL_EXAM ID: AdDU130689
12. B is the ANSWER
13. D is the ANSWER
14. B is the ANSWER
15. D is the ANSWER
16. A is the ANSWER
17. D is the ANSWER
18. D is the ANSWER
19. A is the ANSWER
20. D is the ANSWER
21. D is the ANSWER
22. C is the ANSWER
23. C is the ANSWER
3 of 7
EVIDENCE_3M-3SR_FINAL_EXAM ID: AdDU130689
24. A is the ANSWER
25. A is the ANSWER
1) PART II.
1. The Judicial Affidavit Rule provides judicial affidavits shall take the place of direct
testimonies. As such, the practice of directly examining the witness in open court is now
performed out-of-court by the counsel of the witness. This was adopted by the Supreme Court in
order to promote judicial economy and speedy disposition of cases. Using the judicial affidavits,
direct examination are now made written and not orally as was practiced before the promulgation
of the Judicial Affidavit Rule. The amended rules also mandates that judicial affidavits shall be
attached to the pleadings whether in the complaint of the plaintiff or the answer of the
respondent. As to the manner by which direct examination is made, two lawyers are need. The
first counsel is needed as he is the one incharge in examining the witness and shall declare
underoath that the witness was not coached or coerced during the conduct of the direct
examination. The second lawyer's task is to notarized the attestation clause needed in the
judicial affidavit. The same with the prior amendment, the witness testimony in the judicial
affidavit must have been performed under oath to attest the truth of the matters stipulated in the
affidavit. The judicial affidavits now as containing the direct testimonies of the witness shall be
the subject of cross- examination of the opposing counsel which the judge shall also facilitate to
compensate for the inability to observe the conduct of the witness during direct examination.
2. No, presumptive death is not inconsistent with the presumption of continuity of existence.
Presumptive death is the presumption that a person is already considered dead for purpose of
succession, opening of his will or other rights pertinent to his heirs at the time of death such as
benefits from insurance proceeds and the like. On the other hand, presumption of continuity of
existence is the presumption that a person is still alive absent proof or evidence of his death. The
two presumptions may seem to contradict each other, however, their application is consistent as
provided by the rules and cases decided by the supreme court. The court held that the application
of the presumptive death triggers the abolition of the presumption of continuing existence. This
is manifested by the number of years needed of the disappearance of the person in order that
presumptive death applies. While the Rules and other laws provide for different number of years
for each distinct circumstance where presumptive death applies, it is the general rule that
presumption of continuity of existence is presumed prior to the presumption of death. Simply
said,
4 of 7
EVIDENCE_3M-3SR_FINAL_EXAM ID: AdDU130689
presumption of continuity of existence takes place prior to the application of presumptive death,
depending on the required number of years for presumptive death to apply.
2) PART III. PROBLEM SOLVING.
a. No, Manny Cua-Tay's objection is incorrect
The Rules provide that in criminal cases, judicial affidavits of the prosecution is mandatory in
nature. There are conditions as to the judicial affidavits for the accused. In this case, the judicial
affidavit of the prosecution cannot be objected as it is part of the direct testimony of the Dang
Hagg. The argument that the imposable penalty is considered for judicial affidavits to take in
place of direct testimony is applicable only to the accused and not the witness of the prosecution.
Hence, the objection is incorrect.
b. No, Manny Cua-Tay's objection is incorrect.
The Judicial Affidavit Rule provides that judicial affidavits are mandatory in criminal cases
5 of 7
EVIDENCE_3M-3SR_FINAL_EXAM ID: AdDU130689
regardless of the penalty imposed when the testimony pertains to the civil liability of the crime.
In this case, Dang Hagg's judicial affidavit was centered on the purchase price of the cellphone
purposely to prove the civil liability of the crime and the main reason for attaching the receipts.
Hence, the judicial affidavit to prove the civil liability is mandatory in nature and cannot be
objected to.
c. No, the motion for reconsideration is unmeritorious.
The Rules of Court along with jurisprudence provide that formal offer of evidence is
mandatory in order to inform the court of the nature and contents of the supposed testimonies
obtained in the judicial affidavit. In this way, the court is guided as to the proper treatment of
the evidence and can act on the objections raised during trial.
Moreover, objections to the offer of evidence must be done as soon as the offer is made. Failure
to make an offer is fatal to the cause of the party, however, a formal offer can be dispensed if
there is substantial formal offer made. The court held that it is not necessary that the word
"formally offer" is mentioned by the party to signify that the evidence has been formally offered,
it is sufficient that the judge is well aware of the purport of the evidence being offered. Moreover,
an objection to the evidence for failure to formally offer must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity.
In this case, the judge is already made aware of the purpose by which the judicial affidavits are
presented, that is to prove the civil liability of the crime. Further, there is already a judgment
made to conform with this finding and lastly, counsel of Cua-Tay failed to object to the
presentation of the judicial affidavit when it was not formally offered.
Hence, the objection is not seasonably made and therefore, the motion for
reconsideration is not meritorious.
2.
a. The police blotter is not admissible and cannot be considered an exception to the
hearsay rule.
The Rules of Court provides that a public document is self-authenticating and admissible in
evidence if the same is an entry of official records. As such, there is no need to call the
personnel in-charge of a public document to the witness stand to authenticate the public
document being presented. The Supreme Court also held that police blotter are not entries of
official record and thus, private in nature. This court declaration is clear departure from
considering police blotter as entries of official record which is an exception to the hearsay rule.
As such, to authenticate a police blotter, there is a need to present and offer the police officer who
made the police blotter. Without which, the police blotter cannot be given any probative weight
by the court.
Hence, the police blotter is not admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
b. The police blotter is also inadmissible as past recollection recorded. The Rules provide that
documents to aid the witness of his past recollection can only presented to aid the
6 of 7
EVIDENCE_3M-3SR_FINAL_EXAM ID: AdDU130689
witness during trial. The said document used in giving aid to the witness cannot be made
admissible as the requirements for the admission of documents must be complied with according
to the original document rule.
In this case, the police blotter was only used to give aid to Pia's testimony and past
recollection. The same document used to aid past recollection cannot be used as documentary
evidence in favor of Pia for failing to comply with the original document rule and necessary
authentication requirements.
END OF EXAM
7 of 7