Bar Q&A Evidence (Bar Law Review for Dummies) Flashcards
(2004) #Rule 128 #General Provisions
X(B)
Sgt. GR of WPD arrested two NPA suspects, Max and Brix, both aged 22, in the act of robbing a grocery in Ermita. As he handcuffed them, he noted a pistol tucked in Max’s waist and a dagger hidden under Brix’s shirt, which he promptly confiscated. At the police investigation room, Max and Brix orally waived their right to counsel and to remain silent. Then under oath, they freely answered questions asked by the police desk officer. Thereafter, they signed their sworn statements before the police captain, a lawyer. Max admitted his part in the robbery, his possession of a pistol and his ownership of the packet of shabu found in his pocket. Brix admitted his role in the robbery and his possession of a dagger. But they denied being NPA hit men. In due course, proper charges were filed by the City Prosecutor against both arrestees before the MM RTC.
May the written statements signed and sworn to by Max and Brix be admitted by the trial court as evidence for the prosecution? Reason.
No.
The sworn statements of Max and Brix may not be admitted in evidence, because they were not assisted by counsel. Even if the police captain before whom they signed the statements was a lawyer, he was not functioning as a lawyer, nor can he be considered as an independent counsel. Waiver of the right to a lawyer must be done in writing and in the presence of independent counsel.
(People
vs.
Mahinay,
302 SCRA 455,
(1999)
)
(2002) #Rule 128 #General Provisions
XI
Acting on a tip by an informant, police officers stopped a car being driven by D and ordered him to open the trunk. The officers found a bag containing several kilos of cocaine. They seized the car and the cocaine as evidence and placed D under arrest. Without advising him of his right to remain silent and to have the assistance of an attorney, they questioned him regarding the cocaine. In reply, D said, “I don’t know anything about it. It isn’t even my car.” D was charged with illegal possession of cocaine, a prohibited drug. Upon motion of D, the court suppressed the use of cocaine as evidence and dismissed the charges against him. D commenced proceedings against the police for the recovery of his car. In his direct examination, D testified that he owned the car but had registered it in the name of a friend for convenience. On cross-examination, the attorney representing the police asked, “After your arrest, did you not tell the arresting officers that it wasn’t your car?”
If you were D’s attorney, would you object to the question? Why?
Yes.
His admission made when he was questioned after he was placed under arrest was in violation of his constitutional right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel of his own choice.
Hence, it is inadmissible in evidence.
( 1)Constitution, Article III, Section 12;
2) RA 7438 (1992);
3) People
vs.
Mahinay,
302 SCRA 455,
(1999)
)
(2002) #Rule 128 #General Provisions
XI
Acting on a tip by an informant, police officers stopped a car being driven by D and ordered him to open the trunk. The officers found a bag containing several kilos of cocaine. They seized the car and the cocaine as evidence and placed D under arrest. Without advising him of his right to remain silent and to have the assistance of an attorney, they questioned him regarding the cocaine. In reply, D said, “I don’t know anything about it. It isn’t even my car.” D was charged with illegal possession of cocaine, a prohibited drug. Upon motion of D, the court suppressed the use of cocaine as evidence and dismissed the charges against him. D commenced proceedings against the police for the recovery of his car. In his direct examination, D testified that he owned the car but had registered it in the name of a friend for convenience. On cross-examination, the attorney representing the police asked, “After your arrest, did you not tell the arresting officers that it wasn’t your car?”
If you were D’s attorney, would you object to the question? Why?
Yes.
The question did not lay the predicate to justify the cross-examination question.
(1998) #Rule 128 #General Provisions
XVII
The barangay captain reported to the police that X was illegally keeping in his house in the barangay an Armalite M16 rifle. On the strength of that information, the police conducted a search of the house of X and indeed found said rifle. The police raiders seized the rifle and brought X to the police station. During the investigation, he voluntarily signed a Sworn Statement that he was possessing said rifle without license or authority to possess, and a Waiver of Right to Counsel. During the trial of X for illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution submitted in evidence the rifle, Sworn Statement, and Waiver of Right to Counsel.
Individually rule on the admissibility in evidence of the:
1) Rifle;
2) Sworn Statement; and
3) Waiver of the Right to Counsel of X.
1) The rifle is not admissible in evidence because it was seized without a proper search warrant. A warrantless search is not justified. There was time to secure a search warrant.
(People
vs.
Encinada,
G.R. No. 116720,
October 2, 1997)
2) The Sworn Statement is not admissible in evidence because it was taken without informing him of his custodial rights and without the assistance of counsel, which should be independent and competent and preferably of the choice of the accused.
(People
vs.
Januario,
G.R. No. 98252,
February 7, 1997)
3) The Waiver of the Right to Counsel of X is not admissible because it was made without the assistance of counsel of his choice.
(People
vs.
Gomez,
G.R. No. 101817,
March 26, 1997)
(1997) #Rule 128 #General Provisions
11
What are the two kinds of objections? Explain each briefly. Give an example of each.
The two kinds of objections are:
1) Evidence being presented is not relevant to the issue; and
2) Evidence is not incompetent or excluded by the law or the rules.
(Section 3, Rule 138)
An example of the first is when the prosecution offers as evidence the alleged offer of an insurance company to pay for the damages suffered by the victim in a homicide case.
(See 1997 Bar Exam Item No. 14)
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.
(1997) #Rule 128 #General Provisions
11
What are the two kinds of objections? Explain each briefly. Give an example of each.
The two kinds of objections are:
1) Specific objections; and
2) General objections.
(Section 7, Rule 132)
Examples of specific objections include parol evidence and best evidence rule.
An example of general objections is the continuing objections.
(1997) #Rule 128 #General Provisions
11
What are the two kinds of objections? Explain each briefly. Give an example of each.
The two kinds of objections are:
1) objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of the witness; and
2) objection to an offer of evidence in writing.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent. Otherwise, it is waived.
The ground of objection must be specified.
Objection to an offer of evidence in writing shall be made within three (3) days after notice of the offer, unless a different period is allowed by the court.
The ground for objection must be specified.
An example of the first is when the witness is being cross-examined and the cross-examination is on a matter not relevant.
An example of the second is that the evidence offered is not the best evidence.
(2017) #Rule 130 #Rules of Admissibility #Real Evidence
XIII
Police officers arrested Mr. Druggie in a buy-bust operation and confiscated from him 10 sachets of shabu and several marked genuine peso bills worth Php 5,000.00 used as the buy-bust money during the buy-bust operation.
At the trial of Mr. Druggie for violation of RA No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002), the Prosecution offered in evidence, among others, photocopies of the confiscated marked genuine peso bills. The photocopies were offered to prove that Mr. Druggie had engaged, at the time of his arrest, in the illegal selling of dangerous drugs.
Invoking the Best Evidence Rule, Atty. Maya Bang, the defense counsel, objected to the admissibility of the photocopies of the confiscated marked genuine peso bills.
Should the trial judge sustain the objection of the defense counsel? Briefly explain your answer.
No, the trial judge should not sustain the defense counsel’s objection.
In People vs. Tandop (G.R. No. 80505, December 4, 1990), the Supreme Court held that the best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether or not such document was actually executed, or exists, or the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.
Here, the marked money was presented by the prosecution solely for the purpose of establishing its existence and not its contents. Other substitutionary evidence, like a photocopy thereof, is therefore admissible without the need of presenting the original. Hence, the best evidence rule does not apply in this case. The trial judge, therefore, should not sustain the defense counsel’s objection.
Atty. Maya Bang, however, may object to the photocopies of the confiscated marked genuine peso bills for being hearsay evidence. Since it does not appear that the prosecution was able to establish that its submission of photocopied documents is justified under Rule 130, Section 3(a), (b), and (d) of Rules of Court, said photocopied documents do not have any probative weight and should be disregarded whether objected to or not.
(Republic
vs.
Mupas,
G.R. No. 181892,
April 19, 2016)
(2017) #Rule 130 #Rules of Admissibility #Real Evidence
XIII
Police officers arrested Mr. Druggie in a buy-bust operation and confiscated from him 10 sachets of shabu and several marked genuine peso bills worth Php 5,000.00 used as the buy-bust money during the buy-bust operation.
At the trial of Mr. Druggie for violation of RA No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002), the Prosecution offered in evidence, among others, photocopies of the confiscated marked genuine peso bills. The photocopies were offered to prove that Mr. Druggie had engaged, at the time of his arrest, in the illegal selling of dangerous drugs.
Invoking the Best Evidence Rule, Atty. Maya Bang, the defense counsel, objected to the admissibility of the photocopies of the confiscated marked genuine peso bills.
Should the trial judge sustain the objection of the defense counsel? Briefly explain your answer.
The photocopies of the confiscated marked money should be excluded as evidence under the Best Evidence Rule. To be admissible as secondary evidence, the prosecution should have shown that the original marked money has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, or that it is in custody of the adverse party.
(People
vs.
Pamarito,
G.R. No. 108453,
July 11, 1994)
(2012) #Rule 130 #Rules of Admissibility #Real Evidence
II(A)
Discuss the “chain of custody” principle with respect to evidence seized under RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In prosecutions involving narcotics and other illegal substances, the substance itself constitutes part of the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court.
