Finals Samplex Flashcards
What is the weight of the testimony of an expert witness??
A. Conclusive
B. Great Weight
C. Merely Advisory
D. Great Weight
C. Merely Advisory. The court of justice, however, are not bound to submit their findings
necessarily to such testimony ; they are free to weigh them, and they
can give or refuse to give them any value as proof, or they can even
counterbalance such evidence with other elements of conviction which
other facts which causation might be deduced.
In the prosecution of a criminal case for falsification arising
from a forged signature, the state during the trial could not produce
and present the original document containing the alleged forged
signature despite diligent and extra efforts to do so. As a public
prosecutor, what course of action would you initiate in order to save
the precious time of the court and avoid the unnecessary costs and
expenses of the trial?
A. Motion to present secondary evidence
B. Motion to Archive their case
C. Motion for Provisional Dismissal
D. Motion to Dismiss the Case.
A. Motion to present secondary Evidence
The general rule is that secondary evidence of its contents cannot be
admitted until the non-produce
What proper step or action would you take or initiate as a lawyer
in a case where the court refuses to allow you to present the
testimony of a witness which you assessed to be competent, material
and necessary to prove your case?
A. File Motion for Reconsideration
B. Make an appeal
c. Make an Offer of Proof
D. Petition for Certiorari
D. Petition for Certiorari
Certiorari lies where a court has acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. An act of a court or
tribunal may only be considered as committed in grave abuse of
discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical
exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
What is the primary reason for the rejection of “Hearsay Evidence?
A. It Violates the Rules on Evidence
B. It has no probative value
C. It deprives the right of a party to cross examine the witness
D. It is not credible
C. It deprives the right of a party to cross examination
Cross examination tests both the willingness and the ability of the
witness to tell the truth. Thus, the rule which excludes hearsay
testimony rests mainly on the ground that there has been no
cross-examination.
In the hearing of a criminal case, the prosecution started with the
presentation of its witness and direct examination and finally
completed the same. The accused asked for the determent of the
cross-examination of the said witness on the ground that counsel need
to be furnished with a copy of stenographic notes from which he will
base his questions on cross-examination. Over the objection of the
prosecution, the determent was granted. In the interim, the witness
died and defense moved to strike out from the record the testimony of
the said witness because of lack of cross-examination. The prosecution
vehemently objected on the ground of implied waiver by the accused. If
you were the judge which of these rulings on the motion would you
consider?
A. Grant the Motion, Accused is deprived of the right to cross
B. Deny. It was the Court who granted the extension
C. Grant. The Parties are in
good faith
D. Deny the motion because of the implied waiver of the accused
D. Deny the motion because of the implied waiver of the accused
The conduct of a party which may be construed as a implied waiver of
the right to cross-examine may take various forms. But the common
basic principles underlying the application of the rule on implied
waiver is that the party was given the opportunity to confront and
cross-examination an opposing witness but failed to take advantage of
it for reasons attributable to himself alone. Thus, where a party has
had the opportunity to cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to
avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to
cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the
witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record
In the prosecution for rape, the people presented a love letter
which was testified to by the complaint who was likewise
cross-examined on said letter which contents were read into the
record. During the progress of the trial, said letter was lost and
could not therefore be offered. Under this set of facts, will the lost
love letter be considered evidence by the court?
A. court will not consider for failure to formally offer the
same, court will consider it if there is no objection from the other party
B. The court will consider it being an exception to the rule
C. court will consider it if secondary evidence is
offered
D. court will consider it if there is no objection from the other
party
B. The court will consider it being an exception to the rule. (?)
The Court allowed evidence not formally offered to be admitted and
considered by the trial court provided the following requirements are
present, viz: first: the same must have been duly identified by
testimony duly recorded and, second, the same must have been
incorporated to the records of the case.
The public prosecutor after finding probable cause against
respondent in the preliminary investigation forthwith prepared and filed the information in court. During arraignment, accused requested for its postponement because he allegedly filed a “Motion for
Reinvestigation” with the City Prosecutor’s Office. The court denied the request and proceed with his arraignment, is the court correct?
A. No. Because of the pending motion for reinvestigation
B. Yes the instant motion for reinvestigation should have
been filed with the court,
C. No because the courts cannot interfere with
the discretion of the prosecutor in the finding of probable cause,
D. No because jurisdiction over the case is not yet vested with the court.
A. No because of the pending motion for reinvestigation
The arraignment of the accused constitutes a waiver of the right to preliminary investigation or reinvestigation. Such waiver is
tantamount to a finding of probable cause.
The court issued an order citing a party for direct contempt with
the reasons and contemptuous conduct of the respondent stated therein
and judgment was rendered without hearing. In general, what is the
proper remedy of the respondent from the judgment of said direct
contempt?
A. Appeal
B. Petition for Certiorari or Prohibition
C. Apply for Bail
D. MR for lack of Hearing
B. Petition for Certiorari or Prohibition
Certiorari lies where a court has acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. “Grave abuse of
discretion” implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
as is equivalent to lack of jurisdicition or, in other words, where
the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as
to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
Accused was arrested through an invalid warrant of arrest. After
the arrest, he posted bail for his provisional liberty. During
arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. Before the start of the trial, he
filed a motion to quash the said warrant of arrest and/or the
information. The court ruled to deny the motion on the ground that:
A. by posting the bail bond, he waived his right to
question the warrant of arrest
B. accused should have asked for the
reinvestigation instead,
C. The motion to quash should have been filed before his plea
D. motion to quash is not a matter of right
C. The motion to quash should have been filed before his plea
The motion to quash may be made at any time before the accused enters his plea.
- What is the proper remedy of the accused ____ that ______ the time
of the commission of the offense.
Motion to quash – filed before the defendant enters his plea; is
anchored on matters not directly related to the question of guilt or
innocence of the accused (Rule 117)
Motion for bill of particulars – accused may at or before arraignment,
move for a bill of particulars to enable him to properly plead and
prepare for trial (Rule 116)
Motion to amend – if an alleged defect in the complaint of information
can be cured by amendment, the court shall order the amendment instead
of quashing the complaint or information. If after the amendment, the
defect is not cured, the motion to quash should be granted.
Demurrer to evidence – Filed after the prosecution has rested its
case; based upon the inadequacy of evidence adduced by the prosecution
in support of the accusation (Rule 119)
What is “Plea Bargaining” in criminal cases? At what stage of a criminal proceedings is it allowed? Is plea bargaining demandable by the accused as a matter of right? Explain your last answer.
Plea bargaining in a criminal case is the process whereby a criminal defendant and prosecutor reach a mutually satisfactory disposition of
a criminal case, subject to court approval. It usually involves the
defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge.
At the arraignment, the accused may plead guilty to a lesser offense. The court shall allow the plea provided the following requisites
concur:
a. The lesser offense is necessarily included in the offense charged; and
b. The plea must be with the consent of both the offended party and the prosecutor. The consent of the offended party will not be required if said party, despite due notice, fails to appear during the
arraignment.
After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not
guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary.
The acceptance of an offer to pled guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by the accused as matter of right but is a matter addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the trial court.
What are the requirements before “Trial in Absentia” of the
accused may be allowed?
(i) The accused has been validly arraigned;
(ii) Accused has been duly notified; and
(iii) His failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Generally, when is impeachment of a witness made and how? Is a
party allowed to impeach his own witness? Give exceptions, if any?
To impeach a witness means to discredit the witness’ testimony. It is a fundamental right on cross-examination. Since the witness’ credibility is always in issue, it is never beyond the permissible
scope of cross-examination. (Gilbert, Evidence Sec. 991)
Impeachment is basically a technique employed usually as part of the cross-examination to discredit a witness by attacking his credibility.
Destroying credibility is vital because it is linked with a witness’ ability and willingness to tell the truth. (Riano)
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, (a) by contradictory
evidence, (b) by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly,
or integrity is bad, or (c) by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present, testimony, but not by
evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he
has been convicted of an offense.
Section 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. — Except with
respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section
10, the party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his
credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so
declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest,
unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled the party into
calling him to the witness stand.
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an
adverse party, may be impeached by the party presenting him in all
respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by
evidence of his bad character. He may also be impeached and
cross-examined by the adverse party, but such cross-examination must
only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief.
What is “Rebuttal Evidence”? When is it receivable by the court?
Rebuttal Evidence – is that kind, which is given to explain, repel,
counteract or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party.
It is evidence in denial of some affirmative case or fact which the
adverse party has attempted to prove.
Sur-rebuttal – is a reply to rebuttal evidence. When the plaintiff in
rebuttal is permitted to introduce new matter, defendants should be
permitted to introduce evidence in sur-rebuttal, and to decline to
permit him to do so is error, especially when the evidence in
sur-rebuttal is for the first time made competent by the evidence
introduced by the plaintiff in rebuttal, but defendant should ask for
the right to meet the new matter.
The rebuttal evidence is receivable by the court after the prosecution has presented evidence to prove the charge and the defense has presented their evidence to prove the defense. It is in accordance to Rule 119 (Sec.11) of the Rules of Court.
What is “Continuing Objection”? How will you actually and properly
demonstrate before the court for it to take note of your continuing
objection in the course of the trial?
Continuing objection is an objection to certain questions or testimony
during a trial which has been “overruled” by the judge, but the
attorney who made the objection announces he/she is “continuing” the
objection to all other questions on the same topic or with the same
legal impropriety in the opinion of the attorney.
Sec. 37, Rule 132 – When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course
of the examination of a witness that the questions being propounded
are of the same class as those to which objection has been made,
whether such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be
necessary to repeat the objection. It is sufficient for the adverse
party to record his continuing objection to such class of questions.
