A foreign dog trained to sniff dangerous drugs from packages, was hired by FDP Corporation, a door to door forwarder company, to sniff packages in their depot at the international airport. In one of the routinary inspections of packages waiting to be sent to the United States of America (USA), the dog sat beside one of the packages, a signal that the package contained dangerous drugs. Thereafter, the guards opened the package and found two (2) kilograms of cocaine. The owner of the package was arrested and charges were filed against him. During the trial, the prosecution, through the trainer who was present during the incident and an expert in this kind of field, testified that the dog was highly trained to sniff packages to determine if the contents were dangerous drugs and the sniffing technique of these highly trained dogs was accepted worldwide and had been successful in dangerous drugs operations. The prosecution moved to admit this evidence to justify the opening of the package. The accused objected on the grounds that: (i) the guards had no personal knowledge of the contents of the package before it was opened; (ii) the testimony of the trainer of the dog is hearsay; and (iii) the accused could not cross-examine the dog. Decide.

A vicarious admission is considered an exception to the hearsay rule. It, however, does not cover: (1%) (A) admission by a conspirator (B) admission by a privy (C) judicial admission (D) adoptive admission

Parole evidence is an: (1%)(A) agreement not included in the document(B) oral agreement not included in the document(C) agreement included in the document(D) oral agreement included in the document

The Vallejo standard refers to jurisprudential norms considered by the court in assessing the probative value of DNA evidence. = TRUE. The standards were laid down by the Supreme Court in People v.Vallejo (G.R. 144656, 9 May 2004) and consists, among others, of the court assessing how the standards were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of sample contamination, etc.

The One-Day Examination of Witness Rule abbreviates court proceedings by having a witness fully examined in only one day during trial = TRUE. The rule is however subject to the court’s discretion during trial on whether or not to extend the direct and/or cross-examination for justifiable reasons.(SC Rule on Guidelines on Pre-trial and Discovery)

Under the doctrine of adoptive admission, a third party’s statement becomes the admission of the party embracing or espousing it = TRUE. A party is bound by the statement of another which he has adopted by his words or conduct. (Republic v. Kenrick Dev’t Corp., 8 August 2006)

Arrested in a buy-bust operation, Edmond was brought to the police station where he was informed of his constitutional rights. During the investigation, Edmond refused to give any statement. However, the arresting officer asked

Edmond to acknowledge in writing that six (6) sachets of “shabu” were confiscated from him. Edmond consented and also signed a receipt for the amount of P3,000.00, allegedly representing the “purchase price of the shabu.” At the trial, the arresting officer testified and identified the documents executed and signed by Edmond. Edmond’s lawyer did not object to the testimony. After the presentation of the testimonial evidence, the prosecutor made a formal offer of evidence which included the documents signed by Edmond. Edmond’s lawyer objected to the admissibility of the documents for being the “fruit of the poisoned tree.” Resolve the objection with reasons. (3%)

ANSWER: Objection sustained. The Supreme Court has held that the signature of an accused in a receipt of items seized which signature was obtained without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence the same being tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession. (Gutang v. People, 11 July 2000). The objection to the documentary evidence was made timely at the time these were offered in evidence. It was premature to object to the documents when they were merely being marked and identified.

An electronic document is the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately = TRUE. Hence there is no need to account for the non-production of the original electronic document

[a] Continental Chemical Corporation (CCC) filed a complaint for a sum of money against Barstow Trading Corporation (BTC) for the latter’s failure to pay for its purchases of industrial chemicals. In its answer, BTC contended that it refused to pay because CCC misrepresented that the products it sold belonged to a new line, when in fact they were identical with CCC’s existing products. To substantiate its defense, BTC filed a motion to compel CCC to give a detailed list of the products’ ingredients and chemical components, relying on the right to avail of the modes of discovery allowed under Rule 27. CCC objected, invoking confidentiality of the information sought by BTC. Resolve BTC’s motion with reasons. (3%)

ANSWER: BTC’s motion should be denied. A motion for production or inspection of documents or things under R27 is subject to the requirement that the documents or things should not be privileged. Here what are sought to be produced is a detailed list of an industrial product’s ingredients and chemical components which are trade secrets and thus privileged. Hence BTC’s motion should be dismissed. (Air Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell, Inc., G.R. 172835, 13 December 2007)

[b] Blinded by extreme jealousy, Alberto shot his wife, Betty, in the presence of his sister, Carla. Carla brought Betty to the hospital. Outside the operating room, Carla told Domingo, a male nurse, that it was Alberto who shot Betty. Betty died while undergoing emergency surgery. At the trial of the parricide charges filed against Alberto, the prosecutor sought to present Domingo as witness, to testify on what Carla told him. The defense counsel objected on

the ground that Domingo’s testimony is inadmissible for being hearsay. Rule on the objection with reasons.

ANSWER: The objection should be sustained. Carla’s declaration is hearsay as she was not presented in court to testify thereon. Her declaration will not qualify as a dying declaration exception since she was not the one who died. Nor will it qualify as a part of the res gestae since Carla’s declaration was not made while a startling occurrence was taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto. At the time Carla made the statement to Domingo, Betty had already been brought to the hospital and then to the operating room, thereby indicating the lapse of an appreciable length of time between the shooting and the making of the statement. Privilege Communication; Marital Privilege (1989)Ody sued spouses Cesar and Baby for a sum of money and damages. At the trial, Ody called Baby as his first witness. Baby objected, joined by Cesar, on the ground that she may not be compelled to testify against her husband. Ody insisted and contended that after all, she would just be questioned about a conference they had with the barangay captain, a matter which is not confidential in nature. The trial court ruled in favor of Ody. Was the ruling proper? Will your answer be the same if the matters to be testified on were known to Baby or acquired by her prior to her marriage to Cesar? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:No. Under the Rules on Evidence, a wife cannot be examined for or against her husband without his consent, except in civil cases by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other. Since the case was filed by Ody against the spouses Cesar and Baby, Baby cannot be compelled to testify for or against Cesar without his consent.(Lezama vs. Rodriguez, 23 SCRA 1166).The answer would be the same if the matters to be testified on were known to Baby or acquired by her prior to her marriage to Cesar, because the marital disqualification rule maybe invoked with respect to testimony on any fact. It is immaterial whether such matters were known to Baby before or after her marriage to Cesar.

Privilege Communication; Marital Privilege (2000)Vida and Romeo are legally married. Romeo is charged to court with the crime of serious physical injuries committed against Selmo, son of Vida, stepson of Romeo. Vida witnessed the infliction of the injuries on Selmo by Romeo. The public prosecutor called Vida to the witnessstand and offered her testimony as an eyewitness. Counsel for Romeo objected on the groundof the marital disqualification rule under the Rules of Court. a) Is the objection valid? (3%) b)Will your answer be the same if Vida’s testimonyis offered in a civil case for recovery of personalproperty filed by Selmo against Romeo? (2%)SUGGESTED ANSWER:(a) No. While neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without theconsent of the affected spouse, one exception is if the

testimony of the spouse is in a criminalcase for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants orascendants.(Sec, 22, Rule 130). The case falls under this exception because Selma is the directdescendant of the spouse Vide.(b) No. The marital disqualification rule applies this time. The exception provided by the rulesis in a civil case by one spouse against the other. The case here involves a case by Selmo forthe recovery of personal property against Vida’s spouse, Romeo.Privilege Communication; Marital Privilege (2004)XYZ, an alien, was criminally charged of promoting and facilitating child prostitution and othersexual abuses under Rep. Act No. 7610. The principal witness against him was his Filipinawife, ABC. Earlier, she had complained that XYZ's hotel was by: sirdondee@gmail.comPage59of 66being used as a center for sex tourism and child trafficking. The defense counsel for XYZ objected to the testimony of ABC at the trial of the childprostitution case and the introduction of the affidavits she executed against her husband as aviolation of espousal confidentiality and marital privilege rule. It turned out that DEF, theminor daughter of ABC by her first husband who was a Filipino, was molested by XYZ earlier. Thus, ABC had filed for legal separation from XYZ since last year. May the court admit thetestimony and affidavits of the wife, ABC, against her husband, XYZ, in the criminal caseinvolving child prostitution? Reason. (5%)SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. The court may admit the testimony and affidavits of the wife against her husband in the criminalcase where it involves child prostitution of the wife's daughter. It is not covered by the marital privilegerule. One exception thereof is where the crime is committed by one against the other or the latter'sdirect descendants or ascendants.(Sec. 22, Rule 130). A crime by the husband against the daughter is acrime against the wife and directly attacks or vitally impairs the conjugal relation.(Ordono v. Daquigan,62SCRA 270 [1975]).Privilege Communication; Marital Privilege (2006) Leticia was estranged from her husband Paul for more than a year due to his suspicion thatshe was having an affair with Manuel their neighbor. She was temporarily living with her sisterin Pasig City. For unknown reasons, the house of Leticia's sister was burned, killing the latter.Leticia survived. She saw her husband in the vicinity during the incident. Later he wascharged with arson in an Information filed with the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City. During thetrial, the prosecutor called Leticia to the witness stand and offered her testimony to provethat her husband committed arson. Can Leticia testify over the objection of her husband onthe ground of marital privilege? (5%)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:No, Leticia cannot testify over the objection of her husband, not under marital privilege which isinapplicable and which can be waived, but she would be barred under Sec. 22 of Rule 130, whichprohibits her from testifying and which cannot be waived(Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, October 14, 2005).ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, Leticia may testify over the objection of her husband. The disqualification of a witness byreason of marriage under Sec. 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court has its exceptionsas where the marital relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved. The acts of Paul eradicate all major aspects of marital life. On the other hand, the State hasan interest in punishing the guilty andRemedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)exonerating the innocent, and must have the right to offer the testimony of Leticia over theobjection of her husband(Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439,October 14, 2005).Remedy; Lost Documents; Secondary Evidence (1992)Ajax Power Corporation, a utility company, sued in the RTC to enforce a supposed right of wayover a property owned by Simplicio. At the ensuing trial, Ajax presented its retired fieldauditor who testified that he know for a fact that a certain sum of money was periodically paidto Simplicio for some time as consideration for a right of way pursuant to a written contract. The original contract was not presented. Instead, a purported copy, identified by the retiredfield auditor as such, was formally offered as part of his testimony. Rejected by the trial court,it was finally made the subject of an offer of proof by Ajax.Can Ajax validly claim that it had sufficiently met its burden of proving the existence of thecontract establishing its right of way? Explain,SUGGESTED ANSWER:No. Ajax had not sufficiently met the burden of proving the existence of the written contractbecause. It had not laid the basis for the admission of a purported copy thereof as secondaryevidence. Ajax should have first proven the execution of the original document and its loss ordestruction.(Sec. 5 of Rule 130)Testimony; Independent Relevant Statement (1999)A overheard B call X a thief. In an action for defamation filed by X against B, is the testimonyof A offered to prove the fact of utterance i.e., that B called X a thief, admissible in evidence?Explain. (2%)SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. The testimony of A who overheard B call X a thief is admissible in evidence as anindependently relevant statement. It is offered in evidence only to prove the tenor thereof,not to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. Independently relevant statementsinclude statements which are on the very facts in issue or those which are circumstantialevidence thereof. The hearsay rule does not apply.(See People vs. Gaddi, 170 SCRA 649)Witness; Competency of the Witness vs. Credibility of the Witness (2004)Distinguish Competency of the witness and credibility of the witness.SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Competency of the witness refers to a witness who can perceive, and perceiving, can makeknown his perception to others(Sec. 20 of Rule 130),while credibility of the witness refers to awitness whose testimony is believable. by: sirdondee@gmail.comPage60of 66Witness; Examination of a Child Witness; via Live-Link TV(2005)When may the trial court order that the testimony of a child be taken by live-linktelevision? Explain.SUGGESTED ANSWER: The testimony of a child may be taken by live-link television if there is a substantial likelihoodthat the child would suffer trauma from testifying in the presence of the accused, his counselor the prosecutor as the case may be. The trauma must of a kind which would impair thecompleteness or truthfulness of the testimony of the child.(See Sec. 25, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness).Witness; Examination of Witnesses (1997)a) Aside from asking a witness to explain and supplement his answer in the cross-examination, can the proponent ask in re-direct examination questions on matters not dealtwith during cross-examination?b) Aside from asking the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination, can theopponent in his re-cross-examination ask questions on matters not dealt with during the re-direct?c) After plaintiff has formally submitted his evidence, he realized that he had forgotten topresent what he considered an important evidence. Can he recall a witness?SUGGESTED ANSWER:(a) Yes, on redirect examination, questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination may be allowed by the court in its discretion.(Sec. 7 of Rule 132).(b) Yes, the opponent in his re-cross-examination may also ask questions on such othermatters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion.(Sec. 8. Rule 132).(c) Yes, after formally submitting his evidence, the plaintiff can recall a witness with leave of court. The court may grant or withhold leave in its discretion as the interests of justice mayrequire.(Sec. 9. Rule 132).Witness; Examination of Witnesses (2002)Is this question on direct examination objectionable: “What happened on July 12, 1999”?Why? (2%)SUGGESTED ANSWER: The question is objectionable because it has no basis, unless before the question is asked theproper basis is laid.Witness; Utilized as State Witness; Procedure (2006)

As counsel of an accused charged with homicide, you are convinced that he can be utilized asa state witness. What procedure will you take? (2.5%)SUGGESTED ANSWER:As counsel of an accused charged with homicide, the procedure that can be followed for theaccused to be utilized as a state witness is to ask the Prosecutor to recommend that theaccused be made a state witness.Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)It is the Prosecutor who must recommend and move for the acceptance of the accused as astate witness. The accused may also apply under the Witness Protection Program.