This document contains questions and answers regarding evidence and exceptions to the hearsay rule. It discusses whether an ante mortem statement identifying an assailant is admissible, whether silence can be considered an implied admission of guilt, and whether a statement against interest that revealed a child was born from an affair is admissible. It also addresses whether a few contracts are sufficient to prove a habit or custom, and whether a medical certificate is hearsay if the physician is not presented in court.
This document contains questions and answers regarding evidence and exceptions to the hearsay rule. It discusses whether an ante mortem statement identifying an assailant is admissible, whether silence can be considered an implied admission of guilt, and whether a statement against interest that revealed a child was born from an affair is admissible. It also addresses whether a few contracts are sufficient to prove a habit or custom, and whether a medical certificate is hearsay if the physician is not presented in court.
This document contains questions and answers regarding evidence and exceptions to the hearsay rule. It discusses whether an ante mortem statement identifying an assailant is admissible, whether silence can be considered an implied admission of guilt, and whether a statement against interest that revealed a child was born from an affair is admissible. It also addresses whether a few contracts are sufficient to prove a habit or custom, and whether a medical certificate is hearsay if the physician is not presented in court.
This document contains questions and answers regarding evidence and exceptions to the hearsay rule. It discusses whether an ante mortem statement identifying an assailant is admissible, whether silence can be considered an implied admission of guilt, and whether a statement against interest that revealed a child was born from an affair is admissible. It also addresses whether a few contracts are sufficient to prove a habit or custom, and whether a medical certificate is hearsay if the physician is not presented in court.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Group 3 – Evidence
Questions and Answers – Section 32-42
Theorosa Madamba: Question: Three days before the victim of the stabbing incident died, he made a statement to the police identifying the person who had been stabbed him. When he asked by the police, the victim added that he did not know if he was going to survive because of the stabbed wounds he sustained were very painful. Is the identification of the assailant admissible in evidence as an ante mortem statement as an exception to the hearsay rule? Answer: Yes, the deceased’s identification of the assailant is admissible in evidence as an ante mortem statement and an exception to the hearsay rule. The deceased has consciousness of his impending death as he stated that he did not know if he was going to die or survive because of many stabbed wounds he received and suffered from which he died three days later.
Phrexilyn Pajarillo: Question: Juan was brought to the police station for investigation on the alleged rape of Gabriela. While in the police station, Gabriela pointed to Juan and said, "He's the one who raped me." Juan remained silent. May Juan's silence be offered in evidence as an implied admission if guilt? Answer: No. The rule on admission by silence does not apply since Juan had a right to remain silent while under custodial investigation. Admission by silence does not prevail over the right of the accused to remain silent and be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Gerald Gallardo: Question: Roberto and Maria were married on 8 June 1970. After two (2) months Maria, in order to spite Roberto, told him in the presence of their friends that the 15-year-old Dereck whom she claimed to be her nephew was actually her son by a certain Luis, a married man. In 1972, Maria filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Roberto. The trial court nullified the marriage. The decision of the trial court was appealed and while it is pending, Maria died. Thereafter, the legal wife of Luis sued for legal separation based on sexual infidelity in view of Luis’ love affair with Maria. At the trial, Roberto was called by Luis’ wife to testify that Maria told him (Roberto) during their marriage that Dereck was her love child by Luis. Counsel for Luis objected on the ground that Roberto’s testimony would be hearsay. If you were the Judge, how would your rule on the objection? Answer: I would overrule the objection. The statement of Maria that she had a love child by Luis is a declaration against interest which is an exception to the hearsay rule. The declaration is against Maria’s moral or penal interest.
Irene Virtudes: Question: The Defendants argued that Xavierville Estate Inc. (XEI) had allowed them to pay the balance of the purchase price of a subdivision lot in 120 monthly installments. The Defendants introduced three contracts to sell in which XEI granted two lot buyers a 120-month term of payment and a third one a 180-month term. May these three contracts to sell prove a habit or custom on the part of XEI to grant 120-month terms of payments to its buyers? Answer: No. Under Section 35, Rule 130, evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove usage, habit or custom. Courts must contend with the caveat that before they admit evidence of usage, habit, or pattern of conduct, the offering party must establish the degree of specificity and frequency of uniform response that ensures more than a mere tendency to act in a given manner but rather conduct that is semi-automatic in nature. In determining whether the examples are numerous enough and sufficiently regular, the key criteria are adequacy of sampling and uniformity of response. Here, the Defendants did not introduce any evidence that XEI and all the lot buyers in the subdivision had executed contracts of sale containing uniform terms and conditions. Moreover, even in the 3 contracts adduced by the Defendants, there was no uniformity as two referred to 120-month terms while the third mentioned a 180-month term.
Lady Lee Etalin:
Question: Plaintiff sued defendant for damages arising from tort. Plaintiff offers in evidence a medical certificate from Dr. X to the effect that plaintiff suffered whiplash. Is the medical certificate admissible in evidence over an objection that it is a hearsay? Answer: No. Medical certificate that the plaintiff from whiplash injury is a hearsay if the physician who executed it not presented in court.
Arbie Perdue v. Sidney H. Bell, Assistant Prosecutor, Earl Yeager, Sheriff, J.J. Miller, Trooper, Ron Blevins, Sheriff's Department v. Walker, Sheriff's Department, Janet Murphy, Sheriff's Department, All Under the Color of Law, 933 F.2d 1001, 4th Cir. (1991)
