On

Evidence Review Questions 1


1. While walking down the street, Mario suddenly sees a car plow into a pedestrian. Shocked, Mario immediately screams to a bystander, "The driver was texting and beat the red light!" Mario dies of a heart attack the next day. During the trial for damages, the bystander is called to testify about what Mario screamed. What exception to the hearsay rule applies?

A. Dying Declaration

B. Res Gestae (Spontaneous Statement)

C. Declaration Against Interest

D. Judicial Admission


Correct Answer: B. Res Gestae (Spontaneous Statement)

Reason: Mario's statement was made while he was under the stress of excitement caused by a startling occurrence (the car crash), with no time to contrive or devise a falsehood.



2. Juan was shot in the chest during a robbery. While gasping for air and explicitly stating, "I don't think I'm going to make it out of this room alive," he tells the responding police officer, "It was Pedro who shot me." Juan passed away two hours later. In a prosecution for homicide, what is the admissibility of Juan's statement?

A. Admissible as a Dying Declaration

B. Admissible as Res Gestae

C. Admissible as a Declaration Against Interest

D. Inadmissible because it is hearsay


Correct Answer: A. Admissible as a Dying Declaration

Reason: The statement was made by a victim under the consciousness of an impending death, concerning the cause and surrounding circumstances of his own injury.



3. In a prosecution for qualified theft, the accused files an Answer to the civil aspect of the case admitting, "I took the victim's laptop without permission." During the trial, the prosecution asks the court to treat this fact as established without presenting further proof. What concept supports this?

A. Declaration Against Interest

B. Res Gestae

C. Verbal Acts

D. Judicial Admission


Correct Answer: D. Judicial Admission


Reason: An admission made by a party in the pleadings or during the course of the same case is a judicial admission. It requires no further proof and cannot generally be contradicted except upon a showing of palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.



4. During the prosecution for estafa against Mark, the prosecution offers a letter written by his former accountant, Santi, stating, "I helped Mark conceal ₱5,000,000 obtained through fraud." Despite diligent efforts, Santi's whereabouts cannot be determined. What is the nature of Santi's statement?

A. Judicial Admission

B. Res Gestae

C. Declaration Against Interest

D. Dying Declaration


Correct Answer: C. Declaration Against Interest


Reason: Santi is unavailable as a witness because, despite diligent efforts, his whereabouts cannot be determined. His statement was against his own pecuniary and possible penal interest when made, making it admissible as a declaration against interest under the Philippine Rules on Evidence.



5. A security guard hears a gunshot inside a VIP lounge. He runs inside within 5 seconds and finds Clara holding a smoking gun, hysterically crying and muttering, "I didn't mean to pull the trigger, it just went off!" During Clara's trial for homicide, the prosecution calls the security guard to repeat what Clara said. This statement is admissible as:

A. Res Gestae (Spontaneous Statement)

B. Dying Declaration

C. Judicial Admission

D. Inadmissible hearsay


Correct Answer: A. Res Gestae (Spontaneous Statement)

Reason: The statement was uttered immediately after a startling event while the speaker was still under the direct influence of agitation and shock, making it highly reliable.



6. During a severe physical altercation, Raul is stabbed in the stomach. Believing he is about to die, he yells at his attacker, "You won't get away with this, Leo!" Raul is rushed to the hospital, undergoes surgery, and completely recovers. Months later, Leo is prosecuted for frustrated homicide. Can Raul's statement be admitted as a Dying Declaration?

A. Yes, because he believed he was dying when he said it.

B. No, because Raul did not actually die.

C. Yes, because it identifies the assailant.

D. No, because it was not written down.


Correct Answer: B. No, because Raul did not actually die.

Reason: For a dying declaration to be admissible under Philippine law, the declarant must subsequently die. Since Raul survived, the statement cannot qualify as a dying declaration (though it might still be offered under a different rule, like res gestae).


Criminal Procedure Review Questions 1