1.

An inference of the existence or nonexistence of some facts which courts are to draw from the
proof of other facts.
a. Presumption
b. Burden of proof
c. Burden of Evidence
d. None of the above

2. May an acknowledgment of guilt be given weight in evidence against the accused if such
acknowledgment was given extra-judicially?
a. No, because in every acknowledgment of guilt by the accused, he must be assisted by a
lawyer
b. Yes, because extrajudicial acknowledgment of guilt by the accused is always given
voluntarily by him
c. No, because extrajudicial acknowledgment of guilt is not allowed under the provision of law
d. Yes, because extrajudicial acknowledgment of guilt is allowed under conditions set by law

3. Evidence that is given to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove facts given in evidence by the
adverse party.
a. Conclusive Evidence
b. Rebuttal Evidence
c. Sur-rebuttal Evidence
d. Secondary Evidence

4. The law providing the rights of persons arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation is
a. RA No 7691
b. RA No 7438
c. RA No 8493
d. RA No 7659
5. A dying person miraculously survived. What is the effect of his statement made to another
immediately after the incident concerning the circumstances of his injuries?
a. It is considered a dying declaration
b. It is considered part of the res gestae
c. It is extrajudicial confession
d. It is a declaration against interest

6. The right of an accused to bail is a matter of right in those cases

a. Falling within the jurisdiction of the RTC before or after conviction, except capital offenses
b. Falling within the jurisdiction of the MTC before or after conviction
c. Falling within the jurisdiction of the RTC where the penalty for the offense does not exceed
twenty years imprisonment
d. All of these

7. When Peter was arrested by the police, he was subjected to intense questioning at the police
station. He was with the Chief of Police, Investigator, and the arresting officer inside the station
room where he, in order to avoid further physical restraint, acknowledged to have committed the
crime, and further implicate John as a companion in perpetrating the crime of rape. In the law of
evidence, how do you categorize or treat the statements of Peter?
a. They are extrajudicial admission
b. They are judicial confession
c. They are judicial admission
d. They are extrajudicial confession

8. Atty. Therese Dy was conferring with his client, Suladen, at her law office when the janitor,
Josh, who was cleaning the floor, overheard their conversation. The adverse party knew that Josh
overheard the conversation, so, Josh was presented by the adverse party to testify against
Suladen. Atty. Therese Dy objected. What ground will Atty. Therese Dy could possibly raise?
a. Privileged communication
b. Hearsay evidence
 c. Marital disqualification
d. Parental privilege

9. The quantum or weight of evidence that is needed for the defendant to win in civil cases.
a. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
b. Preponderance of evidence
c. Prima facie evidence
d. Substantial evidence

10. Supposing there is evidence to show that Pedro was suffering from insanity at the time he is
to be presented as a witness, still the prosecution presented him as a witness. Based on this
situation, what would be the most practical thing that you do as the defense lawyer?
a. I will object because Pedro is insane at the time of the incident
b. I will object because Pedro is insane at the time of the interview by the police officer
c. I will not object because the testimony might help absolve the accused from criminal
liability
d. I will not object because Pedro’s testimony is worthless given that he is Insane.

11. This general rule in evidence states that “the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another person”-
a. Res inter alios acta non cadere in evidence rule
b. Ante litem motam rule
c. Parts of the res gestae rule
d. Testimonial knowledge rule

12. This refers to the recognition or cognizance given by the court without the introduction of
evidence
a. Judicial concern
b. Judicial notice
 c. Judicial nature
d. Judicial admission

13. Spouses Joseph and Mary own a parcel of land in Cebu City through a Deed of sale executed
by the original owner. However, due to a typhoon, they lost the original copy of the Deed of Sale
on that parcel of land. There is a pending court case over the ownership of the land where the
spouses direly need the lost document. What rule in evidence will the spouses utilize in order that
they will be allowed to prove the contents of the lost document?
a. Best evidence rule
b. Testimonial knowledge rule
c. Parole evidence rule
d. Secondary evidence rule

14. The original of a photograph presented as documentary

Evidence
a. Blow-up
b. Photo star
c. Negative
d. Film

15. Because of a heated argument, Peter killed Juan. Peter is the son of Maria, who is a mistress
of Juan. Consequently, Peter was charged with parricide. The prosecution alleged that Peter is an
illegitimate child of Juan with Maria as the mother. Which of the following is a possible factum
probandum in relation to the case?
a. Whether or not Peter really killed Juan
b. Whether or not Peter is the son of Maria
c. Whether or not Peter is a son of Juan
d. Whether or not Peter is an illegitimate child
16. An examination of a witness by the party opposed to the party who called such a witness.
a. Cross-examination
b. Direct examination
c. Formal investigation
d. None of the above

17. A verbal or written admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same
case.
a. Judicial Admission
b. Complaint
c. Extra-judicial confession
d. None of the above

18. During the trial of the case, Mr. Inocian was presented in court as a prosecution witness to
testify on matters during and after the incident. During the direct examination, Mr. Inocian was
asked with the following questions: Prosecutor: Mr. witness, what did observe when you were at
Julie’s bakeshop on November 30, 2016, at about 9:00 PM? Defense Counsel: Objection, your
Honor, the question is leading. Is the objection to be properly grounded?
a. Yes, because the question calls for the opinion of the witness which is allowed under the
rules
b. Yes, because the question calls for and suggests an answer to the witness and it is
misleading
c. No, because the question is not leading or misleading, it is allowed by law
d. No, because the question should have been objected to on the ground that it is a leading
question

19. Which of the following statements is legally true?

a. Zanjoe’s hands contain nitrates or nitrites
b. The presence of nitrates or nitrites in Zanjoe’s hands prove that he fired a gun
 c. The positive results of the paraffin test do not prove that Zanjoe fired a gun
d. The result of the paraffin test proves the presence of nitrates or nitrites in Zanjoe’s hands

20. Supposing the defense raises the objection on the ground of incompetence of the witness. If
you were the judge, what would be the basis of your ruling insofar as the objection is concerned?
a. I will sustain the objection because the testimony has no bearing on the fact in issue,
therefore it is irrelevant
b. I will overrule the objection because the testimony falls within the dying declaration
allowed by the rules
c. I will overrule the objection because the testimony of the witness is considered as part of the
res gestae
d. I will sustain the objection because the testimony of the witness is hearsay and therefore it is
incompetent

21. It is a means of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
a. Evidence
b. Investigation
c. Cross-examination
d. Trial/hearing

22. In the same criminal proceeding as above-mentioned, it was revealed that during the direct
examination that Mr. Inocian testified in court with respect to what was told to him by Pedro,
while he was lying on the ground. If you were the counsel for the accused, what possible ground
of objection you will raise, if any, against the testimony of Mr. Inocian?
a. I will not object because the testimony is allowed by law
b. I will object because the testimony is based on opinion only
c. I will object because the testimony is hearsay
d. I will object because the testimony is irrelevant and incompetent
23. What kind of presumption involves the mental process by which the existence of one fact is
inferred from proof of some other facts?
a. Conclusive presumption
b. Disputable presumption
c. Legal presumption
d. Factual presumption

24. The re-examination of the witness by the party calling him.

a. Cross-examination
b. Re-direct examination
c. Formal investigation
d. Re-cross examination

25. Can the husband testify against the wife in an adultery case?
a. Yes, the privilege of marital communication rule is already abolished
b. No unless there is consent of the wife
c. Yes, under the law she is a competent witness
d. Yes, because the crime charged is one committed by the wife against the husband.
26. In the ordinary course of business, a document which is copied from another, at or near the
time of the transaction is considered
a. original document
b. duplicate copy
c. secondary document
d. parole evidence

27. The evidentiary fact or the means to establish the factum probandum.
a. Factum Probandum
b. Factum Probans
 c. Factum Bandum
d. Non-Facet Reum

28. The amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify
a conclusion.
a. Substantial Evidence
b. Rebuttal Evidence
c. Cumulative Evidence
d. Direct Evidence

29. Evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the fact in question.
a. Relevant Evidence
b. Primary Evidence
c. Competent Evidence
d. Positive Evidence

30. During an investigation conducted by the police for the death of Juan, Richard acknowledged
that he was at the crime scene. Under this situation, how will Richard’s statement be treated
under the law on evidence?
a. admission
b. confession
c. dying declaration
d. res gestae

31. The procedure which allows the affidavit or counter affidavit of the parties or their witnesses
to constitute as their direct oral testimony in the case, subject, however, to cross-examination
a. Revised Rule on Summary Procedure
b. Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
 c. Revised Rules on Evidence
d. Revised Penal Code

32. That which is inferior to the primary evidence and is permitted by law only when the best
evidence is not available.
a. Expert Evidence
b. Rebuttal Evidence
c. Testimonial Evidence
d. Secondary Evidence

33. A shooting Incident near Julie’s Bakeshop along Sanciangke Street, Cebu City occurred on
July 14, 2016, at about 9:00 PM. As a result, Pedro suffered severe injuries because of the
multiple gunshot in his body. He was brought to the hospital. A case was filed against the
accused. Leonile was presented in court as a prosecution witness in a criminal case to testify on
matters during and after the incident. During the direct examination, Leanile was asked with the
following-questions; Prosecutor: Mr. witness, did you see the accused shoot the victim? Defense
Counsel: Objection, your Honor” question is misleading. Is the objection to be properly
grounded?
a. Yes, because the question calls for an opinion of the witness which is allowed under the rules
b. Yes, because the question calls for and suggests an answer to the witness and it is misleading
c. No, because the question calls for positive testimony since the witness was present at the
crime scene
d. No, because the question should have been objected to on the ground that it Is leading
question.

34. In the same criminal proceeding as above-mentioned, it was revealed that during the direct
examination that Leonilo testified in court with respect to what was told to him by Pedro, while
he was lying on the ground. If you were the counsel for the accused, what possible ground of
objection you will raise, if any?
a. I will not object because the testimony is allowed by law
b. I will object because the testimony is hearsay
 c. I will object because the testimony is irrelevant
d. I will object because the testimony is based on opinion only

35. It is the declaration of an accused before the court acknowledging his guilt to the offense
charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein.
a. judicial admission
b. admission
c. judicial confession
d. extra-judicial confession

36. In the law of evidence, how do you categorize or treat the statements of Peter?
a. they are extrajudicial admission
b. they are judicial confession
c. they are judicial admission
d. they are extrajudicial confession

37. Assuming that B at the time he informed SPO2 Masigasig of the identity of his notorious
assailant, believes that he was dying at that time, but he did not actually die. What basis could be
used to establish the identity of A?
a. common reputation
b. dying declaration
c. res gestae
d. declaration against interest

38. It is an additional evidence of a different character but to the same point.

a. positive evidence
b. cumulative evidence
c. corroborative evidence
 d. direct evidence

39. The direct acknowledgment of guilt of a person regarding a particular case is called-
a. judicial admission
b. extra-judicial confession
c. judicial confession
d. extra-judicial admission

40. If you are for the prosecution, what would you prove to sustain the case for parricide?
a. Relationship of Maria and Peter as mother and legitimate son, respectively.
b. Relationship of Peter and Juan as son and father, respectively.
c. Relationship of Peter and Juan as legitimate son and father, respectively.
d. Relationship of Maria and Juan as live-in partners

41. In criminal cases, who has the burden of proof?

a. The accused has the onus probandi because he is the one charged
b. The prosecution has the onus probandi because it is the party filing the case
c. The accused has the duty to prove because he will be put in jail if he cannot prove his
innocence
d. The prosecution has the duty to prove because the accused is not interested in the criminal
case

42. This refers to an inference that the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow such
inference to be overturned by any contrary proof however strong.
a. Presumption Juris Tantum
b. Presumption Juris et de Jure
c. Burden of Proof
d. Onus Probandi
43. What evidentiary value does the statement of Peter implicating John as his companion in
committing the crime?
a. It is not admissible under the ante litem motam rule
b. It is not admissible under the inter alios acta non cereno debe rule
c. it is not admissible under the res ipsa loquitor rule
d. It is not admissible under the res gestae rule

44. When may an ordinary citizen give his opinion regarding the handwriting of a person?
a. when he has to testify only as to the mental and emotional state of the one who authored the
writing
b. When it is handwriting of one whom he has sufficient familiarity
c. When he is a Questioned document examiner
d. When he is a criminology graduate

45. Dr. Gambe conducted an autopsy on the cadaver of the victim in a murder case. When he was
presented as a witness, the defense objected arguing that the consent of the heirs (relatives) of the
victim should be first given of the results of the autopsy being privileged in nature. If you were
the judge, decide whether the following reasons given can legally

Support your ruling on the objection.

a. the doctor cannot testify because the communication is privileged.
b. the doctor cannot testify because it is hearsay.
c. the doctor can testify because the case is not civil in nature.
d. The doctor can testify because the case is not criminal in nature.

46. A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires.
a. Malicious question
b. Leading question
 c. Misleading question
d. Answer

47. The evidence as a whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the other.
a. Preponderance of evidence
b. Substantial evidence
c. None of the above
d. All of the above

48. Zanjoe was charged with murder. To prove that he fired a gun, during the trial of the case, the
prosecution presented the results of a paraffin test which showed that the hands of the accused
were positive for nitrates or nitrites. The defense argued that mere presence of nitrates or nitrites
in the accused hands cannot be the basis that accused was firing his gun and therefore
responsible for the killing. What is the factum probandum in the case at bar?
a. Whether or not Zanjoe is positive for nitrates or nitrites
b. Whether or not Zanjoe is questioning the results of the paraffin test
c. Whether or not Zanjoe is the one firing the gun
d. Whether or not Zanjoe is the one committing the crime

49. Evidence supplied by written instruments or derived from conventional symbols, such as a
letter, by which ideas are represented on material substances.
a. Substantial Evidence
b. Documentary Evidence
c. Object Evidence
d. Direct Evidence
50. Is Pedro a qualified witness?
a. No, because there is evidence to show that Pedro is insane at the time of the police interview
b. Yes, because there is no evidence to show that Pedro is insane at the time of the incident
c. No, because there is evidence to show that Pedro is insane at the time of the incident
 d. Yes, because there is evidence to show that Pedro is not insane at the time of the incident

51. A and B were passengers of the ill-fated MV St Thomas Aquinas that figured in a sea
collision in the seawater off Talisay City. There was no evidence to show who, as to them, died
first. A was 21 years old and he was a graduating student, while B was 45 years old and she was
employed at UK University of Kalubihan. Under the law of evidence, who survives or died last?
a. It was A who died first
b. It was B who died last
c. It was A who survived
d. It was B who survived
52. Who was presumed to have died first?
a. X died ahead of W
b. W died ahead of X
c. Both died at the same time
d. X died after W

53. Evidence which, standing alone, unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain a

proposition.
a. Conclusive Evidence
b. Prima facie Evidence
c. Circumstantial Evidence
d. Direct Evidence

54. Any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional mandate that “no custodial
investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person
arrested, or by any person in his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either by the said
person or by anyone in his behalf,” is inadmissible because it is -
a. unacceptable
b. incompetent
 c. voidable
d. irrelevant

55. In criminal cases, who has the onus probandi?

a. The accused has the onus probandi because he is the one charged
b. The prosecution has the onus probandi because it is the party filing the case
c. The accused has the duty to prove because he will be put to jail if he cannot prove his
innocence
d. The prosecution has the duty to prove because the accused is not interested in the criminal
case

56. In a case for homicide, the defense presents self-defense as his defense. The court ordered for
a reverse trial where the defense is required to present first its evidence. The first witness was
presented. Which of the following statements is correct?
a. The defense will conduct the cross-examination
b. The prosecution will conduct the direct examination
c. The defense will conduct the direct examination
d. The prosecution will conduct re-direct examination

57. The Original Document Rule is aptly within the threshold of this kind of evidence -
a. object evidence
b. testimonial evidence
c. documentary evidence
d. oral evidence

58. If you were Atty. Enrique Iglesias, what possible ground of objection, if any, will you raise
when Mang Tomas is presented in court?
a. I will object on the ground of lawyer-client privileged communication
b. I will not object because it was true that Mang Tomas had heard the conversation
 c. I will object on the ground of irrelevancy of evidence
d. I will object on the ground of incompetency of evidence

59. Noel, who is a Protestant (not Catholic), sought spiritual advice from Rev. Fr. Jeffrey, a
Catholic Priest, regarding a matter that had nagged Noel’s conscience. Rev. Fr. Jeffrey gave
advice to Noel. When he was subpoenaed to appear and testify before the court regarding their
conversation with Noel, Rev. Fr. Jeffrey refused to testify on the matter discussed with and his
advice given to Noel. Which of the following statement is correct?
a. The priest cannot testify without violating the hearsay evidence rule
b. The priest can testify as the situation falls under the rule on res gestae
c. The priest cannot be compelled to testify because of priest-penitent privileged
communication
d. The testimony of the priest is admissible because it is a declaration against interest

60. Evidence which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption.
a. Circumstantial Evidence
b. Direct Evidence
c. Negative Evidence
d. Corroborative Evidence
61. This general rule in evidence states that “the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration or omission of another person” is explicated the:
a. res inter alios acta nocere non debet rule
b. ante litem motam rule
c. parts of the res gestae rule
d. testimonial knowledge rule

62. In the same homicide case, the party conducting the direct examination on the first witness
asked the following question: Question: “Mr. Witness, when you were attacked by the victim, did
you use your bolo to defend yourself?” The opposing party objected. What is the legal ground for
the objection?
 a. That the question is misleading
b. That the question is leading
c. That the question calls for opinion
d. That the question is irrelevant

63. If you were the judge, will you allow Mang Tomas to testify?
a. Yes, because he has personal knowledge since he was present at the time Atty. Iglesias and
Floyd Pacquaio had a conversation
b. No, because the testimony of Mang Tomas violates the lawyer-client privileged
communication rule.
c. Yes, because Mang Tomas did not intentionally spy on his boss lawyer Enrique Iglesias
d. No, because the testimony of Mang Tomas is pure hearsay

64. The admission which is made in certain and unequivocal words.

a. Express Admission
b. Implied Admission
c. Testimonial Evidence
d. Secondary Evidence

65. When Joy Salsa was called to testify, Atty. Iglesias vehemently objected. Under what rule
shall the objection be based?
a. marital privileged is qualification rule
b. hearsay evidence rule
c. marital privilege communication rule
d. res inter alios acta nocere non debet rule

66. The examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the
issue.
 a. Cross-examination
b. Direct examination
c. Formal Investigation
d. Re-cross examination

67. Evidence that has a tendency in reason to establish the probability or improvability of a fact
in issue.
a. Direct Evidence
b. Rebuttal Evidence
c. Material Evidence
d. Relevant Evidence

68. Which is not an element in dying declaration?

a. The declaration was made under consciousness of an impending death
b. The declaration refers to the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death
c. The declarant survives
d. The declaration relates to facts which the victim is competent to testify

69. A and B are brothers-in-law and likewise are mortal enemies. One time, A threatened to kill
B. A has a common reputation of being a killer. One night in a lighted place, A suddenly stabbed
B from behind. Before A could escape, B was able to identify him. As B lay wounded, SPO
Masigasig responded and to whom B pointed A as the one who attacked him. SPO2 Masigasig
arrested A on the basis of such declaration. B died few hours after. Which of the following best
describes the statement of B?
a. It is circumstantial evidence
b. It is hearsay
c. It is corroborative evidence
d. It is a dying declaration
70. Unreasonable delay to seek or assert a right at a proper time.
a. Estoppel in pais
b. Estoppel by laches
c. Estoppel by deed
d. None of the above
71. Which of the following pieces of evidence is excluded by the Rules of Court?
a. Testimony of a blind man in the murder incident involving the use of a firearm
b. Testimony of a victim’s cousin who was a drug addict
c. Testimony of a deaf-mute in the oral defamation case
d. Testimony of a 5-year-old girl who was raped

72. Evidence which is not excluded by law.

a. Prima Facie Evidence
b. Competent Evidence
c. Rebuttal Evidence
d. Object evidence

73. The prosecution wishes to present Maria as one of the witnesses against her son Peter. A
subpoena was issued for her to appear in court and testify. Maria approached you for advice
since she is not interested in testifying. Can Maria refuse to testify even when she received the
subpoena?
a. No, she cannot refuse because the subpoena is issued by the Court
b. Yes, she can refuse not to testify because of privileged communication
c. No, she cannot refuse to testify because it is not covered by marital disqualification rule
d. Yes, she can refuse to testify under the parental privilege rule
74. If you are for the defense, what will you do regarding the presentation of the said NBI
witness?
a. I will object on the ground that he does not know the technical process in questioned
document examination
 b. I will object on the ground of incompetency of testimony
c. I will object on the ground of violation of the Opinion Rule
d. I will object because he needs to study Criminology to become an expert in questioned
document examination

75. The parol evidence rule applies only to -

a. documents
b. written agreements
c. objects
d. testimonial

76. The prosecution is presenting the teacher of the accused to prove that the writing is the
penmanship of the accused. The defense is objecting on the ground that the teacher is not a
handwriting expert, she being only an ordinary teacher. If you are the judge, what would be your
ruling?
a. I will sustain the objection because the teacher is not an expert and does not have the
capacity to determine the handwriting of the accused
b. I will overrule the objection because the teacher can determine the handwriting because she
is sufficiently acquainted with the handwriting being the teacher of the accused from Grade I to
Grade 6
c. I will overrule the objection because any person can testify on the handwriting of another
since it is easy to distinguish it from other handwritings
d. I will sustain the objection because there is no need to present the teacher since there is
already an expert who will testify on the document

77. Evidence of the same kind and character as that already given and tends to prove the same
point.
a. Positive Evidence
b. Rebuttal Evidence
c. Testimonial Evidence
 d. Cumulative Evidence

78. “Fruit of the poison tree” is a doctrine in evidence which means that the evidence obtained is
a. Admissible
b. Excluded by law
c. Best evidence
d. Corroborative

79. A kind of evidence which cannot be rebutted or overcome.

a. Primary evidence
b. Secondary evidence
c. Best evidence
d. Conclusive evidence

80. Class of evidence which the law does not allow to be contradicted.
a. Secondary Evidence
b. Conclusive Evidence
c. Expert Evidence
d. Real Evidence

81. During an investigation conducted by the police for the death of Juan, Richard acknowledged
that he was at the crime scene. Under this situation, how will Richard’s statement be treated
under the law on evidence?
a. It is an admission and therefore admissible in court
b. It is a confession and therefore admissible in court
c. It is a dying declaration and therefore admissible in court
d. It is part of the res gestae and therefore admissible in court
82. The affidavits of the witnesses may be made as a basis of their oral testimony where they will
be subject to cross-examination once they are able to identify their affidavits. Which procedure
gives imprimatur in order to expedite the presentation of a witness?
a. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
b. The Oral Testimonies of Witness’ Rule
c. The Rules of Summary Procedure
d. The Rule of Court Testimony

83. It is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
a. Burden of evidence
b. Burden of proof
c. Presumptions
d. None of the above

84. In the foregoing case, B’s statement identifying A as his assailant may not be considered a
dying declaration because in a dying declaration -
a. B’s death is indispensable
b. The declaration must be written
c. B and A must have an argument and have grudges
d. B’s wound must be fatal

85. That logical necessity which rests on a party at any particular time during the trial to create a
prima facie case in his favor, or to overthrow one when created against him.
a. Burden of evidence
b. Burden of proof
c. Presumption
d. None of the above
86. These questions suggest to the witness the answers to which an examining party requires.
a. Leading
b. Stupid
c. Misleading
d. Hearsay

87. If you were the judge, will you allow Joy Salsa to testify?
a. Yes, because she has personal knowledge since she is the wife of Mang Tomas, who knew of
the total conversation.
b. No, because the testimony of Joy Salsa violates the lawyer-client privileged communication
rule.
c. Yes, because the testimony of Joy Salsa falls within the exception of hearsay evidence rule.
d. No, because the testimony of Joy Salsa is covered by the testimonial knowledge rule

88. H is married to W. H killed B, brother of W. During the trial of the case of homicide, the
prosecution seeks to present W, who witnessed the incident. The defense objects. What plausible
objection can the defense raise under this situation?
a. Hearsay evidence
b. Marital privilege communication
c. Filial privilege
d. Marital disqualification

89. What is the value of the paraffin test as evidence?

a. It proves the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites
b. It proves the guilt of the person found positive of nitrates or nitrites
c. It proves the firing of the gun by the person found positive of nitrates or nitrites
d. It proves the conduct of the paraffin test only
90. Models, maps, charts, and graphs are called
a. Cumulative evidence
b. Demonstrative evidence
c. Corroborative evidence
d. Real evidence

91. A dying person miraculously survived. What is the effect of his statement made to another
immediately after the incident concerning the circumstances of his injuries?
a. It is considered a dying declaration
b. It is considered part of the res gestae
c. It is extrajudicial confession
d. It is a declaration against interest

92. Inference which the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow them to be overturned by
any contrary proof however strong.
a. Presumption
b. Burden of proof
c. Burden of Evidence
d. Conclusive presumption

93. An evidence which, aside from being relevant, affects the issue in an important and
substantial matter.
a. Material evidence
b. Substantial evidence
c. Corroborative evidence
d. Relevant evidence
94. When Peter was arrested by the police, he was subjected to intense questioning at the police
station, and he gave his full and voluntary consent. He was with the Chief of Police, Investigator,
and the arresting officer inside the station room and in the course of the intense questioning,
Peter began to experience fear. In order to avoid physical restraint, Peter acknowledged to have
committed the crime, and but further implicate John as a companion in perpetrating the crime of
rape with homicide. What evidentiary value does the statement of Peter implicating John as his
companion in committing the crime?
a. It is admissible under the ante litem motam rule
b. It is not admissible under the inter alios acta nocere non debet rule
c. It is not admissible under the res ipsa loquitur rule
d. It is admissible under the res gestae rule

95. What possible factum probans would prove the relationship between the culprit and the
victim?
a. Testimony of Maria that she was a mistress of Juan
b. Baptismal certificate of Peter where the name of Juan appears in the entry of the father
c. Testimony of Maria that she is the mother of Peter and Juan is the father
d. Birth Certificate of Peter where the entry of Father’s Name is marked “unknown”

96. It is a general rule in evidence where the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another.
a. Res inter alios acta rule
b. Dying declaration
c. Res gestae rule
d. Testimonial knowledge rule

97. Mary lost her original copy of the documents of sale covering a parcel of land. The same
parcel of land is subject to a case in court as to who is the true owner. What rule will Mary
invoke so that she may be allowed to prove her claims in court?
a. Documentary evidence rule
 b. Secondary evidence rule
c. Parol evidence rule
d. Testimonial knowledge rule

98. The proof of facts from which when taken collectively, the existence of the particular fact in
issue may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence.
a. Expert Evidence
b. Direct Evidence
c. Circumstantial Evidence
d. Competent Evidence

99. What is the term for the testimony of a person with respect to what was told him by one who
was not an eyewitness to the crime but who obtained knowledge thereof only from the alleged
victim?
a. Hearsay evidence
b. Direct evidence
c. Circumstantial evidence
d. Conclusive evidence
100. What is the term for the degree of evidence that produces in the mind of the trier of fact a
firm belief or conviction as to allegations sought to be established, being more than
preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt as
in criminal cases?
a. Beyond reasonable doubt
b. Clear and convincing evidence
c. Direct evidence
d. Hearsay evidence

ANSWER KEY
1. a
2. d
3. b
4. b
5. a
6. d
7. d
8. a
9. b
10. c
11. a
12. b
13. d
14. c
15. d
16. a
17. a
18. d
19. c
20. d
21. a
22. c
23. b
24. b
25. a
26. d
27. b
28. a
29. b
30. a
31. c
32. d
33. b
34. b
35. c
36. d
37. b
38. c
39. c
40. d
41. b
42. b
43. d
44. b
45. c
46. b
47. a
48. c
49. b
50. c
51. b
52. a
53. b
54. c
55. b
56. c
57. c
58. d
59. c
60. b
61. a
62. b
63. b
64. a
65. d
66. b
67. d
68. c
69. d
70. b
71. b
72. b
73. d
74. b
75. b
76. a
77. d
78. b
79. d
80. b
81. d
82. b
83. b
84. c
85. a
86. a
87. d
88. d
89. d
90. b
91. b
92. d
93. a
94. b
95. c
96. a
97. c
98. c
99. a
100. b