MCQ Final
MCQ Final
MCQ Final
(10) As a rule, the judge shall receive the evidence personally. In which of
the following circumstances may the court delegate the reception of
evidence to the clerk of court?
(12) Bearing in mind the distinction between private and public document,
which of the following is admissible in evidence without further proof of due
execution or genuineness?
(30) In a case, the prosecutor asked the medical expert the question,
"Assuming that the assailant was behind the deceased before he attacked
him, would you say that treachery attended the killing?" Is this hypothetical
question permissible?
(D) No, since the medical expert has no personal knowledge of the
fact.
(B) None, the judgment being entitled to full faith and credit as a
matter of general comity among nations.
(C) That the foreign court erred in the appreciation of the evidence.
(D) That extrinsic fraud afflicted the judgment.
(37) Cindy charged her husband, George, with bigamy for a prior subsisting
marriage with Teresa. Cindy presented Ric and Pat, neighbors of George
and Teresa in Cebu City, to prove, first, that George and Teresa cohabited
there and, second, that they established a reputation as husband and wife.
Can Cindy prove the bigamy by such evidence?
(B) No, at least one direct evidence and two circumstantial evidence
are required to support a conviction for bigamy.
(38) To prove payment of a debt, Bong testified that he heard Ambo say, as
the latter was handing over money to Tessie, that it was in payment of
debt. Is Bongs testimony admissible in evidence?
(A) Yes, since what Ambo said and did is an independently relevant
statement.
(B) No, since what Ambo said and did was not in response to a
startling occurrence.
(C) No, since Bongs testimony of what Ambo said and did is
hearsay.
(A) A person under the influence of drugs when the event he is asked
to testify on took place.
(B) A person convicted of perjury who will testify as an attesting
witness to a will.
(42) During trial, plaintiff offered evidence that appeared irrelevant at that
time but he said he was eventually going to relate to the issue in the case
by some future evidence. The defendant objected. Should the trial court
reject the evidence in question on ground of irrelevance?
(A) No, it should reserve its ruling until the relevance is shown.
(B) Yes, since the plaintiff could anyway subsequently present the
evidence anew.
(43) Ben testified that Jaime, charged with robbery, has committed bag-
snatching three times on the same street in the last six months. Can the
court admit this testimony as evidence against Jaime?
(A) No, since there is no showing that Ben witnessed the past three
robberies.
(D) No, since evidence of guilt of a past crime is not evidence of guilt
of a present crime.
45) Alex filed a petition for writ of amparo against Melba relative to his
daughter Toni's involuntary disappearance. Alex said that Melba was Toni's
employer, who, days before Toni disappeared, threatened to get rid of her
at all costs. On the other hand, Melba countered that she had nothing to do
with Toni's disappearance and that she took steps to ascertain Toni's
whereabouts. What is the quantum of evidence required to establish the
parties' respective claims?
(C) For Alex, proof beyond reasonable doubt; for Melba, ordinary
diligence.
(53) Henry testified that a month after the robbery Asiong, one of the
accused, told him that Carlos was one of those who committed the crime
with him. Is Henrys testimony regarding what Asiong told him admissible in
evidence against Carlos?
(B) No, since Asiong did not make the statement during the
conspiracy.
(A) in criminal cases, the accused may prove his good moral
character if pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged.
(B) in criminal cases, the prosecution may prove the bad moral
character of the accused to prove his criminal predisposition.
(C) in criminal cases, the bad moral character of the offended party
may not be proved.
(D) At the time he made said declaration he was unaware that the
same was contrary to his aforesaid interest.
(C) No, since the police had the accused identified without warning
him of his rights.
(A) Testimony against the heirs of the deceased defendant who are
substituted for the latter.
(96) To prove that Susan stabbed her husband Elmer, Rico testified that he
heard Leon running down the street, shouting excitedly, "Sinasaksak daw
ni Susan ang asawa niya! (I heard that Susan is stabbing her husband!)" Is
Leon's statement as narrated by Rico admissible?
REMEDIAL LAW