Anda di halaman 1dari 12


Final Examination

20 March 2012 5:30 pm -7:30 pm


This examination consists of TWO parts. Part I involves multiple choice questions; Part II, essay-type

For Part I, use this test paper as your questionnaire, and use the separate answer sheet for your
answers. Write your name on the space provided below and in your answer sheet.

For Part II, write your answers in your examination notebook. After you are through with your
examination, fold this test paper and insert it in your notebook. Write your name on the last page of
your notebook. Submit your notebook, together with this test paper, to the proctor. Your test paper
and your examination notebook will not be corrected if you do not follow the instructions.



PART I (80%)

Choose the correct answer by shading the appropriate letter in the separate answer sheet.
SHADE ONLY ONE LETTER. Shading of two or more letters shall invalidate your answer.


P sued G Construction for damages suffered when a load of bricks fell off one of G’s trucks directly in
front of P while P was driving along Marcos Highway somewhere in Pugo, La Union. P charged that
G was negligent in supplying its truck with a defective load chain clamp, which helped tie the load to
the bed of the truck, and also on the theory that G’s truck driver, Y, was negligent in failing to secure
the load properly on the truck.

P testified on direct examination that while driving behind one of G’s trucks, driven by Y, the bricks
suddenly fell off right in front of P’s car, causing him to drive over a steep embankment, which
caused his car to overturn. P further testified that he suffered a permanent injury to his back, that he
was hospitalized for three weeks, and that his medical bills totaled P150,000.

1. P’s attorney then calls E, the chief executive of G Construction. After establishing that the truck Y
was driving belonged to G, P’s attorney asks E: “isn’t it true that all of G’s trucks are fully insured to
protect the company from liability arising from the negligence of its drivers?”

On which of the following grounds is an objection to this question most likely to be sustained?

(a) Irrelevant.
(b) Leading.
(c) Not the best evidence of the insurance policy.
(d) Inadmissible hearsay.

2. On cross-examination, P is also asked whether he ever sued T Co. for a back injury allegedly
caused when a load fell off T’s truck. P’s attorney objects on all available grounds.

The objection should be:

(a) Overruled, because the question is relevant.

(b) Sustained, because the answer would be irrelevant.
(c) Sustained, because character evidence is generally inadmissible.
(d) Overruled, because the question assumes a fact not yet in evidence.

3. P calls as a witness, X, who testifies that he was formerly employed as a truck driver at G
Construction and is an acquaintance of Y. X further testifies that immediately prior to the accident he
had coffee with Y at a restaurant, and mentioned to Y that the tie chains holding Y’s load of bricks
“looked kind of loose.”

Assuming proper objection by G’s attorney, such testimony is:

(a) Admissible because it is not hearsay.

(b) Admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
(c) Inadmissible for being hearsay.
(d) Inadmissible as opinion evidence.

4. X also testifies that when he mentioned to Y that the tie chains looked kind of loose, Y replied:
“We’ve been having lots of trouble with those load chain clamps; they never seem to work properly.”
P offers this testimony by X as proof that the load chain clamp was defective at the time of the
accident. For this purpose, X’s testimony is:

(a) Admissible as an admission by Goldrich.

(b) Admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule.
(c) Inadmissible hearsay.
(d) Inadmissible opinion evidence.

5. G Construction has a rule that any driver involved in an accident must file a report to the company
within 12 hours. P has demanded that G produce Y’s original handwritten report, which G does. P
then calls Y to the stand as an adverse witness, and Y identifies the report as his, testifies to the
existence of the rule requiring such reports and that Y routinely filled it out only a few minutes after
the accident. Because it states that the faulty load chain clamp caused the accident, P offers it in
evidence. G objects on appropriate grounds.

The report is:

(a) Admissible because it is not hearsay. The report is an admission by G

because it is a statement by an agent concerning a matter within the scope of
his agency.
(b) Inadmissible, because the report was not prepared in the course of G’s
primary business, and no foundation was made before it was offered in
(c) Inadmissible, because only statements of fact in business records are
admissible, and the conclusion that the clamp was “faulty” and that it “caused”
the accident are not statements of fact.
(d) Admissible, if Y testifies that he cannot remember the details in the report.

6. Betty wanted to buy an antique chair that she had seen at a local antique dealer’s display show.
Betty tried to make an offer for the chair and to ask other questions of Simon, the owner, but was
unable to do so successfully because Betty spoke only Ilocano and Simon spoke only Cebuano.

The day after Betty saw the chair, she asked her brother Henry if he would speak to Simon about the
chair on her behalf and generally act as a go-between. Henry agreed to do so. Henry went to see
Simon and they reached an agreement that Betty would pay Simon P150,000 for the chair. The
agreement was not reduced to writing. That very afternoon, Henry told Betty of the agreement with
Simon. Two day later, Henry died.

On the day following Henry’s death, Betty brought Simon a bank manager’s check for P150,000. She
showed the check to Simon and pointed at the chair. Simon shook his head vigorously and made
various hand gestures indicating that he would not accept P150,000 for the chair. Betty sued Simon
on a breach of contract of theory.

At the trial, Betty, through an interpreter, wish to testify to a conversation she had with Henry, where
Henry said, “Simonson has agreed to sell you the chair for P150,000.”

What effect will the Dead Man’s Statute have upon the admissibility of Betty’s testimony pertaining
to his conversation with Henry?

(a) None, because the testimony is not being offered against a representative or
successor-in-interest of the decedent.
(b) It will render the conversation inadmissible because the declarant is already
(c) It will render the conversation inadmissible because Betty is an interested party.
(d) None, because only Simon can claim the privilege.

7. D drove his car through a stop sign at an intersection and struck P, a pedestrian. P’s friend, W, was
walking with P when the accident occurred. W called an ambulance and accompanied P to the
hospital. P was promptly treated in the emergency room and then taken, heavily sedated, to a private
room in the hospital. W also accompanied P to the room and stayed at P’s side for two hours. During
the course of W’s vigil, P occasionally became semiconscious and muttered things. Some of what P
said was inaudible or otherwise incomprehensible, but W clearly heard P say, “Oh God, I’m dying.
Why did he have to run that stop sign?”

Although P was released from the hospital two weeks after the accident, P died six months later from
a heart attack. The attack was totally unrelated to the accident. Before his death, P’s heirs sued D for
damages resulting from the accident. At the trial of the case, two months after P’s death, P’s attorney
puts W on the stand to testify as to the statement P made in the hospital. D’s attorney promptly

How should the judge rule on the admissibility of W’s testimony about P’s statement?

(a) Admissible, as a dying declaration.

(b) Admissible, as part of the res gestae.
(c) Inadmissible, as a self-serving declaration.
(d) Inadmissible, as hearsay not within any exception.
8. Abe, owner of a sari-sari store, heard several gunshots and rushed out in the street. He found
Tessie lying on the sidewalk, bleeding profusely. Abe immediately dialed the hospital and asked for
an ambulance and the police to come to the scene. He returned to Tessie and put a blanket over her.
She gasped to Abe, “I’m going to die. Rey shot me.” Tessie lapsed into unconsciousness and an
ambulance arrived three minutes later. Although first aid was applied and Tessie was given blood
plasma, she died on the way to the hospital without uttering another word. Rey was arrested and
charged with the murder of Tessie. At Rey’s trial, the prosecution seeks to have Abe testify as to
Tessie’s statement.

Such testimony should be ruled:

(a) Admissible, as a declaration made in belief of impending death.

(b) Inadmissible, as a declaration not made in belief of an impending death.
(c) Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception.
(d) Admissible, as part of the res gestae.

9. Abe operated a sex toy shop. One afternoon he heard a screeching of brakes and Abe immediately
rushed out of the store. He saw a car speeding off into the distance and found a badly injured Rey
lying in the street. Abe rushed back into the store and telephoned for the police and an ambulance.
He brought out a blanket and covered Rey with it. Rey gasped to Abe, “I’m going to die. The car that
hit me had license number ADB398.” Rey then lapsed into unconsciousness. The ambulance arrived
three minutes later, first aid was administered, and Rey was rushed to the hospital. Abe gave his
information to the police, including a description of the car and Rey’s comment on the license plate.
Police traced the registration to Zandro. They went to his home and found dents on a car matching
the description given by Abe and bearing the license plate ADB398. They also found blood on the
bumper matching Rey’s blood type. Rey recovered from his injuries but now suffers permanent
disabilities. Rey filed suit against Zandro for his injuries. At the trial, Rey wants to have Abe testify
as to Rey’s statement regarding Zandro’s plate number.

The court should rule that such testimony by Abe is:

(a) Admissible, as part of the res gestae.

(b) Inadmissible, because the declarant Rey is available to testify.
(c) Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception.
(d) Admissible, as a declaration made in belief of impending death.

10. An Information was filed in court charging Warren with the October 25, 2011, robbery committed
at BDO Bank, Session Road, Branch. At trial, the government attempted to introduce into evidence
the testimony of Warren’s wife, Faye, who would testify that she had seen Warren arm himself on
several occasions with weapons identical to those used in the robberies, had seen him return to their
home carrying sacks filled with money with the markings of the robbed banks, and had overheard,
while serving meals, Warren and his co-defendants discussing plans for robbing the various banks
and concealing the loot. Warren’s attorney objected, and the judge ruled that Faye’s testimony was
within the spousal privilege and could not be admitted over Warren’s objection.

Was this ruling correct?

(a) No, because the spousal privilege may only be asserted by the testifying spouse
- she may not be compelled to testify nor foreclosed from testifying.
(b) Yes, because the privilege not to testify may be asserted by either the testifying
or non-testifying spouse.
(c) Yes, because Faye will testify on personal knowledge.
(d) No, because the testimony is hearsay not within any recognized exception.

11. Frodo was injured in an automobile accident caused by Aragorn. Frodo sued Aragorn for his
injuries. In preparation for trial, Gimli, Frodo’s attorney, hired Dr. Bilbo to examine Frodo. At trial,
Aragorn’s attorney attempts to call Dr. Bilbo as a witness to testify about statements Frodo made in
confidence to Dr. Bilbo about his injuries, and that Dr. Bilbo then communicated to Gimli. This
testimony should be:

(a) Excluded; Frodo’s statements are protected by the attorney-client privilege.

(b) Admitted; Frodo’s statements are admissions of a party.
(c) Admitted; Frodo waived the physician-patient privilege by placing his physical
condition in issue.
(d) Excluded; Frodo’s statements are protected by the physician-patient privilege.

12. Harry is charged with the crime of conspiracy to embezzle P5 million from his employer, a bank.
At trial, the prosecutor calls Harry’s wife, Wilma, and asks her to testify about a meeting between
Harry and Sybil that Wilma observed three weeks prior to her marriage to Harry.

Which of the following is the most accurate statement of the applicable rule concerning whether
Wilma may testify?

(a) The choice is Wima’s.

(b) The choice is Harry’s.
(c) Wilma is permitted to testify only if both Wilma and Harry agree.
(d) Wilma may be compelled to testify, even if both Wilma and Harry object.

13. Carla was injured when the car she was driving was struck by a freight truck driven by Elwood
and owned by Art’s Freight Lines. Carla brings an action for personal injuries against Art’s Freight
Lines. The complaint alleges that Elwood was drunk at the time of the accident and that Art’s was
negligent in hiring him and permitting him to drive knowing that he had a drinking problem and
convictions for reckless and drunk driving.

Elwood is called as a witness by Art’s and is expected to testify that he was not drunk at the time of
the accident. Instead, Elwood states on direct examination that he had several beers as he drove his
truck that evening and was “really high” when his truck struck Carla’s car. The counsel for Art’s
wants to confront Elwood with an “accident report” submitted by elwood that he was “stone cold
sober” at the time of the accident.

Will this be permitted?

(a) Yes, it can be used to impeach, and as substantive evidence that Elwood was
(b) No, the statement is hearsay not within any recognized exception.
(c) No, Art’s cannot impeach its own witness.
(d) Yes, but it may be used only to refresh Elwood’s recollection.

14. At Abe’s trial for rape, he calls Tad as a defense witness. Tad testifies that he was on his front yard
grilling steaks at the time of the rape and saw the assailant run from the victim’s apartment. He
further testifies that the person who ran from the victim’s apartment was not Abe.

On cross examination by the prosecutor, which of the following questions would a defense objection
most likely be sustained?
(a) “Weren’t you convicted of drunk driving last year?”
(b) “Weren’t you under the influence of shabu at the time you were grilling those
(c) “Haven’t you and Abe known each other since high school?”
(d) “Weren’t you fired from your job last week because your employer discovered
you were embezzling company funds?”


In a trial for the rape of Diana, Rod denies that he had sexual intercourse with Diana.

15. At trial, Rod seeks to offer testimony of Diana’s roommate to the effect that she believes Diana is a
nymphomaniac. The best reason for the judge to rule this testimony inadmissible is:

(a) The evidence is opinion testimony.

(b) The designation “nymphomaniac” is too uncertain.
(c) The testimony is conclusory.
(d) The testimony is inadmissible hearsay.

16. Dick testified that at the time Diana was allegedly raped, he and Rod were having dinner. On
cross-examination, the prosecutor may ask whether Dick was ever:

(a) Convicted of perjury.

(b) Convicted of estafa.
(c) Found administratively guilty for not accurately declaring his SALN.
(d) Arrested for any crime involving moral turpitude.

17. In a suit by Paula against Doris for negligence, the judge allowed Paula to testify that Doris was
not well-liked in her neighborhood, a fact of no consequence to the lawsuit. Doris seeks to testify in
response that she actually was well-liked by her neighbors.

The court should:

(a) Permit Doris to testify whether or not she had objected to Paula’s testimony.
(b) Permit Doris to testify only if she had objected to Paula’s testimony.
(c) Not permit Doris to testify because Doris cannot testify about her own character.
(d) Not permit Doris to testify because It is irrelevant.

18. In which of the following cases would a leading question least likely be permitted over objection?

(a) When asked on direct examination of a disinterested witness.

(b) When asked on direct examination of a minor.
(c) When asked on cross-examination of an expert witness.
(d) When related to the name, address or occupation of the witness.


While Douglas was driving Olivia’s car, he hit Peter in a pedestrian sidewalk. Peter sued both
Douglas and Olivia, alleging that Douglas had negligently driven the car and that Olivia had
negligently permitted an unfit driver to use her car.
19. Peter calls Walter as his first witness. Walter testifies that within the last several months he is
aware of three instances in which Douglas has engaged in reckless driving. Both Douglas and Olivia
object to the admission of this evidence. The objection should be:

(a) Overruled as to the case against Olivia, but sustained as to the case against
(b) Sustained, because Douglas’s character is not in issue.
(c) Sustained, because specific evidence of misconduct is not admissible to
establish evidence of character.
(d) Overruled, because the evidence goes to the issue of Douglas’s criminal

20. As part of her defense, Olivia calls her husband Harry to testify for her. Harry offers testimony
that Olivia rarely loans her automobile to anybody, but that when she does loan it, Olivia invariably
checks to see whether the driver is careful and law abiding. Peter objects to the admission of this
evidence. His objection should be:

(a) Overruled, because it tends to establish Olivia’s habit.

(b) Sustained, because there is no evidence to corroborate Harry’s testimony.
(c) Sustained, because it seeks to prove conduct in conformity with the character
(d) Overruled, because Olivia’s character is in issue.

21. The Baguio City police set up an undercover “sting” operation in which they posed as fences of
stolen property and bought and sold such property to anyone who came into their downtown
warehouse. Mike is being prosecuted for receiving stolen property in connection with his arrest by
the undercover operatives, and the prosecution attempts to introduce a videotape showing Mike
offering to sell a television set to one of the police officers. If this evidence is held to be inadmissible,
the most likely reason is that:

(a) A proper foundation was not established for its introduction into evidence.
(b) It is hearsay not within any exception.
(c) It violates Mike’s privilege against self-incrimination.
(d) Criminality may not be proven by specific instances of misconduct.

22. P sued D on a breach of contract theory. W testified for P. On cross-examination, which of the
following questions is the trial judge most likely to rule improper?

(a) “Isn’t it true that you are known in the community as an alcoholic?”
(b) “Weren’t you convicted last year of forgery?”
(c) “Isn’t it true that you and P have been best friends for many years?”
(d) “Didn’t you cheat your business partner last month?”

23. Donald was arrested and charged with the September 15 murder of Wilma. At trial, Donald called
as his first witness Abe, to testify to Donald’s reputation in the community as “a peace-loving man.”
Abe’s testimony will most likely be held to be:

(a) Admissible as tending to prove Donald is innocent.

(b) Admissible as tending to prove Donald Is believable.
(c) Inadmissible, because reputation is not a proper way to prove character.
(d) Inadmissible, because Donald has not testified.
24. Which of the following questions is most likely to be subject to the objection that it is leading?

(a) On direct examination of an eyewitness to an accident, plaintiff’s counsel asks,

“Was the light red when the defendant drove through the intersection?”
(b) On direct examination, counsels asks, “You live at No. 38 City Camp Central,
Baguio city, don’t you?”
(c) On cross-examination of an expert witness, counsel asks, “Isn’t it true doctor
that you cannot ascertain to a medical certainty the cause of the victim’s death?”
(d) On direct examination of the victim, a four-year old child, the prosecutor asks,
“Did the defendant touch you there?”

25. In an action for breach of contract, which of the following questions, if asked of a witness for
plaintiff on cross-examination by counsel for defendant, would most probably be ruled improper by
the trial court?

(a) “Isn’t it true that you are currently a resident of a drug rehabilitation center
recovering from shabu addiction?”
(b) “Weren’t you fired last year after your employer learned you had been using its
computerized accounting system to divert company funds to your personal bank
(c) “As a creditor of the plaintiff, isn’t it true that you stand to gain several thousand
pesos if plaintiff prevails in this suit?”
(d) “Weren’t you convicted last year by the RTC of Baguio of forgery?”


Ronald and his parents sue Gary for P400,000 for injuries they claim were caused when Gary’s car
hit Ronald one early morning when Ronald was out delivering newspapers. Ronald in the accident,
and Gary claims it was not his car that hit Ronald. Except for damages, the main issue in the suit is
whether it was Gary’s car that hit Ronald.

26. Ronald’s attorney asked Gary, “Is it true you spent P7,000 to put speed equipment on your car?”
The court should rule this question:

(a) Objectionable, because it is irrelevant.

(b) Objectionable, because it is leading.
(c) Unobjectionable because it shows Gary is irresponsible.
(d) Unobjectionable, because Gary can testify as to what he spent though a receipt may exist.

27. Gary’s own attorney asked him, “Could Ronald have mistaken your car for another?” This
question is:

(a) Objectionable, because the answer would be an opinion.

(b) Objectionable, because the answer would be hearsay.
(c) Unobjectionable because the answer would be relevant to the issue of whose car hit
(d) Unobjectionable, if a proper foundation has been laid.

28. Gary’s own attorney asked him, “Isn’t it true that your car is brown, and you heard Ronald tell his
mother he was hit by a black car?” The judge should rule the question objectionable because:
(a) It is leading.
(b) The answer would be hearsay.
(c) The answer would be irrelevant since it was dark.
(d) It is argumentative.

29. Gary seeks to testify that he “always” takes a specific road when he goes home from work, and
that the road he takes was different from the one on which Ronald was hit. The judge should find the
offer to testify:

(a) Unobjectionable, as calling for evidence of habit.

(b) Objectionable, as calling for self-serving declaration.
(c) Unobjectionable, if it is offered as impeachment evidence.
(d) Objectionable, because it is not relevant.

30. Which of the following would the court be least likely to take judicial notice of?

(a) The birth date of the plaintiff’s son is October 25, 1982.
(b) It rained in the city in which the parties reside on March 5, 2011.
(c) Labor Day is May 1, and it is a regular non-working holiday.
(d) The plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment in the same court in which the case
is being tried.


Amy is on trial for the murder of her husband. She is accused of pushing him from the window of
their 12th-floor apartment; she claims he committed suicide.

31. Bea, a friend, was called to testify that Amy had told her that she pushed her husband from the
window. The judge should rule this testimony:

(a) Admissible, because it is an admission.

(b) Admissible, because it is a declaration against interest.
(c) Inadmissible, because it is hearsay.
(d) Inadmissible because it is a prior inconsistent statement which may be only used for
impeachment purposes.

32. Amy took the stand to testify on her own behalf. The prosecutor on cross-examination asked her,
“Isn’t it true that you were convicted of falsification of public document five years ago?”

The judge should rule this question:

(a) Proper, because the prosecutor may inquire into matters bearing on a witness’s credibility.
(b) Proper, because Amy has waived the privilege against self-incrimination by taking the
stand to testify.
(c) Improper, because the witness tends to degrade a witness.
(d) Improper, because on cross-examination, the prosecutor is limited to matters testified on
direct examination.

33. Amy called Boy to testify that Amy had a reputation of being a “good and loving person who
would never hurt anyone.”

The trial judge should rule the testimony:

(a) Admissible, because it tends to show the relevant good character of Amy.
(b) Admissible, because it is not hearsay.
(c) Inadmissible, because it is hearsay.
(d) Inadmissible because the prosecution has not introduced evidence concerning Amy’s


Noynoy is on trial for armed robbery which took place three years ago. Noynoy claims that he was
out of town at the time of the robbery.

34. Noynoy calls Shalani to the stand as an alibi witness to testify that she was with him on the trip.
When asked where she was and who she was with on the date in question, Shalani stated that she
could not recall. She said she recalls spending a weekend at the Hollywood Hotel three years ago , but
she does not recall the date or her traveling companion . Renato Coronado, Noynoy’s attorney, then
showed her a letter written by her on Hollywood Hotel stationery , and asks her to look at it and try
to answer the question again. Miriam Defendor, the lady prosecutor, objects, “Whaaa! Objection!”

The objection should be:

(a) Overruled, but Shalani cannot depend on the terms of the letter when answering.
(b) Overruled, because this is past recollection recorded.
(c) Sustained, because the letter is hearsay.
(d) Sustained, because the letter has not been properly authenticated.

35. Shalani responded to the above question by stating, “I do recall that it was the weekend of the
robbery that I was at the Hollywood Hotel, because I now remember that it was the same weekend as
my mother’s birthday; but I would not go around the block with a cad like Noynoy, let alone a
romantic trip.” Noynoy’s attorney then asks, “Didn’t you in fact state when we met that you were with
Noynoy for the entire weekend, and it was one of the most memorable weekends of your life?” The
prosecution objects.

The question is:

(a) Proper, if the judge finds that Shalani is hostile.

(b) Proper, because it constitutes refreshing the witness’s recollection.
(c) Improper, because this is a leading question on direct examination.
(d) Improper, because Noynoy cannot impeach his own witness.

36. Noynoy’s attorney then seeks to introduce Shalani’s statement to the police. The prosecution
objects. The statement is:

(a) Admissible, for impeachment purposes and as substantive evidence.

(b) Admissible, for impeachment purposes only.
(c) Inadmissible, because it is hearsay.
(d) Inadmissible because Shalani is available to testify.

37. The prosecution calls Grace, Noynoy’s wife, to testify that just before the robbery, Noynoy
purchased a gun. She will also testify that she found the floor plan of the victim’s house in Noynoy’s
briefcase. Noynoy’s attorney objects.
The objection should be:

(a) Overruled, because Grace may choose to testify.

(b) Overruled, because the rule on spousal privilege does not apply.
(c) Sustained, because spousal privilege belongs to the spouse-party.
(d) Sustained, because Noynoy acted in reliance upon the intimacy of the marital relationship.

38. Django was arrested and charged with the murder of Elmer, a member of the Baguio Country
Club. Elmer was found dead near the locker room inside the club. Django allegedly entered the club,
killed Elmer, and left before anyone discovered the body. At trial, the prosecution called the security
guard of the club who testified that, although he could not identify Django by sight, he remembered
admitting a member the day of the murder who showed a membership card bearing the name of
Wilson Cruz. The prosecution then sought to admit the testimony of a police officer that a
membership card to the Baguio Country Club bearing the name of Wilson Cruz was found on
Django’s person at the time of his arrest.

Django’s best argument in seeking to exclude the police officer’s testimony is that it:

(a) Violates the best evidence rule.

(b) Is irrelevant to the fact in issue.
(c) Is about a purely collateral matter.
(d) Incompetent to show motive.

39. P sues D for damages because of the beating committed on him by D. D’s defense is that it is all a
case of mistaken identity. D admits that P was beaten up, but claims he had nothing to do with P’s
injuries. At trial, D testified in own behalf that on the date that P suffered his injuries, D was on an
extended vacation in Hawaii, thousands of miles away. P’s counsel did not cross-examine D
regarding that testimony. In rebuttal, P’s counsel calls W, who is willing to testify that one week after
P suffered his injuries, D said to W, “I haven’t been out of the country in five years.”

W’s testimony is:

(a) Admissible as an admission by D.

(b) Admissible as a prior inconsistent statement of D.
(c) Inadmissible for being irrelevant.
(d) Inadmissible for being purely a collateral matter.

40. Mrs. Aldana, an elderly woman, was the only eyewitness, other than the parties, to an automobile
accident that resulted in a lawsuit. Aldana viewed the accident while tending to her garden. At trial,
the plaintiff calls Aldana to the stand. After a few questions, it becomes clear that Aldana remembers
having seen the accident, but her memory of the details has grown fuzzy. The plaintiff’s attorney
wishes to introduce into evidence the contents of some handwriting notes made by Aldana when she
returned to her room after witnessing the accident.

Which of the following are true statements with respect to the admissibility of the contents of the

I. Aldana must testify that the notes are accurate.

II. It must be shown that the notes were prepared at a time when Aldana was under the excitement
of the event and had not had time to reflect on the accident.
III. Aldana must be given the notes to examine to determine if she still has insufficient memory, after
consulting the notes, to testify fully and accurately.

IV. The plaintiff’s attorney may not introduce the notes into evidence as an exhibit under any

(a) I., III., and IV. only.

(b) I. and II. only.
(c) II. and III. only.
(d) I and IV. only.

PART II (20%)

1. Every person accused of a crime is constitutionally presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved. On the other hand, a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent
wrongful act is presumed to be the taker and doer of the whole act.

Considering the seeming conflict between these two presumptions, how may they come into
play and be applied in an actual prosecution for theft? (10pct.)

2. Distinguish between parol evidence rule and best evidence rule.

Prepared by: