Wife testifies against former husband for a matter Husband testifies against former wife for a matter

learned in confidence during their marriage. learned in confidence during their marriage.
A grandfather may be compelled by subpoena to testify A grandfather may be compelled by subpeona to testify
in favor of his grandchild’s uncle. in favor of his granchild’s step father.
Evidence was obtained in a motor vehicle during a A prohibited drug was obtained during a search but it
checkpoint but without a warrant. was not included in a search warrant.
Object evidence was testified to by a witness who saw it Documentary evidence was testified to by a witness by a
but he or she was not able to see the crime scene. person who knows the signature of the parties but he did
not see the signing of the document.

A person recorded a message citing reasonable ground A person who was sleeping in a bus overheard a
because of lack of time before seeking a court order. conversation about kidnapping and recorded the same.
After that, he then went to the court together with the
police to obtain court order.
The legal wife was able to obtain a birth certificate of A legal spouse was able to obtain a birth certificate of
illegitimate child by forging the signature of the husband. illegitimate child by forging the signature of the other
spouse.
A person confessed to his crimes without a lawyer after A person confessed to his crime crying before the the
recitation of his miranda rights police could ask something but he was not informed of
his Miranda rights and he was without a lawyer.

A police relayed to the court the note written by the A police immediately asked upon arriving to the crime
victim “Jhon Doe killed me”. The latter was revived by scene “What happened?”. Using his dying breath, he said
doctors in the hospital and is still recovering. “ Cardo Dalisay”. He relayed it to the court to prove that
Cardo Dalisay is the perpetrator.
A police saw a civilian and suddenly asked if he has A police saw a civilian and requested that he open his
firearms. He inspected the same and asked for license to trunk. The police saw a sachet of crystalline substance.
carry. The civilian had no license. The firearm is The chemist testified that it was shabu. The sachet of
________> shabu is ________.
A police asked the civilian to sell drugs. The civilian A police saw Mang Kanor, holding a joint with brown
complied and was later arrested by another police who leaves. He appears high with his red eyes. The police
was a poseur buyer. The drugs sold are ______. arrested Mang Kanor informing him of his Miranda
rights. The joint obtained tested positive for Marijuana.
The joint is ______.
A child was compelled by subpoena to testify against his A child was compelled by subpoena to testify against his
step father. brother.
A partner in crime admitted acts which happened after A conspirator admitted acts which happened before the
the conspiracy. conspirach.
Mario presented , Peach, a witness who saw the Luigi presented a witness who saw the execution of the
execution of the original deed of sale. It was proven later original deed of donation. It was proven later on that
on that Luigi,destroyed the original document out of Mario had been in posession the whole time and he
anger. The testimony of evidence is _______. refuses the give the same. The secondary evidence is
Bonggo executed a notarial will. He died. His brother Bonggo executed a notarial will. He died. His brother
Bato presented the same notarial will. Mar presented a Bato presented the same notarial will. Mar presented
holographic will as parol evidence. The holographic will is Korina, a witness who saw and heard Bonggo’s last
______. moments about who is to inherit his property. The
testimony of Korina is ______>
Tony Stark is a doctor who presented Singapore Journal Bruce Banner is a chemist who presented China’s Journal
of Medicine as the basis of his actions. He did not of Biochemistry as the basis of his conclusion. He did not
conduct the research himself. His testimony is _______. conduct the research himself. His testimony is.

The act of the prosecution after he rests his The action or ruling of the judge if he agrees to
case. the objection of the lawyer.
The act which must be done the lawyer who The action or ruling of the judge if he does not
sees any evidence which is inadmissible. agree to the objection of the lawyer.
This will happen to the evidence if the The act of the accused after he rests his case.
objection of the opposing counsel is sustained.

Evidence that is beyond the agreement of the No other evidence is admissible other than the
parties. agreement reduced in writing.
All other writings other than official documents Writings which consist of official acts or
of the government, notary public and public declaration of the Philippine government,
records. notary public and public record.
The right of a party cannot be prejudiced by an It is taken as an implied admission of guilt in
act, declaration or omission of another. criminal cases.
Statements made by a person while a starting Evidence that one did or did not do a certain
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior thing at one time is not admissible to prove
thereto with respect to the circumstances that he did or did not do the same or similar
thereof thing at another time but it may be received to
prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity,
plan, system, habit, custom or usage and the
like.
Consisting of a copy, testimony of a witness The rule that requires proof of existence of the
orrecital of the contents of an original original and the reason for the original’s
document in some authentic document. unavailability before a copy, testimony of a
witness orrecital of the contents of an original
document in some authentic document, may
be given in evidence.
X testifies before the prosecutor that he killed X testifies before the Honorable Court that he
jhon. His testimony is called. killed jhon. His testimony is called.
Evidence that is sufficient for conviction if there The standard of proof derived from American
are more than one circumstances, the facts common law. It is less than proof beyond
from which the inferences are derived are reasonable doubt (for criminal cases) but
proven; and the combination of all the greater than preponderance of evidence (for
circumstances is such as to produce a civil cases). This is used to prove alibi and self
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. defense.