Scoring:

15%
10-wrong categorical answer
12-correct categorical answer, wrong/ incomplete legal basis
13-correct categorical answer, correct legal basis
15-correct categorical answer, correct legal basis, correct wrap up/complete answer
5%
3- wrong categorical answer
4-correct categorical answer, wrong/ incomplete legal basis, correct legal basis
5-complete answer
20%
13-wrong categorical answer
15- correct categorical answer, wrong/ incomplete legal basis
18- correct categorical answer, correct legal basis
20-complete answer
1.
Objection sustained.
In cases decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that extrajudicial admissions or
confessions, to be admissible, must be reduced in writing and made in the presence
of counsel. This is in view of the right of a person under custodial investigation to be
assisted by counsel.
Evidences taken in violation of rights of the accused are inadmissible under the
doctrine of fruit of poisonous tree.
In the case at bar, the alleged admissions of Edmond were taken in violation of his
constitutional rights. Thus, it is considered a fruit of poisonous tree which shall be
inadmissible.
2.
A)
Objection overruled.

Marital privilege rule provides that(see codal)

In the case at bar, there is no priv comm, hence, marital priv does not apply.
(*Ung UP reviewer, marital DQ ang sinasabi eh marital priv ang tanong.)
B)
Objection overruled.
Marital disqualification rule applies to husband and wife
In the case at bar, the disqualification does not apply as Graciana is not the wife of
Mabini.
C)
No.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement
In the case at bar, the text message is not covered by hearsay rule as it is regarded
as independently relevant statement. The text message is not to prove the truth of
the fact alleged therein but only as to the circumstances of whether or not
premeditation exists.
D)
Yes.
Dying declaration is
In the case at bar, it is regarded as a dying declaration as the foregoing requisites
are present.
Alternative:
No.
The rules on electronic evidence apply only to civil, quasi-judicial and admin
proceedings, not to criminal actions.
In the case at bar, the text message being regarded as an electronic evidence is not
admissible as the case involves a criminal action.
3.
No.

The doctrine of poisonous tree provides that evidence illegally obtained is not
admissible in evidence.
While the doctrine may be raised as a defense by Dominique in the crime of
Violation of Human Security Act filed against him, the same may not be invoked by
the accused in the torture case filed by Dominique. The affidavit of confession made
by Dominique is to be admitted in his favor, thus, admissible.
4.
How to dispute veracity and accuracy of the results of DNA evidence?
Standards:
-How the samples were collected
-How they were handled
-The possibility of contamination of the samples
-The procedure followed in analyzing the samples
-Whether the proper standards and procedure were followed in conducting the tests
-The qualifications of the analyst who conducted the test
(*Consider keywords only if possible.
Scoring:
Enumerated 3 and below-10
4-12
5-13
6-15
5.
Suggested answer (A)
No.
"Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what
shall be done with his own body(Alano vs. Magud-Logmao, GR No. 175540)
In the case at bar, the package of shabu was extracted from the body of Lorenzo is
not admissible in evidence because it was obtained through surgery which connotes

forcible invasion into the bod of the Lorenzo without his consent and in the absence
of due process. This has violated his fundamental right over his own body.
(*Note: Malamang wala yung legal basis. So just consider nalang kung nakuha nila
ung sense nung wrap up)
Suggested answer (B)
Yes.
Under the law, a person has right against self-incrimination. However, in a case
decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that invasive and involuntary procedures
are constitutionally sound.
In the case at bar, there is no violation of right against self-incrimination as the
performance of surgery to obtain evidence, even without the consent of the patient,
has been held constitutionally sound.
6.
The objection is on the ground that the fact sought to be elicited by the prosecution
is irrelevant and immaterial to the offense under prosecution and trial. Moreover,
the Rules do not allow the prosecution to adduce evidence of bad moral character
of the accused pertinent to the offense charged, except on rebuttal and only if it
involves a prior conviction by final judgment.
(*Ung naka italize- keywords un.
13-no keywords
15- one keyword present
18- two keywords present
20-complete answer, with except phrase