CAYEN CERVANCIA CABIGUEN, MLQU SCHOOL OF LAW Page 1 MCQS IN EVIDENCE ACOBA, MILAGROS D. 1. The lifeless body of Aliw was found in a vacant lot in Bgy. Patiis. Witnesses claimed that they saw Ador with Aliw a few hours before the lifeless body was found. Immediately thereafter, the police immediately arrested Ador. The crime lab findings revealed that Aliw had been raped. Ador broke down, and without the presence of counsel, finally confessed to the investigator that he raped and then killed Aliw afterwards. During the trial, the prosecutor presented the investigator to testify on the oral confession of Ador. Is the oral confession of Ador admissible in evidence of his guilt? a. Yes. The declaration of the accused acknowledging his guilt may be given in evidence against him and there are witnesses to prove it. b. Yes. The presence of the assisting counsel may be dispensed with as Ador had already confessed his guilt. c. No. Custodial confession may not be used as evidence against him without an assisting counsel as it violates his right to due process of law. d. No. Ador was only made to confess of the crime for fear of his life in the hands of the police. 2. Bato Bato and his group of policemen brought Cardo to the nearest government hospital to perform emergency surgery on his stomach to recover a packet containing 15 grams of cocaine which they saw he swallowed. The surgery was done and the packet containing cocaine was retrieved. Is the packet of cocaine admissible in evidence? a. Yes. The retrieved cocaine is evidence enough that Cardo is carrying illegal drugs, absent due process. b. Yes. The police and the surgeon can testify to the veracity of the fact that Cardo has swallowed the subject cocaine. c. No. The paĐket of ĐoĐaiŶe ƌeĐoǀeƌed iŶ Caƌdos stoŵaĐh ǁas plaŶted ďLJ the police. d. No. the packet of cocaine extƌaĐted fƌoŵ Caƌdos stoŵaĐh ǁithout his ĐoŶseŶt violates his fundamental rights to due process. 3. Under the Rules on Evidence, the following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. a. A tenant ĐaŶŶot deŶLJ his laŶdloƌds title duƌiŶg the teŶaŶĐLJ peƌiod b. That a person is innocent of crime or wrong c. That an unlawful act was done with lawful intent d. A writing is duly dated 4. Rico Sto. Isobel was charged with kidnapping Mr. Eick Joo. During the preliminary iŶǀestigatioŶ, “to. Isoďels ǁife appƌoaĐhed Mƌs. Joo, the ǀiĐtiŵs ǁife, offeƌiŶg fiǀe million pesos plus a share to their lucrative insurance. Mrs. Joo refused the offer. During the trial, prosecution presented Mrs. Joo to testify on Mrs. Sto. Isobels offeƌ aŶd theƌeďLJ estaďlish aŶd iŵplied adŵissioŶ of guilt. Is Mƌs. “to. Isoďels offeƌ to settle admissible in evidence? a. Yes. The offer to settle by Mrs. Sto. Isobel is admissible in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.