Question No. 13(a) from the 2002 Remedial Law Bar Examination reads as follows:
“Delia sued Victor for personal injuries which she allegedly sustained when she was struck by a car driven by Victor. May the court receive in evidence, over proper and timely objection by Delia, a certified true copy of a judgment of acquittal in a criminal prosecution charging Victor with hit-and-run driving in connection with Delia’s injuries? Why?”
The examiner was Prof. Antonio R. Bautista and the question was later used in his 2004 book, Remedial Law Quizzer. His answer there was as follows:
“No. First, the evidence is irrelevant. Such a judgment of acquittal is not necessarily proof of innocence but merely establishes that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, the judgment is hearsay, there being no applicable exception. It is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth.”[1]
In Primer-Reviewer on Remedial Law, I answered the question in this wise. At the time I drafted the answer, I was not yet aware of Prof. Bautista’s answer:
“No, the court may not receive in evidence, over the timely objection that it is irrelevant, a certified true copy of the judgment of acquittal in the criminal case.
“In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. The result of the civil action is independent of the result of the criminal action.
“Here, the civil action was for damages arising from physical injuries. Hence it is an independent civil action which is separate and distinct from the criminal action and is not affected by the outcome of the criminal action. Thus, evidence of the judgment of acquittal is irrelevant.”
Prof. Bautista and I reached the same conclusion albeit with some differences in legal reasoning. Prof. Bautista used the concept of relevancy and hearsay while I relied on relevancy in relation to the rule on independent civil actions.
The resource panel of the UP Law Center reached a different conclusion, that is, that the evidence of the criminal judgment may be received in evidence:
“If the judgment of acquittal in the criminal case finds that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise does not exist, the court may receive it in evidence over the objection by Delia. [Rule 111, Sec. 2, last paragraph]”
An alternative answer was also given:
“If the judgment of acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, the court may receive it in evidence because in such a case, the civil action for damages which may be instituted requires only a preponderance of the evidence. (Art. 29, Civil Code).”[2]
The answers given above show that experts answering bar exam questions may differ not only with respect to the legal reasoning used, but even as to the conclusion. A bar examinee should therefore not be fixated on the conclusion but should pay more attention to the legal reasoning or argument used.
Experts tend to be laconic when they answer bar examination questions. They often use enthymemes and self-evident statements, that is, incomplete syllogisms. A bar examinee however is well-advised to use a complete syllogism in answering the bar. In this regard, training and practice, preferably under the guidance of bar exam coaches, will greatly boost the examinee’s chances of being granted leave by the Supreme Court en banc to inscribe his or her name in the roll of attorneys.
-oOo-
[1] ANTONIO R. BAUTISTA, REMEDIAL LAW QUIZZER 183 (2004 ed.).
[2] UP LAW CENTER, SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN REMEDIAL LAW (1997-2018), p. 493. The alternative answer is somewhat puzzling. If the acquittal was based on reasonable doubt, that should be an argument for not receiving in evidence the judgment of acquittal. Note that the UPLC answers are conditional, which as a rule should not be employed in the bar exam.
