Practice question
A plaintiff alleges that the defendant forged a signature and offers a handwriting expert's properly received comparison and admitted specimen signatures. The judge writes, 'Forgery is alleged, therefore the supporting facts need not be evaluated.' What is wrong with that reasoning?
- Nothing; an allegation automatically proves its supporting facts
- Nothing; alleging forgery shifts every burden conclusively
- The expert's testimony must be rejected solely because it is evidence
- The court confuses the ultimate proposition with proof of it and must evaluate the supporting evidentiary facts
- The court must decide solely by counting specimens
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/pdf/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.pdf — A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, effective May 1, 2020; Rules 128 §§1–4, 130 §§1–2, 131 §1, and 133 §§1–2,6.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_182356_2013.html — Dela Llana v. Biong, G.R. No. 182356, December 4, 2013, MAIN decision (evidentiary facts, ultimate fact, and admissibility versus weight).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.