48935652-Evidence-Reviewer.pdf

8/9/2019 48935652-Evidence-Reviewer.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/48935652-evidence-reviewerpdf 1/42

Preliminary ConsiderationsEvidence

Preliminary Considerations

Rule 128 – General Provisions

Section 1 – EVIDENCE DEFINEDEvidence is the means sanctioned !" these rules o#ascertainin$ in a %udicial &roceedin$ the truth

res&ectin$ a matter o# #act

Section 2 ' SC(PE)he rules o# evidence shall !e the same in all courts andin all trials and hearin$s e*ce&t as other+ise &rovided!" la+ or these rules,

• Evidence - mode and manner of proving competent factsin judicial proceedings

• Proof - result or effect of evidence» When the requisite quantum of evidence of a

particular fact has been duly admitted and givenweight

• Factum probandum ultimate fact or fact sought to be

established» proposition

• Factum probans evidentiary fact or the fact by which

the factum probandum is to be established» !aterials which establishes the proposition• "aw on evidence procedural law

» #hall not diminish$ increase or modify substantive

rights %#ec & %&'$ (rt )***$ +onsti'» ,ew rules may be held applicable to cases pending

at the time of the change in rules as parties have novested right in the rules of evidence

E.cept in criminal cases when the new rulewould permit reception of lesser quantum ofevidence to convict -/ unconstitutional$ e.

post facto» Principally found in 01+

#pecial laws2 0( 3455$ +ode of +ommerce (rt336$ +ivil +ode$ 0P+ (rt 478

» 9ill of 0ights #ec 4 and : #ee notes under #ec ::$ 0ule 7:5 0ight against self-incrimination cannot be

invo;ed in situations covered by immunitystatutes

• 0( 7:8< immunity to witnesses in

proceedings for forfeiture of unlawfullyacquired property

• P= 83< immunity in bribery and graft

cases» #pecifically applicable only in judicial proceedings

>uasi-judicial2 suppletory character wheneverpracticable and convenient$ e.cept when thegoverning law specifically adopts 01+

• +lassification of evidence based on 01+27? 1bject that which is directly addressed to the

senses of the court and consists of tangible thingse.hibited or demonstrated in open court$ in an

ocular inspection or at a place designated by thecourt for its view or observation of an e.hibition$

e.periment or demonstration (utoptic proference presenting in open court

the evidentiary articles for the observation or

inspection of the tribunal4? =ocumentary evidence evidence supplied by

written instruments or derived from conventionalsymbols$ such as letters$ by which ideas arerepresented on material substances

:? @estimonial submitted to the court through thetestimony or deposition of a witness

• 1ther classifications7? 0elevant$ !aterial$ and +ompetent Evidence

a? 0elevant evidence having any value inreason as tending to prove any matterprovable in an action

• @est of relevancy logical relation of the

evidentiary fact to the fact in issue$whether it tends to prove the probability

or improbability of the fact in issueb? !aterial evidence directed to prove a fact in

issue as determined by the rules of substantivelaw and pleadings

• !ateriality of evidence is determined byW1, the fact it tends to prove is in issue

c? +ompetent one that is not e.cluded by the0ules$ law or +onsti

4? =irect and +ircumstantial Evidencea? =irect that which proves the fact in dispute

without the aid of any inference or

presumptionb? +ircumstantial proof of the fact or facts from

which$ ta;en either singly or collectively$ thee.istence of a particular fact in dispute may be

inferred as a necessary or probableconsequence

:? +umulative and +orroborative Evidence

a? +umulative evidence of the same ;ind and tothe same state of facts

b? +orroborative additional evidence of adifferent character to the same point

3? Prima facie and +onclusive Evidencea? Prima facie that which$ standing alone$

une.plained or uncontradicted$ is sufficient to

maintain the proposition affirmedb? +onclusive that class of evidence which the

law does not allow to be contradicted&? Primary and #econdary Evidence

a? Primary or best evidence$ that which the law

regards as affording the greatest certainty ofthe fact in question

b? #econdary evidence substitutionaryevidence$ that which is inferior to the primary

evidence and is permitted by law only whenthe best evidence is not available

A? Positive and ,egative Evidencea? Positive when a witness affirms that a fact

did or did not occur

• Entitled to greater weight since witness

represents of his personal ;nowledgeb? ,egative witness states that he did not see

or ;now of the occurrence of a fact

• @otal disclaimer of personal ;nowledge

Section - – .D/ISSI0II) (F EVIDENCEEvidence is admissi!le +hen it is relevant to the issueand is not e*cluded !" the la+ or these rules

Section 3 – REEV.NC4 C(.)ER. /.))ERSEvidence must have such a relation to the #act in issueas to induce !elie# in its e*istence or non'e*istence,Evidence on collateral matters shall not !e allo+ede*ce&t +hen it tends in an" reasona!le de$ree toesta!lish the &ro!a!ilit" o# the #acts in issue

• @wo requisites for admissibility2

7? 0elevance determinable by rules of logic andhuman e.perience

,one but facts having rational probative valueare admissible %Wigmore'

4? +ompetence determined by prevailinge.clusionary rules of evidence (ll facts having rational probative value are

admissible unless some specific rule forbids

their admission» @herefore$ admissibility is an affair of logic and law

• (dmissibility determined at the time it is offered to the

court» 1bject evidence offered when presented for the

courtBs view or evaluation

» @estimonial offered by the calling of the witness tothe stand

» =ocumentary formally offered by the proponentimmediately before he rests his case

• 1bjection to the admissibility made at the time suchevidence is offered or as soon as the objection to theadmissibility shall have become apparent

» 1therwise$ waived• +onditional admissibility where the evidence at the

time it is offered appears to be immaterial or irrelevantunless it is connected with the other facts to be

subsequently proved$ such evidence may be received oncondition that the other facts will be proved thereafter$otherwise the evidence will be stric;en out

» >ualif ication2 no bad faith on the part of theproponent

azerethpage 1



Preliminary ConsiderationsEvidence

,ecessary to avoid unfair surprises to theother party

• !ultiple admissibility where evidence is relevant andcompetent for two or more purposes$ such evidence

should be admitted for any and all the purposes forwhich it is offered provided it satisfies all the

requirements of law for its admissibility• +urative admissibility treats upon the right of a party

to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where

the court has admitted the same ;ind of evidence of theadverse party

» @heories27? (merican rule admission of such incompetent

evidence$ without objection by the opponentdoes not justify such opponent in rebutting itby similar incompetent evidence

4? English rule if a party has presentedinadmissible evidence? @he adverse party may

resort to similar incompetent evidence:? !assachusetts rule adverse party may be

permitted to introduce similar incompetentevidence in order to avoid a plain and unfairprejudice caused by the admission of the other

partyBs» @o determine application2

7? W1, incompetent evidence was reasonably

objected to$ and4? W1,$ regardless of the objection vel non$ the

admission will cause a plain and unfairprejudice to the party against whom it is

admitted +onversely$ where admissible evidence has

been improperly e.cluded$ the other partyshould not be permitted to introduce similar

evidence %!artin'• Former rule2 illegally obtained evidence still admissible

unless specifically forbidden

» (bandoned in #tonehill vs? =io;no -/ documentaryevidence$ illegally obtained$ is inadmissible on a

timely motion or action to suppress• +ollateral matters matters other than the facts in issue

and which are offered as a basis for inference as to thee.istence or non-e.istence of the facts in issue» *rrelevant collateral matters inadmissible

» +ircumstantial evidence evidence of relevantcollateral facts

• Weight to evidence$ once admitted$ depends on judicialevaluation %0ule 7:: and jurisprudence'

azerethpage 2



What Need Not Be ProvedEvidence

What Need Not Be Proved

Rule 125 – 6hat Need Not 0e Proved

Section 1 – 7DICI. N()ICE 69EN /.ND.)(R. court shall ta:e %udicial notice +ithout theintroduction o# evidence o# the e*istence and territorial

e*tent o# states their &olitical histor" #orms o#$overnment and s"m!ols o# nationalit" the la+ o#nations the admiralt" and maritime courts o# the +orldand their seals the &olitical constitution and histor" o#the Phili&&ines the o##icial acts o# le$islative e*ecutiveand %udicial de&artments o# the Phili&&ines the la+s o#nature the measure o# time and the $eo$ra&hicaldivisions,

Section 2 – 7DICI. N()ICE 69EN DISCRE)I(N.R. court ma" ta:e %udicial notice o# matters +hich are o#&u!lic :no+led$e or are ca&a!le to un;uestiona!ledemonstration or ou$ht to !e :no+n to %ud$es !ecauseo# their %udicial #unctions,

Section - – 7DICI. N()ICE 69EN 9E.RINGNECESS.R

Durin$ the trial the court on its o+n initiative or onre;uest o# a &art" ma" announce its intention to ta:e %udicial notice o# an" matter and allo+ the &arties to !eheard thereon,.#ter the trial and !e#ore %ud$ment or on a&&eal the&ro&er court on its o+n initiative or on re;uest o# a&art" ma" ta:e %udicial notice o# an" matter and allo+the &arties to !e heard thereon i# such matter isdecisive o# a material issue in the case,

• Cudicial notice cogniDance of certain facts which judges

may properly ta;e and act on without proof because theyalready ;now them

» 9ased on considerations of e.pediency andconvenience

» !ay be ta;en by court on its own motion or when itis requested by either parties +ourt will allow the parties to be heard on the

matter in question» !ust be e.ercised with caution and every

reasonable doubt on the subject must be resolved inthe negative

• +ourts are required to ta;e judicial notice of laws» =ifferent with ordinances2

!@+ required to ta;e judicial notice of

ordinances of the municipality or city whereinthey sit

0@+ must ta;e judicial notice only27? When required to do so by statute

4? *n a case of appeal before them whereinthe inferior court too; judicial notice of anordinance involved in said case

» 1r when capable of unquestionabledemonstration %also applies with

administrative regulations'

• +ourts are required to ta;e judicial notice of thedecisions of appellate courts but not of the decisions ofcoordinate courts» ,ot even the decision or the facts involved in

another case tried by the same court itself nless the parties introduce the same in

evidence or doing so is convenient• Foreign laws question of fact

» !ay not be ta;en judicial notice and have to beproved E.cept2 said laws are within the actual

;nowledge of the court» @o prove written foreign law2 follow requirements in

#ec 43-4&$ 0ule 7:4» !ay be subject of judicial admission

» Processual presumption - no proof nor admission$foreign law presumed to be the same as that in thePhilippines

» @o prove unwritten foreign law #ec 3A$ 0ule 7:5

Section 3 – 7DICI. .D/ISSI(NS

.n admission ver!al or +ritten made !" a &art" in thecourse o# the &roceedin$s in the same case does notre;uire &roo#, )he admission ma" !e contradicted onl"!" sho+in$ that it +as made throu$h &al&a!le mista:eor that no such admission +as made,

• Cudicial admissions may be made in7? Pleadings filed by the parties4? @he course of the trial$ either by verbal or written

manifestations or stipulations:? 1ther stages of the judicial proceeding

• !ust be made in the same case in which it is offered» *f made in another case or in another court must

be proved as in any other fact$ but entitled greaterweight (dmissible unless2

7? !ade only for purposes of the first case4? Withdrawn with the permission of the

court:? +ourt deems it proper to relieve the party

• (dmissions in a pleading which have been withdrawn orsupersede by an amended pleading» +onsidered as e.trajudicial admissions

» owever$ the rule seems now to include supersededpleadings as judicial admissions

im vs, 7a!alde <1585=Facts subject of a stipulation or agreement entered into

by the parties at the pre-trial of a case constitute judicialadmission by them which$ under this section$ do not require

proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown tohave been made through palpable mista;e?

PCI0 vs, Escolin <15>3=When the parties in a case agree on what the foreign

law provides$ these are admissions of fact which the otherparties and the court are made to rely and act uponG hence

they are in estoppel to subsequently ta;e a contrary position

azerethpage 3



Admissibility of EvidenceEvidence

Admissibility of Evidence

Rule 1-? – Rules o# .dmissi!ilit"

., (07EC) <RE.= EVIDENCE

SEC)I(N 1 ' (07EC) .S EVIDENCE

(!%ects as evidence are those addressed to the senseso# the court, 6hen an o!%ect is relevant to the #act inissue it ma" !e e*hi!ited to e*amined or vie+ed !"the court,

• Where object is relevant to a fact in issue$ court mayacquire ;nowledge by2

7? (ctually viewing the object becomes objectevidence

4? 0eceiving testimonial evidence thereon• @he fact that an ocular inspection has been held does not

preclude a party from introducing other evidence on thesame issue» 1cular inspection lies within the discretion of the

court *nvalid if conducted by a judge without notice

or presence of the parties

• +ourt may refuse introduction of object evidence and relyon testimonial evidence alone if27? E.hibition of such object is contrary to public policy$

morals or decency

9ut if view is necessary in the interest of justice$ may still be e.hibited but the court

may e.clude the public from such view )iewing may not be refused if the indecent or

immoral object constitute the very basis forthe criminal or civil action

4? @o require its being viewed in court or in an ocular

inspection would result in delays$ inconvenience$and e.penses out of proportion to the evidentiary

value of such object:? #uch object evidence would be confusing or

misleading3? @estimonial or documentary evidence already

presented clearly portrays the object in question as

to render a view unnecessary• 1bject evidence includes any article or object which

may be ;nown or perceived by the use of any of thesenses sight %visual'$ hearing %auditory'$ touch

%tactile'$ taste %gustatory'$ or smell %olfactory'» *ncludes2

7? E.amination of the anatomy of a person or of

any substance ta;en therefrom4? +onduct of tests$ demonstrations$ or

e.periments:? E.amination of representative portrayals of the

object in question• 1bservations of the court may be amplified by

interpretations afforded by testimonial evidence$

especially be e.perts• =ocuments are considered object evidence if the purpose

is to2

7? Prove their e.istence or condition or the natureof the handwritings thereon

4? =etermine the age of the paper used or theblemishes or alterations thereon

» 1therwise$ considered documentary evidence

0, D(C/EN).R EVIDENCE

Section 2 – D(C/EN).R EVIDENCEDocuments as evidence consists o# +ritin$s or an"material containin$ letters +ords num!ers #i$uress"m!ols or other modes o# +ritten e*&ressions o##eredas &roo# o# their contents

1, 0ES) EVIDENCE R E

Section - – (RIGIN. D(C/EN) /S) 0E PR(DCED4E@CEP)I(NS

6hen the su!%ect o# in;uir" is the contents o# adocument no evidence shall !e admissi!le other thanthe ori$inal document itsel# e*ce&t in the #ollo+in$casesA

a, 6hen the ori$inal has !een lost or destro"ed orcannot !e &roduced in court +ithout !ad #aith onthe &art o# the o##eror4

!, 6hen the ori$inal is in the custod" or under thecontrol o# the &art" a$ainst +hom the evidence iso##ered and the latter #ails to &roduce it a#terreasona!le notice4

c, 6hen the ori$inal consists o# numerous accountsor other documents +hich cannot !e e*amined in

court +ithout $reat loss o# time and the #act sou$htto !e esta!lished #rom them is onl" the $eneralresult o# the +hole4 and

d, 6hen the ori$inal is &u!lic record in the custod" o#a &u!lic o##icer or is recorded in a &u!lic o##ice

Section 3 – (RIGIN. (F D(C/EN)a, )he ori$inal o# a document is one the contents o#

+hich are the su!%ect o# in;uir",!, 6hen a document is in t+o or more co&ies

e*ecuted at or a!out the same time +ith identicalcontents all such co&ies are e;uall" re$arded asori$inals,

c, 6hen an entr" is re&eated in the re$ular course o#!usiness one !ein$ co&ied #rom another at or nearthe time o# the transaction all the entries areli:e+ise e;uall" re$arded as ori$inals,

• =ocument deed$ instrument or other duly authoriDedpaper by which something is proved$ evidenced$ or setforth

• 9est Evidence 0ule rule of e.clusion» #econdary evidence cannot inceptively be

introduced as the original writing itself must beproduced in court

» ,on-production of the original document$ unless justified under #ec :$ gives rise to the presumptionof suppression of evidence

» (pplies only when the content of such document isthe subject of inquiry

» *n criminal cases where the issue is not only withrespect to the contents of the document but also as

to whether such document actually e.isted with theparticipation therein as imputed to the accused$ theoriginal itself must be presented?

"ibel published in a newspaper2 copy of saidnewspaper

Falsif ication of a document2 original of thedocument

» =oes not apply if transactions have been recordedin writing but the contents of such writing are notthe subject of inquiry

(ffidavits and depositions strictly spea;ing$9E0 does not apply$ but will not be admitted if

affiants or deponents are available aswitnesses

/ahilum vs, C. <15BB=( signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document

e.ecuted at the same time as the originals is ;nown as aduplicate original and may be introduced in evidence without

accounting for the non-production of the original?

Peo&le vs, )an <1? Phil 1232=With respect to documents prepared in several copies

through the use of carbon sheets$ #+ has held that each

carbon copy is considered an original provided that the writingof a contract upon the outside sheet$ including the signature

of the party sought to be charged thereby$ produces afacsimile upon the sheets beneath$ such signature being thus

reproduced by the same stro;e of the pen which made thesurface or e.posed impression

• owever$ even if said signature on each copy was writtenthrough separate acts$ all of carbon copies are regarded

as originals if each copy was intended as a repository ofthe same legal act of the party thereto

• *mperfect carbon copies merely secondary evidence• @elegrams and cables depends on the issue to be

proved

» 1riginal dispatch issue is the contents of thetelegram as received by the addressee

» !essage delivered for transition issue as to thetelegram sent by the sender

azerethpage




» 9oth issue is the inaccuracy of the transmission

Provincial Fiscal o# Pam&an$a vs, Re"es < Phil 5?=1n the issue as to the contents of the articles sent by

the accused for publication$ the manuscript was the bestevidenceG but on the issue as to what was actually published$

a copy of the newspaper publication was the best evidence?

2, SEC(ND.R EVIDENCE

Section – 69EN (RIGIN. D(C/EN) ISN.V.I.0E6hen the ori$inal document has !een lost or destro"edor cannot !e &roduced in court the o##eror u&on &roo#o# its e*ecution or e*istence and the cause o# itsunavaila!ilit" +ithout !ad #aith on his &art ma" &roveits contents !" a co&" or !" a recital o# its contents insome authentic document or !" the testimon" o#+itnesses in the order stated,

• 0equisites2 proof by satisfactory evidence of 7? =ue e.ecution of the original

Proved through the testimony of either2

a? PersonHs who e.ecuted itGb? Person before whom its e.ecution was

ac;nowledgedG or

c? (ny person who was present and saw ite.ecuted and delivered or who thereaftersaw it and recogniDed the signatures$ orone to whom the parties thereto had

previously confessed the e.ecutionthereof

4? "oss$ destruction or unavailability of all suchoriginals$ not due to bad faith

*ntentional destruction of the originals by aparty who$ however$ had acted in good faithdoes not preclude his introduction of secondary

evidence of the contents thereof !ay be proved by any person who2

a? Inew of fact of loss or destructionb? ad made a sufficient e.amination of the

places where the document or papers ofsimilar character are usually ;ept by theperson in whose custody the document

was and has been unable to find itc? as made any other investigation which is

sufficient to satisfy the court that thedocument is indeed lost

:? 0easonable diligence and good faith in the search orattempt to produce the original

» (ll duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for

before using copies thereof

De Vera vs, .$uilar <155-=#ince all the duplicates or multiplicates are parts of the

writing to be proved$ no e.cuse for non-production of thedocument can be regarded as established until it appears thatall of its parts are unavailable

PN0 vs, (lila <58 Phil 1??2=When the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court$

as when it is in a foreign country$ secondary evidence isadmissible

• #econdary evidence may consist of2

7? +opy of said document4? 0ecital of its contents in an authentic document

:? 0ecollection of witnesses» *n this particular order

E.cept when specifically required by law

• E?g? lost notarial will testimony of atleast 4 credible witnesses

• 0econstitution governed by (ct :775 J jurisprudence

Section B – 69EN (RIGIN. D(C/EN) IS IN.DVERSE P.R)S CS)(D (R C(N)R(I# the document is in the custod" or under the controlo# the adverse &art" he must have reasona!le notice to&roduce it, I# a#ter such notice and a#ter satis#actor"&roo# o# its e*istence he #ails to &roduce the documentsecondar" evidence ma" !e &resented as in the case o#its loss

Section 8 – P.R) 69( C.S F(R D(C/EN) N()0(ND )( (FFER I). &art" +ho calls #or the &roduction o# a document andins&ects the same is not o!li$ed to o##er it as evidence

azerethpage !




• ,o particular form of notice is required» (s long as it fairly appraises the other party as to

what papers are desired• Even oral demand in court is allowed

» !ade on a reasonable time• ,otice must be given to the adverse party or his counsel

even if papers is in the hands of a third person

Phil, Read"'/i* Concrete Co, vs, Villacorta et al <58

Phil 55-=Where receipt of the original of a letter is ac;nowledged

on a carbon copy thereof$ there is no need for a notice to theother party to produce the original of the letter

• 0emember2 the duplicate copy$ if complete is itself an

original copy» 1nly issue2 receipt of the original

• Custified refusal of the adverse party to produce thedocument K presumption of suppression of evidence» 1nly authoriDes the introduction of secondary

evidence• Where such document is produced K admissibility

» 0equisites for admissibility must be present

• Production of evidence under 0ule 7:5 K Production of

evidence under 0ule 48

6arner 0arnes Co, td, vs, 0uena#lor <-B (G -25?=Where the nature of the action is in itself a notice$ as

where it is for the recovery or annulment of documentswrongfully obtained or withheld by the other party$ no noticeto produce said documents is required

• @hird e.ception to 9E0 justified not only by the fact

that the records are voluminous but also because thefatum probandum is just the general result of the whole

» For e.ception to apply7? @he voluminous character of the records must

be established

4? #uch records must be made available to theadverse party so that their correctness may be

tested on cross-e.amination» 1riginals have to be produced if2

=etailed contents of the records are challenged

for being hearsay7

*ssues are raised as to the authenticity orcorrectness of the detailed entries

Section > – EVIDENCE .D/ISSI0E 69EN (RIGIN.D(C/EN) IS . P0IC REC(RD6hen the ori$inal o# a document is in the custod" o# a&u!lic o##icer or is recorded in a &u!lic o##ice itscontents ma" !e &roved !" a certi#ied co&" issued !"the &u!lic o##icer in custod" thereo#

• +omplements the 3th e.ception to 9E0

» #ee 0ule 7:4 #ections 43 and 48

-, P.R( EVIDENCE R E

Section 5 – EVIDENCE (F 6RI))EN .GREE/EN)S6hen the terms o# an a$reement have !een reduced to+ritin$ it is considered as containin$ all the termsa$reed u&on and there can !e !et+een the &arties andtheir successors in interest no evidence o# such termsother than the contents o# the +ritten a$reement,9o+ever a &art" ma" &resent evidence to modi#"e*&lain or add to the terms o# +ritten a$reement i# he&uts in issue in his &leadin$Aa, .n intrinsic am!i$uit" mista:e or im&er#ection in

the +ritten a$reement4!, )he #ailure o# the +ritten a$reement to e*&ress the

true intent and a$reement o# the &arties thereto4c, )he validit" o# the +ritten a$reement4 ord, )he e*istence o# other terms a$reed to !" the

&arties or their successors in interest a#ter thee*ecution o# the +ritten a$reement,

)he term a$reement includes +ills,

7 # vs? 0aDon %:8 Phil 6&A'

De Guman vs, Calma <1?? Phil 1??8=Parol evidence is based upon the consideration that

when the parties have reduced their agreement on a particularmatter into writing$ all their previous and contemporaneous

agreements on the matter are merged therein

azerethpage "




• Parol evidence evidence aliunde %oral or written'» *ntended or tends to vary or contradict a complete

and enforceable agreement embodied in adocument

• (s long as they have been put into issue $ parol evidence

did not bar evidence of a collateral agreement in

instances where2» +ollateral agreement is not inconsistent with the

terms of the contract» +ollateral agreement has not been integrated in and

is independent of the written contract %suppletory tothe original document'

» +ollateral agreement is subsequent to the written

contract» +ollateral agreement constitutes a condition

precedent which determines whether the writtencontract may become effective

=oes not apply to a condition subsequent notstated in the agreement

• Parol evidence does not apply where at least one party to

the suit is not a party or privy of a party to the writtenagreement in question

Parol Evidence 0est Evidence

Presupposes that the originaldocument is available incourt

#ituation wherein the originalwriting is not available andHorthere is a dispute as to

whether said writing isoriginal

Prohibits the varying of theterms of a written agreement

Prohibits the introduction ofsubstitutionary evidence in

lieu of the original document

(pplies only documents that

are contractual in nature

(pplies to all ;inds of writings

+an be invo;ed only when

the controversy is betweenthe parties to the written

agreement$ their privies orany party directly affectedthereby %cestui que trust'

+an be invo;ed by any party

to the action

• @o be admissible$ mista;e or imperfection of the

document or its failure to e.press the true intent andagreement of the parties$ or the validity of the document

must be put in issue by the pleadings» Plaintiff failed to allege in his complaint cannot

introduce parol evidence

9ut if defendant invo;ed such fact in his

answer$ parol evidence may be introduced4

» owever$ even if not raised on the pleadings butparol evidence is not objected to$ objection deemed

waived

» !ista;e or imperfection must be proved by clear

and convincing evidence:

• !ista;e refers to mista;e of fact which is mutual to the

parties3

» 1r where the innocent party was imposed upon by

unfair dealing of the other

CC .rt, 1-B-6hen one &art" +as mista:en and the other :ne+or !elieved that the instrument did not state theirreal a$reement !ut concealed that #act #rom the#ormer the instrument ma" !e re#ormed,

• Failure to e.press true intent

» Purpose2 enable the court to ascertain the true

intent of the parties& or the true nature of their

agreement

4 P,0 vs? +F* of (lbay %7<86': @olentino vs? LonDales #y +hiam %&5 Phil &&6'3 9P* vs? Fidelity M #urety +o? %&7 Phil &8'& @olentino vs? LonDales #y +hiam %&5 Phil &&6'

• "atent ambiguity when the writing on its face appearsclear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters

or circumstances which ma;e the meaning uncertain

» 1r where the writing admits of two constructions

both of which are in harmony with the languageusedA

A *gnacio vs? 0ementeria %<< Phil 75&3'

azerethpage #




Palanca vs, Fred 6ilson Co, <8> Phil ?B=@he phrase Ncapacity of A$555 litersO used in connection

with a distilling apparatus was held to be a latentambiguity which had to be clarified by parol evidence to

determine whether it meant receiving$ treating$ or theproducing capacity of the machine

• Patent ambiguity e.trinsicG such ambiguity which isapparent on the face of the writing itself and requires

something to be added in order to ascertain the meaningof the words used

» Parol evidence is not admissible +ourt would not be construing a contract$ but

creating a contract for the parties

• *ntermediate ambiguity the words of the writing$

though seemingly clear and with a settled meaning$ isactually equivocal and admits of two interpretations8

» E.ample2 NdollarsO may refer to currency of # orI or (ustralia

N@onO can be long ton$ short ton$ displacement

ton$ freight ton or timber ton» Parol evidence is admissible to clarify the ambiguity

• 0emember2 falsa demonstration non nocet cum decorpore constat

» False description does not vitiate a document if thesubject is sufficiently identified

• ,o e.press trust concerning an immovable or any

interest therein may be proved by parol evidence

Section 1? ' IN)ERPRE).)I(N (F . 6RI)ING.CC(RDING )( I)S EG. /E.NING)he lan$ua$e o# a +ritin$ is to !e inter&reted accordin$to the le$al meanin$ it !ears in the &lace o# itse*ecution unless the &arties intended other+ise,

Section 11 ' INS)R/EN) C(NS)RED S( .S )( GIVEEFFEC) )( . PR(VISI(NSIn the construction o# an instrument +here there areseveral &rovisions or &articulars such a construction isi# &ossi!le to !e ado&ted as +ill $ive e##ect to all,

Section 12 ' IN)ERPRE).)I(N .CC(RDING )(IN)EN)I(N4 GENER. .ND P.R)IC.R PR(VISI(NS

In the construction o# an instrument the intention o#the &arties is to !e &ursued4 and +hen a $eneral and a&articular &rovision are inconsistent the latter is&aramount to the #ormer, So a &articular intent +illcontrol a $eneral one that is inconsistent +ith it,

Section 1- ' IN)ERPRE).)I(N .CC(RDING )(CIRC/S).NCESFor the &ro&er construction o# an instrument thecircumstances under +hich it +as made includin$ thesituation o# the su!%ect thereo# and o# the &arties to itma" !e sho+n so that the %ud$e ma" !e &laced in the&osition o# those +hose lan$ua$e he is to inter&ret,

Section 13 ' PECI.R SIGNIFIC.)I(N (F )ER/S)he terms o# a +ritin$ are &resumed to have !een usedin their &rimar" and $eneral acce&tation !ut evidence

is admissi!le to sho+ that the" have a local technicalor other+ise &eculiar si$ni#ication and +ere so usedand understood in the &articular instance in +hich casethe a$reement must !e construed accordin$l",

Section 1 ' 6RI))EN 6(RDS C(N)R( PRIN)ED6hen an instrument consists &artl" o# +ritten +ordsand &artl" o# a &rinted #orm and the t+o areinconsistent the #ormer controls the latter,

Section 1B ' E@PER)S .ND IN)ERPRE)ERS )( 0E SEDIN [email protected] CER).IN 6RI)INGS6hen the characters in +hich an instrument is +rittenare di##icult to !e deci&hered or the lan$ua$e is notunderstood !" the court the evidence o# &ersons s:illedin deci&herin$ the characters or +ho understand thelan$ua$e is admissi!le to declare the characters or themeanin$ o# the lan$ua$e,

8 0eferred to in (merican jurisprudence

Section 1> ' (F )6( C(NS)RC)I(NS 69IC9PREFERRED6hen the terms o# an a$reement have !een intended ina di##erent sense !" the di##erent &arties to it thatsense is to &revail a$ainst either &art" in +hich hesu&&osed the other understood it and +hen di##erentconstructions o# a &rovision are other+ise e;uall"&ro&er that is to !e ta:en +hich is the most #avora!leto the &art" in +hose #avor the &rovision +as made,

Section 18 ' C(NS)RC)I(N IN F.V(R (F N.)R.RIG9)6hen an instrument is e;uall" susce&ti!le o# t+ointer&retations one in #avor o# natural ri$ht and theother a$ainst it the #ormer is to !e ado&ted,

Section 15 ' IN)ERPRE).)I(N .CC(RDING )( S.GE.n instrument ma" !e construed accordin$ to usa$e inorder to determine its true character,

• 0ules on interpretation» For contracts2 ++ (rticles 7:85 to 7:8<» For wills2 ++ (rticles 866 to 8<3

C, )ES)I/(NI. EVIDENCE

1, H.IFIC.)I(N (F 6I)NESSES

Section 2? ' 6I)NESSES4 )9EIR H.IFIC.)I(NSE*ce&t as &rovided in the ne*t succeedin$ section all&ersons +ho can &erceive and &erceivin$ can ma:etheir :no+n &erce&tion to others ma" !e +itnesses,Reli$ious or &olitical !elie# interest in the outcome o#the case or conviction o# a crime unless other+ise&rovided !" la+ shall not !e $round #ordis;uali#ication,

Section 21 ' DISH.IFIC.)I(N 0 RE.S(N (F/EN). INC.P.CI) (R I//.)RI))he #ollo+in$ &ersons cannot !e +itnessesA

a, )hose +hose mental condition at the time o#their &roduction #or e*amination is such thatthe" are inca&a!le o# intelli$entl" ma:in$:no+n their &erce&tion to others4

!, Children +hose mental maturit" is such as torender them inca&a!le o# &erceivin$ the #actsres&ectin$ +hich the" are e*amined and o#relatin$ them truth#ull",

• >ualificationsHdisqualifications of witnesses - determinedas of the time the witnesses are produced for

e.amination in court or at the ta;ing of their depositions» +hildren of tender years ta;e into account their

competence at the time of the occurrence to betestified

• *nterest in the subject matter does not disqualify» (ffects only his credibility$ not his competency» E.cept2 =ead !anBs #tatute

• =efendant declared in default not disqualified fromtestifying fro his non-defaulting co-defendant

• +onviction of a crime not ground for disqualification

» 9ut must answer to the fact of a previous finalconviction as it may affect credibility

» E.cept2 conviction of falsification of a document$perjury or false testimony disqualified from being

witnesses to a will$ therefore cannot testify onprobate

• Nnsound mindO any mental aberration whetherorganic or functional or induced by drugs or hypnosis

» (t the time of the testimony» *f at the time of the fact to be testifies affects only

his credibility

Peo&le vs, De 7esus <1583=(s long as the witness can convey ideas by words or

signs and give sufficiently intelligent answers to questions

propounded$ she is a competent witness even if she is feeble-minded

• 1r a mental retardate$ or is a schiDophrenic• 0equirements for deaf-mutes2

7? +an understand and appreciate the sanctity of anoath

azerethpage $




4? +an comprehend facts they are going to testify to:? +an communicate their ideas through a qualified

interpreter• +onsiderations for a child witness2

7? +apacity at the time the fact to be testified occurredsuch that he could receive correct impressions

thereof 4? +apacity to comprehend the obligation of an oath:? +apacity to relate those facts truly at the time he is

offered a witness

Section 22 – DISH.IFIC.)I(N 0 RE.S(N (F/.RRI.GEDurin$ their marria$e neither the hus!and nor the +i#ema" testi#" #or or a$ainst the other +ithout the consento# the a##ected s&ouse e*ce&t in a civil case !" onea$ainst the other or in criminal case #or a crimecommitted !" one a$ainst the other or the lattersdirect descendants and ascendants

• +alled rule on marital disqualification or spousalimmunity

• 0equisites2

7? !arriage is valid and e.isting as of the time of theoffer of testimony

4? @he other spouse is a party to the action

• !ay be waived as in the case of other witnessesgenerally

eama vs, Rodri$ue <15B8=Where the wife is a co-defendant in a suit charging her

and her husband with collusive fraud$ she cannot be called as

an adverse party witness under %#ec 75$ 0ule 7:4' as this willviolate the marital disqualification rule?

Section 2- – DISH.IFIC.)I(N 0 RE.S(N (F DE.)9(R INS.NI) (F .DVERSE P.R)Parties or assi$nors o# &arties to a case or &ersons in+hose !ehal# a case is &rosecuted a$ainst an e*ecutoror administrator or other re&resentative o# a deceased&erson or a$ainst a &erson o# unsound mind u&on aclaim or demand a$ainst the estate o# such deceased&erson or a &erson o# unsound mind cannot testi#" asto an" matter o# #act occurrin$ !e#ore the death o# such

deceased &erson or !e#ore such &erson !ecame o#unsound mind

• =ead man statute

Dead /an Statute/arital Dis;uali#ication

Rule

Partial disqualification• =isqualified only to testify

as matter of factsoccurring before the death

of deceased person orbefore deceased person

became of unsound mind

+omplete disqualification

(pplies only to civil case or

special proceeding over theestate of deceased H insaneperson

(pplies to civil or criminal

case

• 0equisites2

7? Witness offered for e.amination is a party plaintiff$or the assignor of said party$ or a person in whosebehalf a case is prosecuted

Plaintiff must be the real party in interest ,ot applicable to mere witnesses

(ssignor one who transferred his interests ina case

• (ssignee not disqualified

=oes not apply where a counterclaim has beeninterposed by the defendant as the plaintiff

would thereby be testifying in his defense (lso if deceased contracted through an agent

4? +ase is against the e.ecutor or administrator or

representative of the deceased or insane person

,ecessary that defendant is being sued in hisrepresentative capacity and not in individual

capacity *f property involved has already been

adjudicated to the heirs$ still protected considered as representatives of the deceased

(pplies whether the deceased died before orafter the suit was filed as long as he was deadat the time the testimony is to be presented

:? +ase is upon a claim or demand against the estateof such deceased H insane person

=oes not apply where it is the administratorwho brought the action to recover property for

the estate3? @estimony to be given is on a matter of fact

occurring before the death of such deceased person

or before such person became of unsound mind ,egative testimony testimony that the fact

did not occur during the lifetime of thedeceased not covered

@estimony of the present possession by thewitness of a written instrument signed by thedeceased is also not covered

• !aBam2 misleading because the documentcontains acts of the deceased before he

died

• =oes not apply to land registration cases or cadastralcases

• Purpose2 discourage perjury and protect the estate fromfictitious claim

• Prohibition does not apply despite meeting allrequirements if2

7? @estimony is offered to prove a claim less than whatis established under a written document

4? @estimony is intended to prove a fraudulent

transaction of the deceased$ provided such fraud isfirst established by evidence aliunde

• =isqualification waived27? =efendant does not timely object to the admission

of such evidence4? =efendant testifies on the prohibited matters:? =efendant cross-e.amines thereon

Section 23 – DISH.IFIC.)I(N 0 RE.S(N (F

PRIVIEGED C(//NIC.)I(N)he #ollo+in$ &ersons cannot testi#" as to matterslearned in con#idence in the #ollo+in$ casesAa, )he hus!and or the +i#e durin$ or a#ter the

marria$e cannot !e e*amined +ithout the consento# the other as to an" communication received incon#idence !" one #rom the other durin$ themarria$e e*ce&t in a civil case !" one a$ainst theother or in a criminal case #or a crime committed!" one a$ainst the other or the latters directdescendants or ascendants4

!, .n attorne" cannot +ithout the consent o# hisclient !e e*amined as to an" communication made!" the client to him or his advice $iven thereon inthe course o# or +ith a vie+ to &ro#essionalem&lo"ment nor can the attorne"s secretar"steno$ra&her or cler: !e e*amined +ithout the

consent o# the client and his em&lo"er concernin$an" #act the :no+led$e o# +hich has !een ac;uiredin such ca&acit"4

c, . &erson authoried to &ractice medicine sur$er"or o!stetrics cannot in a civil case +ithout theconsent o# the &atient !e e*amined as to an"advice or treatment $iven !" him or an"in#ormation +hich he ma" have ac;uired inattendin$ such &atient in a &ro#essional ca&acit"+hich in#ormation +as necessar" to ena!le him toact in that ca&acit" and +hich +ould !lac:en there&utation o# the &atient4

d, . minister or &riest cannot +ithout the consent o#the &erson ma:in$ the con#ession !e e*amined asto an" con#ession made to or an" advice $iven !"him in his &ro#essional character in the course o#disci&line en%oined !" the church to +hich theminister or &riest !elon$s4

e, . &u!lic o##icer cannot !e e*amined durin$ histerm o# o##ice or a#ter+ards as to an"communications made to him in o##icial con#idence

azerethpage %




+hen the court #inds that the &u!lic interest +ouldsu##er !" the disclosure,

• 1bjections can only be made by the persons protected

and may be waived by the same persons e.pressly orimpliedly

/arital Privile$e• 0equisites for marital privilege2

7? @here was a valid marital relations4? Privilege was invo;ed with respect to a

confidential communication between thespouses during the said marriage

:? #pouse against whom the testimony is givendid not give hisHher consent

• Privilege cannot be claimed to confidential matters given

before the marriage• Privilege cannot be invo;ed if the communication was not

intended to be confidential• *f third person heard the communication$ such person is

not covered by the prohibition» 9ut if person is the agent of one spouse$ covered by

the prohibition

/arital Privile$e /arital Dis;uali#ication

+an be claimed W1, thespouse is a party to the

action

+an be invo;ed only if thespouse is a party to the

action

+an be claimed even after

the marriage has beendissolved

+an only apply if the

marriage is e.isting at thetime the testimony is offered

(pplies only to confidentialcommunications between the

spouses

+onstitutes a total prohibitionagainst any testimony for or

against the spouse of thewitness

.ttorne" – Client Privile$e• 0equisites2

7? @here is an attorney-client relation4? Privilege is invo;ed with respect to a confidential

communication between them in the course ofprofessional employment

:? +lient has not given his consent to the disclosure of

the communication• (ttorney must have been consulted in his professional

capacity even if pro bono

• Preliminary communications made for the purpose ofcreating attorney-client relationship are within theprivilege

• +ommunications include verbal statements$ papers$

document or even actions• =oes not apply to communication2

7? *ntended to be made public4? *ntended to be communicated to others

:? *ntended for an unlawful purpose3? 0eceived from third persons not acting as agent of

the client

&? !ade in the presence of third persons who arestrangers to the attorney-client relationship

• Period to be considered is that date when thecommunication was made

» *n determining whether past or future crime» +ommunication having to do with a future crime is

not covered by the privilege

• *f attorney is a co-conspirator to the crime$ privilege notapplicable

Ph"sician – Patient Privile$e• 0equisites2

7? Physician is authoriDed to practice medicine$ surgeryor obstetrics

4? *nformation was acquired or the advice or treatmentwas given by him in his professional capacity for the

purpose of treating or curing the patient:? *nformation$ advice or treatment$ if revealed$ would

blac;en the reputation of the patient3? Privilege is invo;ed in a civil case$ whether the

patient is a party thereto or not

• ,ot necessary that the relationship was created by thevoluntary act of the patient may have been acquired by

another

» E?g? patient in e.tremis• Privilege e.tends to all forms of communication$ advice

or treatment

azerethpage 1&




» *ncludes information acquired by the physicianthrough his observations and e.aminations of the

patient• =oes not apply where2

7? +ommunication not given in confidence4? +ommunication is irrelevant to the professional

employment:? +ommunication was made for an unlawful purpose3? *nformation was intended to be made public

&? @here was a waiver of the privilege either byprovisions of contract or law

Rule 28 P9SIC. .ND /EN). E@./IN.)I(N (FPERS(NSSection 3 – 6.IVER (F PRIVIEGE0" re;uestin$ and o!tainin$ a re&ort o# thee*amination so ordered or !" ta:in$ the de&ositiono# the e*aminer the &art" e*amined +aives an"&rivile$e he ma" have in that action or an" otherinvolvin$ the same controvers" re$ardin$ thetestimon" o# ever" other &erson +ho has e*aminedor ma" therea#ter e*amine him in res&ect o# thesame mental or &h"sical e*amination

/inisterPriest – Penitent Privile$e• 0equires that communication was made pursuant to a

religious duty enjoined in the course of discipline of thesect or denomination

• !ust be confidential in character» E?g? under the seal of the confessional

Privile$ed Communications as to Pu!lic (##icials• 0equisites2

7? *t was made to the public officer in official

confidence4? Public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the

communication

(thers• 0( &:$ as amended by 0( 7388

» Publisher$ editor or duly accredited reporter of any

newspaper$ magaDine or periodical of generalcirculation cannot be compelled to revel thesource of any news report which was related to him

in confidence» nless the court or a ouse or committee of

+ongress finds that such revelation is demanded bythe security of the #tate

• (rticle 4:: of "abor +ode» (ll information and statements made at conciliation

proceedings shall be treated as privileged

communications and shall not be used as evidencein the ,"0+$ and the conciliators and similar officials

shall not testify in any court or body regarding thematter ta;en up at the conciliation proceedings

conducted by them• (lternative =ispute 0esolution (ct %0( <46&'

» #ec < %a' *nformation obtained through mediation

shall be privileged and confidential

2, )ES)I/(NI. PRIVIEGE

Section 2 ' P.REN). .ND FII. PRIVIEGENo &erson ma" !e com&elled to testi#" a$ainst his&arents other direct ascendants children or otherdirect descendants,

• =isqualification by reason of relationship• Filial privilege - not correctly a rule of disqualification$ as

the descendant was not incompetent to testify againsthis ascendants$ but was actually a privilege not to testify

.rt, 21 FCNo descendant shall !e com&elled in a criminalcase to testi#" a$ainst his &arents and$rand&arents e*ce&t +hen such testimon" isindis&ensa!le in a crime a$ainst the descendant or!" one &arent a$ainst the other,

• 9oth parental and filial privileges are granted to anyperson

» +an be invo;ed in any case against any of hisparents$ direct descendants$ children or direct

ascendants

azerethpage 11




-, .D/ISSI(NS .ND C(NFESSI(NS

Section 2B ' .D/ISSI(N (F . P.R))he act declaration or omission o# a &art" as to arelevant #act ma" !e $iven in evidence a$ainst him,

• (dmission any statement of fact made by a partyagainst his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion forwhich he contends or is inconsistent with the facts

alleged by him

.dmissions Con#essions

#tatement of fact which does

not involve anac;nowledgement of guilt or

liability

*nvolves an

ac;nowledgement of guilt orliability

!ay be e.press or tacit !ust be e.press

!ay be made by thirdpersons and$ in certain cases$

are admissible against aparty

+an be made only by theparty himself and$ in certain

cases$ are admissible againsthis co-accused

• @o be admissible$ an admission must27? *nvolve matters of fact$ not of law

4? 9e categorical and definite:? 9e ;nowingly and voluntarily made3? 9e adverse to the admitterBs interest

1therwise would be self-serving andinadmissible

• Cudicial admission one made in connection with a judicial proceeding in which it is offered

• E.trajudicial admission any other admission

Peo&le vs, .lin$ <158?=Facts2 ,orija !ohamad was stabbed in the chest anddiaphragm and she died two days later in the hospital? Lirlie

(ling and ,orijaBs daughter =aria brought ,orija to thehospital? @hey learned from the police that ,orija was stabbed

by her husband (irol (ling? (ling was investigated by thepolice and he declared in +havacano dialect that he ;illed his

wife because he was informed in prison by his relatives thathis wife was fooling around with other men? (ling was chargedwith parricide and during arraignment$ he pleaded guilty

although he had no lawyer? ( counsel de oficio was appointedfor him? When he was again arraigned$ he pleaded guilty with

the assistance of counsel? (ling was placed on the witnessstand and e.amined by his counsel and after being informedthat the penalty for parricide is death or life imprisonment$

(ling still admitted ;illing his wife?*ssue2 W1, the marriage of (ling and ,orija was proven

eld2 es0atio2 @he testimony of (ling that he was married to ,orija is

an admission against his penal interest? *t was a confirmationof the ma.im simper praesumitur matrimonio and thepresumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves

to be husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract ofmarriage?

.dmissions Declarations .$ainstInterest

,eed not be made againstthe proprietary or pecuniary

interest of the parties9ut if so made$ it will greatly

enhance its probative weight

!ust have been made againstthe proprietary or pecuniary

interest of the parties

!ade by the party himself$

and$ is a primary evidenceand competent though he be

present in court and ready totestify

!ust have been made by the

person who is eitherdeceased or unable to testify

+an be made anytime !ade ante litem motam

• #elf-serving declaration one which has been made

e.trajudicially by a party to favor his interests» ,ot admissible in evidence

» =oes not include his testimony as a witness in court» +annot be considered self-serving if it was not made

in anticipation of a future litigation

Peo&le vs, 0ocasas <158=Flight from justice is an admission by conduct and

circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt

• @he act of repairing a machine$ bridge or other facility

after an injury has been sustained therein is not animplied admission of negligence by conduct

» !erely a measure of e.treme caution

Section 2> ' (FFER (F C(/PR(/ISE N() .D/ISSI0EIn civil cases an o##er o# com&romise is not anadmission o# an" lia!ilit" and is not admissi!le inevidence a$ainst the o##eror,In criminal cases e*ce&t those involvin$ ;uasi'o##enses<criminal ne$li$ence= or those allo+ed !" la+ to !ecom&romised an o##er o# com&romised !" the accusedma" !e received in evidence as an im&lied admission o#$uilt,. &lea o# $uilt" later +ithdra+n or an unacce&ted o##ero# a &lea o# $uilt" to lesser o##ense is not admissi!le inevidence a$ainst the accused +ho made the &lea oro##er,

.n o##er to &a" or the &a"ment o# medical hos&ital orother e*&enses occasioned !" an in%ur" is notadmissi!le in evidence as &roo# o# civil or criminallia!ilit" #or the in%ur",

• 1ffer of compromise %civil case' not a tacit admission

of liability and cannot be proved over the objection of theofferor

• 1ffer of compromise %criminal case' implied admissionof guilt» 9ut accused is permitted to prove that offer was not

made under consciousness of guilt but merely toavoid ris;s of criminal action against him

• 1ffer of compromise %violation of internal revenue law' not admissible in evidence

Peo&le vs, .miscua <15>1=*n a rape case$ an offer to compromise for a monetary

consideration$ and not to marry the victim$ is an impliedadmission of guilt

Peo&le vs, /anano <1582=*n a rape case$ the attempt of the parents of the

accused to settle the case with the complainant wasconsidered an implied admission of guilt?

Peo&le vs, Valde <158>=(n offer of marriage by the accused during the

investigation of the rape case is also an admission of guilt

• +riminal cases involving criminal negligence or quasi-offenses are allowed to be compromised$ hence an offer

of settlement is not an admission of guilt• 1ffer to pay or the actual payment of medical bills by

reason of victimBs injuries not admissible to prove civil

or criminal liability

Section 28 ' .D/ISSI(N 0 )9IRD P.R))he ri$hts o# a &art" cannot !e &re%udiced !" an actdeclaration or omission o# another e*ce&t ashereina#ter &rovided,

• First branch of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet

• E.ceptions2 third person is a partner$ agent$ or has jointinterest with the party$ or is a co-conspirator or a privyof the party

Peo&le vs, Valero <1582=Facts2 !ichael and (nnabel$ children of +eferino )elasco$ diedof poisoning after eating bread containing endrin$ a

commercial insecticide? @heir sister *melda would have alsodied if not for the timely medical assistance given to her? (tabout the same time$ : puppies of )elasco under the balcony

where the children ate the bread also died of poisoning?Earlier that morning$ )elasco was seen throwing poisoned rats

in the river near his house?

azerethpage 12




@he evidence of the prosecution shows that the poisonedbread was given to the children by (lfonso )alero alias Pipe$

deaf-mute brother of accused "ucila )alero$ and that it was"ucila who gave (lfonso the bread to be delivered to the

children? "ucila denies the allegation? @he evidence of thedefense tends to show that the children might have eaten one

of the sliced poisoned bread used by their father in poisoningthe rats?:H< witnesses for the prosecution2

7? 0odolfo >uilang testified that he saw "ucila deliversomething wrapped in a piece of paper to (lfonso and

instructed him by sign language to deliver the same tothe )elasco children? e never saw what was inside the

piece of paper? is testimony as to W1, he saw theparcel delivered to the children was a series ofcontradictions? e is what the defense counsel calls and

Neleventh-hour witness4? Federico Caime and +eferino )elasco did not see "ucila

deliver to (lfonso the alleged parcel$ as well as thealleged instruction? 9oth claimed that they learned the

information from Pipe after interviewing him by means ofsign language? @estimony of Caime was confusing? @hereis nothing in the testimony of )elasco indicating that

(lfonso pointed to "ucila as the source of the poisonedbread?

*ssue2 W1, the testimonies of Caime and )elasco may be

admittedeld2 ,o0atio2 @he evidence is pure hearsay? *t violates the principleof res inter alios acta? (lfonso$ who was the source of the

information$ was never presented as a witness either for thedefense or the prosecution? @estimony of )elasco cannot be

considered as part of res gestae because when theinformation was allegedly obtained by )elasco from (lfonso$

nobody was poisoned yet? With regard to the testimony ofCaime$ there is no showing that the revelation was made by(lfonso under the influence of a startling occurrence?

@he failure of the defense counsel to object to thepresentation of incompetent evidence does not give such

evidence probative value? @he lac; of objection may ma;e anyincompetent evidence admissible? 9ut admissibility of

evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence?earsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probativevalue

Section 25 ' .D/ISSI(N 0 C('P.R)NER (R .GEN))he act or declaration o# a &artner or a$ent o# the &art"+ithin the sco&e o# his authorit" and durin$ thee*istence o# the &artnershi& or a$enc" ma" !e $iven inevidence a$ainst such &art" a#ter the &artnershi& ora$enc" is sho+n !" evidence other than such act ordeclaration, )he same rule a&&lies to the act ordeclaration o# a %oint o+ner %oint de!tor or other&erson %ointl" interested +ith the &art",

• 0equisites27? @hat the partnership$ agency or joint interest is

established by evidence other than the act or

declaration4? @hat the actHdeclaration must have been within the

scope of the partnership$ etc?

:? #uch actHdeclaration must have been made duringthe e.istence of the partnership$ etc?

• (dmissions made in connection with the winding up still admissible

• (dmission by counsel admissible against client %agent-principal'

» "imitation27? admission should not amount to a compromise

4? admission should not amount to a confessionof judgment

7aucian vs, Huerol@he phrase joint debtor does not refer to a mere

community of interest but should be understood according toits meaning in the common law system from which the

provision was ta;en$ that is$ in solidum$ and notmancomunada

• 7st e.ception to #ection 46

• Word omission in #ection 46 doesnQt appear here

» 9ecause if it was$ can become vague %same as with#ection :5'

» *t only appears in #ection :72 admission by privies

What predecessors didnQt do is binding on youR this is the rationale in including the word

omission in #ection :7• L02 admission of some7 else shouldnQt be ta;en against

you

• 9ut #ection 4< is an e.ception2 admission of another canbe ta;en against you fairS

Section -? ' .D/ISSI(N 0 C(NSPIR.)(R )he act or declaration o# a cons&irator relatin$ to thecons&irac" and durin$ its e*istence ma" !e $iven inevidence a$ainst the co'cons&irator a#ter thecons&irac" is sho+n !" evidence other than such act o#declaration,

Peo&le vs, Serrano@his rule applies only to e.trajudicial acts or statements

and not to testimony given on the witness stand at the trial

where the party adversely affected thereby has theopportunity to cross-e.amine the declarant?

(n admission by a conspirator is admissible against hisco-conspirator if2

7? #uch conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde

4? (dmission was made during the e.istence of theconspiracy

:? (dmission relates to the conspiracy itself @hese are not required in admissions during the trial as the

co-accused can e.amine the declarant?

• Cudicial admissions - admissions after the conspiracy has

ended• E.istence of conspiracy may be inferred from

7? (cts of the accused4? +onfessions of the accused

:? 9y prima facie proof thereof

Peo&le vs, .le$re <15>B=Where there is no independent evidence of the alleged

conspiracy$ the e.trajudicial confession of an accused cannot

be used against his co-accused as the res inter alios ruleapplies to both e.trajudicial confessions and admissions

• E.trajudicial admission made by a conspirator after theconspiracy has ended and even before trial not

admissible against co-conspirator» E.cept2

7? *f made in the presence of the co-conspirator who e.pressly or impliedly

%tacit admission$ 0ule 7:5?:4' agreedtherein

4? Where the facts stated in the said

admissions are confirmed in the individuale.trajudicial confessions made by the co-

conspirators after their apprehension:? as a circumstance to determine the

credibility of a witness

3? as circumstantial evidence to show theprobability of the co-conspiratorBs

participation in the offense

Peo&le vs, (la <158>=*n order that the e.trajudicial statements of a co-

accused may be ta;en into consideration in judging thetestimony of a witness$ it is necessary that the statements aremade by several accused$ the same are in all material

respects identical$ and there could have been no collusionamong said co-accused in ma;ing such statements?

Section -1 ' .D/ISSI(N 0 PRIVIES6here one derives title to &ro&ert" #rom another theact declaration or omission o# the latter +hile holdin$the title in relation to the &ro&ert" is evidence a$ainstthe #ormer,

• 0equisites27? @here must be a relation of privity between the

party and the declarant

azerethpage 13




4? @he admission was made by the declarant$ aspredecessor in interest$ while holding title to the

property:? @he admission is in relation to said property

• Privity in estate may have arisen by succession$ by actsmortis causa or by acts inter vivos

Section -2 ' .D/ISSI(N 0 SIENCE.n act or declaration made in the &resence and +ithinthe hearin$ or o!servation o# a &art" +ho does or sa"snothin$ +hen the act or declaration is such as naturall"to call #or action or comment i# not true and +hen&ro&er and &ossi!le #or him to do so ma" !e $iven inevidence a$ainst him,

• 0equisites to be admissible against a party2

7? e must have heard or observed the act ordeclaration of the other person

4? e must have had the opportunity to deny it:? e must understood the statement

3? e must have an interest to object$ such that hewould naturally have done so$ if the statement wasnot true

&? @he facts were within his ;nowledgeA? @he fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from

his silence is material to the issue• (pplies where a person is surprised or even if he is

already in the custody of the police» )oluntary participation in the reenactment of the

crime conducted by police is considered tacit

admission of complicity 9ut to be given weight$ the validity and

efficacy of the confession must first be shown

Section 12 .rticle III 158> Constitution1, .n" &erson under investi$ation #or the commission

o# an o##ense shall have the ri$ht to !e in#ormed o#his ri$ht to remain silent and to have com&etentand inde&endent counsel &re#era!l" o# his o+nchoice, I# the &erson cannot a##ord the services o#counsel he must !e &rovided +ith one, )heseri$hts cannot !e +aived e*ce&t in +ritin$ and inthe &resence o# counsel,

2, No torture #orce violence threat intimidation oran" other means +hich vitiate #ree +ill shall !eused a$ainst him, Secret detention &laces solitar"incommunicado or other similar #orms o# detentionare &rohi!ited

-, .n" con#ession or admission o!tained in violationo# this or Section 1> hereo# shall !e inadmissi!le inevidence a$ainst him,

3, )he la+ shall &rovide #or &enal and civil sanctions#or violations o# this section as +ell ascom&ensation to and reha!ilitation o# victims o#torture or similar &ractices and their #amilies,

Section 1> .rticle III 158> ConstitutionNo &erson shall !e com&elled to !e a +itnessa$ainst himsel#

• 0ule does not apply2» if the statements adverse to the party were made

in the course of an official investigation» 1r where the party had a justif iable reason to

remain silent %e?g? acting on advice of counsel'

• Ieep in mind that a person under investigation for thecommission of a crime has the right to remain silent and

to be informed of that right

• 0ule applies to adverse statements in writing if the partywas carrying on a mutual correspondence with thedeclarant» *f no such mutual correspondence$ rule is rela.ed

@heory2 a prompt response can generally notbe e.pected if the party still has to resort to a

written reply$ as opposed to a statement orallymade

Section -- – C(NFESSI(N)he declaration o# an accused ac:no+led$in$ his $uilto# the o##ense char$ed or o# an" o##ense necessaril"included therein ma" !e $iven in evidence a$ainst him,

• +onfession categorical ac;nowledgement of guilt made

by an accused in a criminal case$ without anye.culpatory statement or e.planation» *f there is an allegation of a justification for the act$

merely an admission• +onfession of judgment made in a civil case where the

party e.pressly admits his liability• +onfession can be made orally or in writing

azerethpage 1




» *i in writhing need not be under oath• Cudicial confession one made before a court in which

the case is pending and in the course of legalproceedings therein

» 9y itself$ can sustain a conviction• E.trajudicial confession one made in any other place or

occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unlesscorroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti

Rule 1-- Section - ' E@)R.7DICI.C(NFESSI(N N() SFFICIEN) GR(ND F(RC(NVIC)I(N.n e*tra%udicial con#ession made !" an accusedshall not !e su##icient $round #or conviction unlesscorro!orated !" evidence o# corpus delicti ,

• 0equisites for admissibility7? +onfession must involve an e.press and categorical

ac;nowledgement of guilt4? Facts admitted must be constitutive of an offense

:? +onfession must have been given voluntarily3? +onfession must have been intelligently made$ the

accused realiDing the importance of his act

&? ,o violation of #ec 74$ (rt *** of the +onstitution

Peo&le vs, Garcia <1?1 Phil B1=

+onfessions are presumed to be voluntary and the onusis on the defense to prove that it was involuntary for havingbeen obtained by violence$ intimidation$ threat or promise ofreward or leniency?

• *ndicia of voluntariness of confession

7? contains details which the police could not havesupplied or invented

4? contains details which could have been ;nown onlyto the accused

:? contains statements which are e.culpatory in nature

3? contains corrections made by the accused in hishandwriting or with his initials

&? accused sufficiently educated and aware of his theconsequences of his acts

A? made in the presence of an impartial witness withthe accused acting normally on that occasion

8? lac; of motive on the part of the investigators to

e.tract a confession6? accused questioned the voluntariness of his

confession only on trial<? contents were affirmed by the accused in his

voluntary participation in the reenactment of thecrime

75? facts in confession were confirmed by other

subsequent facts77? after confession$ accused subjected to physical

e.amination and there were no signs ofmaltreatment or accused never complained thereof

not applicable when accused failed to complainbecause of a reasonable apprehension offurther maltreatment as he was still in the

custody of his torturers• Custifications for inadmissibility of involuntary confessions

7? unreliable

4? humanitarian considerations:? legal considerations of their violative of the

+onstitution• 9ut there were cases stating that involuntary admissions

are admissible if they contain the truth» ,o longer applies because of the ruling in #tonehill

vs? =io;no

Section 2? .rticle IV 15>- ConstitutionNo &erson shall !e com&elled to !e a +itnessa$ainst himsel#, .n" &erson under investi$ation #orthe commission o# an o##ense shall have the ri$htto remain silent and to counsel and to !e in#ormedo# such ri$ht, No #orce violence threatintimidation or an" other means +hich vitiates the#ree +ill shall !e used a$ainst him, .n" con#essionin violation o# this section shall !e inadmissi!le inevidence

• *f confession obtained before effectivity of 7<8:

+onstitution %78 Can 7<8:'$ admissible even withoutinforming the accused of his right to remain silent

azerethpage 1!




Draculan vs, Donato <15>8=Where$ before the statement containing the e.trajudicial

confession of guilt was ta;en$ the accused was as;ed whetherhe was familiar with the provisions of #ec 45$ (rt *)$ 7<8:

+onstitution and he answered in the affirmative$ and thestatement which he signed states that he had been apprised

of his constitutional rights with the warning that anything hewould say might be used against him in court$ suche.trajudicial confession is admissible

Peo&le vs, )am&us <158?=Where the verbal e.trajudicial confession was made

without counsel$ but it was spontaneously made by the

accused immediately after the assault$ the same is admissible$not under the confession rule$ but as part of the res gestae

Peo&le vs, Feli&e <1581=Where the accused was merely told of his constitutional

rights and as;ed if he understood what he was told$ but hewas never as;ed whether he wanted to e.ercise or avail

himself of such rights$ his e.trajudicial confession isinadmissible

Peo&le vs, 0ro;uea <1588=Where the e.trajudicial confession of the accused while

under custodial investigation was merely prefaced by the

investigator with a statement of his constitutional rights$ towhich he answered that he was going to tell the truth$ thesame is inadmissible as his answer does not constitute awaiver of his right to counsel and he was not assisted by one

when he signed the confession? is short answer does notshow that he ;new the legal significance of what were as;ed

of him

/orales 7r, vs, Enrile <158-=@he waiver of the right to counsel during custodial

investigation must be made with the assistance of counsel

• 0equirement is now embodied in the 7<68 +onstitution

Peo&le vs, 7ara <158B=Where a confession was illegally obtained from two of

the accused and$ consequently$ are not admissible as againstthem$ with much more reason should the same be

inadmissible against a third accused who had no participationtherein

• Promise of immunity or leniency vitiates a confession if

given by the offended party or by the fiscal» ,ot if given by a person whom the accused could

not have reasonably e.pected to be able to comply

with such promise %e?g? investigator who is not aprosecuting officer' or could not bind the offended

party which was a corporation

S vs, /ercado <B Phil --2=Where the accused voluntarily made a second

e.trajudicial confession after he has been maltreated in order

to e.tort the first confession$ such second confession isadmissible only if it can be proved that he was already

relieved of the fear generated by the previous maltreatment

• Entire confession must be admitted in evidence» 9ut court may$ in appreciating it$ reject such

portions as are incredible

Camasura vs, Provost /arshal <>8 Phil 1-1=Where the e.trajudicial confession was obtained by

maltreatment$ the judgment based solely thereon is null and

void and the accused may obtain his release on a writ ofhabeas corpus

• @he e.trajudicial confession of an accused is binding onlyupon him and is not admissible against his co-accused

» E.cept if27' +o-accused impliedly adopted said confession

by not questioning its truthfulness4' *nterloc;ing confessions accused persons

voluntarily and independently e.ecuted

identical confessions without conclusion$

• which confessions are corroborated by

other evidence and not contradicted bythe co-accused who was present

:' (ccused admitted the facts stated in theconfession after being apprised of such

confession3' +harged as co-conspirators and confession is

used only as corroborating evidence&' +onfession is used as circumstantial evidence

to show the probability of participation by theco-conspirator

A' +onfessant testified fro his co-defendant

8' +o-conspiratorBs e.trajudicial confession iscorroborated by other evidence of record

• +onfession of the accused admissible not only withrespect to the offense charged but also any offense

necessarily included therein• 7<68 +onstitution illegal confessions and admissions

are inadmissible against confessant or admitter

» 9ut admissible against the person who violated theconstitutional provision against obtaining illegal

confessions or admissions

Peo&le vs, Domanta" <1555=Facts2 @he body of si. year old Cennifer =omantay$ bearingseveral stab wounds$ was found sprawled amidst a bamboo

grove? @he investigation by the police pointed to 9ernardino=omantay$ cousin of the victimBs grandfather$ as the lone

suspect in the crime? Police officers %!ontemayor$ =e la +ruD

and =e LuDman' pic;ed up =omantay at the public mar;etand too; him to the police station? pon questioning by #P17EspinoDa$ =omantay confessed to the ;illing of Cennifer? ealso said that he had given the bayonet he used in the ;illing

to +asingal spouses$ his aunt and uncle? @he ne.t day$ #P17EspinoDa and another policeman too; =omantay to the

+asingal spouses where they recovered the bayonet?@he prosecution presented 8 witnesses2

7? Edward =omantay testified that in the morning of theincident$ he was drin;ing with +aballero$ !acasaeb and=omantay? @here$ =omantay rolled up his shirt and said

that he will massacre somebody in their place? Edwardsaw that tuc;ed in the left side of =omantayBs waistline

was a bayonet without a cover handle? Edward has seenthat bayonet being carried by =omantay many times?

4? CieDl =omantay %75 years old' testified that at about4pm$ she saw =omantay and Cennifer wal;ing towardsthe bamboo grove where the body of Cennifer was later

found? =omantay was about 4 meters ahead of Cennifer?

3. "orenDo =omantay corroborated CenniferBs testimony?

e said that he saw =omantay standing at the spot inthe bamboo grove where CenniferBs body was later found?

=omantay appears restless and worried as he ;eptloo;ing around? "orenDo was in a hurry and did not try to

find out why =omantay was restless?3? Coselito !ejia a tricycle driver? e said that when he

was about to ta;e his lunch$ =omantay approached himand implored him to ta;e him %=omantay' to !alasiqui atonce? !ejia said he will first ta;e his lunch? =omantay

pleaded with him and said that they will not be long so!ejia agreed? =omantay alighted near the !ormon

church outside !alasiqui$ instead of the town proper&? #P17 (ntonio EspinoDa testified that he investigated

the case? 9efore questioning =omantay$ he appraised thelatter of his constitutional right to remain silent and tohave a competent and independent counsel$ in English$

which was later translated into Pangasinense? =omantayagreed to answer the questions even in the absence of

counsel and admitted to the ;illing of Cennifer? =omantayalso disclosed the location of the bayonet he used?

%+ross-e.amination' EspinoDa admitted that =omantaywas not assisted by counsel during the course of thequestioning? ,either was =omantayBs statement reduced

into writing? @his testimony was admitted over theobjection of the defense?

A? +elso !anuel radio reporter of =WP0? e interviewed=omantay who was then detained in the municipal jail?

e introduced himself as a media reporter to =omantay?e said that =omantay was willing to state whathappened? When he as;ed =omantay if he committed the

crime$ =omantay said yes? =omantay also said that he;illed Cennifer in his revenge for a boundary dispute and

that he is willing to accept his punishment? %+ross'!anuel e.plained that the interview was conducted in the

jail$ 4-: meters away from the police station? (n uncle ofCennifer was with him? @he nearest policeman was 4-:

azerethpage 1"




meters away? @here was no lawyer present and it wasthe first time that he was called to testify regarding an

interview he conducted? @his testimony was admittedover the objection of the defense

8? =r? 0onald 9andonill conducted an autopsy of thevictim?

=efense presented =omantay as its lone witness? =omantaydenied the allegations against him? e denied EdwardBs claim?e admitted that he passed the bamboo grove but said that

he did not ;now that Cennifer was following him? e admittedhiring !ejia to get to !alasiqui to meet his brother$ who did

not come? e denied confessing to #P17 EspinoDa and hedenied having a grudge against CenniferBs parents because of

a boundary dispute? e admitted being interviewed by !anuelbut denied ever admitting anything to the reporter?=omantay was convicted by the trial court

*ssue2 W1, the e.trajudicial confessions made by =omantayto #P17 EspinoDa and !anuel are admissible

eld2 ,o and es$ respectively0atio2 (rt ***$ #ec 74 of the 7<68 +onstitution applies to

custodial investigation$ when the investigation is no longer ageneral inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on aparticular person as a suspect? 0( 83:6 e.tended the

constitutional guarantee to situations in which an individualhas not been formally arrested but has merely been NinvitedO

for questioning?

0equirements for admissibility of e.trajudicial confessions27? *t must be voluntary4? *t must be made with the assistance of a competent and

independent counsel

:? *t must be e.press3? *t must be in writing

When =omantay was brought to the police station he wasalready under custodial investigation and the rights

guaranteed by the +onstitution apply to him? Even though hewaived the assistance of counsel$ the waiver was not put intowriting nor made in the presence of counsel? @herefore the

waiver is invalid and the confession is inadmissible? @hebayonet is also inadmissible in evidence as it was a Nfruit of a

poisonous treeO?=omantayBs confession to !anuel is admissible? @he 9ill of

0ights does not concern itself with the relation betweenprivate individuals? @he prohibitions therein are primarilyaddressed to the #tate and its agents?

=omantay claims that the atmosphere during the interviewwas tense and intimidating? @he +ourt does not agree? @here

is no indication that the presence of the police officers e.ertedany undue pressure or influence on =omantay and coerced

him into giving his confession? @here is also no evidence that!anuel was a police beat reporter and it has not been shownthat his purpose in conducting the interview was to elicit

incriminating information from =omantay?=omantayBs e.trajudicial confession is corroborated by

evidence of corpus delicti$ as required by 0ule 7::$ #ec :?

Peo&le vs, /antun$ <1555=Facts2 !aribel !ayola and 0enjie 9alderas were found deadinside the vault room of the !aywood branch of +ebuana

"huiller where they were employed? @he jewelries ;ept insidethe safe were all gone and the cash drawer had been emptied

of its contents? *n the counter$ a holster was placed on top of

a letter addressed to !ary (nn Lordoncillo$ district managerof +ebuana "huiller? @he letter was written by Luiamad!antung$ the security guard assigned to the branch? !antungwrote in Filipino that he ;illed !ayola and 9alderas because

they gave him por; which his !oslem religion prohibited himfrom eating? e also admitted ta;ing the cash and jewelry

inside the vault$ claiming that he needed the money? e wroteanother letter addressed to his wife$ which was found in the

office logboo;? !antung was later arrested in #ultan Iudarat$+otabato and several pieces of jewelry believed to be part ofthe loot were recovered from him? (fter his arrest$ he was

immediate brought to Paramour where he was presented tothe media at a press conference called by !ayor Coey

!arqueD? When !ayor !arqueD then as;ed him if he is theone who ;illed the two employees$ !antung answered yes and

said that he ;illed the victims because they induced him to eatpor;? @he news about !antonBs admission to the ;illingsappeared in the *nquirer and !anila 9ulletin the following day?

+lippings of these reports were presented as evidence by theprosecution during the trial?

@he defense presented the lone testimony of !antung tosubstantiate his claims of innocence? e claimed that on the

day of the incident$ he was loc;ing one of the doors of theshop when : men approached him from behind and one of

them held him at gunpoint? !ayola and 9alderas saw whatwas happening and shouted for help? !antung was ta;en to

the comfort room when he heard 4 gunshots and the shouts of!ayola and 9alderas stopped? @he men too; him out$ pushed

him inside a red car and blindfolded him? (fterwards$ he feltthe car stop and he was left alone by his captors? e thenseiDed the opportunity to escape? e saw that they stopped in

the pier so he mingled with the people and boarded a ship to+ebu and from there went to +otabato? e denied that pieces

of jewelry were recovered from him? e refuted the reportssaying he admitted to the ;illing of the victims in the press

conference? (ccording to him$ he did not tell anyone whathappened because he was confused and he did not ;now whatto do?

*ssue72 W1, !antungBs admission during the pressconference is admissible

eld72 es0atio72 @he clippings of the news articles reporting !antungBs

confession is hearsay because their writers were notpresented to affirm the veracity of the reports? owever$0icardo =iago$ an employee of +ebuana "huiller present

during the press conference$ was presented as rebuttalwitness to prove that !antung indeed claimed responsibility

for the ;illings?

@he constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do notapply to a spontaneous statement$ not elicited throughquestioning by the authorities$ but given in an ordinarymanner whereby accused orally admitted having committed a

crime? @he rights under #ec 74 are guaranteed to preclude theslightest use of coercion by the #tate as would lead the

accused to admit something false$ not to prevent him fromfreely and voluntarily telling the truth %People vs? (ndan'?

@here is nothing to show that !antungBs admission wascoerced or made under duress?

adiana vs, Peo&le <2??2=Facts2 Cosue "adiana$ a police officer$ was accused of ;illing

Francisco #an Cuan$ a 9arangay +aptain? @he case was filed inthe #andiganbayan and "adiana was found guilty of homicide?

@he prosecution presented & witnesses2

1. +aridad #an Cuan wife of the victim? #he testified that

#an Cuan was the 9arangay +aptain of 9rgy? #alac$"umban$ "aguna? #he said that she was in her house

when an unidentified woman came and told her that herhusband was ;illed by "adiana? #he also presented thedeath certificate of her husband? %+ross' #he admitted

that she did not witness the ;illing of her husband?4? P14 "eopoldo +acalda Cr? e recounted that somebody

whose name he could not recall reported to him about ane.isting trouble in the scene of the incident? e

responded by going to the scene$ accompanied byanother person? @here$ he saw the dead body of #anCuan? e gathered from the people milling around the

body that it was "adiana who ;illed #an Cuan? eimmediately left to loo; for "adiana? e later learned that

"adiana surrendered to the police? %+ross' e testifiedthat he did not witness the incident? e also said that it

was the people around the incident who told him that"adiana already left? e also saw a stab wound on"adianaBs right bicep but he did not as; him how he got

it?:? =r? 0ogelio Cavan performed the necropsy

3? #P14 Percival Labinete his testimony was dispensedwith upon the admission of the defense that he was part

of the group that responded to the incident&? !ario +orteD retired (ssistant Prosecutor of "aguna?

Prior to the conduct of e.amination-in-chief of +orteD$

defense counsel admitted to the authorship$ authenticity$and voluntariness of the e.ecution of the counter-

affidavit of "adiana? *n the counter-affidavit$ "adianaadmitted shooting Francisco but he allegedly did so in

self-defense as Francisco was then attac;ing "adiana andhad in fact already inflicted a stab wound on the arm of"adiana? +orteD emphasiDed that he was not the one who

conducted the P*? e also said that he would not be ableto recogniDe the face of the affiant in the counter-

affidavit but maintained that there was a person whoappeared and identified himself as Cosue "adiana before

him?=efense filed a =emurrer to Evidence

azerethpage 1#




*ssue2 W1, the counter-affidavit e.ecuted by "adiana duringthe preliminary investigation is admissible although no counsel

was present when he e.ecuted iteld2 es

0atio2 @he constitutional guarantee applies only duringcustodial investigations? +ustodial investigation is the

questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after aperson has been ta;en into custody or otherwise deprived offreedom of action in any significant way?

@he +ourt held that the right to counsel does not e.tend toP*s? ( P* is an inquiry or a proceeding to determine whether

there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded beliefthat a crime has been committed$ and that the respondent is

probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial? ( personundergoing P* before a public prosecutor cannot be consideredas being under custodial investigation?

owever$ the accused possesses rights that must besafeguarded2

7? 0ight to refuse to be made witness4? 0ight not to have any prejudice whatsoever imputed to

him by such refusal:? 0ight to testify on his own behalf$ subject to cross-

e.amination by the prosecution

3? While testifying$ the right to refuse to answer a specificquestion that tends to incriminate him for some crime

other than that for which he is being prosecuted

"adianaBs counter-affidavit is not an e.trajudicial confession$ itis only an admission? *n confession$ there is anac;nowledgement of guilt? *n an admission$ there is merely astatement of fact not directly involving an ac;nowledgement

of guilt or of criminal intent to commit the offense with whichone is charged? *n the counter-affidavit$ "adiana admits

shooting #an Cuan but denies having done it with criminalintent since he claimed that it was done in self-defense?

@here is no doubt as to the voluntariness of the counter-affidavit? @he admissions of "adiana made through his counselduring the trial are very clear?

*n general$ admissions may be rebutted by confessing theiruntruth or by showing that they were made by mista;e?

"adiana never offered any rationaliDation why he made theadmission?

3, PREVI(S C(NDC) .S EVIDENCE

Section -3 – SI/I.R .C)S .S EVIDENCEEvidence that one did or did not do a certain thin$ atone time is not admissi!le to &rove that he did or didnot do the same or similar thin$ at another time4 !ut itma" !e received to &rove a s&eci#ic intent or:no+led$e identit" &lan s"stem scheme ha!itcustom or usa$e and the li:e,

• #econd branch of res inter alios acta

» (pplies to both criminal and civil cases» #trictly enforced in all cases applicable

• E.ceptions to the rule2 evidence of similar acts mayprove7? #pecific intent or ;nowledge

4? *dentity:? Plan$ system or scheme

3? #pecific habit

&? Established customs$ usages and the li;e• Evidence of another crime is admissible in a prosecution

for robbery where it has the tendency to identify theaccused or show his presence at the scene of the crime

» 9ut not where the evidence is to prove that hecommitted another crime wholly independent of that

for which he is on trial• Previous acts of negligence is admissible to show

;nowledge or intent

Section - – N.CCEP)ED (FFER .n o##er in +ritin$ to &a" a &articular sum o# mone" orto deliver a +ritten instrument or s&eci#ic &ersonal&ro&ert" is i# re%ected +ithout valid cause e;uivalentto the actual &roduction and tender o# the mone"instrument or &ro&ert"

• !erely evidentiary complement to the rule on payment

• #uch tender of payment must be followed byconsignation of the amount in court in order to produce

the effects of valid payment

, )ES)I/(NI. JN(6EDGE

Section -B – )ES)I/(N GENER. C(NFINED )(PERS(N. JN(6EDGE4 9E.RS. E@CDED. +itness can testi#" onl" to those #acts +hich he:no+s o# his &ersonal :no+led$e4 that is +hich arederived #rom his o+n &erce&tion e*ce&t as other+ise&rovided in these rules,

• earsay evidence any evidence$ whether oral ordocumentary$ whose probative value is based not on

personal ;nowledge of the witness but on the ;nowledgeof some other person not on the witness stand

» E.cluded because the party against whom it ispresented is deprived of the right to cross-e.aminethe persons to whom the statements or writings are

attributed» *f a party does not object admissible

Savor" uncheonette vs, a:as n$ /an$$a$a+an$Pili&ino <15>=

@he repeated failure of the party to cross-e.amine thewitness is an implied waiver of such right and the testimony of

the said witness who died thereafter should not be e.cludedfrom the record

Peo&le vs, Cusi 7r, <15B=Facts2 (rcadio Puesca$ Walter (pa$ Cose Lustilo$ Filomeno!acalinao$ 0icardo =ario and !agno !ontano were chargedwith robbery in band with homicide?

=uring trial$ while #gt? 9ano was testifying as prosecutionwitness regarding the e.trajudicial confession made to him by

Puesca$ he said that Puesca admitted his participation in theoffense and revealed the name of other persons who

conspired with him? +ounsel for !acalinao$ Lustilo and =arioobjected to the naming of the co-conspirators? @rial judgeresolved the objection directing the witness to name the co-

conspirators other than the : objectors?*ssue2 W1, the witness should be allowed to name all the

conspirators as stated to him by Puescaeld2 es

0atio2 While the testimony of a witness regarding a statementmade by another person$ if intended to establish the truth ofthe facts asserted in the statement$ is clearly hearsay

evidence$ it is otherwise if the purpose of placing thestatement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the

statement was made or the tenor of such statement?For the limited purpose of establishing the fact that Puesca

mentioned the names of his co-conspirators$ the evidenceshould be admitted but with the understanding that thetestimony shall not be ta;en as competent evidence to show

that the persons named really and actually conspired withPuesca?

• 9ut even if hearsay evidence not objected to is

admissible$ it has no probative value and as opposed todirect primary evidence$ the latter always prevails

Section 28 Rule on E*amination o# a Child 6itness9E.RS. E@CEP)I(N IN C9ID .0SE C.SES. statement made !" a child descri!in$ an" act or

attem&ted act o# child a!use not other+iseadmissi!le under the hearsa" rule ma" !eadmitted in evidence in an" criminal or non'criminal &roceedin$ su!%ect to the #ollo+in$ rulesA

a, 0e#ore such hearsa" statement ma" !eadmitted its &ro&onent shall ma:e :no+n tothe adverse &art" the intention to o##er suchstatement and its &articulars to &rovide him a#air o&&ortunit" to o!%ect, I# the child isavaila!le the court shall u&on the motion o#the adverse &art" re;uire the child to !e&resent at the &resentation o# the hearsa"statement #or cross'e*amination !" theadverse &art", 6hen the child is unavaila!lethe #act o# such circumstance must !e &roved!" the &ro&onent!, In rulin$ on the admissi!ilit" o# suchhearsa" statement the court shall considerthe time content and circumstances thereo#+hich &rovide su##icient indicia o# relia!ilit", Itshall consider the #ollo+in$ #actorsA

1, 6hether there is motive to lie4

azerethpage 1$




2, )he $eneral character o# the declarantchild4-, 6hether more than one &erson heardthe statement43, 6hether the statement +ass&ontaneous4, )he timin$ o# the statement and therelationshi& !et+een the declarant childand +itness4

B, Cross'e*amination could not sho+ thelac: o# :no+led$e o# the declarant child4>, )he &ossi!ilit" o# #ault" recollection o#declarant child is remote4 and8, )he circumstances surroundin$ thestatement are such that there is no reasonto su&&ose the declarant childmisinter&reted the involvement o# theaccused,

c,)he child +itness shall !e consideredunavaila!le under the #ollo+in$ situationsA

1, Is deceased su##ers #rom &h"sicalin#irmit" lac: o# memor" mental illnessor +ill !e e*&osed to severe &s"cholo$icalin%ur"4 or2, Is a!sent #rom the hearin$ and the&ro&onent o# his statement has !een

una!le to &rocure his attendance !"&rocess or other reasona!le means,

d, 6hen the child +itness is unavaila!lehis hearsa" testimon" shall !e admitted onl" i#corro!orated !" other admissi!le evidence,

• ,ot covered by hearsay rule - where the statements orwritings attributed to a person who is not on the witness

stand are being offered not to prove the truth of the factsstated therein but to prove that those statements weremade or writings e.ecuted

» Witness who testifies is competent these arematters derived from his own perception

• =octrine of independently relevant statements independent of whether the facts stated are true or not$

they are relevant because they are the facts in issue orare circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue

Peo&le vs, .r$uel <158?=,ewspaper clippings or facts published in the

newspapers are hearsay and have no evidentiary value unlesssubstantiated by persons with personal ;nowledge of said

facts

B, E@CEP)I(NS )( )9E 9E.RS. R E

D"in$ Declaration

Section -> – DING DEC.R.)I(N)he declaration o# a d"in$ &erson made under theconsciousness o# an im&endin$ death ma" !e receivedin an" case +herein his death is the su!%ect o# in;uir"as evidence o# the cause and surroundin$circumstances o# such death,

• =ying declaration antemortem statement or statementin articulo mortis

• 0equisites27? @hat death is imminent and the declarant is

conscious of that fact +onsiderations for the consciousness of

imminent death2a? Words or statements of the declarant

b? is conduct at the time the declarationwas made

c? #erious nature of his wounds as to

engender a belief on his part that hewould not survive

4? @hat the declaration refers to the cause and thesurrounding circumstances of such death

:? @hat the declaration relates to facts which the victimis competent to testify to

3? @hat the declaration is offered in a case wherein the

declarantBs death is the subject of the inquiry• *ntervening time from the ma;ing of the declaration up

to the actual death is immaterial as long as thedeclaration was made under the consciousness of

impending death and as long as no retraction was madeby the declarant before his death

azerethpage 1%




Peo&le vs, Sa!io <1581=*t is the belief in the impending death at the time the

statement was made$ and not the rapid succession of death$that renders the dying declaration admissible?

• *nterval of time may be ta;en into account where the

declaration was ambiguous as to whether the declarantbelieved that his death was imminent when he made thedeclaration

Peo&le vs, .ntonio <15>?=Where the declarant stated that he would not die if

treated$ such statement indicates an awareness of death and

the nature of his wound and his death an hour later qualifiessuch statement into a dying declaration$ or at least$ as part ofres gestae?

Peo&le vs, Gueron <158-=Where$ shortly after he was wounded$ the victim was

as;ed as to whether he believed he would die and to which he

replied$ N* cannot ascertain$O and he died the following day$his statement is admissible both as part of res gestae and as adying declaration?

Peo&le vs, a;uinon <158=Where the victim$ when as;ed as to whether he thought

he would die$ replied$ N* donBt ;now$O his declaration was notmade under the consciousness of his imminent death anddoes not qualify as an antemortem statement$ although thesame may be admitted as part of the res gestae since it was

made immediately after the incident

• @he credibility and weight of the admitted dyingdeclaration should be determined under the same rules

used in other testimonial evidence• ( dying declaration is admissible only to insofar as it

refers to facts regarding the cause and surrounding

circumstances of the declarantBs death• ( dying declaration is admissible in any case as long as

the requisite concur• ( dying declaration may be oral or written or made by

signs which could be testified to by a witness thereto

Peo&le vs, (dencio <15>5=

*f the antemortem statement was made orally$ thewitness who heard it may testify thereto$ without necessarily

reproducing the e.act words as long as he can give thesubstance thereof$ and if the deceased had an unsigned dying

declaration$ the same may be used as a memorandum by thewitness who too; it down

• !ay be attac;ed on the absence of any of the requisitesand may be impeached in the same manner as the

testimony of any other witness on the stand» (merican jurisprudence2 dying declarations are on

the same footing as testimony of a witness on astand and whatever would disqualify the witnesswould also ma;e such declaration incompetent

evidence

Peo&le vs, /olas <155-=

Facts2 9ernardo 0esonable went home after wor;ing in hisfarm? @here he found his son (belardo %6' bleeding at thedoorway of their house? 9ernardo carried (belardo inside thehouse? (belardo informed his father that Cosue !olas was the

person who not only inflicted his injuries but also stabbed hissister =ulcesima and mother #oledad? !olas and =ulcesima

were sweethearts and engaged to be married? While 9ernardoloo;ed for the bodies of his wife and daughter$ (belardo was

brought to the hospital by his brother ,icholas? (belardo diedthe ne.t day?*ssue2 W1, the statement of (belardo is admissible

eld2 es0atio2 (belardoBs statement was given to his father while he

lay at deathBs door$ bleeding from stab wounds$ as a result ofwhich he died the ne.t day? *t was indubitably a dying

declaration?@o be admissible$ a dying declaration must27? +oncern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the

declarantBs death4? @hat the time it was made$ the declarant was under a

consciousness of impending death:? @hat he was a competent witness

3? @hat his declaration was offered in evidence in a criminalcase for homicide$ murder or parricide in which the

declarant is the victim(ll these circumstances were present when (belardo made his

declaration

Peo&le vs, /olo <15>5=Facts2 ,ot long after the couple )enacio Lapisa and #imeona0apa-Lapisa had retired for the night$ #imeona heard and

indistinct sound of murmur and gnashing teeth? )enacio wasasleep by then? (lthough seiDed by fear$ #imeona managed to

peep through the dilapidated buri wall and saw =ominador!olo attired only in short pants$ alone? #he tried to awa;en

)enacio but he did not respond? !olo had already climbed upthe stairs and barged into the house? When he found )enacioasleep near the door$ he immediately grabbed the latterBs left

wrist and started hac;ing the old man? )enacio wo;e up andtried to fight bac; but he was unable to retaliate because !olo

started hac;ing him again? #imeona rushed out of the houseand called for help? er son (lejandro and 0oman !angaring

ran towards the house and there they found )enacio bleedingprofusely? When (lejandro too; his father in his arms$ )enaciotold him that he was boloed by 9oslo$ the name by which !olo

was ;nown in their locality? 0oman also as;ed )enacio whohis assailant was and the latter answered 9oslo? )enacio was

rushed to the hospital where he died a few minutes after

arrival?*ssue2 W1, the statements made by )enacio to (lejandro and0oman are admissibleeld2 es

0atio2 @he statements of )enacio identifying !olo as hisassailant to (lejandro and 0oman are dying declarations?

+onsidering the nature of the wounds$ 6 in all$ )enacio musthave the seriousness of his condition and that it can therefore

be inferred that he made the incrimination under theconsciousness of an impending death?

Declaration .$ainst Interest

Section -8 – DEC.R.)I(N .G.INS) IN)ERES))he declaration made !" a &erson deceased or una!leto testi#" a$ainst the interest o# the declarant i# the#act asserted in the declaration +as at the time it +asmade +as so contrar" to declarants o+n interest that

a reasona!le man in his &osition +ould not have madethe declaration unless he !elieved it to !e true ma" !ereceived in evidence a$ainst himsel# or his successorsin interest and a$ainst third &ersons,

• !ade by a person who is neither a party nor in privitywith a party to the suit

» (dmissible only when the declarant is unavailable asa witness

• 0equisites27? =eclarant is dead or unable to testify

4? *t relates to the facts against the declarant:? (t the time he made the declaration$ he is aware

that the same was contrary to the aforesaid interest

3? =eclarant had no motive to falsify and believed suchdeclaration to be true

.ct or Declaration .!out Pedi$ree

Section -5 – .C) (R DEC.R.)I(N .0() PEDIGREE)he act or declaration o# a &erson deceased or una!leto testi#" in res&ect to the &edi$ree o# another &ersonrelated to him !" !irth or marria$e ma" !e received inevidence +here it occurred !e#ore the controvers" andthe relationshi& !et+een the t+o &ersons is sho+n !"evidence other than such act or declaration, )he +ordK&edi$reeL includes relationshi& #amil" $enealo$"!irth marria$e death the dates +hen and the &laces+here these #acts occurred and the names o# therelatives, It em!races also #acts o# #amil" histor"intimatel" connected +ith &edi$ree,

• 0equisites27? @he actor or declarant is dead and unable to testify4? @he act or declaration is made by the person related

to the subject by birth or marriage:? @he relationship between the declarant or the actor

and the subject is shown by evidence other thansuch act or declaration

azerethpage 2&




3? @he act or declaration was made prior to thecontroversy

• =o not require any specific degree of relationship» 9ut may affects the weight of such act or

declaration

Famil" Re&utation or )radition Re$ardin$ Pedi$ree

Section 3? – F./I REP).)I(N (R )R.DI)I(N

REG.RDING PEDIGREE)he re&utation or tradition e*istin$ in a #amil" &reviousto the controvers" in res&ect to the &edi$ree o# an"one o# its mem!ers ma" !e received in evidence i# the+itness testi#"in$ thereon !e also a mem!er o# the#amil" either !" consan$uinit" or a##init", Entries in#amil" !i!les or other #amil" !oo:s or chartsen$ravin$s on rin$s #amil" &ortraits and the li:e ma"!e received as evidence o# &edi$ree

• 0equisites2

7? Witness testifying thereto must be a member$ byconsanguinity or affinity$ of the same family as thesubject

4? #uch tradition or reputation must have e.isted inthat family ante litem motam

• PersonBs statement of date of birth and age declaration

of family tradition» Prevails over mere opinion of the trial judge» 9ut cannot generally prevail over secondary

statement of the father

Common Re&utation

Section 31 – C(//(N REP).)I(NCommon re&utation e*istin$ &revious to thecontrovers" res&ectin$ #acts o# &u!lic or $eneralinterest more than -? "ears old res&ectin$ marria$e ormoral character ma" !e $iven in evidence, /onumentsand inscri&tions in &u!lic &laces ma" !e received asevidence o# common re&utation

• +ommon reputation general reputationG definiteopinion of the community in which the fact to be provedis ;nown or e.ists

» Leneral or substantially undivided reputation andneed not be unanimous

» (dmissible to prove2 Facts of public or general interest more than

:5 years old

• Public interest national interest

• Leneral interest affecting inhabitants ofa particular region or community

• !ust be more than :5 years old

» Established only by persons whohave had ;nowledge of that fact for

such length of time$ or bymonuments or documents e.isting

for that length of time !arriage !oral character

• ,ot required to be more than :5 years old

» !ust be ante l item motam» Established by2

7? @estimonial evidence of competent witness4? !onuments and inscription in public places:? =ocuments containing statements of

reputation• 0eputation opinion of him by others

• +haracter inherent qualities of a person» nder this section$ character may be established

through common reputation• (s a rule$ reputation of a person should be that e.isting

in the place of his residence

» 9ut$ it may also be that e.isting in the place wherehe is best ;nown

S vs, Choa Chio:@he character of a place as an opium joint may be

proved by its common reputation in the community

Res Gestae

Section 32 – P.R) (F )9E RES GES).EStatements made !" a &erson +hile a startlin$occurrence is ta:in$ &lace or immediatel" &rior orsu!se;uent thereto +ith res&ect to the circumstancesthereo# ma" !e $iven in evidence as &art o# the res$estae, So also statements accom&an"in$ an e;uivocalact material to the issue and $ivin$ it a le$al

si$ni#icance ma" !e received as &art o# the res $estae

• 0es gestae %Nthings doneO' refers to27? #pontaneous statements in connection with a

startling occurrence relating to that fact and ineffect forming part thereof

4? #tatements accompanying an equivocal act %verbal

act' on the theory that they are the verbal parts ofthe act to be e.plained

• 0equirements27? @he principal act %res gestae' is a startling

occurrence4? @he statements forming a part thereof were made

before the declarant had the opportunity to

contrive:? #tatements refer to the occurrence in question and

its attending circumstances

» 1nly such statements as appear to have beeninvoluntarily wrung from the witness by the impactof the occurrence are admissible

• *nterval of time between the startling occurrence and the

statement depends upon the circumstances» 9ut statement must have been made while the

declarant was under the immediate influence of thestartling occurrence

*f declarant rendered unconscious after thestartling occurrence$ his statement relative tothereto upon regaining consciousness still

forms part of re gestae regardless of the timethat intervened between

Peo&le vs, 0erame <15>B=*f the statement was made under the influence of a

startling event and the declarant did not have time to concoctor contrive a story$ even if made < hours after the ;illing$ the

statement is admissible as part of res gestae

• #tatements or outcries as part of res gestae had beenadmitted to establish the identity of assailant$ prove the

complicity of another person to the crime$ establishadmission of liability on part of the accused

• 0equirements for verbal acts to be admissible2

7? 0es gestae be characteriDed as equivocal4? #uch act must be material to the issue

:? #tatements must accompany the equivocal act3? #tatements give a legal significance to the

equivocal act» N)erbal actO used to denote that such statements

are the verbal parts of the equivocal act of which

such statements are e.planatory

0orromeo vs, C. <15>B=

,otes ta;en regarding a transaction by a person who isnot a party thereto and who has not been requested to ta;edown such notes are not part of the res gestae

Res Gestae <re a homicidalact=

D"in$ Declaration

#tatement may also be madeby the ;iller himself or by a

third person

=eclaration can only be madeby the victim

#tatement may precede$

accompany$ or be made afterthe homicidal act was

committed

=eclaration made only after

the homicidal attac; wascommitted

as its justification in the

spontaneity of the statement

@rustworthiness is based

upon its being given underthe awareness of impendingdeath

azerethpage 21




• #tatement may not be a dying declaration because it wasnot made under the consciousness of an impending

death$ but may be admissible as part of res gestae ifmade immediately after the incident

• Where the elements of both are present$ may beadmitted as both

Entries in the Course o# 0usiness

Section 3- – EN)RIES IN )9E C(RSE (F 0SINESSEntries made at or near the time o# the transactions to+hich the" re#er !" a &erson deceased or una!le totesti#" +ho +as in a &osition to :no+ the #acts thereinstated ma" !e received as &rima #acie evidence i# such&erson made the entries in his &ro#essional ca&acit" orin the &er#ormance o# a dut" and in the ordinar" orre$ular course o# !usiness or dut",

• 0equisites27? @he person who made the entry must be dead or

unable to testify4? @he entries were made at or near the time of the

transaction to which they refer

:? @he entrant was in a position to ;now the factsstated in the entries

3? @he entries were made in his professional capacity

or in the performance of a duty$ whether legal$contractual$ moral or religious

&? @he entries were made in the ordinary or regularcourse of business or duty

Can$ ui vs, Gardner <-3 Phil ->B=*f the entrant is available as a witness$ the said entries

will not be admitted as an e.ception to the hearsay rule$ but

they may nevertheless be availed of by said entrant as amemorandum to refresh his memory while testifying on thetransactions reflected therein

Rule 1-2 Section 1B – 69EN 6I)NESS /. REFER)( /E/(R.ND/. +itness ma" !e allo+ed to re#resh his memor"res&ectin$ a #act !" an"thin$ +ritten or recorded!" himsel# or under his direction at the time +henthe #act occurred or immediatel" therea#ter or at

an" other time +hen the #act +as #resh in hismemor" and he :ne+ that the same +as correctl"+ritten or recorded4 !ut in such case the +ritin$ orrecord must !e &roduced and ma" !e ins&ected !"the adverse &art" +ho ma" i# he chooses cross'e*amine the +itness u&on it and ma" read it inevidence, So also a +itness ma" testi#" #rom sucha +ritin$ or record thou$h he retain norecollection o# the &articular #acts i# he is a!le tos+ear that the +ritin$ or record correctl" statedthe transaction +hen made4 !ut such evidencemust !e received +ith caution,

e: )on$ Fire /arine Insurance Co, Inc, vs,Gutierre et al <C. 5 (G 8122=

*n the presentation and admission as evidence of entries

made in the regular course of business$ there is no overriding

necessity to bring into court all the cler;s or employees whoindividually made the entries in a long account? *t is sufficientthat the person who supervises the wor; of the cler;s or otheremployees ma;ing the entries testify that the account was

prepared under his supervision and that the entries wereregularly entered in the ordinary course of business

Entries in (##icial Records

Section 33 – EN)RIES IN (FFICI. REC(RDSEntries in o##icial records made in the &er#ormance o#his dut" !" a &u!lic o##icer o# the Phili&&ines or !" a&erson in the &er#ormance o# a dut" s&eciall" en%oined!" la+ are &rima #acie evidence o# the #acts thereinstated

• !erely prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated• 0equisites2

7? Entries were made by a public officer in theperformance of his duties or by a person in the

performance of a duty specially enjoined by law

4? @he entrant had personal ;nowledge of the factsstated by him or such facts were acquired by him

from reports made by persons under a legal duty tosubmit the same

:? #uch entries were duly entered in a regular mannerin the official records

• !otor vehicle accident report made at about the time ofthe accident by a police officer in the performance of hisduties

» (dmissible if based upon information given by thedrivers who figured in the accident

» Prima facie evidence of facts therein stated• #heriffBs return e.ception to hearsay

» #heriff need not testify in court• Entrant must have been competent

Remi$io vs, (rti$a <-- Phil B13=While a priest who officiates at a baptism acts pursuant

to a legal duty in recording the facts of such baptism in aregister$ such entries in the register are not admissible to

prove the date of birth of the child or its relation to particularpersons as the entrant priest is not competent to testify withrespect to the truth of these latter facts

• +hurch registries no longer public writings pursuant to

L1 ,o? &6 and (ct ,o? 7<5

» 9ut still admissible as evidence of the facts statedtherein

» 9ut necessary to be authenticated as privatewritings

» ( copy of the certificate transmitted to the publicofficer as required by law becomes a public

document (dmissible without prior authentication

• Entries in official records may be proved and evidencedin the manner provided by 0ule 7:4 #ections 43 and 4&

Commercial ists

Section 3 ' C(//ERCI. IS)S .ND )9E IJEEvidence o# statements o# matters o# interest to&ersons en$a$ed in an occu&ation contained in a listre$ister &eriodical or other &u!lished com&ilation isadmissi!le as tendin$ to &rove the truth o# an" relevant

matter so stated i# that com&ilation is &u!lished #or use!" &ersons en$a$ed in that occu&ation and is $enerall"used and relied u&on !" them therein,

• E.amples2 +arlisle or Wigglesworth @ables and acceptedactuarial and annuity tables

earned )reatises

Section 3B ' E.RNED )RE.)ISES. &u!lished treatise &eriodical or &am&hlet on asu!%ect o# histor" la+ science or art is admissi!le astendin$ to &rove the truth o# a matter stated therein i#the court ta:es %udicial notice or a +itness e*&ert inthe su!%ect testi#ies that the +riter o# the statement inthe treatise &eriodical or &am&hlet is reco$nied in his&ro#ession or callin$ as e*&ert in the su!%ect,

• 0equisites27? @he court ta;es judicial notice thereof 4? @he same is testified to by a witness e.pert in the

subject

• +( too; judicial notice of the 9allantyne #cale of )alues6

• "egal treatises also included

)estimon" or De&osition at a Former Proceedin$

Section 3> ' )ES)I/(N (R DEP(SI)I(N .) . F(R/ERPR(CEEDING)he testimon" or de&osition o# a +itness deceased oruna!le to testi#" $iven in a #ormer case or &roceedin$ %udicial or administrative involvin$ the same &artiesand su!%ect matter ma" !e $iven in evidence a$ainstthe adverse &art" +ho had the o&&ortunit" to cross'

e*amine him,

• 0equisites2

6 Estrada vs? ,oble %+($ 3< 1L 7:<'

azerethpage 22




7? Witness is dead or unable to testify4? is testimony or deposition was given in a former

case or proceeding$ judicial or administrative$between the same parties or those representing the

same interests:? @he former case involved the same subject as that

in the present case$ although on different causes ofaction

3? @he issues testified to by the witness in the former

trial is the same issue involved in the present case&? @he adverse party had an opportunity to cross-

e.amine the witness in the former case• #ubsequent failure or refusal to appear at the second

trial$ or hostility since testifying at the first trial Kinability to testify» *nability should proceed from a grave cause almost

amounting to death

.ldecoa vs, 7u$o <B1 Phil ->3=5

@estimony given by a witness in a civil case is not

admissible in a subsequent criminal case$ even if said witnesshad died in the interim$ because the former testimonyreferred to in sec 7& of L1 ,o? &6 75 as being admissible in the

trial of the criminal case refers to testimony given in thepreliminary investigation or prior trial of said criminal case and

not to testimony ta;en in a prior civil case$ the actions being

essentially different

Guevara vs, .lmario <B Phil 3>B=@he testimony of the witness in a prior criminal action

for libel as to the reputation of the offended party would beadmissible in the civil case arising from the same criminal

offense if said witness was no longer available

• (dmissibility of prior judgment governed by differentrules

.lmeida Chantan$co vs, .!aroa <3? Phil 1?B=( judgment in a criminal proceeding or in an

administrative proceeding cannot be read in evidence in a civilaction against a person not a party thereto to establish any

fact therein determined? @he matter is res inter alios andcannot be invo;ed as res judicata

• #uch judgment may only be admitted in evidence in a

civil case by way of inducement$ or to show a collateralfact relevant to the issue in the civil action77

» Cudgment can only prove that a certain defendant

has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to the

penalty therein imposed74

/iranda vs, /alate Gara$e )a*ica! Inc,<55 Phil B>?=

( judgment of conviction$ in the absence of collusion

between the accused and the offended party$ is binding andconclusive upon the person subsidiarily liable not only with

regard to his subsidiary liability but also with regard to theamount thereof

• #aid judgment is admissible in evidence in the civil actionbrought to enforce said subsidiary liability7:

>, (PINI(N R E

Section 38 ' GENER. RE)he o&inion o# +itness is not admissi!le e*ce&t asindicated in the #ollo+in$ sections,

Section 35 ' (PINI(N (F E@PER) 6I)NESS)he o&inion o# a +itness on a matter re;uirin$ s&ecial:no+led$e s:ill e*&erience or trainin$ +hich he sho+nto &osses ma" !e received in evidence,

< (lso in People vs? )illaluD %7<6:'75 "ater 7<A3 01+ 0ule 77& #ec 7%f'77

Ed (? Ieller M +o? %"td?' vs? Ellerman M 9uc;nall #teamship +o?%"td?' %:6 Phil &73'G +ity of !anila vs? !anila Electric +o? %&4 Phil

&6A'74 (rambulo vs? !anila Electric +o? %&& Phil 8&'7: Pajarito vs? #eneris %7<86'

Section ? ' (PINI(N (F (RDIN.R 6I)NESSES)he o&inion o# a +itness #or +hich &ro&er !asis is $ivenma" !e received in evidence re$ardin$a, )he identit" o# a &erson a!out +hom he has

ade;uate :no+led$e4!, . hand+ritin$ +ith +hich he has su##icient

#amiliarit"4 andc, )he mental sanit" o# a &erson +ith +hom he is

su##icientl" ac;uainted,

)he +itness ma" also testi#" on his im&ressions o# theemotion !ehavior condition or a&&earance o# a &erson,

• Leneral rule2 #ection 36

• E.ceptions2 #ections 3< and &5• 1pinion of a witness is admissible in the following

circumstances2

7? 1n a matter requiring special ;nowledge$ s;ill$e.perience or training which he possesses$ that is$

when he is an e.pert thereon4? 0egarding the identity or the handwriting of a

person$ when he has ;nowledge of the person orhandwriting$ whether he is an ordinary or e.pertwitness

:? 1n the mental sanity of a person$ if the witness issufficiently acquainted with the former or if the

latter is an e.pert witness

3? 1n the emotion$ behavior$ condition or appearanceof a person which he has observed

5. 1n ordinary matters ;nown to all men of common

perception as the value of ordinary householdarticles73

• E.pert witness one who belongs to the profession or

calling to which the subject matter of the inquiry relatesand who possesses special ;nowledge on questions on

which he proposes to e.press an opinion» ,o definite standard of determining degree of

;nowledge or s;ill» Factors2

7? @raining and education4? Particular$ first-hand familiarity with the facts

of the case

3. Presentation of authorities or standards upon

which his opinion is based

7&

» E.pert evidence is admissible only when2

7? @he matter to be testif ied to is one thatrequires e.pertise

4? @he witness has been qualified as a witness

» ypothetical questions may be as;ed of an e.pert

» +ourts are not bound by the e.pertBs findings7A

» Lenerally not regarded as conclusive$ but purely

advisory in character78

6ells vs, ee: <11 Pa, 3-1 3-5 2 .tl, 1?1=*n weighing the testimony of an e.pert witness$ courts

must necessarily consider all the circumstances of the case$

among them his qualifications$ e.perience and degree oflearning$ the basis and logic of his conclusion$ and the otherevidence of record? @he value of e.pert testimony depends

largely on the e.tent of the e.perience or studies of thewitness$ because the greater his e.perience or ;nowledge$ the

greater is the value of his opinion resting upon the same

S vs, Josel <23 Phil 53=With respect to a handwriting e.pert$ the value of his

opinion depends not upon his mere statement whether the

handwriting is genuine or false$ but upon the assistance hemay afford in pointing out the distinguishing mar;s$

characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine andfalse specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape

notice or detection by an untrained observer

• Whether or not courts are bound by the testimony of ane.pert depends greatly upon the nature of the subject of

inquiry

73 Lalian vs? #tate (ssurance +o? "td? %4< Phil 37:'7& People vs? (briol %4557'7A People vs? Florendo %A6 Phil A7<'78 People vs? =eauna %4554'

azerethpage 23




» *f the same is one that falls within the general

;nowledge of judges$ courts are not bound by theconclusions of even a real e.pert along such line76

» 1nly where the subject of inquiry is of such a

technical nature that a layman can possibly have no

;nowledge thereof that the courts must depend andrely upon e.pert evidence7<

• +onflicting e.pert evidence have neutraliDing effect» Lenerates doubt

76 Paras vs? ,arciso %:& Phil 433'G =olar vs? =iansin %&& Phil 38<'7< 0aymundo vs? "egaspi %38 1L 658'$ cited in ,(0*+ vs? First

,ational #ecurity M (ssurance +o?$ *nc? %+($ A3 1L 75A58'

Cesar vs, Sandi$an!a"an <158=2?

Where the supposed e.pertBs testimony would

constitute the sole ground for conviction and there is equallye.pert testimony to the contrary$ the constitutional

presumption of innocence must prevail

• E.pert evidence on handwriting is at best$ wea; and

unsatisfactory» Proof of handwriting by comparison is in most cases

unsafe$ even when several documents are used asbases for comparison

+ontrary ruling2 see "opeD vs? +( %7<86'» 1pinions of handwriting e.perts are not necessarily

binding upon the courts

• (uthenticity of a questioned signature cannot bedetermined solely upon its general characteristics$

similarities or dissimilarities with the genuine signature» =issimilarities are not decisive on the question of a

signatureBs authenticity

• +ommon ;nowledge that that the writing of a personchanges as time passes

Ciru%ano vs, PN0 <C. 5 (G 83?3="ess weight should be given to inferences from

comparison$ than to direct and credible testimony of witnessesas to the matters within their personal observation

• =iphenaline or Paraffin @est proved to be e.tremely

unreliable in use

Peo&le vs, /endoa <1585=@he Paraffin test is not conclusive as to the presence of

gunpowder because fertiliDers$ cosmetics$ cigarettes$ urine$and other nitrogenous compounds with nitrites and nitrateswill give a positive reaction

Peo&le vs, Castillon III <2??1=( finding that the paraffin test yielded negative results

is not conclusive evidence that the accused had not fired a

gun? *t is possible for a person to have fired a gun and yet benegative for the presence of nitrates$ as when he wore glovesor washed his hands afterwards

• 0esults of blood grouping tests on the filiation of a child$competently conducted by qualified persons$ are

admissible and conclusive on the non-paternity of aperson over a child

• (dmissibility of =,( evidence has been upheld by the #+» *n assessing the probative value$ necessary to

consider$ inter alia$ how the samples were collected$

how they were handled$ the possibility ofcontamination of the samples$ the procedurefollowed in analyDing the samples$ the

determination of whether or not the properstandards and procedures were followed in

conducting the tests and the qualification of theanalyst who conducted those tests

0r"an vs, Eastern .ustralian S,S, Co, td,<28 Phil -1?=

@he testimony of a witness s;illed in the unwritten law

of a foreign country is not necessarily binding on our courts

8, C9.R.C)ER EVIDENCE

Section 1 ' C9.R.C)ER EVIDENCE N() GENER..D/ISSI0E4 E@CEP)I(NSAa, In Criminal CasesA

1, )he accused ma" &rove his $ood moralcharacter +hich is &ertinent to the moral traitinvolved in the o##ense char$ed,

2, nless in re!uttal the &rosecution ma" not&rove his !ad moral character +hich is&ertinent to the moral trait involved in theo##ense char$ed, )he $ood or !ad moralcharacter o# the o##ended &art" ma" !e &rovedi# it tends to esta!lish in an" reasona!lede$ree the &ro!a!ilit" or im&ro!a!ilit" o# theo##ense char$ed,

!, In Civil CasesA

45 #iasat vs? *(+ %7<6&'

azerethpage 2




Evidence o# the moral character o# a &art" in civilcase is admissi!le onl" +hen &ertinent to the issueo# character involved in the case,

c, In the case &rovided #or in Rule 1-2 Sec 13,

#ummary of the rules on character evidence2

• With respect to the nature of the case

» +riminal cases

Prosecution at the outset may not prove the

bad moral character of the accused which ispertinent to the moral trait involved in theoffense charged

• *ntended to avoid unfair prejudice to theaccused

• *f accused in his defense attempts toprove his good moral character$prosecution can introduce evidence of bad

moral character in rebuttal

Lood or bad moral character of the offendedparty may be proved by either party as long as

such evidence is relevant» +ivil cases

!oral character of either party cannot beproved unless pertinent to the issue of

character involved

• With respect to the person

» (ccused2 character evidence must be pertinent tothe moral trait involved in the offense charged

» 1ffended party2 sufficient that character evidence is

relevant» Witness2 bad moral character may always be proved

by either party %0ule 7:4 #ec 77'

,ot evidence of his good moral character

unless it has been impeached %0ule 7:4 #ec73'

azerethpage 2!



B'rden of Proof and What Need Not Be ProvedEvidence

B'rden of Proof and What NeedNot Be Proved

Rule 1-1 – 0urden o# Proo# and Presum&tions

1, 0RDEN (F PR((F

Section 1 – 0RDEN (F PR((F0urden o# &roo# is the dut" o# a &art" to &resentevidence on the #acts in issue necessar" to esta!lish hisclaim or de#ense !" the amount o# evidence re;uired !"la+

• 9urden of proof onus probandiG obligation imposed

upon a party who alleges the e.istence of facts necessaryfor the prosecution of his action or defense to establishthe same by the requisite quantum of evidence

» +ivil cases preponderance of evidence

Rule 18- Section 1

» +riminal cases For issuance of warrant of arrest after P*

evidence of probable cause

• 0easonable ground to believe that theaccused committed the offense

@o warrant the filing of an information primafacie evidence

@o sustain a conviction evidence beyond

reasonable doubt» +harge of misconduct against judges clear and

convincing evidence 0emoval beyond reasonable doubt

» (grarian cases substantial evidence 1nly such relevant evidence as a reasonable

mind might accept$ as sufficient to support a

conclusion (lso applies to cases filed before administrative

or quasi-judicial bodies

0urden o# Proo# 0urden o# Evidence

+ivil cases - on the party who

would be defeated if noevidence were given oneither side

+riminal cases always onthe prosecution

9oth civil and criminal cases

lies with party who assertsan affirmative allegation

=oes not shift as it remainsthroughout the trial with the

party upon whom it isimposed

#hifts from party to partydepending upon the

e.igencies of the case in thecourse of the trial

Lenerally determined by thepleading filed by the party

Lenerally determined by thedevelopments at the trial or

by provisions of law

• ,egative allegations do not have to be proved

» E.cept where such are essential parts of the +1( ordefense in a civil case or essential ingredients of the

offense E?g? breach of contract2 prove the fact that the

defendant did not comply with the obligation

*llegal possession of firearms2 absence of alicense

owever$ in civil cases$ even if negativeallegation is an essential part of the +1( or

defense$ such does not have to be proven if itis only for the purpose of denying thee.istence of a document which would properly

be in the custody of the adverse party @he general rule is if the criminal charge is

predicated on a negative allegation or that a

negative averment is an essential element ofthe crime$ the prosecution has the burden ofproving the charge? Where the negative of anissue does not permit of direct proof$ or where

the facts are more immediately within the;nowledge of the accused$ the onus probandi

rests on him? *t is not incumbent upon theprosecution to adduce positive evidence to

support a negative averment the truth of whichis fairly indicated by established circumstances

and which$ if untrue$ could readily bedisproved by documents or other evidencewithin the ;nowledge or control of the accused?

Peo&le vs, /acala!a <2??-=@hus where the charge is made that the accused carried

on a business without a license$ the fact that he has a license

is a matter which is peculiarly within his ;nowledge and hemust establish that fact or suffer conviction?

2, 69.) NEED N() 0E PR(VED

., F.C)S 69IC9 .RE PRES/ED

• Presumption inference of an e.istence or non-e.istenceof a fact which courts are permitted to draw from theproof of other facts

» +ompared to judicial notice and judicial admission Presumption2 proponent still has to introduce

evidence of the basis of the presumption$

evidence of the e.istence or non-e.istence offacts from which the court can draw theinference of the fact in issue

Cudicial notice and judicial admission2 as a

rule$ proponent does not have to introduceevidence

Presum&tions o# a+ Presum&tions o# Fact

Praesumptiones juris Praesumptiones hominis

+ertain inference must bemade whenever the facts

appear which furnish thebasis for the inference

=iscretion is vested in thetribunal as to drawing the

inference

0educed to fi.ed rules andform a part of the system

of jurisprudence

=erived wholly and directlyfrom the circumstances of the

particular case by means of thecommon e.perience of

man;ind

@ypes27? +onclusive %juris et de

jure'4? =isputable %juris

tantum or prima facie'

1= Conclusive Presum&tions

Section 2 – C(NCSIVE PRES/P)I(NS)he #ollo+in$ instances are conclusive &resum&tionsAa, 6henever a &art" has !" his o+n declaration act

or omission intentionall" and deli!eratel" ledanother to !elieve a &articular thin$ true and to

act u&on such !elie# he cannot in an" liti$ationarisin$ out o# such declaration act or omission !e&ermitted to #alsi#" it4

!, )he tenant is not &ermitted to den" the title o# hislandlord at the time o# the commencement o# therelation o# landlord and tenant !et+een them,

• 9ased upon doctrine of estoppel in pais

2= Dis&uta!le Presum&tions

Section - – DISP).0E PRES/P)I(N)he #ollo+in$ &resum&tions are satis#actor" i#uncontradicted !ut ma" !e contradicted and overcome!" other evidenceAa, )hat a &erson is innocent o# crime or +ron$4!, )hat an unla+#ul act +as done +ith unla+#ul

intent4c, )hat a &erson intends the ordinar" conse;uences

o# his voluntar" act4d, )hat a &erson ta:es ordinar" care o# his concerns4

azerethpage 2"




e, )hat evidence +ill#ull" su&&ressed +ould !eadverse i# &roduced4

#, )hat the mone" &aid !" one to another +as due tothe latter4

$, )hat the thin$ delivered !" one to another!elon$ed to the latter4

h, )hat an o!li$ation delivered u& to the de!tor has!een &aid4

i, )hat &rior rents or installments had !een &aid

+hen a recei&t #or the latter ones is &roduced4 %, )hat a &erson in &ossession o# a thin$ ta:en in the

doin$ o# a recent +ron$#ul act is the ta:er and thedoer o# the +hole act4 other+ise that thin$s +hicha &erson &ossesses or e*ercises acts o# o+nershi&over are o+ned !" him4

:, )hat a &erson in &ossession o# an order on himsel##or the &a"ment o# mone" or the deliver"an"thin$ has &aid the mone" or delivered thethin$ accordin$l"4

l, )hat a &erson actin$ in a &u!lic o##ice +as re$ularl"a&&ointed or elected to it4

m, )hat o##icial dut" has !een re$ularl" &er#ormed4n, )hat a court or %ud$e actin$ as such +hether in

the Phili&&ines or else+here +as actin$ in thela+#ul e*ercise o# %urisdiction4

o, )hat all the matters +ithin an issue raised in a case

+ere laid !e#ore the court and &assed u&on !" it4and in li:e manner that all matters +ithin an issueraised a dis&ute su!mitted #or ar!itration +ere laid!e#ore the ar!itrators and &assed u&on !" them4

&, )hat &rivate transactions have !een #air andre$ular4

;, )hat the ordinar" course o# !usiness have !een#ollo+ed4

r, )hat there +as su##icient consideration #or acontract4

s, )hat a ne$otia!le instrument +as $iven or indorsed#or a su##icient consideration4

t, )hat an indorsement o# a ne$otia!le instrument+as made !e#ore the instrument +as overdue andat the &lace +here it +as dated4

u, )hat a +ritin$ is dul" dated4v, )hat a letter dul" directed and mailed +as received

in the re$ular course o# the mail4

+, )hat a#ter an a!sence o# > "ears it !ein$ un:no+n+hether or not the a!sentee still lives he shall !econsidered dead #or all &ur&oses e*ce&t those o#succession,)he a!sentee shall not !e considered dead #or the&ur&ose o# o&enin$ his succession till a#ter ana!sence o# 1? "ears, I# he disa&&eared a#ter thea$e o# > an a!sence o# "ears shall !e su##icientin order that his succession ma" !e o&ened,)he #ollo+in$ shall !e &resumed dead #or all&ur&oses includin$ the division o# the estateamon$ the heirsA

1= . &erson on !oard a vessel lost durin$ asea vo"a$e or an aircra#t +hich is missin$+ho has not !een heard o# #or 3 "ears sincethe lost o# the vessel or aircra#t42= . mem!er o# the armed #orces +ho has

ta:en &art in armed hostilities and has !eenmissin$ #or 3 "ears4-= . &erson +ho has !een in dan$er o# deathunder other circumstances and +hosee*istence has not !een :no+n #or 3 "ears43= I# a married &erson has !een a!sent #or 3consecutive "ears the s&ouse &resent ma"contract a su!se;uent marria$e i# he or shehas a +ell'#ounded !elie# that the a!sents&ouse is alread" dead, In case o#disa&&earance +here there is dan$er o# deathunder the circumstances hereina!ove&rovided an a!sence o# onl" 2 "ears shall !esu##icient #or the &ur&ose o# contractin$ asu!se;uent marria$e, 9o+ever in an" case!e#ore marr"in$ a$ain the s&ouse &resentmust institute a summar" &roceedin$ as&rovided in the Famil" Code and in the rules#or declaration o# &resum&tive death o# thea!sentee +ithout &re%udice to the e##ect o#the rea&&earance o# the a!sent s&ouse,

*, )hat ac;uiescence resulted #rom a !elie# that thethin$ ac;uiesced in +as con#orma!le to the la+ or#act4

", )hat thin$s have ha&&ened accordin$ to theordinar" course o# nature and the ordinar" ha!itso# li#e4

, )hat &ersons actin$ as co'&artners have enteredinto a contract o# &artnershi&4

aa, )hat a man and +oman de&ortin$ themselves as

hus!and and +i#e have entered into a la+#ulcontract o# marria$e4

!!, )hat &ro&ert" ac;uired !" a man and a +oman +hoare ca&acitated to marr" each other and +ho livee*clusivel" +ith each other as hus!and and +i#e+ithout the !ene#it o# marria$e or under a voidmarria$e has !een o!tained !" their %oint e##orts+or: or industr"4

cc, )hat in cases o# coha!itation !" a man and a+oman +ho are not ca&acitated to marr" eachother and +ho have ac;uired &ro&ert" throu$htheir actual %oint contri!ution o# mone" &ro&ert"or industr" such contri!utions and theircorres&ondin$ shares includin$ %oint de&osits o#mone" and evidences o# credit are e;ual4

dd, )hat i# the marria$e is terminated and the mothercontracted another marria$e +ithin -?? da"s a#ter

such termination o# the #ormer marria$e theserules shall $overn in the a!sence o# &roo# to thecontrar"A1= . child !orn !e#ore 18? da"s a#ter the

solemniation o# the su!se;uent marria$e isconsidered to have !een conceived durin$ the#ormer marria$e &rovided it !e !orn +ithin-?? da"s a#ter the termination o# the #ormermarria$e,

2= . child !orn a#ter 18? da"s #ollo+in$ thecele!ration o# the su!se;uent marria$e isconsidered to have !een conceived durin$such marria$e even thou$h it !e !orn +ithin-?? da"s a#ter the termination o# the #ormermarria$e,

ee, )hat a thin$ once &roved to e*ist continues as lon$as is usual +ith the thin$s o# that nature4

##, )hat the la+ has !een o!e"ed4

$$, )hat a &rinted or &u!lished !oo: &ur&ortin$ to !e&rinted or &u!lished !" &u!lic authorit" +as so&rinted or &u!lished4

hh, )hat a &rinted or &u!lished !oo: &ur&ortin$ tocontain re&orts o# cases ad%ud$ed in tri!unals o#the countr" +here the !oo: is &u!lished containscorrect re&orts o# such cases4

ii, )hat a trustee or other &erson +hose dut" it +as toconve" the real &ro&ert" to a &articular &erson hasactuall" conve"ed it to him +hen such &resum&tionis necessar" to &er#ect the title o# such &erson orhis successor'in'interest4

%%, )hat e*ce&t #or &ur&oses o# succession +hen 2&ersons &erish in the same calamit" such as+rec: !attle or con#la$ration and it is not sho+n+ho died #irst and there are no &articularcircumstances #rom +hich it can !e in#erred the

survivorshi& is determined #rom the &ro!a!ilitiesresultin$ #rom the stren$th and a$e o# the se*esaccordin$ to the #ollo+in$ rulesA1= I# !oth +ere under the a$e o# 1 the older is

deemed to have survived42= I# !oth +ere a!ove the a$e o# B? the "oun$er

is deemed to have survived4-= I# one is under 1 and the other is a!ove B?

the #ormer is deemed to have survived43= I# !oth !e over 1 and under B? and the se* is

di##erent the male is deemed to havesurvived4 i# the se* is the same the older4

= I# one !e under 1 or over B? and the other!et+een those a$es the latter is deemed tohave survived

::, )hat i# there is dou!t as !et+een 2 or more&ersons +ho are called to succeed each other as to+hich o# them died #irst +hoever alle$es the deatho# one &rior to the other shall &rove the same4 inthe a!sence o# &roo# the" shall !e considered tohave died at the same time,

azerethpage 2#




• Par %a'» "egislature may provide for prima facie evidence of

guilt provided there be a rational connectionbetween the facts proved and the ultimate fact

presumed 0P+$ (rticle 478

• 0equisites for par? %e'

7? @he evidence is material4? Party had the opportunity to produce the same

:? #aid evidence is available only to said party Presumption does not apply if evidence is

equally available to both parties$ or is merely

corroborativeHcumulative or unnecessary

Peo&le vs, Realon <158?=Presumption does not arise from the failure of the

prosecution to present the ,9* agents and the results of thefingerprint and paraffin tests in view of the overwhelmingevidence on the positive identification of the accused?

Furthermore$ the defense could have availed of said evidencewhich was equally available to it

Peo&le vs, Nava%a <155-=@he adverse presumption of suppression of evidence

does not arise when27? @he suppression is not willful$

4? @he evidence withheld is merely corroborative orcumulative$

:? @he evidence is at the disposal of both parties$3? @he suppression is an e.ercise of a privilege

• Par? %i' is connected with the +ivil +ode principles

Civil Code .rticle 11>B)he recei&t o# the &rinci&al !" the creditor +ithoutreservation +ith res&ect to the interest shall $iverise to the &resum&tion that said interest has !een&aid,)he recei&t o# a later installment o# a de!t +ithoutreservation as to &rior installments shall li:e+iseraise the &resum&tion that such installments have!een &aid,

• Par %j' similar rationale2

Peo&le vs, Senda"die$o <15>8=*f a person had in his possession a falsified document

and he made use of it$ ta;en advantage of it and profited

thereby$ the presumption is that he is the material author ofthe falsification?

• Par %v' it must be proved that the letter was properlyaddressed with postage pre-paid and that it was actually

mailed» *f not returned to sender$ it is presumed that it was

received by the addressee

0arrameda vs, Castillo <15>>=nder 0ule 7:$ #ec 75$ service by pleadings by mail is

complete upon the e.piration of 75 days after mailing$ unless

the court otherwise provides$ while service by registered mailis complete upon actual receipt by the addressee$ but if he

fails to claim his mail from the post office within & days fromthe date of first notice$ the service is complete at thee.piration of such time? @here must$ however$ be conclusive

proof that a first notice was sent to the addressee as the

presumption that official duty has been regularly performeddoes not apply to this situation

Ferraren vs, Santos <1582=*f$ however$ the postmaster certifies that first notice

was sent$ the presumption that official duty has been regularly

performed arises and overrides the contrary claim of theaddressee?

• Par %w' ta;en from +ivil +ode

» #ub par 7M4 the absentee is presumed to havedied at the end of the period %&H8H75 years'

» #ub par : %qualified absence' absentee is

presumed to have died at the time he was e.posedto the danger or peril

(t the start of the 3 year period ,umber %3' does not actually provide for a

presumption corollary procedural rule

Victor" Shi&&in$ ines vs, 6CC <1?B Phil 11B=Where the fate of the vessel is ;nown$ and not where

the vessel was merely lost or missing$ the disputable

azerethpage 2$




presumption of death does not arise and the fact of death$must$ instead$ be established by preponderance of evidence

• Par %dd' ta;en from (rt 4&< of the +ivil +ode$ in line

with (rt 7A6 of the Family +ode• Par %jj' requisites2

7? =eaths occurred in a calamity4? @here are no particular circumstances from which it

can be inferred that one died ahead of the other

azerethpage 2%



Presentation of EvidenceEvidence

Presentation of Evidence

Rule 1-2 – Presentation o# Evidence

., E@./IN.)I(N (F 6I)NESSES

Section 1 – E@./IN.)I(N )( 0E D(NE IN (PEN C(R)

)he e*amination o# +itnesses &resented in a trial orhearin$ shall !e done in o&en court and under oath ora##irmation, nless the +itness is inca&acitated tos&ea: or the ;uestion calls #or a di##erent mode o#ans+er the ans+ers o# a +itness shall !e $iven orall"

Section 2 – PR(CEEDINGS )( 0E REC(RDED)he entire &roceedin$s o# a trial or hearin$ includin$the ;uestions to !e &ro&ounded to a +itness and hisans+er thereto the statements made !" the %ud$e oran" o# the &arties counsel or +itnesses +ith re#erenceto the case shall !e recorded !" means o# shorthand orstenot"&e or !" other means o# recordin$ #oundsuita!le !" the court,. transcri&t o# the record o# the &roceedin$s made !"the o##icial steno$ra&her stenot"&ist or recorder andcerti#ied as correct !" him shall !e deemed &rima #acie

a correct statement o# such &roceedin$s,

• @o be admissible$ testimony of a witness may be given inopen court

» !ay be supplanted by27? +ivil cases depositions %0ules 4: 43'

4? +riminal cases depositions or conditionale.aminations %0ule 77< #ections 74-7& and

0ule 74: #ec 7'» !ere presentation of affidavits of witnesses subject

to cross-e.amination is not allowed by the rules

» 9ut$ under 9P 74<$ summary procedures may beauthoriDed by #+ in special cases

!ay provide that affidavits and counter-affidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral

testimony• @estimony of witness should be elicited by questions of

counsel

» 9ut +ourt itself may propound questions or maysuggest questions to counsel

Peo&le vs, /analo <158>=@he court should be given reasonable leeway to

ascertain the truth$ and the e.tent to which such e.aminationmay be conducted rests in its discretion and will not be

controlled in the absence of abuse of discretion to theprejudice of either party

Section - ' RIG9)S .ND (0IG.)I(NS (F . 6I)NESS. +itness must ans+er ;uestions althou$h his ans+erma" tend to esta!lish a claim a$ainst him, 9o+ever itis the ri$ht o# a +itnessA1, )o !e &rotected #rom irrelevant im&ro&er or

insultin$ ;uestions and #rom harsh or insultin$demeanor4

2, Not to !e detained lon$er than the interests o# %ustice re;uire4-, Not to !e e*amined e*ce&t onl" as to matters

&ertinent to the issue43, Not to $ive an ans+er +hich +ill tend to su!%ect

him to a &enalt" #or an o##ense unless other+ise&rovided !" la+4 or

, Not to $ive an ans+er +hich +ill tend to de$radehis re&utation unless it to !e the ver" #act at issueor to a #act #rom +hich the #act in issue +ould !e&resumed, 0ut a +itness must ans+er to the #act o#his &revious #inal conviction #or an o##ense, <-a15a=

• Witness cannot refuse to answer questions material to

the inquiry even if it may tend to establish a claimagainst him

• 9ut may refuse if2

7? nder the right against self-degradation unless2a? #uch question is directed to the very fact in

issue

b? 0efers to his previous final conviction oroffense

4? nder the right against self-incrimination +riminal cases 0ule 77& #ection 7%e'2

accused may refuse to ta;e the standaltogether

• (ccused2 may be with reference to the

offense involved in the same case whereinhe is charged or to an offense for which

he may be charged and tried in anothercase

• Witness2 offense involved is one for whichhe may be tried in another case

• 0ight should be seasonably invo;ed andmay be waived

1ther casesHproceedings a party may becompelled to ta;e the stand but he may objectto incriminating questions

0eltran vs, Samson <- Phil >?=Where in a prosecution for falsification$ the

accused too; the stand and testified denying his

authorship of the alleged falsified signature$ oncross-e.amination he can be compelled to give asample of his handwriting and it was not a denial of

his right against self-incrimination

0ermude vs, Castillo <B3 Phil 38-=Where$ in a disbarment case$ the complainant on

cross-e.amination denied authorship of certainhandwritten letters$ she could not be compelled togive samples of her handwriting as it would amount

to a denial of her right against self-incrimination ina possible charge for perjury

+onflict can be reconciled2

• 9eltran2 it was the accused himself whoopened the issue on his direct

e.amination» e could have refused to test ify

altogether» @herefore$ he waived his right

• 9ermudeD2 complainant could not refuse

to testify without an unfavorable inferencebeing drawn against her

» (lso$ issue was raised during cross-e.amination$ hence she did not

waive the right Nnless otherwise provided by lawO refers to

immunity statutes wherein the witness is

granted immunity from criminal prosecution

Section 3 ' (RDER IN )9E E@./IN.)I(N (F .NINDIVID. 6I)NESS)he order in +hich the individual +itness ma" !ee*amined is as #ollo+s4a, Direct e*amination !" the &ro&onent4!, Cross'e*amination !" the o&&onent4c, Re'direct e*amination !" the &ro&onent4d, Re'cross'e*amination !" the o&&onent,

Section ' DIREC) E@./IN.)I(NDirect e*amination is the e*amination'in'chie# o# a+itness !" the &art" &resentin$ him on the #actsrelevant to the issue,

Section B ' CR(SS'E@./IN.)I(N4 I)S PRP(SE .NDE@)EN)&on the termination o# the direct e*amination the+itness ma" !e cross'e*amined !" the adverse &art" asto man" matters stated in the direct e*amination orconnected there+ith +ith su##icient #ullness and#reedom to test his accurac" and truth#ulness and#reedom #rom interest or !ias or the reverse and toelicit all im&ortant #acts !earin$ u&on the issue,

Section > ' RE'DIREC) E@./IN.)I(N4 I)S PRP(SE.ND E@)EN).#ter the cross'e*amination o# the +itness has !eenconcluded he ma" !e re'e*amined !" the &art" callin$him to e*&lain or su&&lement his ans+ers $iven durin$the cross'e*amination, (n re'direct'e*amination;uestions on matters not dealt +ith durin$ the cross'

azerethpage 3&




e*amination ma" !e allo+ed !" the court in itsdiscretion,

Section 8 ' RE'CR(SS'E@./IN.)I(N&on the conclusion o# the re'direct e*amination theadverse &art" ma" re'cross'e*amine the +itness onmatters stated in his re'direct e*amination and also onsuch other matters as ma" !e allo+ed !" the court inits discretion,

• ( witness may be cross e.amined by the adverse partynot only as to matters stated in the direct e.amination

but also as to matters connected therewith$ and thisshould be allowed to do with sufficient fullness and

freedom to test the witnessB accuracy$ truthfulness andfreedom from interest or bias$ and also to elicit from him

any important fact bearing upon the issue» (merican rule cross-e.amination must be

confined to the matters inquired about in the direct

e.amination» English rule witness may be cross-e.amined not

only upon matters relevant to the issue» @his jurisdiction more on English rule

• nwill ingHhostileHadverse party witness crosse.amination shall only be on the subject of hise.amination-in-chief

» #ame as accused testifying on his own behalf • >uestion which assumes facts not on the record2

» *f on cross e.amination objectionable for bring

misleading» *f on direct e.amination objectionable for lac; of

basis

0achrach /otor Co, Inc, vs, CIR <15>8=When cross e.amination is not and cannot be done or

completed due to causes attributable to the party who offeredthe witness$ the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered

incomplete and should be stric;en from the record

Peo&le vs, Seneris <158?=Where in a criminal case the prosecution witness was

e.tensively cross e.amined on the essential elements of the

crime and what remained for further cross-e.amination wasthe matter of the priDe or reward which was treated therein as

merely an aggravating circumstance$ his failure to appear forfurther cross-e.amination thereon will not warrant the stri;ingout of his direct e.amination$ especially since further cross-

e.amination could not be conducted due to the subsequentdeath of the said witness$ a circumstance not attributable to

the prosecution

Section 5 ' REC.ING 6I)NESS.#ter the e*amination o# a +itness !" !oth sides has!een concluded the +itness cannot !e recalled +ithoutleave o# the court, )he court +ill $rant or +ithholdleave in its discretion as the interests o# %ustice ma"re;uire,

• 0ecall based on discretion of the court» 9ut recall is a matter of right if the e.amination of

the witness has not been concluded or the recall has

been e.pressly reserved by a party with theapproval of the court

Section 1? ' E.DING .ND /ISE.DING HES)I(NS. ;uestion +hich su$$ests to the +itness the ans+er+hich the e*aminin$ &art" desires is a leadin$;uestion, It is not allo+ed e*ce&tAa, (n cross e*amination4!, (n &reliminar" matters4c, 6hen there is a di##icult" is $ettin$ direct and

intelli$i!le ans+ers #rom a +itness +ho isi$norant or a child o# tender "ears or is o# #ee!lemind or a dea#'mute4

d, (# an un+illin$ or hostile +itness4 ore, (# a +itness +ho is an adverse &art" or an o##icer

director or mana$in$ a$ent o# a &u!lic or &rivatecor&oration or o# a &artnershi& or association+hich is an adverse &art",

. misleadin$ ;uestion is one +hich assumes as true a#act not "et testi#ied to !" the +itness or contrar" tothat +hich he has &reviousl" stated, It is not allo+ed,

Section 11 ' I/PE.C9/EN) (F .DVERSE P.R)MS6I)NESS

azerethpage 31




. +itness ma" !e im&eached !" the &art" a$ainst+hom he +as called !" contradictor" evidence !"evidence that his $eneral re&utation #or truth honestl"or inte$rit" is !ad or !" evidence that he has made atother times statements inconsistent +ith his &resenttestimon" !ut not !" evidence o# &articular +ron$#ulacts e*ce&t that it ma" !e sho+n !" the e*amination o#the +itness or the record o# the %ud$ment that he has!een convicted o# an o##ense,

Section 12 ' P.R) /. N() I/PE.C9 9IS (6N6I)NESSE*ce&t +ith res&ect to +itnesses re#erred to in&ara$ra&hs <d= and <e= o# Section 1? the &art"&roducin$ a +itness is not allo+ed to im&each hiscredi!ilit",. +itness ma" !e considered as un+illin$ or hostileonl" i# so declared !" the court u&on ade;uate sho+in$o# his adverse interest un%usti#ied reluctance to testi#"or his havin$ misled the &art" into callin$ him to the+itness stand,)he un+illin$ or hostile +itness so declared or the+itness +ho is an adverse &art" ma" !e im&eached !"the &art" &resentin$ him in all res&ects as i# he had!een called !" the adverse &art" e*ce&t !" evidence o#his !ad character, 9e ma" also !e im&eached and cross'

e*amined !" the adverse &art" !ut such cross'e*amination must onl" !e on the su!%ect matter o# hise*amination'in'chie#,

Section 1- ' 9(6 6I)NESS I/PE.C9ED 0 EVIDENCE(F INC(NSIS)EN) S).)E/EN)S0e#ore a +itness can !e im&eached !" evidence that hehas made at other times statements inconsistent +ithhis &resent testimon" the statements must !e relatedto him +ith the circumstances o# the times and &lacesand the &ersons &resent and he must !e as:ed +hetherhe made such statements and i# so allo+ed to e*&lainthem, I# the statements !e in +ritin$ the" must !esho+n to the +itness !e#ore an" ;uestion is &ut to himconcernin$ them,

• "eading question one which suggests to the witness theanswer desired

» !ay cause the witness$ by reacting to an inferencein his mind$ to testify in accordance with the

suggestion by the question (nswer may be Nrather an echo of the question

than a genuine recollection» @estimony on direct e.amination elicited through

leading questions has little probative value

Peo&le vs, Dela Cru <2??2="eading questions may be permitted in the e.amination

of a witness who is immatureG aged and infirmG an bad

physical conditionG uneducatedG ignorant of$ or unaccustomedto$ court proceedingsG ine.periencedG unsophisticatedG feeble-mindedG confused and agitatedG terrified$ timid or

embarrassed while on standG lac;ing in comprehension ofquestions or slow to understandG deaf and dumbG or unable to

spea; or understand the English language or only imperfectly

familiar therewith

• !isleading question one which assumes facts not inevidence or without sufficient basis or which assumes

testimony or proof which has not been given

Fernande vs, )antoco <35 Phil -8?=( party who voluntarily offers the testimony of a witness

in the case is$ as a rule$ bound by the testimony of the saidwitness? @he e.ceptions to the rule are27? *n case of a hostile witness

4? Where the witness is the adverse party or therepresentative of a judicial person which is the adverse

party:? When the witness is not voluntarily offered but is

required by law to be presented by the proponent$ as inthe case of a subscribing witness to a will

• Party can impeach adverse partyBs witness by27? +ontradictory evidence other testimony of the

same witness$ or other evidence presented by him

in the same case$ but not the testimony of anotherwitness

4? Evidence of prior inconsistent statements statements$ oral or documentary$ made by the

witness sought to be impeached on occasions otherthan the trial in which he is testifying

N"aying the predicateO a? 9y confronting him with such statements$

with the circumstances under which they

were madeb? 9y as;ing him whether he made such

statementc? 9y giving him a chance to e.plain the

inconsistency» *mpeachment is incomplete if

witness is not given the chance to

e.plain the discrepancy» 9ut defect is waived if no objection

on that ground is raised when thedocument involved is offered for

admission ,o need to lay the predicate if the prior

inconsistent statement appears in a deposition

of the adverse party and not a mere witness

• #tatements are in the nature of an

admission

7uan smael Co, Inc, vs, 9ashim<? Phil 1-2=

Where previous statements of a witness are

offered as evidence of an admission$ and not merelyto impeach him$ the rule on laying the predicate

does not apply

:? Evidence of bad character

3? Evidence of bias$ interest$ prejudice orincompetence

• Party can impeach his own witness only by27? Evidence contradictory to his testimony

4? Evidence of prior inconsistent statements» *n case of hostileHadverse partyHinvoluntary

witnesses can also be impeached by other modes

of impeachment

Section 13 ' EVIDENCE (F G((D C9.R.C)ER (F6I)NESSEvidence o# the $ood character o# a +itness is notadmissi!le until such character has !een im&eached,

Section 1 ' E@CSI(N .ND SEP.R.)I(N (F6I)NESSES(n an" trial or hearin$ the %ud$e ma" e*clude #rom thecourt an" +itness not at the time under e*amination sothat he ma" not hear the testimon" o# other +itnesses,)he %ud$e ma" also cause +itnesses to !e :e&t se&arateand to !e &revented #rom conversin$ +ith one anotheruntil all shall have !een e*amined,

• Power of e.clusions apply only to witnesses and not toparties in the civil case

• Parties have a right to be present at the trial

» Either by themselves or by their counsels» #ince they have such right$ they cannot be divested

thereof by an e.clusion order

Pae vs, 0eren$uer <8 Phil 3>=( party to an action has a right to be present in court

while his case is being tried$ and the rule authoriDing thee.clusion of witnesses during trial cannot be understood toe.tend to him

• *f witness violates the order of e.clusion$ court may bar

him from testifying or give little weight to his testimony» (side from his liability for contempt

Peo&le vs, ua Chu <B Phil 33=*t is within the power of the trial judge to refuse to

order the e.clusion of the principal witness of the governmentduring the hearing of a criminal case and it may not$ on that

count alone$ be considered as an abuse of his discretion

Section 1B ' 69EN 6I)NESS /. REFER )(/E/(R.ND/

azerethpage 32




. +itness ma" !e allo+ed to re#resh his memor"res&ectin$ a #act !" an"thin$ +ritten or recorded !"himsel# or under his direction at the time +hen the #actoccurred or immediatel" therea#ter or at an" othertime +hen the #act +as #resh in his memor" and :ne+that the same +as correctl" +ritten or recorded4 !ut insuch case the +ritin$ or record must !e &roduced andma" !e ins&ected !" the adverse &art" +ho ma" i# hechooses cross e*amine the +itness u&on it and ma"

read it in evidence, So also a +itness ma" testi#" #romsuch +ritin$ or record thou$h he retain no recollectiono# the &articular #acts i# he is a!le to s+ear that the+ritin$ or record correctl" stated the transaction +henmade4 !ut such evidence must !e received +ith caution,

• (merican jurisprudence2

» First sentence Nrevival of present memoryO (pplies if witness remembers the facts

regarding his entries and is entitled to greaterweight

» #econd sentence revival of past recollection (pplies where the witness does not recall the

facts involved and is entitled to lesser weight

• (pplies only when it is shown beforehand that there is aneed to refresh the memory of the witness

• !emorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness

does not constitute evidence and may not be admitted assuch» 0eason2 the witness has just the memorandum to

testify on the basis of refreshed memory

» !emorandum not admissible as corroborativeevidence

0orromeo vs, C. <15>B=Where the witness has testified independently of or

after his memory has been refreshed by a memorandum ofthe events in dispute$ such memorandum is not admissible as

corroborative evidence$ since the witness may not becorroborated by any written statement prepared wholly by

him? e cannot be more credible just because he supports hisopen-court declaration with written statements of the same

facts even if he did prepare them during the occasion indispute$ unless the proper predicate of his failing memory ispriorly laid down

Section 1> ' 69EN P.R) (F )R.NS.C)I(N 6RI)ING(R REC(RD GIVEN IN EVIDENCE )9E RE/.INDER )9ERE/.INDER .D/ISSI0E6hen &art o# an act declaration conversation +ritin$or record is $iven in evidence !" one &art" the +hole o#the same su!%ect ma" !e in;uired into !" the other and+hen a detached act declaration conversation +ritin$or record is $iven in evidence an" other actdeclaration conversation +ritin$ or record necessar"to its understandin$ ma" also !e $iven in evidence,

• #imilar rule in depositions

Rule -2 Section 3 – (.)9 (F C(//ISSI(NER 0e#ore enterin$ u&on his duties the commissionershall !e s+orn to a #aith#ul and honest

&er#ormance thereo#

Section 18 ' RIG9) )( RESPEC) 6RI)ING S9(6N )(6I)NESS6henever a +ritin$ is sho+n to a +itness it ma" !eins&ected !" the adverse &art",

0, .)9EN)IC.)I(N .ND PR((F (F D(C/EN)S

Section 15 ' C.SSES (F D(C/EN)SFor the &ur&ose o# their &resentation evidencedocuments are either &u!lic or &rivate,Pu!lic documents areAa, )he +ritten o##icial acts or records o# the o##icial

acts o# the soverei$n authorit" o##icial !odies andtri!unals and &u!lic o##icers +hether o# thePhili&&ines or o# a #orei$n countr"4

!, Documents ac:no+led$e !e#ore a notar" &u!lice*ce&t last +ills and testaments4 and

c, Pu!lic records :e&t in the Phili&&ines o# &rivatedocuments re;uired !" la+ to the entered therein,

.ll other +ritin$s are &rivate,

• +lassification in 0P+ is different

• NPublic documentsO

.ntillon vs, 0arcelon <-> Phil 138=Public documents generally include notarial documents

and are admissible in evidence without the necessity ofpreliminary proof as to authenticity and due e.ecution

azerethpage 33




» E.cept if law requires proof E?g? notarial wills law still requires witnesses

for its probate» Iinds2

7? 1fficial documents

• 0equisites for admissibility of copy offoreign official document2

a? !ust be attested by the officerhaving legal custody of the records

or his deputyb? !ust be accompanied by a Philippine

diplomatic or consular representativeto the foreign country certifying thatsuch attesting officer has the

custody of the document 0equirement is not merely a

technicality but is intended to justify the giving of full faith

and credit to the genuinenessof a document in a foreigncountry

4? @hose ac;nowledged before persons authoriDedto administer oaths further governed by

#ection :5:? Private documents required by law to entered

in public records subject to provisions of

#ection 48• While public records of private writings

are also public documents$ the public

writing is not the writing itself but the Npublic recordO thereof

Re&u!lic vs, 6orld+ide Insurance Suret" Co, <C. B2 (G 88>=

*f a private writing itself is inserted officiallyinto a public record$ its record$ its recordation$

or its incorporation into the public recordbecomes a public document$ but that does not

ma;e the private writing itself a publicdocument so as to ma;e the private writing itadmissible without authentication

• NPrivate documentsO commercial and private

documents

Section 2? ' PR((F (F PRIV.)E D(C/EN)0e#ore an" &rivate document o##ered as authentic isreceived in evidence its due e*ecution and authenticit"must !e &roved eitherAa, 0" an"one +ho sa+ the document e*ecuted or

+ritten4 or!, 0" evidence o# the $enuineness o# the si$nature or

hand+ritin$ o# the ma:er,.n" other &rivate document need onl" !e identi#ied asthat +hich it is claimed to !e,

Section 21 ' 69EN EVIDENCE (F .)9EN)ICI) (FPRIV.)E D(C/EN) N() NECESS.R6here a &rivate document is more than thirt" "ears oldis &roduced #rom the custod" in +hich it +ouldnaturall" !e #ound i# $enuine and is un!lemished !"

an" alterations or circumstances o# sus&icion no otherevidence o# its authenticit" need !e $iven,

Section 22 ' 9(6 GENINENESS (F 9.ND6RI)INGPR(VED)he hand+ritin$ o# a &erson ma" !e &roved !" an"+itness +ho !elieves it to !e the hand+ritin$ o# such&erson !ecause he has seen the &erson +rite or hasseen +ritin$ &ur&ortin$ to !e his u&on +hich the+itness has acted or !een char$ed and has thusac;uired :no+led$e o# the hand+ritin$ o# such &erson,Evidence res&ectin$ the hand+ritin$ ma" also !e $iven!" a com&arison made !" the +itness or the court+ith +ritin$s admitted or treated as $enuine !" the&art" a$ainst +hom the evidence is o##ered or &rovedto !e $enuine to the satis#action o# the %ud$e,

• 0ules of authenticity• *n addition$ (merican jurisprudence also gives2

» =octrine of self-authentication - where the facts inthe writing could only have been ;nown by thewriter

» 0ule of authentication by adverse party where thereply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the

sending to him and his receipt thereof of the letterin question$ a copy of which the proponent is

offering as evidence• (uthentication of document not required if2

7? @he writing is an ancient document %#ec 47'4? @he writing is a public document or record %#ec 7<':? *t is a notarial document ac;nowledged$ proved or

certified in accordance with #ec :53? @he authenticity and due e.ecution of the

document has been e.pressly or impliedly admittedby a failure to deny the same under oath

(ctionable documents %0ule 6$ #ection 6'• (uthenticity and due e.ecution of a private document is

proved by$ inter alia$ evidence of genuineness of the

handwriting of the ma;er» andwriting is proved by2

7? Witness who actually saw the person writingthe instrument %#ec 45a'

4? Witness familiar with such handwriting %#ec44' and who can give his opinion thereon$ suchopinion being e.ception to opinion rule %0ule

7:5$ #ec &5b':? +omparison by the court of the questioned

handwriting and admitted genuine specimens

thereof %#ec 44'3? E.pert evidence %0ule 7:5 #ec 3<'

o&e vs, C. <15>8=0ule 7:4 #ection 44 merely enumerates the methods of

proving handwriting but does not give preference or priority to

a particular method

Section 23 ' PR((F (F (FFICI. REC(RD)he record o# &u!lic documents re#erred to in &ara$ra&h<a= o# Section 15 +hen admissi!le #or an" &ur&osema" !e evidenced !" an o##icial &u!lication thereo# or!" a co&" attested !" the o##icer havin$ the le$alcustod" o# the record or !" his de&ut" andaccom&anied i# the record is not :e&t in thePhili&&ines +ith a certi#icate that such o##icer has thecustod", I# the o##ice in +hich the record is :e&t is in#orei$n countr" the certi#icate ma" !e made !" a

secretar" o# the em!ass" or le$ation consul $eneralconsul vice consul or consular a$ent or !" an" o##icerin the #orei$n service o# the Phili&&ines stationed in the#orei$n countr" in +hich the record is :e&t andauthenticated !" the seal o# his o##ice,

Section 2 ' 69.) .))ES).)I(N (F C(P /S) S).)E6henever a co&" o# a document or record is attested#or the &ur&ose o# evidence the attestation must statein su!stance that the co&" is a correct co&" o# theori$inal or a s&eci#ic &art thereo# as the case ma" !e,)he attestation must !e under the o##icial seal o# theattestin$ o##icer i# there !e an" or i# he !e the cler: o#a court havin$ a seal under the seal o# such court,

Section 2B ' IRRE/(V.0II) (F P0IC REC(RD.n" &u!lic record an o##icial co&" o# +hich is

admissi!le in evidence must not !e removed #rom theo##ice in +hich it is :e&t e*ce&t u&on order o# a court+here the ins&ection o# the record is essential to the %ust determination o# a &endin$ case,

• Public record cannot be removed from the office in

which it is ;ept without a court order such as subpoenaduces tecum

» Even court cannot order its removal e.cept whenessential to the just determination of the pendingcase

» 0efers only to a public record an official copy ofwhich could be made available to the interested

party and is admissible in evidence

6ildvalle" Shi&&in$ Co, td, vs, C. <2???=(bsent the attestation of the officer having the legal

custody of the records and the certificate to that effect by a

Philippine foreign service officer$ a mere copy of the foreigndocument is not admissible as evidence to prove the foreign

law

azerethpage 3




Section 2> ' P0IC REC(RD (F . PRIV.)E D(C/EN).n authoried &u!lic record o# a &rivate document ma"!e &roved !" the ori$inal record or !" a co&" thereo#attested !" the le$al custodian o# the record +ith ana&&ro&riate certi#icate that such o##icer has thecustod",

Section 28 ' PR((F (F .CJ (F REC(RD. +ritten statement si$ned !" an o##icer havin$ the

custod" o# an o##icial record or !" his de&ut" that a#terdili$ent search no record or entr" o# a s&eci#ied tenor is#ound to e*ist in the records o# his o##ice accom&anied!" a certi#icate as a!ove &rovided is admissi!le asevidence that the records o# his o##ice contain no suchrecord or entr",

Section 25 – 9(6 7DICI. REC(RD I/PE.C9ED.n" %udicial record ma" !e im&eached !" evidence o#Aa, 6ant o# %urisdiction in the court or %udicial o##icer!, Collusion !et+een the &arties orc, Fraud in the &art" o##erin$ the record in res&ect to

the &roceedin$s,

• 0ule :< #ec 7

Section -? ' PR((F (F N().RI. D(C/EN)S

Ever" instrument dul" ac:no+led$ed or &roved andcerti#ied as &rovided !" la+ ma" !e &resented inevidence +ithout #urther &roo# the certi#icate o#ac:no+led$ment !ein$ prima facie evidence o# thee*ecution o# the instrument or document involved,

• Public documents may be proved by27? 1riginal copy

4? 1fficial publication thereof :? +ertified true copy thereof

0equirements in #ecs 43 and 4&

• nless specifically e.empted %F+$ (rt 74'

/ahilum vs, C. <15BB=*t is presumed that the requisite stamps

have been affi.ed to the original copy of a

document where only the carbon copiesthereof are available

o&e vs, C. <158>=Where the special power of attorney is

e.ecuted and ac;nowledged before a notarypublic or other competent officer in a foreign

country$ it cannot be admitted in evidence inPhilippine courts unless it is certified as such in

accordance with 0ule 7:4 #ec 43 by asecretary of the embassy or legation$ consul-

general$ consul$ vice-consul$ consular agent orby any officer in the foreign service in thePhilippines stationed in the foreign country in

which the record is ;ept of said publicdocument and authenticated by the seal of his

office

• Even public documents do not have uniform probative

value» Probative value depends on the ;ind of document

that is presented in evidence• 9aptismal certif icates

» eld as analogous to the records of birth in ++ (rt4A&$ before the establishment of civil registry in

7<78 +onsidered presumptive evidence of facts

stated therein

» *ssued by priests during #panish regime considered as public documents

» *ssued after the #panish regime private documentand cannot even be prima facie evidence of the fact

that gave rise to its e.ecution %the fact of thebaptism and the date thereon' earsay and inadmissible

• nless the priest who performed the

baptismal rights and made the certificateis produced

» ,ot sufficient to prove paternity47 or voluntary

recognition of a child44

47 (rde vs? (nocoche %7<86'444 9erciles vs? L#*# %7<63'

azerethpage 3!




/acadan$dan$ vs, C. <158?=( baptismal certificate is proof only of the baptism

administered by the priest who baptiDed the child but notthe veracity of the declarations and statements in the

certificates concerning the relationship of the personbaptiDed

» (bove doctrines modified by the #+ in determiningthe minority of the victim in statutory rape or where

that fact is an element of qualified rape

Peo&le vs, landelar <2??1=2-

While recogniDing the primacy of a birth certificate as

proof of the victimBs age$ the #+ held that$ in theabsence of such evidence$ the victimBs minority may beproved by other documentary evidence such as her

baptismal certificate or other authentic records

• =eath certificate

Sison vs, Sun i#e .ssurance Co, o# Canada<C. 3> (G 153=

( death certificate is not proof of the cause of death$ its

probative value being confined only to the fact of death$ andthe statement therein

Garcia Fule vs, /alvar <15>B=( death certificate is admissible to prove the residence

of the deceased at the time of his death

Section -1 ' .)ER.)I(N IN D(C/EN) 9(6 )([email protected])he &art" &roducin$ a document as $enuine +hich has!een altered and a&&ears to have !een altered a#ter itse*ecution in a &art material to the ;uestion in dis&utemust account #or the alteration, 9e ma" sho+ that thealteration +as made !" another +ithout hisconcurrence or +as made +ith the consent o# the&arties a##ected !" it or +as other+ise &ro&erl" orinnocent made or that the alteration did not chan$e themeanin$ or lan$ua$e o# the instrument, I# he #ails to dothat the document shall not !e admissi!le in evidence,

Section -2 – SE.

)here shall !e no di##erence !et+een sealed andunsealed &rivate documents inso#ar as theiradmissi!ilit" as evidence is concerned,

Section -- ' D(C/EN).R EVIDENCE IN .NN(FFICI. .NG.GEDocuments +ritten in an uno##icial lan$ua$e shall not!e admitted as evidence unless accom&anied +ith atranslation into En$lish or Fili&ino, )o avoid interru&tiono# &roceedin$s &arties or their attorne"s are directedto have such translation &re&ared !e#ore trial,

• #ection :$ (rticle T*)$ 7<:& +onstitution English and#panish ( official languages

• #ection :%:'$ (rticle T)$ 7<8: +onstitution English andPilipino

» P= 7&& #panish language shall continue to be

recogniDed as an official language while importantdocuments in government files are in the #panishlanguage and not translated into Pilipino or English

• #ection 8$ (rticle T*)$ 7<68 +onstitution - the official

languages are Filipino and$ until otherwise provided bylaw$ English$ with the regional languages as au.iliary

official languages in the region

C, (FFER .ND (07EC)I(N

Section -3 ' (FFER (F EVIDENCE)he court shall consider no evidence +hich has not!een #ormall" o##ered, )he &ur&ose #or +hich theevidence is o##ered must !e s&eci#ied,

Section - ' 69EN )( /.JE (FFER .s re$ards the testimon" o# a +itness the o##er must!e made at the time the +itness is called to testi#",Documentar" and o!%ect evidence shall !e o##ered a#terthe &resentation o# a &art"Ms testimonial evidence, Such

4: (lso in People vs? Calosjos %4557' and People vs? Fruna %4554'

o##er shall !e done orall" unless allo+ed !" the court to!e done in +ritin$,

azerethpage 3"




Section -B – (07EC)I(N(!%ection to evidence o##ered orall" must !e madeimmediatel" a#ter the o##er is made,(!%ection to a ;uestion &ro&ounded in the course o# theoral e*amination o# a +itness shall !e made as soon asthe $rounds there#or shall !ecome reasona!l" a&&arent,.n o##er o# evidence in +ritin$ shall !e o!%ected to+ithin three <-= da"s a#ter notice o# the o##er unless adi##erent &eriod is allo+ed !" the court,

In an" case the $rounds #or the o!%ections must !es&eci#ied,

Section -> ' 69EN REPE)I)I(N (F (07EC)I(NNNECESS.R6hen it !ecomes reasona!l" a&&arent in the course o#the e*amination o# a +itness that the ;uestion !ein$&ro&ounded are o# the same class as those to +hicho!%ection has !een made +hether such o!%ection +assustained or overruled it shall not !e necessar" tore&eat the o!%ection it !ein$ su##icient #or the adverse&art" to record his continuin$ o!%ection to such class o#;uestions,

Section -8 – RING)he rulin$ o# the court must !e $iven immediatel" a#terthe o!%ection is made unless the court desires to ta:e a

reasona!le time to in#orm itsel# on the ;uestion&resented4 !ut the rulin$ shall al+a"s !e made durin$the trial and at such time as +ill $ive the &art" a$ainst+hom it is made an o&&ortunit" to meet the situation&resented !" the rulin$,)he reason #or sustainin$ or overrulin$ an o!%ectionneed not !e stated, 9o+ever i# the o!%ection is !asedon t+o or more $rounds a rulin$ sustainin$ theo!%ection on one or some o# them must s&eci#" the$round or $rounds relied u&on,

Section -5 ' S)RIJING () .NS6ER Should a +itness ans+er the ;uestion !e#ore theadverse &art" had the o&&ortunit" to voice #ull" itso!%ection to the same and such o!%ection is #ound to !emeritorious the court shall sustain the o!%ection andorder the ans+er $iven to !e stric:en o## the record,(n &ro&er motion the court ma" also order the stri:in$

out o# ans+ers +hich are incom&etent irrelevant orother+ise im&ro&er,

Section 3? ' )ENDER (F E@CDED EVIDENCEI# documents or thin$s o##ered in evidence are e*cluded!" the court the o##eror ma" have the same attached toor made &art o# the record, I# the evidence e*cluded isoral the o##eror ma" state #or the record the name andother &ersonal circumstances o# the +itness and thesu!stance o# the &ro&osed testimon",

• Parties who offer objections to questions on whateverground are entitled to a ruling at the time the objectionis made

» nless they present a question with regard to whichthe court desires to inform itself before ma;ing a

ruling

o&e vs, Valde <-2 Phil B33=*f no ruling is made during the course of the trial$

counsel would have no means of ;nowing whether or not he

would be compelled to meet any evidence at all$ hence itwould prejudice the substantial rights of his client

Peo&le vs, Sin$h <3 Phil B3=@he failure of the court to ma;e such ruling should be

brought to its attention$ failing which the case cannot bereopened for a new trial on that ground

Peo&le vs, )avera <3> Phil B3=@he reservation of a ruling made by the court on an

objection to the admissibility of evidence$ without

subsequently e.cluding the same$ amounts to a denial of saidobjection

Peo&le vs, .!alos <C. 8 (G 33B=@he courts should consider the evidence only for the

purpose for which it was offered

(liveros vs, (liveros <1?B Phil -B5=23

@he trial courts should permit all e.hibits presented by

the parties$ although not admitted$ to be attached to therecords so that$ in case of appeal$ the appellate court may be

able to e.amine the same and determine the propriety of theirrejection

0ae vs, C. <15>3=Where documentary evidence was rejected by the trial

court and the offeror did not move that the same be attachedto the record$ the same cannot be considered by the appellate

court

De Castro vs, C. <> Phil 823==ocuments forming no part of the of proofs before the

appellate court cannot be considered in disposing of the case?

• 1therwise$ it would infringe on the constitutional right of

the adverse party to due process of law4&

• @he practice of e.cluding evidence on doubtful objections

should be avoided

Prats Co, vs, Phoeni* Insurance Co, <2 Phil 8?>=*n a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of

first instance$ in the early stages of the development of theproof$ to ;now with any certainty whether testimony isrelevant or notG and where there is no indication of bad faith

on the part of the attorney offering the evidence$ the courtmay$ as a rule$ safely accept the testimony upon the

statement of the attorney that the proof offered will beconnected later

Peo&le vs, Diano <C. BB (G B3?=Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be

considered for any other purpose

Sheraton'Palace hotel vs, Hui%ano <C. B3 (G 5118=( document or writing which is admitted not as

independent evidence but merely as part of the testimony of awitness does not constitute proof of the facts related therein

• *dentification of documentary evidence K its formal offer

» *dentification made in the course of the trial Evidence identified and mar;ed as e.hibits

may be withdrawn before formal offer

» Formal offer when proponent rests his case Where objection may be made

Vda de Flores vs, 6CC <15>>=2B

=ocuments which may have been mar;ed as e.hibitsduring the hearing but which were not formally offered inevidence cannot be considered as evidence nor can they be

given evidentiary value

Peo&le vs, /ate <1581=%+riminal case for ;idnapping with murder' Even if there

was no formal offer of the e.hibits but the same have beenduly identified by testimony duly recorded and the e.hibitshave been incorporated in the records of the case$ said

e.hibits are admissible against the accused

Peo&le vs, 7ose <15>B=2>

+onsidering the gravity of the offenses and in the

interest of justice$ the #+ allowed the presentation andadmitted the birth certificates of the accused to prove themitigating circumstance of minority although said birth

certificates were not presented or offered in the trial courts

• #ection :8 party may just enter a general andcontinuing objection to the same class of evidence the

ruling of the court shall be applicable to all such evidenceof the same class

Ed, ., Jeller Co, <td,= vs, Ellerman 0uc:nallSteamshi& Co, <td,= <-8 Phil 13=

43

(lso "amagan vs? =ela +ruD %7<87'4& @insay vs? usay %38 Phil A:<'4A (lso 0epublic vs? +( and People vs? +( %7<64'$ cf? People vs?

Pecardal and #oliman vs? #andiganbayan %7<6A'48 (lso +o vs? +a %7<65'

azerethpage 3#




@he court itself may motu proprio treat the objection asa continuing one

Peo&le vs, 0ande(n erroneous rejection or admission of evidence by the

trial court is not a ground for a new trial or reversal of thedecision if there are other independent evidence to sustain the

decision$ or if the rejected evidence$ if it had been admitted$would not have changed the decision

• 1therwise$ a new trial is warranted by reason of the

erroneous ruling which goes into the merits of the caseand would have affected the decision46

)insa" vs, usa" <3> Phil B-5=*f the trial court erroneously ruled out the evidence and

discovered such error before the judgment had become finalor before an appeal therefrom had been perfected$ it may re-

open the case

• 0ulings of trial court on procedural questions and onadmissibility of evidence during the course of the trial areinterlocutory in nature and may not be the subject of

separate appeals or review on certiorari

46 # vs? )illanueva %76 Phil A:<'

azerethpage 3$



(nde)Evidence

Weight and *'fficiency ofEvidence

Rule 1-- – 6ei$ht and Su##icienc" o# Evidence

Section 1 ' PREP(NDER.NCE (F EVIDENCE 9(6

DE)ER/INEDIn civil cases the &art" havin$ !urden o# &roo# mustesta!lish his case !" a &re&onderance o# evidence, Indeterminin$ +here the &re&onderance or su&erior+ei$ht o# evidence on the issues involved lies the courtma" consider all the #acts and circumstances o# thecase the +itnessesM manner o# testi#"in$ theirintelli$ence their means and o&&ortunit" o# :no+in$the #acts to +hich there are testi#"in$ the nature o# the#acts to +hich the" testi#" the &ro!a!ilit" orim&ro!a!ilit" o# their testimon" their interest or +anto# interest and also their &ersonal credi!ilit" so #ar asthe same ma" le$itimatel" a&&ear u&on the trial, )hecourt ma" also consider the num!er o# +itnessesthou$h the &re&onderance is not necessaril" +ith the$reater num!er,

Section 2 ' PR((F 0E(ND RE.S(N.0E D(0)In a criminal case the accused is entitled to anac;uittal unless his $uilt is sho+n !e"ond reasona!ledou!t, Proo# !e"ond reasona!le dou!t does not meansuch a de$ree o# &roo# e*cludin$ &ossi!ilit" o# error&roduces a!solute certainl", /oral certainl" onl" isre;uired or that de$ree o# &roo# +hich &roducesconviction in an un&re%udiced mind,

• #ections 7M4 give the rule on the requisite quantum of

evidence in civil and criminal cases» "ast 4 sentences of #ec72 factors which the court

may ta;e into consideration in determining theweight to be given in testimonial evidence

• Evidence must be from a credible source and must be

credible in itself » *t shall be natural$ reasonable$ and probable as to

ma;e it easy to believe

» @o be believed$ it should be in accord with common;nowledge and e.perience of man;ind

• Leneral rule2 findings of judge who tried the case andheard the witnesses are not to be disturbed on appeal$

unless there are substantial facts and circumstanceswhich have been overloo;ed and which$ if properly

considered$ might affect the result of the case» *ssue2 credibility of the witness - trial court is in the

better position to decide the question$ having heardand observed the demeanor of the witness nless it has plainly overloo;ed certain facts of

substance and value which$ if considered$might affect the outcome of the case

=oes not apply if one judge heard thewitnesses and another judge penned the

decision

Peo&le vs, /a$allanes <15B8=@he matter of assigning values to declarations at the

witness stand is best and most competently performed by a

trial judge$ who$ unli;e appellate magistrates$ can weigh suchtestimony in light of the defendantBs behavior$ demeanor$

conduct and attitude at the trial$ and the conclusions of thetrial courts command great weight and respect

Peo&le vs, Enri;ue <C. 33 (G -8-=@he trial court should not discredit a witness by the

supposed e.pression of lac; of sincerity in his face? Faciale.pressions are not necessarily indicative of oneBs feelings?

@he trial court should have made it appear in the record andallowed the witness the opportunity to e.plain why he wasshowing such an e.pression on his face

Caluna vs, Vicente <151=(s a general rule$ the number of witnesses should not in

and by itself determine the weight of evidence$ but in case ofconflicting testimonies of witnesses$ the numerical factor maybe given certain weight

Peo&le vs, Huilino <C. ? (G B8=@he failure of a party to present merely corroborative or

cumulative evidence does not give rise to any adverse orunfavorable presumption

azerethpage 3%



(nde)Evidence

Peo&le vs, Rivera <C. 8 (G B8=9y credibility of a witness is meant his integrity$

disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testimony hehas given as distinguished from the credibility of his testimony

.rro"o vs, El 0eaterio del Santissimo Rosario de /olo<15B8=

@o hold that a particular person is competent to testifyupon a given matter does not mean that his testimony

thereon must be believed by the court or must be deemed byit to be of sufficient probative value to establish the point

which it was intended to prove? +ompetency of a witness isone thing$ and it is another to be credible witness? +ourts

allow a person to testify as a witness upon a given matterbecause he is competent but may thereafter decide whetherto believe or not to believe his testimony

S vs, /acuti <2B Phil 1>?=*t is a well-settled doctrine that the demeanor$ the

emphasis$ gestures and inflection of the voice of a witness$

while testifying$ are potent aids in the proper evaluation of hiscredibility

/ondra$on vs, C. <15>3=When a witness ma;es two sworn statements and these

two statements incur in the gravest contradictions$ the court

cannot accept either statement as proof? @he witness by hisown act of giving false testimony impeaches his owntestimony and the court should e.clude it from allconsideration

Peo&le vs, Re"es <C. ? (G BB=*t has been said that Nperhaps the most subtle and

prolific of all fallacies of testimony arises out of unconscious

partisanship? pon the happening of an accident$ theoccasional passengers on board of a streetcar are very apt toside with the employees in charge of the car %citing Wellman$

@he (rt of +ross-E.amination'

Peo&le vs, 7uare <C. > (G 218=@he fact that a person has reached the Ntwilight of his

lifeO is not always a guaranty that he would tell the truth? *t isalso quite common that advanced age ma;es a personmentally dull and completely haDy about things which have

happened to him and$ at times$ it wea;ens the resistance tooutside influence

S vs, a!an <21 Phil 25>=@he record of a P* constitutes no part of the final

proceedings in a cause$ unless it is presented in evidence$ andthe facts adduced therein are evidence only for the purpose of

testing the credibility of the witnesses

• 9ias that which e.cites the disposition to see andreport matters as they are wished for rather than as they

are

Peo&le vs, 6atin <C. B> (G 855=When the witnesses on both sides are equally interested

or otherwise biased$ especially if there is no numerical

preponderance on either side$ bias ceases to be a

consideration in determining where the weight of evidencerests? +redit should be given to the one whose demeanor andmanner of testifying convinces the court of his veracity

• @estimony of interested witness not necessarily biasedor self-serving

» 9ut may affect their credibility

Peo&le vs, .;uino <15>3=While the testimony of a co-conspirator or an

accomplice is admissible$ such testimony comes from a

polluted source and must be scrutiniDed with great caution asit is subject to grave suspicion

• @estimony of a single witness may support a conviction

if trustworthy and reliable» (nd clear and convincing

• @estimony of offended party not essential to convict

accused if there are already other evidence to prove theguilt of the accused

» Prosecution not obliged to present each and everyperson who witnesses the occurrence but only a

sufficient number to prove the commission of thecrime

• *nconsistencies on mere details do not impair thecredibility of the witness

» (ctually indicate veracity rather than prevarication» Perfect dovetailing of witnesses testimonies can

generate suspicion prefabricated story• Falsus in uno$ falsus in omnibus deals only with eight

of evidence and is not a positive rule of law and the rule

is not an infle.ible one of universal application» !odern trend testimony of a witness may be

believed in part and disbelieved in part =epending upon the corroborative evidence

and the probabilities and improbabilities of thecase

=oes not apply where2

7? @he challenged testimony is sufficientlycorroborated on many grounds

4? @he falsity consists of mista;es on pointsthat are not material

:? #uch mista;es do not arise from theapparent desire to pervert the truth butfrom innocent lapses and the desire of the

witness to e.culpate himself but notcompletely

Peo&le vs, .!onales <1?B Phil 15?=@he non-production of a corroborative witness without

any e.planation given why he was not so produced$ wea;ensthe testimony of the witness who named the corroborating

witness in his testimony

• 0ape cases2 corroborative statements not required» 9ut testimony should be e.ercised with greatest

care

Garcia vs, Garcia <B- Phil 315=@he testimony of persons accidentally present at the

time of the e.ecution of the will$ but who have nothing to do

with the transaction$ is not as weighty as that of thesubscribing witness

• (ffirmative testimony stronger than negative testimony» Lreater weight must be given to the positive

testimony of the witness than to the denial of thedefendant

• +onflict in the testimony of 4 witnesses may be due todifference in observation or memory

» =oes not necessarily imply falsehood• =elay of the witness in revealing to the authorities what

he ;nows of the crime does not render his testimony

false» (ttributed to natural reticence and abhorrence to

get involved in a criminal case» 1r inherent fear of reprisal

» 1r intense grief • 0elationship of witness to the victim does not impair

his clear and positive testimony nor give it lesser credit

» nless there is a showing of improper motive

)unala vs, Diola <C. B2 (G 353B=

Where a party resorts to falsehood to advance his suit$it is presumed that he ;nows perfectly well that his cause isgroundless$ and this presumption affects the whole mass ofevidence presented by such party

• (ffidavits generally subordinated in importance to open

court declarations» 1ften e.ecuted when the affiant is at a high pitch of

e.citement» ,ot complete reproductions of what the declarant

have in mind because they are generally prepared

by the administering officer and the affiant simplysigns after the same have been read to him

» =iscrepancies between the affidavit and the opencourt statement

=o not discredit the witness because e. parteaffidavits are generally incomplete for want ofsuggestion and inquiries

=oes not apply where the self-contradiction orinconsistencies are on very material and

substantial matters

azerethpage &



(nde)Evidence

» 1nly prima facie evidence of wea; probative forceand should be received with caution

• +onspiracy need not establish that all parties agreed toevery detail

» Enough that it may be reasonably deduced thatthey had a common plan to commit the felony

» 9ut must be proven beyond reasonable doubt» ,eed not be established by direct evidence

!ay be proved by a number of indefinite acts$

conditions and circumstances• >ualifying and aggravating circumstances must be

proved in an evident and incontestable manner» (s conclusively as the crime itself

• #elf-defense one who sets up must rely on the strengthof his own evidence and not on the wea;ness of theprosecution

» >uantum2 clear and convincing evidence• (libi one of the wea;est defenses

» !ay be considered only when established bypositive$ clear and satisfactory evidence

» !ust be physically impossible for the accused to beat the scene of the crime at the time of thecommission

» #trong defense when there is no positive and properidentification of the accused as the author of the

offense

» When set up$ the court should not at once have amental prejudice against him

Peo&le vs, .;uiedo <1?8 Phil 18B=Where one accused withdraws his appeal after realiDing

the futility of his defense$ and the other escapes from

confinement thereby causing the dismissal of his appeal$ saidacts are unmista;able signs of guilt

• Flight evidence of guilt and a guilty conscience» N@he wic;ed flee even when no man pursueth$

whereas the righteous are as brave as a lionO » ,on-flight not an indication of innocence

• Payment of ta.es» +ontinuous payment evidence of great weight in

favor of ownership$ especially if accompanied by1+E(, possession 9ut not conclusive evidence of ownership

» ,on-payment indicative of the fact that claimantdoes not believe himself to be the owner of the

property• !otive of the accused in a criminal case immaterial

» 9ut necessary in the following instances27? Where identity of the assailant is in question4? @o determine the voluntariness of the criminal

act or the sanity of the accused:? @o determine from which side the unlawful

aggression commenced %self-defense'3? @o determine the specific nature of the crime

committed %murder or homicide'&? @o determine whether the shooting was

intentional or accidental

A? Where the accused contended that he acted inthe defense of a stranger

8? Where the evidence is circumstantial and

inconclusive6? Where malice is an element of the offense

» !ere proof of motive$ no matter how strong$ cannotsustain a conviction if there is no other evidence

establishing the guilt of the accused» Evidence is wea;$ without any motive reasonable

doubt• N@otality of circumstanceO test used for the

admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identificationof suspects» Factors2

7? WitnessB opportunity to view the criminal at thetime of the crime

4? WitnessB degree of attention at the time:? (ccuracy of any prior description given by the

witness3? "evel of certainty demonstrated by the witness

at the identification

&? "ength of time between the crime and theidentification

A? #uggestiveness of the identification procedure

• 0es ipsa loquitur the fact of the occurrence of aninjury$ ta;en with the surrounding circumstances$ may

permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligenceor ma;e out a plaintiffBs prima facie case and present a

question of fact for the defendant to meet with ane.planation

» =octrine is merely evidentiary or procedural innature =oes not dispense with the requirement of

proof of negligence

Section - ' E@)R.7DICI. C(NFESSI(N N()SFFICIEN) GR(ND F(R C(NVIC)I(N.n e*tra%udicial con#ession made !" an accused shallnot !e su##icient $round #or conviction unlesscorro!orated !" evidence o# corpus delicti ,

• +orpus delicti actual commission by someone of the

particular crime charged» +ommon fact made up of 4 things2

E.istence of a certain act or result forming the basisof the criminal charge

E.istence of a criminal agency as the cause of the

act or result» *dentity of the accused not a necessary element

» "iterally means Nbody of the crimeO

» Proved when the evidence on record shows that thecrime prosecuted had been committed

• @heft2 corpus delicti 7? Property was lost by the owner

4? *t was lost by felonious ta;ing» +rime may be established without recovery of the

property• *llegal possession of firearms

7? E.istence of the firearm4? *t has actually been held with animus possidendi by

the accused without the corresponding license

• !urder2 corpus delicti is the fact of death» Where there is doubt as to the identity of the

cadaver$ in the absence of any other evidence$there is no corpus delicti

• ( mere voluntary e.trajudicial confession uncorroboratedby independent proof of corpus delicti is not sufficient tosustain a judgment of conviction

» Evidence may be circumstantial but it mustsubstantiate the confession

» 9ut corpus delicti is not synonymous with the wholecharge

,eed not require that all the elements of thecrime be established independently

Were it required that$ independent of the

confession$ evidence be adduced sufficient initself to convict$ the utility of a confession as a

species of proof would be illusory

Peo&le vs, Sasota <51 Phil 111=When the comple. crime of robbery with homicide is

charged and the e.trajudicial confession of the accused of the

entire charge is corroborated by corpus delicti of homicidealone$ the entire confession is admissible although there is no

independent evidence of the robbery

Section 3 ' CIRC/S).N)I. EVIDENCE 69ENSFFICIEN)Circumstantial evidence is su##icient #or conviction i#Aa, )here is more than one circumstances4!, )he #acts #rom +hich the in#erences are derived are

&roven4 andc, )he com!ination o# all the circumstances is such as

to &roduce a conviction !e"ond reasona!le dou!t,

Peo&le vs, )an'Choco4 Peo&le vs, 7ara <158B=*n order to convict a person accused of a crime on the

strength of circumstantial evidence alone$ it is incumbent

upon the prosecution to present such circumstantial evidencewhich will and must necessarily lead to the conclusion that the

accused is guilty of the crime charged beyond reasonabledoubt$ e.cluding all and each and every reasonable hypothesisconsistent with his innocence

• +ircumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction in

capital offenses

azerethpage 1



(nde)Evidence

» E.cept when law specifies the quantum of evidence$such as in treason

» Falsification$ bigamy and libel - circumstantialevidence not sufficient to sustain a conviction

=ocuments involved must be presented 9igamy2 direct evidence of first marriage is

necessary

• 0eputation or cohabitation merelycorroborative

• #ame as in adultery$ parricide or othercases where issue of marriage is primarilyinvolved

• Prior and coetaneous$ as well as subsequent$ acts of the

accused are circumstantial evidence of guilt• While motive of the accused is generally immaterial not

being an element of the crime$ such motive becomesimportant when the evidence of the crime is purely

circumstantial

Peo&le vs, )urto$a <2??2=@he fact that the accused was in dire need of money

and the victim scolded him for soliciting a loan from her$

robbery as the motive e.plains the ;illing

Section ' S0S).N)I. EVIDENCEIn cases #iled !e#ore administrative or ;uasi'%udicial

!odies a #act ma" !e deemed esta!lished i# it issu&&orted !" su!stantial evidence or that amount o#relevant evidence +hich a reasona!le mind mi$htacce&t as ade;uate to %usti#" a conclusion,

0ia:'na'0ato /inin$ Co, vs, )anco <1551=#ubstantial evidence does not necessarily mean

preponderant proof as required in ordinary civil cases$ but

such ;ind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind mightaccept as adequate to support a conclusion

• 1r evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent

men in the conduct of their affairs

Section B ' P(6ER (F )9E C(R) )( S)(P FR)9EREVIDENCE)he court ma" sto& the introduction o# #urthertestimon" u&on an" &articular &oint +hen the evidenceu&on it is alread" so #ull that more +itnesses to thesame &oint cannot !e reasona!l" e*&ected to !eadditionall" &ersuasive, 0ut this &o+er should !ee*ercised +ith caution,

Guinea vs, Vda, De Ramonal <15>=@he court has the power to stop the introduction of

testimony which will merely be cumulative

Section > ' EVIDENCE (N /()I(N6hen a motion is !ased on #acts not a&&earin$ o#record the court ma" hear the matter on a##idavits orde&ositions &resented !" the res&ective &arties !ut thecourt ma" direct that the matter !e heard +holl" or&artl" on oral testimon" or de&ositions,

Sa&ida vs, De Villanueva <15>2=

While the court may hear and rule upon motions solelyon the basis of affidavits or counter-affidavits$ if the affidavitscontradict each other on matters of fact$ the court can have

no basis to ma;e its findings of fact and the prudent course isto subject the affiants to cross-e.amination so that the court

can decide whom to believe