-
8/10/2019 Evidence digest 1
1/3
1
Tiu, Jaclyn Christy O.3-D
EVIDENCEJudge Bonifacio
9 November 2012Case Digests I
REYES V. CA
FactsPetitioner was the widow of a tenant in a parcel of land.
After the death of her husband (the tenant), the owner possessedthe
land and refused to return possession to petitioner. Petitioner
thus issued an affidavit, on the basis of which the trial
court rendered a decision in her favor and against the owners of
the land. The affiant herself was not presented in court.The
defendants thus assail the admissibility of the affidavit.
Defendants claim that without the presentation of the affiant,the
affidavit is mere hearsay.
IssueWhether an affidavit presented in court without also
presenting the affiant of such affidavit renders that
affidavitinadmissible for being hearsay.
HeldThe affidavit is admissible
Ratio
The applicable law in the case at bar is the Agrarian Reform
Law. The Rules of Court, including the Rules on Evidenceare
therefore merely applied suppletorily because the law itself
expressly allows mere substantial evidence to determinewho has the
right to possess a parcel of land. The case at bar falls under the
exception to the Rule that the Rules onevidence must be the same in
all courts and in all cases and hearings because such exception is
expressly provided forby special law (other exceptions include
those expressly provided by the Rules or by the Constitution)
PEOPLE V. TURCO
FactsDuring a trial for rape, the medical examination of the
victim was presented in court without presenting the
medico-legalofficer who conducted the examination of the victim to
testify. The accused in the case assailed the admissibility of
themedical examination report claiming that such is mere hearsay if
it is not accompanied by the testimony of the medico-legal officer
who conducted it.
IssueWhether the medical examination report of the rape victim
is inadmissible without the testimony of the medico-legal
officerwho conducted it
HeldThe medical report is admissible
RatioConviction of the accused was not made dependent solely on
the medical report. The victim was found by the lower court
to be credible and her testimony sufficient to convict the
accused for rape. Furthermore, presence or absence of thetestimony
of the medico-legal officer presenting the medical examination
conducted on the victim goes into the WEIGHTthat the court may give
to such medical report, not to the reports admissibility . The
report was found to be relevant,material and competent. It is
therefore admissible as evidence. Admissibility must not be
confused with the probativevalue or weight that the court gives to
the evidence presented before it.
-
8/10/2019 Evidence digest 1
2/3
2
AGUSTIN V. CA
FactsIn an action for support, the mother and child filed for an
order of the court requiring the supposed father to submit to
apaternity test. The father refused on the ground that such test is
a violation to his right against self incrimination the resultsof
which is inadmissible in court.
IssueWhether DNA or paternity test is inadmissible for being
violative of ones right against self -incrimination
HeldDNA testing and its results is admissible
RatioOnes right against self -incrimination may be invoked only
against testimonial evidence.
PEOPLE V. ANCHETA
FactsIn a kidnapping case, the accused assail credibility of the
victims testimony because the victim failed to execute a
swornstatement indicating that she positively identified her
kidnappers. Furthermore, one of the accused content that they
were
illegally arrested. Thus the supposed letter he gave to the
victim asking for forgiveness is also inadmissible for havingbeen
obtained as a result of an illegal arrest
IssueWhether the testimony of the victim is admissible when such
was not executed in a sworn statement
HeldThe testimony of the victim in the case at bar is
admissible
RatioThe lower court found the victim and her testimony to be
credible and sufficient to convict the accused. Such finding bythe
lower court is given high respect, if not conclusive effect because
the lower courts have the opportunity to observe thecountenance and
demeanor of the witnesses during trial.
BAUTISTA V. APERECE
FactsIn a land dispute, the subsequent possessor executed before
guerilla officers an affidavit stating that rightful
possessionbelonged to the Aperece and that the property would thus
be returned. During trial however, such subsequent
possessorassailed that the affidavit should be proclaimed by the
court as inadmissible for having been executed under force
andintimidation of the guerilla officers. The lower court ruled in
favor of Aperece.
Issue
Whether the affidavit is admissible as evidence
HeldAffidavit is admissible
RatioThe ruling of the trial court was not based solely on the
affidavit executed by plaintiff. When such public document wastaken
together with other facts and evidence presented, there is
sufficient proof that the land in question indeed belongsto
Aperece.
-
8/10/2019 Evidence digest 1
3/3
3
GAANAN V. IAC
FactsA party to a telephone conversation asked a third person to
listen in on the conversation through an extension phone.During
trial, defendant assailed that the testimony of the third person
claiming to have heard the conservation must bedeemed inadmissible
for violating the provisions of the Anti-Wire Tapping Act.
IssueWhether the testimony of a person listening in on the
conversation through an extension phone is inadmissible
HeldTestimony admissible
RatioThe law refers to an actual tap or a physical device that
is installed or mounted for the purpose of
overhearingconversations. An extension phone is not such device
because there is no actual tapping onto a telephone wire using
theextension phone. The testimony obtained through such means is
therefore admissible because there is no violation of theAnti-wire
tapping act.
SALCEDO-ORTANEZ V. CA
FactsThe trial court admitted as evidence tapes containing
recordings made by a husband for the purpose of showing to thecourt
the psychological incapacity of his wife so that his petition for
annulment of marriage may be approved
IssueWhether the recordings are admissible given that the wife
had no knowledge that her conversations were being recorded
HeldRecordings are inadmissible
RatioAbsent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone
conversation allowed the recording, any recording of
suchconversation shall be considered unauthorized and merely
hearsay and therefore not admissible as evidence.
RAMIREZ V. CA
FactsWhile being insulted and bashed by Ester Garcia, Socorro
Ramirez recorded the conversation and used such recording tofile a
case against Garcia. Garcia assailed the validity of such recording
since she did not know nor give her consent to it.Ramirez, on the
other hand, claims that the law only prohibits wire tapping or
recording made by one not a party to theconversation. The law does
not prohibit recording by one who is a party to the
conversation
Issue
Whether Ramirezs reco rding may be admitted as evidence
HeldThe recording of Ramirez is inadmissible
RatioThe clear intention of the law is to cover ALL forms of
wiretapping. There is no limitation set that only third persons not
aparty to the conversation may be punished for wiretapping.
