Francisco Book 1 (1)

8/12/2019 Francisco Book 1 (1)

1/117

RULE 128

EVIDENCE defined-

Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules of

ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth

respecting a matter of fact.

Sources of Rules of Evidence

The 1987 onstitution of the !hilippines

"ules 1#8 and 1$$ of the "evised "ules of ourt

"esolution of the %upreme ourt dated &arch 1',

1989 approving the !roposed "ules on Evidence

submitted by the "ules of ourt "evision ommittee

on (ugust $1, 1987

"ule 11), %ection 1, *ormerly "ule +++, %ection 1 of

the "ules of ourt "ight of defendant at the trial

%ubstantive and "emedial %tatutes

/udicial decisions

T0E "2E% 3* E4+5E6E ("E %!E+*+(22

(!!2+(2E 362 +6 /5++(2 !"3EE5+6%

The means of ascertaining in a JUDICIAL

PROCEEDING the truth respecting a matter of fact!

The decision of a barrio council, respecting the

settlement of o:nership and possession of a parcel

of land, is ultra vires because a barrio councils,

:hich are not courts, have no judicial po:ers. ;

&iguel v atalino,#< %"( #$'

Therefore, said decision, if introduced as an e=hibit

is not admissible in a judicial proceeding as

evidence for ascertaining the truth respecting a

matter of fact of o:nership and possession. %upra

T"T0 +% E%T (%E"T(+6E5 65E" (6

(54E"%(" %%TE& 3* /%T+E. ;"epublic v

4alencia, 1'1 %"( '>#

EVIDENCE distinguished from:

PROOF-

"efers to the degree or ?ind of evidence :hich :ill

produce full conviction, or establish the proposition

to the satisfaction of the tribunal. !roof is the effect

or result of evidence :hile evidence is the medium

of proof.

E!I"ON#-

That ?ind of evidence :hich in a trial is presented by

:itnesses verbally. Evidence is the generic term and

testimony that of the species.

$R%U"EN-

(rgument and evidence, ta?en together, represen

the means by :hich the tribunal is sought to be

persuaded as to some fact-in-issue.

F$CU" PRO&$NDU" distinguished from

F$CU" PRO&$N!:

F$CU" PRO&$NDU" 'F()t in issue*-

The u"timate fact or the fact sought to #e

esta#"ishe$

"efers to proposition

F$CU" PRO&$N!-

+s the e%i$entiar& fact or the fact #& 'hich

the factum pro#an$um is to #e esta#"ishe$

&aterials :hich establish the proposition

+IND! $ND DE%REE! OF EVIDENCE

Dire)t E,iden)e (nd Cir)umst(nti( E,iden)e:

DIREC EVIDENCE; that :hich proves the

fact in dispute :ithout the aid of any

interference or presumption 2a?e ounty

vs. 6ellon.

CIRCU"!$NI$L EVIDENCE ; is the

proof of a fact or facts from :hich ta?en

either singly or collectively, the e=istence o

a particular fact, in dispute may be inferred

as a necessary or probable conse@uence

%tate vs. (very, 11$, &o., '7), '9', #1

%.A. 19$

!rimary Evidence and %econdary EvidenceB

PRI"$R# EVIDENCE; that :hich the la:

regards as affording the greatest certainty o

fact in @uestion. (lso referred to as the bes

evidence


2/117

!ECOND$R# EVIDENCE ; that :hich is

inferior to the primary evidence and is

permitted by la: only :hen the best

evidence is not available. Cno:n as the

substitutionary evidence

!ositive Evidence and 6egative EvidenceB

PO!IIVE EVIDENCE ; :hen the :itness

affirms that a fact did or did not occur.

Entitled to a greater :eight since the :itness

represents of his personal ?no:ledge the

presence or absence of a fact

NE%$IVE EVIDENCE; :hen the :itness

did not see or ?no: of the occurrence of a

fact. There is a total disclaimer of personal

?no:ledge, hence :ithout any

representation or disavo:al that the fact in

@uestion could or could not have e=isted orhappened. +t is admissible only if it tends to

contradict positive evidence of the other side

or :ould tend to e=clude the e=istence of

fact s:orn to by the other side.

orroborative Evidence and umulative EvidenceB

CORRO&OR$IVE EVIDENCE ; is

additional evidence of a different ?ind and

character tending to prove the same point

Ayne v. 6e:man, 7), 4a., 811, 817

aseB

The testimonies of the prosecution

'itnesses that the %ictims$ie$ #ecause of

sta# 'oun$s inf"icte$ #& the arme$ men

'ho entere$ their resi$ence on the night of

Decem#er () *+,- remain uncontro%erte$

... Their $eath certificates therefore are

on"& corro#orati%e of the testimonies of the

prosecution 'itnesses!!eople vs. Aatson19>)

CU"UL$IVE EVIDENCE ; evidence of

the same ?ind and to the same stale of

facts.

aseB

DThus) on the issue of the capacit& of a #o&

to 'rite a certain paper) e%i$ence of his

schoo" fe""o's as to his capacit& is

cumu"ati%e to that of his teachers an$

me$ica" men upon the same /uestion.

ardner vs. ardner, # ray &ass. '$'

Prim( F()ie E,iden)e (nd Con)usi,e E,iden)eB

PRI"$ F$CIE EVIDENCE ; is that :hich

suffices for the proof of a particular fact, unti

contradicted and overcome by othe

evidence

CONCLU!IVE EVIDENCE; is that :hich is

incontrovertible. Ahen evidence is received

:hich the la: does not allo: to be

contradicted.

asesB

D(ccordingly, a party introducing in evidence

a letter :ritten by his agent to the adverse

party, is bound by the statements contained

therein 2ilian "ealty o. v. Erdum, 1# %"( >>9 Employees

ompensation ommission !hilippine

3verseas 5rilling and 3il 5evelopmen

orporation vs. &inister of 2abor, 1'> %"(

79 %ecurities and E=change ommissionommission on Elections eromo v

3&E2E, et al., 118 %"( 1>) (grarian

ases agsican v. (, 1'1 %"( ##>

+mmigration !roceedings &oy o?e %hue v

/ohnson, #9< *ed. >#1 ourt of Ta=

(ppeals elestino o. J ompany v

ollector of +nternal "evenue, T( ase

6o. 19), 3ct. ', 19)', affirmed by the

%upreme ourt on (ug. $1, 19)>, .". 6o

2 8) !robation ourt oard o


5/117

Transportation !olice ommission 3il

+ndustry ommission and other similar

bodies (ldeguer v. 0os?yn, # !hil. )1'

aseBDTrial courts are enjoined to observe the

strict enforcement of the rules of evidence :hich

crystalliIed through constant use and practice

and are very useful and effective aids in the

search for truth and for the effective

administration of justice. ut in connection :ith

evidence :hich may appear to be of doubtfu

relevancy or incompetency or admissibility, it is

the safest policy to be liberal, not rejecting them

on doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting

themH=== anaria v. anaria, et. al., (. 6o

'1'#, &ay $1, 19)


6/117

"ule 1#8 of the "ules of ourt, evidence is

admissible :hen it is relevant to the issue

and is not e=cluded by the la: or these

rules. *or evidence to be inadmissible there

should be a la: or rule :hich forbids its

reception. +f there is no such la: or rule, the

evidence must be admitted subject only to

the evidentiary :eight that :ill be accorded

it by the courts.

&!& %ROUP/ INC ,s6 %o '%6R6 No6

1


7/117

$6 "uti.e $dmissi0iit of E,iden)e6

Ahen a fact is offered for one purpose, and is

admissible in so far as it satisfies all rules

applicable to it :hen offered for that purpose, its

failure to satisfy some other rule :hich :ould be

applicable to it if offered for another purpose

does not e=clude it.

&6 Condition( $dmissi0iit of E,iden)e6Ahere t:o or more evidentiary facts are so

connected under the issues that the relevancy of

one depends upon another not yet received, and

the party is unable to introduce them both at the

same moment, the offering counsel may be

re@uired by the court as a condition precedent

'1* to state the supposed connecting facts, and

'2* to promise to give the evidence later.

Effect if condition precedent is not

fulfilled&

pon motion by the opposite party, thecourt may stri?e out the evidence thus

conditionally admitted

C6 Cur(ti,e $dmissi0iit of E,iden)e6

Ahere an inadmissible fact has been offered by

one party and received :ithout objection and the

opponents after:ards, for the purpose of

negativing or e=plaining or other:ise

counteracting, offers a fact similarly

inadmissible, such fact is admissible if it serves

to remove an unfair effect upon the court :hich

might other:ise ensue from the original fact.

A6 Rues of E3)usion (nd E3)usion(r Rues

Rues of E3)usion E3)usion(r Rues

overned by the rulesof evidence

Evidence e=cluded bythe onstitution

C(se:

oentino ,s6 "endo?( '$D"6 C$!E NO6 A1A1

O)to0er 19/ 2;;* 6 6ote that "ule #',

(dministrative 3rder 6o. 1, series of 199$ only

provides for sanctions against persons violating

the rule on confidentiality of birth records, but

no:here does it state that procurement of birth

records in violation of said rule :ould render

said records inadmissible in evidence. 3n the

other hand, the "evised "ules of Evidence only

provides for the e=clusion of evidence if it is

obtained as a result of illegal searches and

seiIures. %ince both "ule #', (dministrative

3rder 6o. 1, series of 199$ and the "evised

"ules on Evidence do not provide for the

e=clusion from evidence of the birth certificates

in @uestion, said public documents are

therefore, admissible and should be properly

ta?en into consideration in the resolution of this

administrative case against the respondent.

$6 $dmissi0iit of ee.hone Con,ers(tions6

nless other:ise objectionable, a telephone

conversation bet:een a :itness and anothe

person is admissible in any case in :hich a face

to face conversation bet:een a :itness and

another person :ould be admissible in

evidence, provided that the identity of the person

:ith :hom the :itness :as spea?ing is

satisfactorily established, but not other:ise.

Proof of Identit > through :itnessG recognitionof the voice of the person :ith :hom he :as

spea?ing, ho:ever, it may be established by

means other than the recognition of the voice.

&6 $dmissi0iit of r(dio 0ro(d)(st6

Evidence of a message or a speech by means

of radio broadcast is admissible as evidence

:hen the identity of the spea?er is established

by the follo:ingB

y the testimony of a :itness :ho sa: himbroadcast his message or speech

y the :itness recognition of the voice of the

spea?er

C6 $dmissi0iit of =iret(..ing (nd t(.e

re)ordings6

"ecording of conversations, statement

confessions, speech, and the sounds of various

?inds, are admissible in evidence, subject ocourse, to the general rules relating to hearsay

best evidence, relevancy, privilege and the li?e

and subject to the proper authentication by

foundation testimony.

16 The :iretapping and other related violations

of the privacy of communications are

prohibited and penaliIed by "epublic (c

6o. '#


8/117

REPU&LIC $C 2;;/ $NI-

5IRE$PPIN% $C

$6 UNL$5FUL $C!

16 !e)tion 1/ .(r 16

+t shall be unla:ful for any person, not

being authoriIed by all the parties to any

private communication or spo?en :ord,

to tap any :ire or cable, or by usingany other device or arrangement,

to secretly overhear, intercept, or

record such communication or

spo?en :ord by using a device

commonly ?no:n as a dictaphone

or dictagraph or dictaphone or

:al?ie-tal?ie or tape recorder, or

ho:ever other:ise described

26 !e)tion 1/ .(r 26

+t shall also be unla:ful for anyperson, be he a participant or not in

the act or acts penaliIed in the ne=tpreceding sentence,

to ?no:ingly possess any tape

record, :ire record, disc record, or

any other such record, or copies

thereof, of any communication or

spo?en :ord secured either before

or after the effective date of this (ct

in the manner prohibited by this la:

or

to replay the same for any other

person or persons or tocommunicate the contents thereof,

either verbally or in :riting, or to

furnish transcriptions thereof,

:hether complete or partial, to any

other person

!rovided, That the use of such

record or any copies thereof as

evidence in any civil, criminal

investigation or trial of offenses

mentioned in section $ hereof, shall

not be covered by this prohibition.

76 !e)tion 26

(ny person :ho :ilfully or

?no:ingly does or :ho shall aid,

permit, or cause to be done any of

the acts declared to be unla:ful in

the preceding section or :ho

violates the provisions of the

follo:ing section or of any order

issued thereunder, or aids, permits

or causes such violation.

&6 EBE"PED $C!

16 !e)tion 7/ .(r 16 (ny peace officer

:ho is authoriIed by a :ritten orde

of the ourt, to e=ecute any of the

acts declared to be unla:ful in

cases involvingB crimes of treason,

espionage,

provo?ing :ar and disloyalty in

case of :ar,

piracy,

mutiny in the high seas,

rebellion,

conspiracy and proposal to

commit rebellion,

inciting to rebellion,

sedition,

conspiracy to commit sedition,

inciting to sedition,

?idnapping as defined by the

"evised !enal ode,

and violations o

ommon:ealth (ct 6o. >1>

punishing espionage and othe

offenses against nationa

security

Reuirements:

That such :ritten order shal

only be issued or granted upon

:ritten application and the

e=amination under oath o

affirmation of the applicant and

the :itnesses he may produce

and a sho:ingB

1. That there are reasonable

grounds to believe that any o

the crimes enumerated

hereinabove has beencommitted or is being committed

or is about to be committed

Pro%i$e$) ho'e%er, That in

cases involving the offenses o

rebellion, conspiracy and

proposal to commit rebellion

inciting to rebellion, sedition

conspiracy to commit sedition

and inciting to sedition, such

authority shall be granted only


9/117

upon prior proof that a rebellion

or acts of sedition, as the case

may be, have actually been or

are being committed

#. That there are reasonable

grounds to believe that evidence

:ill be obtained essential to the

conviction of any person for, or

to the solution of, or to theprevention of, any of such

crimes and

$. That there are no other

means readily available for

obtaining such evidence.

26 !ur,ei(n)e of !us.e)ts (nd

Inter)e.tion (nd Re)ording of

Communi)(tions

12ection 3) Repu#"ic Act No +435)6uman securit& Act7

The provisions of "epublic (ct 6o.

'#


10/117

$. "ight of a person under investigation for an

offense %ec. 1#

'. "ight against self-incrimination %ec. 17

C(se:

$m0re ,s6 Peo.e %6R6 No6 191A72

$ugust 1A/ 2;12*6%ection #, (rticle +++ of the

onstitution mandates that a search and

seiIure must be carried out through or onthe strength of a judicial :arrant predicated

upon the e=istence of probable cause,

absent :hich such search and seiIure

becomes LunreasonableL :ithin the meaning

of said constitutional provision. Evidence

obtained and confiscated on the occasion of

such an unreasonable search and seiIure is

tainted and should be e=cluded for being the

proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. +n the

language of the fundamental la:, it shall be

inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in

any proceeding.

This e=clusionary rule is not, ho:ever, an

absolute and rigid proscription. 3ne of the

recogniIed e=ception established by

jurisprudence is search incident to a la:ful

arrest. +n this e=ception, the la: re@uires

that a la:ful arrest must precede the search

of a person and his belongings. (s a rule, an

arrest is considered legitimate if effected

:ith a valid :arrant of arrest.

E6 $dmissi0iit of Ee)troni) Do)uments6

(n electronic document is admissible in

evidence ifB

1. +t complies :ith the "ules onadmissibility prescribed by the "ulesand related la:s and

#. +t is authenticated in the manner by the"ules on Electronic Evidence

F6 !)ientifi) Dete)tion De,i)es6

1. 2ie detector#. %peed detection and recording devices$. hemical tests for drun?enness'. Truth serums and hypnosis). lood grouping tests

RULE 128/ !e)tion 6Relevanc$+ Collateral

maters.

16 Ree,(n) of E,iden)e

a. Evidence is relevant :hen it relatesdirectly to a fact in issue or to a fact

:hich, by the process of logic, aninference may be made as to thee=istence or non-e=istence of a fact inissue.

b. Evidentiary facts are relevant :herethere is such rational and logicaconnection bet:een them and thematter in issue that proof of the formerlogically tends to ma?e the latter moreprobable or improbable, that is, :herethe facts offered in evidence have alegitimate tendency to establish the truthconcerning a controversial issue.

C(se:

4errer( ,s6 $0( %6R6 No6 1822; une

1A/ 2;;A*6Evidence is admissible :hen it is

relevant to the fact in issue and is no

other:ise e=cluded by statute or the "ules

of ourt. Evidence is relevant :hen it has

such a relation to the fact in issue as toinduce belief in its e=istence or non

e=istence. %ection '9 of "ule 1$


11/117

76 Ree,(n) does not gener( de.end u.onits sour)e6

Ahether evidence offered is relevant does not,as a general rule, depend upon its source.6either does relevancy depend upon theimportance or :eight of the evidence, :eightbeing a matter for the court.

6 Logi)( ree,(n) distinguished form eg(ree,(n)

Logi)( ree,(n) Leg( Ree,(n)

&eans that evidencemust be absolutelyessential to the fact inissue.

"e@uires a higherstandard of evidentiaryforce and includeslogical relevancy.

The main condition ofadmissibility

(ll rules e=cludingevidence :hich islogically relevant aree=ceptions to the

general rule.The attribute of allthose logically relevantmatters :hich are notdeclared inadmissibleby one or more of thee=cluding rules.

C(se:

Peo.e ,s6 #(t(r %6R6 No6 1A;22 "( 19/

2;;*6 enerally, courts should only

consider and rely upon duly established

evidence and never on mere conjectures orsuppositions. The legal relevancy of

evidence denotes Lsomething more than a

minimum of probative value,L suggesting

that such evidentiary relevance must contain

a Lplus value.L This may be necessary to

preclude the trial court from being satisfied

by matters of slight value, capable of being

e=aggerated by prejudice and hasty

conclusions. Evidence :ithout Lplus valueL

may be logically relevant but not legally

sufficient to convict. +t is incumbent upon the

trial court to balance the probative value ofsuch evidence against the li?ely harm that

:ould result from its admission.

A6 Issue defined6

+t is the point or points in @uestion, at theconclusion of the pleadings :hich one sideaffirms, and the other denies. +ssues arise uponthe pleading :here a fact or conclusion of la: ismaintained by one party, and is controverted bythe other.


12/117

:ith :hich the fact as stated accords :ith thegeneral e=perience of man?ind.

RULE 128/ !e)6 76%dmissibilit$ of evidence.


13/117

the defendant in his home at thetime the murder :as committed.

(s :ill be observed, both 1 and # aree@ually admissible. ut it is li?ely that thecourt :ould give greater :eight to thetestimony of a disinterested physician thanof a mother, :ho might be e=pected tocommit perjury in an effort to save her son.

C(se:

$tien?( ,s6 &OD ' %6R6 No6 1@@;@Fe0ru(r 9/ 2;11. (dmissibility of evidencerefers to the @uestion :hether or not thecircumstance or evidence is to beconsidered at all. 3n the other hand, theprobative value of evidence refers to the@uestion of :hether or not it proves anissue.

96 .es of $dmissi0iit

$6 "uti.e $dmissi0iit of E,iden)e6

Ahen a fact is offered for one purpose, and is

admissible in so far as it satisfies all rules

applicable to it :hen offered for that purpose, its

failure to satisfy some other rule :hich :ould be

applicable to it if offered for another purposedoes not e=clude it.

&6 Condition( $dmissi0iit of E,iden)e6

Ahere t:o or more evidentiary facts are so

connected under the issues that the relevancy of

one depends upon another not yet received, and

the party is unable to introduce them both at the

same moment, the offering counsel may be

re@uired by the court as a condition precedent

'1* to state the supposed connecting facts, and

'2* to promise to give the evidence later.

Effect if condition precedent is not

fulfilled&

pon motion by the opposite

party, the court may stri?e out

the evidence thus conditionally

admitted

C6 Cur(ti,e $dmissi0iit of E,iden)e6

Ahere an inadmissible fact has been offered by

one party and received :ithout objection and the

opponents after:ards, for the purpose o

negativing or e=plaining or other:ise

counteracting, offers a fact similarly

inadmissible, such fact is admissible if it serves

to remove an unfair effect upon the court :hich

might other:ise ensue from the original fact.

1;6 Rues of E3)usion (nd E3)usion(r Rues

Rues of E3)usion E3)usion(r Rues

overned by the rulesof evidence

Evidence e=cluded bythe onstitution

C(se:

oentino ,s6 "endo?( '$D"6 C$!E NO

A1A1 O)to0er 19/ 2;;* 6 6ote that "ule #'

(dministrative 3rder 6o. 1, series of 199$

only provides for sanctions against persons

violating the rule on confidentiality of birth

records, but no:here does it state tha

procurement of birth records in violation o

said rule :ould render said records

inadmissible in evidence. 3n the other hand

the "evised "ules of Evidence only provides

for the e=clusion of evidence if it is obtained

as a result of i llegal searches and

seiIures.%ince both "ule #', (dministrative

3rder 6o. 1, series of 199$ and the "evised

"ules on Evidence do not provide for thee=clusion from evidence of the birth

certificates in @uestion, said public

documents are, therefore, admissible and

should be properly ta?en into consideration

in the resolution of this administrative case

against the respondent.

%6 $dmissi0iit of ee.hone Con,ers(tions6

nless other:ise objectionable, a telephone

conversation bet:een a :itness and anothe

person is admissible in any case in :hich a face

to face conversation bet:een a :itness and

another person :ould be admissible in

evidence, provided that the identity of the person

:ith :hom the :itness :as spea?ing is

satisfactorily established, but not other:ise.


14/117

Proof of Identit > through :itnessG

recognition of the voice of the

person :ith :hom he :as spea?ing,

ho:ever, it may be established by

means other than the recognition of

the voice.

46 $dmissi0iit of r(dio 0ro(d)(st6

Evidence of a message or a speech by means

of radio broadcast is admissible as evidence

:hen the identity of the spea?er is established

by the follo:ingB

y the testimony of a :itness

:ho sa: him broadcast his

message or speech

y the :itness recognition of the

voice of the spea?er

I6 $dmissi0iit of =iret(..ing (nd t(.e

re)ordings6

"ecording of conversations, statement,

confessions, speech, and the sounds of various

?inds, are admissible in evidence, subject of

course, to the general rules relating to hearsay,

best evidence, relevancy, privilege and the li?e,

and subject to the proper authentication by

foundation testimony.

76 The :iretapping and other related violations

of the privacy of communications areprohibited and penaliIed by "epublic (ct

6o. '#


15/117

inciting to sedition,

?idnapping as defined by the

"evised !enal ode,

and violations of

ommon:ealth (ct 6o. >1>,

punishing espionage and other

offenses against national

security

Reuirements:

That such :ritten order shall

only be issued or granted upon

:ritten application and the

e=amination under oath or

affirmation of the applicant and

the :itnesses he may produce

and a sho:ingB

1. That there are reasonable

grounds to believe that any of

the crimes enumerated

hereinabove has been

committed or is being committed

or is about to be committedB

Pro%i$e$) ho'e%er, That in

cases involving the offenses of

rebellion, conspiracy and

proposal to commit rebellion,

inciting to rebellion, sedition,

conspiracy to commit sedition,

and inciting to sedition, such

authority shall be granted only

upon prior proof that a rebellionor acts of sedition, as the case

may be, have actually been or

are being committed

#. That there are reasonable

grounds to believe that evidence

:ill be obtained essential to the

conviction of any person for, or

to the solution of, or to the

prevention of, any of such

crimes and

$. That there are no other

means readily available for

obtaining such evidence.

6 !ur,ei(n)e of !us.e)ts (nd

Inter)e.tion (nd Re)ording of

Communi)(tions

12ection 3) Repu#"ic Act No +435)

6uman securit& Act7

The provisions of "epublic (ct 6o

'#


16/117

enumerated in %ection 1 of ".(. 6o. '#. "ight to privacy and inviolability of

communication %ec. $

7. "ight of a person under

investigation for an offense %ec.

1#

8. "ight against self-incrimination

%ec. 17

C(se:

$m0re ,s6 Peo.e %6R6 No6 191A72

$ugust 1A/ 2;12*6%ection #, (rticle +++ of the

onstitution mandates that a search and

seiIure must be carried out through or on

the strength of a judicial :arrant predicated

upon the e=istence of probable cause,absent :hich such search and seiIure

becomes LunreasonableL :ithin the meaning

of said constitutional provision. Evidence

obtained and confiscated on the occasion of

such an unreasonable search and seiIure is

tainted and should be e=cluded for being the

proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. +n the

language of the fundamental la:, it shall be

inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in

any proceeding.

This e=clusionary rule is not, ho:ever, an

absolute and rigid proscription. 3ne of the

recogniIed e=ception established by

jurisprudence is search incident to a la:fu

arrest. +n this e=ception, the la: re@uires

that a la:ful arrest must precede the search

of a person and his belongings. (s a rule, an

arrest is considered legitimate if effected:ith a valid :arrant of arrest.

+6 $dmissi0iit of Ee)troni) Do)uments6

(n electronic document is admissible in

evidence ifB

$. +t complies :ith the "ules onadmissibility prescribed by the "ulesand related la:s and

'. +t is authenticated in the manner by the"ules on Electronic Evidence

L6 !)ientifi) Dete)tion De,i)es6>. 2ie detector7. %peed detection and recording devices8. hemical tests for drun?enness9. Truth serums and hypnosis1


17/117

e=istence. %ection '9 of "ule 1$


18/117


19/117

to the issue and is not e=cluded by the la: or these

rules. *or evidence to be inadmissible there should

be a la: or rule :hich forbids its reception. +f there is

no such la: or rule, the evidence must be admitted

subject only to the evidentiary :eight that :ill be

accorded it by the courts.

There is no provision or statement in said la: or in

any rule that :ill bring about the non-admissibility ofthe confiscated andKor seiIed drugs due to non-

compliance :ith %ection #1 of "epublic (ct 6o.

91>). The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance

:ith said section, is not of admissibility, but of :eight

M evidentiary merit or probative value M to be given

the evidence. The :eight to be given by the courts

on said evidence depends on the circumstances

obtaining in each case.

%6R6 No6 1


20/117

the e=istence of such account, its nature and the

amount ?ept in it. +t constitutes an attempt by the

prosecution at an impermissible in@uiry into a ban?

deposit account the privacy and confidentiality of

:hich is protected by la:. 3n this score alone, the

objection posed by respondent in her motion to

suppress should have indeed put an end to the

controversy at the very first instance it :as raised

before the trial court. +n sum, the ourt holds that thetestimony of &arasigan on the particulars of

respondentGs supposed ban? account :ith %ecurity

an? and the documentary evidence represented by

the chec?s adduced in support thereof, are not only

incompetent for being e=cluded by operation of ".(.

6o. 1'


21/117

F$C!:

"espondent (tty. 6orberto &. &endoIa :as

administratively charged :ith rossly +mmoral

onduct and ross &isconduct. omplainants

alleged that respondent, a former &unicipal Trial

ourt /udge, abandoned his legal :ife, *elicitas 4.

4alderia in favor of his paramour, &arilyn

dela*uente, :ho is, in turn, married to one "amon. &arcos. 3n the other hand, respondent averred

that complainants illegally procured copies of the

birth certificates of his alleged daughters &ara

Chrisnaharminadela*uente &endoIa and

&yrraChrisna6orminadela*uente &endoIa, in

violation of "ule #', (dministrative 3rder 6o. 1,

series of 199$, thus, such documents are

inadmissible in evidence.

I!!UEB

Ahether or not birth certificates are inadmissible in

evidence for having been obtained in violation of

"ule #', (dministrative 3rder 6o. 1, series of 199$

:hich provides for strict confidentiality of a personGs

birth record.

4ELD:

No6%ection $, "ule 1#8 of the "evised "ules on

Evidence provides that Levidence is admissible

:hen it is relevant to the issue and is not e=cluded

by the la: or these rules.L There could be no disputethat the subject birth certificates are relevant to the

issue. The only @uestion, therefore, is :hether the

la: or the rules provide for the inadmissibility of said

birth certificates allegedly for having been obtained

in violation of "ule #', (dministrative 3rder 6o. 1,

series of 199$.

6ote that "ule #', (dministrative 3rder 6o. 1, series

of 199$ only provides for sanctions against persons

violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records,

but no:here does it state that procurement of birth

records in violation of said rule :ould render said

records inadmissible in evidence. 3n the other hand,

the "evised "ules of Evidence only provides for the

e=clusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of

illegal searches and seiIures. +t should be

emphasiIed ho:ever, that said rule against

unreasonable searches and seiIures is meant only

to protect a person from interference by the

government or the state.

onse@uently, in this case :here complainants, as

private individuals, obtained the subject birth records

as evidence against respondent, the protection

against unreasonable searches and seiIures does

not apply.

%ince both "ule #', (dministrative 3rder 6o. 1

series of 199$ and the "evised "ules on Evidence

do not provide for the e=clusion from evidence of thebirth certificates in @uestion, said public documents

are, therefore, admissible and should be properly

ta?en into consideration in the resolution of this

administrative case against respondent.

%6R6 No6 191A72 $ugust 1A/ 2;12"$R%$RI$ $"&RE # C$#UNI/vs. PEOPLE OF4E P4ILIPPINE!

The e"clusionar$ rule is not! ho#ever! an

absolute and riid proscription. 1ne of the

reconi4ed e"ception established b$

urisprudence is search incident to a la#ful

arrest.

F$C!:

(mbre :as charged :ith the crime of violation of

%ection 1), (rticle ++ of "epublic (ct 1RA7 6o. 91>)

*rom the testimonies of prosecution :itnesses, i

appeared that on (pril #) for failure o

the prosecution to prove :ith particularity the drugparaphernalia found in her possession.

I!!UE:

Ahether the :arrantless arrest of (mbre and the

search of her person :as valid and :hether the

items seiIed are admissible in evidence.

4ELD:


22/117

#es6 %ection #, (rticle +++ of the onstitution

mandates that a search and seiIure must be carried

out through or on the strength of a judicial :arrant

predicated upon the e=istence of probable cause,

absent :hich such search and seiIure becomes

LunreasonableL :ithin the meaning of said

constitutional provision. Evidence obtained and

confiscated on the occasion of such an

unreasonable search and seiIure is tainted andshould be e=cluded for being the proverbial fruit of a

poisonous tree. +n the language of the fundamental

la:, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any

purpose in any proceeding.

This e=clusionary rule is not, ho:ever, an absolute

and rigid proscription. 3ne of the recogniIed

e=ception established by jurisprudence is search

incident to a la:ful arrest. +n this e=ception, the la:

re@uires that a la:ful arrest must precede the search

of a person and his belongings. (s a rule, an arrest

is considered legitimate if effected :ith a valid:arrant of arrest.

+n this case, there is no gainsaying that (mbre :as

caught by the police officers in the act of using

shabu and, thus, can be la:fully arrested :ithout a

:arrant. 0is conviction stands.

%6R6 No6 1822; une 1A/ 2;;A

RO!ENDO 4ERRER$vs. RO!ENDO $L&$

Evidence is admissible #hen it is relevant to thefact in issue and is not other#ise e"cluded b$

statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is

relevant #hen it has such a relation to the fact in

issue as to induce belief in its e"istence or non-

e"istence.

F$C!:

Thirteen-year-old "osendo (lba represented by his

mother (rmi (lba, filed before the trial court a

petition for compulsory recognition, support and

damages against petitioner. !etitioner 0errera

denied that he is the biological father of respondent

and denied physical contact :ith respondentGs

mother."espondent filed a motion to direct the

ta?ing of 56( paternity testing to abbreviate the

proceedings.!etitioner opposed 56( paternity

testing and contended that it has not gained

acceptability and further argued that 56( paternity

testing violates his right against self-incrimination.

The trial court granted respondentGs motion to

conduct 56( paternity testing on petitioner.

!etitioner filed before the appellate court a petition

for certiorari under "ule >) asserting that the tria

court acted Lin e=cess of, or :ithout jurisdiction

andKor :ith grave abuse of discretion amounting to

lac? or e=cess of jurisdiction, in issuing the order o

56( testing, ho:ever, the petition :as denied.

I!!UE:

Ahether or not a 56( test is a valid probative tool to

determine filiation and as such be admissible in

evidence in a paternity suit.

4ELD:

#es. Evidence is admissible :hen it is relevant to

the fact in issue and is not other:ise e=cluded by

statute or the "ules of ourt. Evidence is relevan

:hen it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to

induce belief in its e=istence or non-e=istence

%ection '9 of "ule 1$


23/117

of modern science and technology, such evidence

should be considered subject to the limits

established by the la:, rules, and jurisprudence.

%6R6 No6 1A;22 "( 19/ 2;;

PEOPLE OF 4E P4ILIPPINE!/ ,s6 OEL #$$R

(i(s +$5I

The leal relevanc$ of evidence denotes

5somethin more than a minimum of probativevalue!5 suestin that such evidentiar$

relevance must contain a 5plus value.5 This ma$

be necessar$ to preclude the trial court from

bein satisfied b$ matters of sliht value!

capable of bein e"aerated b$ preudice and

hast$ conclusions. Evidence #ithout 5plus

value5 ma$ be loicall$ relevant but not leall$

sufficient to convict.

F$C!:

/oel atar :as convicted by the trial court :ith rape:ith homicide defined and penaliIed under (rticle

#>>-( of the "evised !enal ode, as amended by

".(. 8$)$, other:ise ?no:n as the (nti-"ape 2a: of

1997, and :as accordingly, sentenced to Death.

!ursuant to (rticle '7 of the revised !enal ode, an

automatic revie: :as made, the appellant alleging

that the trial court gravely erred in giving :eight to

the evidence presented by the prosecution

not:ithstanding their doubtfulness and thereby he

should be ac@uitted from the crime charged due to

reasonable doubt.

I!!UE:

Ahether or not the trial court committed reversibleerror in convicting the accused of the crime chargedon the basis of circumstantial evidence.

4ELD:

No6 ircumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to:arrant a conviction, must form an unbro?en chain

:hich leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that

the accused, to the e=clusion of others, is the

perpetrator of the crime. To determine :hether there

is sufficient circumstantial evidence, three re@uisites

must concurB 1 there is more than one

circumstance # facts on :hich the inferences are

derived are proven and $ the combination of all

the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction

beyond reasonable doubt.

enerally, courts should only consider and rely upon

duly established evidence and never on mere

conjectures or suppositions. The legal relevancy o

evidence denotes Lsomething more than a minimum

of probative value,L suggesting that such evidentiary

relevance must contain a Lplus value.L This may be

necessary to preclude the trial court from being

satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being

e=aggerated by prejudice and hasty conclusionsEvidence :ithout Lplus valueL may be logically

relevant but not legally sufficient to convict. +t is

incumbent upon the trial court to balance the

probative value of such evidence against the li?ely

harm that :ould result from its admission.

The judgment in a criminal case can be upheld only

:hen there is relevant evidence from :hich the cour

can properly find or infer that the accused is guilty

beyond reasonable doubt. !roof beyond reasonable

doubt re@uires moral certainty of guilt in order to

sustain a conviction. &oral certainty is that degree ofcertainty that convinces and directs the

understanding and satisfies the reason and

judgment of those :ho are bound to ac

conscientiously upon it. +t is certainty beyond

reasonable doubt. This re@uires that the

circumstances, ta?en together, should be of a

conclusive nature and tendency leading, on the

:hole, to a satisfactory conclusion that the accused

and no one else, committed the offense charged. +n

vie: of the totality of evidence appreciated thus far

:e rule that the present case passes the test o

moral certainty.

0o:ever, as a matter of procedure, and for the

purpose of meeting the re@uirement of proof beyond

reasonable doubt, motive is essential for conviction

:hen there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit

Thus, appellantGs motive to se=ually assault and ?il

the victim :as evident in the instant case. +t is a rule

in criminal la: that motive, being a state of mind, is

established by the testimony of :itnesses on the

acts or statements of the accused before o

immediately after the commission of the offense

deeds or :ords that may e=press it or from :hich his

motive or reason for committing it may be inferred

(ccordingly, the ourt is convinced that the

appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the

special comple= crime of rape :ith homicide

(ppellant se=ually assaulted Cathylynba, and by

reason or on the occasion thereof, in order to

conceal his lustful deed, permanently sealed the

victimGs lips by stabbing her repeatedly, thereby

causing her untimely demise.


24/117


25/117

rather than a judicial matter and therefore courts

follo: the determination of the e=ecutive department

of the forum

d. +n conformity to the la: of nations all courts in a

government, :here that government has recogniIed

the e=istence of a foreign nation, but not in the

absence of such recognition :ill ta?e cogniIance of

the flag and great seal of that nation or provinces

e. *oreign la: must be proved as facts, those

rules :hich by common consent of man?ind have

been ac@uiesced in as las stand upon an entirely

different footing

Note9+t is :ell settled that foreign la:s do not prove

themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not

authoriIed to ta?e judicial notice of them. 2i?e any

other fact, they must be alleged and proved.

f. 6o proof need be given of the seals of foreign

maritime and admiralty courts. y common consentand general usage, the seal of a court of admiralty

has been considered as sufficiently authenticating its

records

g.

&atters relating toB

1. 2egislative5epartment

ourts are bound tota?e judicial notice, asa matter of la:, ofdates :hen ongressbegins and closes itssession, the number,function, privileges ofits members

#. E=ecutive5epartment

ourts judiciallyrecogniIe all publicmatters :hich :illaffect the governmentof the country. 3n thisprinciple, theaccession and death of

the sovereign andprincipal officers of thestate are recogniIed

$. /udiciary5epartment

The %upreme ourthas ta?en judicialnotice of its record in aprevious case inconnection :ith the

conduct of the litigantor :itness in a similarmatter.

eneral "uleB ourtsare not authoriIed tota?e judicial ?no:ledgeof contents of the othercases, in theadjudication of casespending before them,even though the trial

judge in fact ?no:s orremember the contentsthereof

i. ourts judicially recogniIe all public matters:hich :ill affect the government of thecountry. 3n this principle, the accession anddeath of the sovereign and principal officersof the state are recogniIed

j. /udicial 6otice is ta?en of the familiar and

un@uestionable la:s of nature and of thee=istence of fact :hich happened accordingto the course of nature

?. ourts :ill judicially notice the thingsbelonging to the almanac. alendar of theperiods :ithin the calendar.

l. /udicial 6otice is ta?en of the fact that the!hilippines is divided into provincesmunicipalities, cities, and cities is dividedinto lots, bloc?s, streets

67RIS8R7DENCE

/udicial notice may be ta?en of petitionerOs oathta?ing as evidenced by a certification from the"ecords 3fficer of the office of the !rovinciaovernor. The oath ta?ing parta?es of an officiaact, :hile the certification is an official act of anofficial of the E=ecutive 5epartment of thegovernment. 2opeI v. %andiganbayan, " 6o1


26/117

- /udicial ?no:ledge of facts is measured bygeneral ?no:ledge of the same fact. ( fact isgenerally ?no:n :hen its e=istence or operation

:hen it is accepted by public :ithout@ualification or contention.

The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the:isdom and discretion of the courts. The po:erto ta?e judicial notice is to be e=ercised by

courts :ith caution care must be ta?en that there@uisite notoriety e=ists and every reasonabledoubt on the subject should be promptlyresolved in the negative. enerally spea?ing,matters of judicial notice have three materialre@uisitesB 1 the matter must be one ofcommon and general ?no:ledge # it must be

:ell and authoritatively settled and not doubtfulor uncertain and $ it must be ?no:n to be

:ithin the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.The principal guide in determining :hat factsmay be assumed to be judicially ?no:n is that ofnotoriety. 0ence, it can be said that judicialnotice is limited to facts evidenced by public

records and facts of general notoriety. 2atip vs.hua

Things of Lcommon ?no:ledge,L of :hich courts ta?ejudicial notice, may be matters coming to the?no:ledge of men generally in the course of theordinary e=periences of life, or they may be matters

:hich are generally accepted by man?ind as trueand are capable of ready and un@uestioneddemonstration. Thus, facts :hich are universally?no:n, and :hich may be found in encyclopedias,dictionaries or other publications, are judiciallynoticed, provided they are of such universal notoriety

and so generally understood that they may beregarded as forming part of the common ?no:ledgeof every person. 2atip vs. hua, " 63. 1778 UDICI$L NOICE/ 54EN

4E$RIN% NECE!!$R#

5uring the trial, the court on its o:n

initiative, or on re@uest of a party, mayannounce its intention to ta?e judicial notice

of any matter and allo: the parties to be

heard thereon.

(fter the trial, and before judgment or on

appeal, the proper court, or its o:n initiative

or on the re@uest of a party, may ta?e

judicial notice of any matter and allo: the

parties to be heard thereon if such matter is

decisive of a material issue or in the case.

PURPO!E OF 4E$RIN%

To afford the parties reasonable

opportunity to present information

relevant to the propriety of ta?ing such

judicial notice or to the tenor of the

matter to be noticed.

I"E 54EN UDICI$L NOICE "$#

&E $+EN:

5uring trial

(fter trial and before judgment

3n appeal

+n all instances, the court may act on its

o:n initiative or on re@uest of a party.


27/117

UDICI$L NOICE $+EN DURIN%

RI$L DI!IN%UI!4ED FRO" 4$

$+EN $FER &U &EFORE

UD%"EN OR ON $PPE$L

5"+6 T"+(2 ; any matter

(*TE" T"+(2 T E*3"E

/5&E6T 3" 36 (!!E(2 ; (ny

matter if such decisive of a material

issue in the case.

DEER"IN$ION OF F$C!

!U&EC OF UDICI$L NOICE >

The court may refer to appropriate and

reliable sources of information. Ahere

judicial notice must be ta?en of a fact,

the court is re@uired to pursue in@uiries

sufficient to ma?e that ?no:ledge real

as far as possible.

!ECION ; (n admission, verbal or :ritten, made

by or a party in the course of the proceedings in the

same case, does not re@uire proof of the admission

may be contradicted only by sho:ing that it :as

made through palpable mista?e or that no such

admission :as made.

UDICI$L $ND EBR$ UDICI$L

$D"I!!ION! DEFINED6

/5++(2 ; is one made in the

pleadings filed or in the progress of a

trial. +t is conclusive upon the party

ma?ing them.

EPT"( /5++(2 (5&+%%+36 ; one

made out of court. (s a rule, isdisputable e=cept on estoppel.

FOR" OF UDICI$L $D"I!!ION >

/5++(2 (5&+%%+36% &( EB

1. 3ral as a verbal :aiver of proo

made in open court

#. ( :ithdra:al of a contention

$. ( disclosure made before a court

'. (dmission made by a :itness in the

course of testimony or deposition

). +n :riting as in pleadings

>. ill of particulars

7. %tipulation of facts

8. "e@uest for admission

9. /udicial admission contained in an

affidavit used in a case.

CONCLU!IVENE!! OF UDICI$L$D"I!!ION

annot be contradicted unless

previously sho:n to have been made

through a palpable mista?e or that no

such admission :as made.

$D"I!!ION IN PLE$DIN%! >

&ay be made by an e=press

ac?no:ledgement of some fact or facts

set forth in the pleading of the opposite

party.

y failure to deny or other:ise

controvert the truth of such fact or facts.

NO $D"I!!ION $RI!E! 54ENDEFEND$N I! $DUD%ED IN

DEF$UL6

%uch failure to ans:er does not amoun

to an admission of the facts alleged in

the complaint.


28/117

&ILL OF P$RICUL$R! >

Aritten statements in nature of bill of

particulars, purporting to be signed by a

partyGs attorney, and :hich the opposing

party claims :as delivered to his

counsel as a bill of particular :as been

held admissible.

VERIFIED $ND UNVERIFIED

PLE$DIN%! >

4erification is considered essential to

the admission of statements in a

pleading against the pleader. +f a party

does not verify, authoriIe or adopt a

pleading, allegations thereof are not

admissible against him.

$D"I!!ION! $ORNE# >

(dmissions by counsel made in the trial

of a cause may be conclusive on the

party unless :ithdra:n or set aside by

the court for good cause sho:n as

mista?e or lac? of authority.

$D"I!!ION! IN 5I4DR$5N/

!UPER!EDED OR $"ENDED

PLE$DIN%

The pleading :hich has been :ithdra:n

or stric?en out or superseded by

amendment, still remain as statements

seriously made and are admissible in

evidence, on behalf of the opposite

party as admissions by the pleader,

:here he is a party to the subse@uent

litigation, :here the statements are

material and relevant to the issues in

connection :ith :hich they are sought

to be introduced, and :here, in case of

a pleading :ithdra:n by leave of court

no order is made relieving the pleader

from the admissions made and the

probative force of such statements has

even been given a prima facie value.

$D"I!!ION! IN !IPUL$ION OF

F$C! >

%tipulations of facts in a case are

agreements or admissions regarding

certain facts included in the litigation

and are conclusive bet:een the parties

(cts or facts admitted do not re@uire

proof and cannot be contradicted

unless it be sho:n that the admission

:as made through a palpable mista?e

for parties are not allo:ed to gain saytheir o:n acts or deny rights :hich they

have previously recogniIed. ( party

may not :ithdra: from an agreement o

facts :ithout the consent of the othe

party or :ithout leave of court on

justifiable reasons.

&INDIN% EFFEC OF !IPUL$ION

OF F$C! >

( concession or stipulation as to a fac

made for the purpose of trial has the

force and effect of an established fac

binding on the party ma?ing the same

as :ell as on the court, unless the cour

in its reasonable discretion allo:s the

concession to be later :ithdra:n

e=plained, or modified if it appears to

have been made by improvidence o

mista?e.

$FFID$VI!/ DEPO!IION! $ND

E!I"ON# >

( judicial admission in an affidavit used

in the case is admissible against the

party ma?ing or adopting the affidavit

and it may also be admitted in another

action to :hich he is a party.

%tatements made in a deposition

relevant to the issues, may be admitted


29/117

against the deponent as admissions

against the interest in the same or

another action to :hich he is a party,

even though he is present in court and

able to testify, or has testified

The testimony given by or for a party at

the trial of a case may be used against

him as an admission in the same, or ona subse@uent trial, or even in another

action, provided such testimony is

material and relevant.

PROOF OF $D"I!!ION IN

PLE$DIN%/ $FFID$VI OR

DEPO!IION >

Ahere a pleading, affidavit or

depositionis offered in evidence, thestatements relied on as admissions and

the @ualifying statements must be

construed together. The party offering

:ritten admissions is not stopped to

disprove them.

CO"PRO"I!E $%REE"EN -

( judicial admission in a compromise

agreement submitted to the court cannotbe contradicted unless previously sho:n

to have been made through palpable

mista?e.

!IPUL$ION OF F$C! IN

CRI"IN$L C$!E! >

+t is not proper to consider a case

closed, or to render judgment therein, by

virtue of an agreement entered intobet:een the fiscal and counsel for the

accused :ith reference to facts some of

:hich are favorable to the defense, and

others related to the prosecution,

:ithout any evidence being adduced or

testimony ta?en from the :itnesses

mentioned in the agreement such

practice is not authoriIed and defeats

the purposes of the criminal la:.

UDICI$L $D"I!!ION OF $ F$C

DI!IN%UI!4ED FRO" $N

$D"I!!ION 4$ $ CER$IN

5INE!!/ IF C$LLED/ 5OULD !O

E!IF#6

+n the first case, there is a judicia

admission of the facts, and they canno

be contradicted. +n the second case, i

:ill only have the same effect as if the

:itness had testified to the facts. %uch

testimony of the party is free to

contradict.

Constitution( Right not ,io(ted 0 ins.e)tion os)ene of )rime, provided that the same is :ithconsent of and accompanied by counsel for theaccused, it further appearing that no evidence :asta?en during the inspection.

Inform(tion o0t(ined on ( ,ie= is inde.endente,iden)e to be ta?en into consideration by the curtin determining the issues in the case.

Order dening or gr(nting ,ie= not re,ie=(0e:hen it appears that the condition of the premises oproperty has changed since the time of occurrencein issue and before the demand for a vie:, or thatthe facts involved are such that they can beaccurately described to the court by oral testimonyor by the use of maps or diagrams :ith propee=planations, or vie: :ould be unreasonablee=pensive or cause unreasonable delay, or serve no

useful purpose, unless here appears a clear abuseof discretion.

DOCU"EN$R# EVIDENCE

Section 2 Documentar$ evidence

DOCU"EN ; any substance having any mattee=pressed or described upon it by mar?s capable ofbeing read. +f it is produced :ithout regard to themessage :hich it contains, it is treated as reaevidence.

DOCU"EN$R# EVIDENCE- evidence supplied by:ritten instruments, or derived from the conventionasymbols, such as letters, by :hich ideas arerepresented on material substances documentsdocuments produced for the inspection of the couror judge.$D"I!!I&ILI# OF DOCUE"N$R# EVIDENCEsubject to the same basic rules on relevancymateriality, e=clusionary rules and court discretionas determined by the issues in the particular case+dentity and authenticity of the document must be


30/117

reasonably established as a pre-re@uisite to itsadmission.

I"POR$N RULE! ON DOCU"EN$R#EVIDENCE-

1. est Evidence "ule#. "ule on %econdary Evidence$. !arol Evidence "ule'. "ule on (uthentication and !roof of

5ocuments). +nadmissibility of :ritten document in an

unofficial language unless translated inEnglish and *ilipino

16 &est E,iden)e Rue

&E! EVIDENCE or PRI"$R# EVIDENCE-

particular means of proof :hich is indicated by the

nature of the fact under investigation as the most

natural and satisfactory that affords the greatest

certainty of the fact in @uestion and on its face

indicates that no better evidence remains behind.

&E! EVIDENCE RULE - is that rule :hich re@uires

the highest grade of evidence obtainable to

prove a disputed fact.

Pur.ose of the rue reuiring the .rodu)tion ofthe 0est e,iden)e:prevention of fraud, because ifthe best evidence is not presented then thepresumption of suppression of evidence :ill bepresent.&est e,iden)e rue (..ies on =henthe .ur.ose of the .roof is to est(0ish the terms

of =riting/therefore 63T applicable to e=ternal orcollateral facts about the document such as itse=istence, e=ecution or delivery.

Peo.e ,6 (ndo'199;*The est Evidence "ule applies only :hen thecontents of the document are the subject of in@uiry.+t does not apply :hen the issue is only as to

:hether or not such document :as actuallye=ecuted or in the circumstances relevant to itse=ecution. (n objection by the party against :homsecondary evidence is sought to be introduced is

essential to bring the best evidence rule intoapplication. Ahere secondary evidence has beenadmitted, the rule of evidence might have beensuccessfully invo?ed if proper and timely objectionhad been ta?en

54$ CON!IUE! 4E ORI%IN$L:

a The original of the document is one thecontents of :hich are the subject of in@uiry

b Ahen a document is in t:o or morecopies e=ecuted at or about the same time,

:ith identical contents, all such copies aree@ually regarded as originals and

c Ahen an entry is repeated in the regularcourse of business, one being copied fromanother at or near the time of thetransaction, all the entries are li?e:isee@ually regarded as originals.

6oteBQ 3riginal may depend on the substantivela: applicableQ 3riginal may depend on the act of thepartiesQ:here there may be duplicate originaleither is an original ad may be used :ithouaccounting for anotherQAhenever a document is e=ecuted in

several parts, each part is a primary evidenceQ Ahenever a document is e=ecuted incounterpart, each part e=ecuted by one omore of the parties only, each counterpart is

primary evidence as against the parties :hoe=ecuted it

Peo.e ,s !to6 om(s178 !CR$ 2;To be ta?en intoconsideration by the curt in determining the issues inthe case.

Order dening or gr(nting ,ie= not

re,ie=(0e >Ahen it appears that the condition of

the premises or property has changed since the time

of occurrence in issue and before the demand for a

vie:, or that the facts involved are such that they

can be accurately described to the court by oral

testimony, or by the use of maps or diagrams :ith

proper e=planations, or vie: :ould be unreasonable

e=pensive or cause unreasonable delay, or serve no

useful purpose, unless here appears a clear abuse

of discretion.

DOCU"EN$R# EVIDENCE

Section 2 Documentar$ evidence

DOCU"EN ; any substance having anymatter e=pressed or described upon it by mar?scapable ofbeing read. +f it is produced :ithout regard to themessage :hich it contains, it is treated as realevidence.

DOCU"EN$R# EVIDENCE- evidencesupplied by :ritten instruments, or derived from theconventional symbols, such as letters, by :hich

ideas are represented on material substancesdocuments documents produced for the inspectionof the court or judge.

$D"I!!I&ILI# OF DOCUE"N$R#EVIDENCE- subject to the same basic rules onrelevancy, materiality, e=clusionary rules and courdiscretion as determined by the issues in theparticular case. +dentity and authenticity of thedocument must be reasonably established as a pre-re@uisite to its admission.

I"POR$N RULE! ON DOCU"EN$R#EVIDENCE-

1. est Evidence "ule#. "ule on %econdary Evidence$. !arol Evidence "ule'. "ule on (uthentication and !roof o

5ocuments). +nadmissibility of :ritten document in an

unofficial language unless translated inEnglish and *ilipino

26 &est E,iden)e Rue

&E! EVIDENCE or PRI"$R# EVIDENCE

particular means of proof :hich is indicated by the

nature of the fact under investigation as the most

natural and satisfactory that affords the greates

certainty of the fact in @uestion and on its face

indicates that no better evidence remains behind.

&E! EVIDENCE RULE - is that rule :hich

re@uires the h ighest g rade o f evidence

obtainable to prove a disputed fact.

Pur.ose of the rue reuiring the .rodu)tionof the 0est e,iden)e:prevention of fraud, becauseif the best evidence is not presented then thepresumption of suppression of evidence :ill bepresent.

&est e,iden)e rue (..ies on =henthe .ur.ose of the .roof is to est(0ish the terms

of =riting/therefore 63T applicable to e=ternal ocollateral facts about the document such as itse=istence, e=ecution or delivery.

Peo.e ,6 (ndo'199;*The est Evidence "ule applies only :hen thecontents of the document are the subject of in@uiry+t does not apply :hen the issue is only as to

:hether or not such document :as actuallye=ecuted or in the circumstances relevant to itse=ecution. (n objection by the party against :homsecondary evidence is sought to be introduced is


42/117

essential to bring the best evidence rule intoapplication. Ahere secondary evidence has beenadmitted, the rule of evidence might have beensuccessfully invo?ed if proper and timely objectionhad been ta?en

54$ CON!IUE! 4E ORI%IN$L:

a The original of the document is one the

contents of :hich are the subject of in@uiry

b Ahen a document is in t:o or morecopies e=ecuted at or about the same time,

:ith identical contents, all such copies aree@ually regarded as originals and

c Ahen an entry is repeated in the regularcourse of business, one being copied fromanother at or near the time of thetransaction, all the entries are li?e:isee@ually regarded as originals.

6oteB Q 3riginal may depend on the substantivela: applicableQ 3riginal may depend on the act of thepartiesQ:here there may be duplicate original,either is an original ad may be used :ithoutaccounting for anotherQAhenever a document is e=ecuted in

several parts, each part is primary evidenceQ Ahenever a document is e=ecuted incounterpart, each part e=ecuted by one ormore of the parties only, each counterpart isprimary evidence as against the parties :hoe=ecuted it

Peo.e ,s!to6 om(s178 !CR$ 2;+n criminal cases, :here the issue is not only :ithrespect to the contents of the document but also asto :hether such document actually e=isted, theoriginal itself must be presented.

U! ,s %regorio1@ Phi A22

*or only only presenting the Pero= copy of thefalsified documents, prosecution failed to prove thecorpus delicti of the crime charged. +n the absenceof the original document, it +s improper to conclude

:ith only copy of the said original in vie:, that therehas been a falsification of the document :hich :asneither found nor e=hibited, because in such a caseeven the e=istence ofsuch document may bedoubted.

6on-.rodu)tion of the origin( do)umenunless justified in %ection $, gives rise to thepresumption of suppression of evidence.

$mended Do)uments- :here a duplicateor copy is amended or altered by the party oparties, it becomes the original.

Do)ument e3e)uted in t=o or moreidenti)( )ontentseach one of the parts is primary

evidence and the other need not be proved.

"e)h(ni)( re.rodu)ed )o.ies:h arbon copy- admissible as duplicate

original :hen e=ecuted at the same timeor about the same time. +mperfeccarbon copies, although made at thesame time as the original but if there issomething else to be done for it to bebinding or there is incomplete signatureitGs not the best evidence.

i "eproduction from the same matri= i.emimeograph, hectograph- admissible as

duplicate original :hen produced fromthe same matri= as original

j lueprints and vellum tracings- havebeen held to be originals rather thancopies

? Telegraph and cable messages-if the issue is the contents of the

telegram

as received by the addressee- then

the original dispatch is the copy othe message sent to the addressee

as sent by the sender- the original is

the message delivered

if the issue is the inaccuracy otransmission,

both telegrams as sent and received

are originalsl 2etter press copies- merely secondary

evidence as its prone to impropereproduction and are not producedsimultaneously as the original


43/117

m Thermofa=- merely secondary evidenceas it lac?s satisfactory reproduction assome portions are not clearly printed

n !hotographs and Pero=-merelysecondary evidence since they arereproduced at a latter time but ifauthenticated photostatic copy ofincome ta= returns, public and businessrecords are allo:ed as evidence

Peo.e ,s"(ngu(0n(n

A2 O%


44/117

petition for certification election. 5espite thecertification case, & sent notice to the nion fortermination of their contract and entered into a ne:contract :ith another stevedoring association.

& assailed that the termination of the contract :asdue to nion :or?erGs inefficiency and that theompany suffered financial losses due to suchservice. To ascertain its annual losses, &Gsmanager hired auditors. & relied only upon suchauditorsG report and presented in court only asummary of damages. The sales invoices :ere notproduced.

+ssueB A36 the non-submission as evidence of therecords of the alleged losses of the ompany ise=cused because of the rule e=empting voluminousrecords from being produced in court.

"ulingB The best evidence of the ompanyGs losses:ould have been the sales invoices instead of the&anagerG oral testimony. The rule that :hen theoriginal consists of numerous accounts or other

documents :hich cannot be e=amined in court:ithout great loss of time and the fact sought to beestablished in only the general result of the :hole,the original :ritings need not be produce, (663TE (!!2+E5 because the voluminous character fthe records :as 63T 52 E%T(2+%0E5. +t isalso a re@uisite for the application of the rule that therecords of accounts should be made accessible tothe adverse party so that the correctness of thesummary may be tested on cross-e=amination.

5hen (n entr is re.e(ted in the regu(r )ourseof 0usiness, one being copied from another at or

near the time of the transaction, all the entries areregarded as originals. *or as long as they are made

:ithin reasonable time, it is sufficient. ( much longerbut reasonable delay and :hen entries appear tohave been made :hile the memory as to thetransaction as clear or the source of such ?no:ledge

:as unimpaired, still ma?es it admissible.

0o:ever, a boo? of account containing only a singleentry or charge of money lent, :hich sho: no mutualrecourse of dealing bet:een the parties, is notadmissible.

26 !ECOND$R# EVIDENCE

%ET+36 ), "2E 1$8

- +f oral testimony or parol evidence ispresented on facts or circumstances

:hich do not refer to the terms ocontents of a :riting, the prohibitionin the parol evidence rule does notapply. Ta"osig %s ?$a De nie#a) (42CRA (35

Reason for the Ru"e

- The purpose of the rule is givestability to :ritten agreements andto remove the temptation andpossibility of perjury, :hich :ould beafforded if parol evidence :ere


49/117

admissible. Castro %s CA GR L@4(,*4) Januar& 5,) *+>+

Paro" e%i$ence ru"e $istinguishe$ from #este%i$ence ru"e

Paro" e%i$ence ru"e not app"ica#"e tostrangers to the instrument

- The parol evidence rule does notapply, and may not properly beinvo?ed by either party to the

litigation against the other, :here atleast one of the parties to the suit isnot a party or a privy of a party tothe :ritten instrument in @uestionand does not base a claim on theinstrument or assert a rightoriginating in the instrument or therelation established thereby.Lechugas %s CA) *(4 2CRA 44-

Paro" e%i$ence not a$missi#"e to %a"i$ate a%oi$ contract

- Ahere an instrument is on its faceillegal or void, because it sho:s aviolation of some statutory provision,or omits something :hich the la:ma?es essential to its validity, or forany reason, parol evidence cannotbe admitted to contradict to sho: aviolation of the statute, to supply theomission, or other:ise to ma?eeffectual that :hich the la: declaresshall be of no effect, unless it can besho:n that the provision :hichrenders the instrument void :as

inserted by mista?e.


50/117

Test of the $ifference #et'een "atent an$patent am#iguities

- ( good test of the differencebet:een the t:o forms ofambiguities is to put the instrumentinto the hands of an ordinarilyintelligent educated person. +f onperusal he sees no ambiguity, but

there is nevertheless an uncertaintyfrom merely reading the instrument,it is patent.

Latent or intrinsic am#iguit& $efine$

- (n uncertainty :hich does notappear on the face of theinstrument, but :hich is sho:n toe=ist for the first time by the matteroutside the :riting ; may bee=plained or clarified by parolevidence

Bin$s of "atent am#iguities

a. :here the description of thedevises or the property devisedis clear upon the face of the :ill,but it turns out that there is morethan one estate or person to

:hich the description appliesb. :here the devisee or property

devised is imperfectly or, insome respects, erroneouslydescribed, so as to leave it

doubtful :hat person or propertyis meant

Etrinsic or patent am#iguit& not austification for reforming the 'riting

- The contest and every legitimaterule of e=position may be listed andused in obedience to the ma=im utres magis%a"eat /uam pereat Thatthe thing may rather have effectthan be destroyed but paroltestimony or e=traneous proof of

any ?ind, is deemed to beinadmissible

- The rule e=pressly mentions intrinsicor latent ambiguity and not e=trinsicor patent ambiguity as one of thee=ceptions to the parol evidencerule.

- "eason for the ruleB if the languagebe too doubtful for any settledconstruction, by the admission ofparol evidence, you create and donot merely construe the contractyou attempt to do that for the party

:hich he has not chosen to do fohimself.


51/117

parties applies only in cases ofmista?e of fact and not :here aparty has contracted under amista?e of la:.

b. &ista?e must be mutual ; Theparties must sho: that there

:as a valid contract bet:eenthem, :hich contract is notcorrectly set forth in the :ritingto be reformed.

c. &ista?e should be alleged andproved ; the e=istence ofmista?e must be alleged in thepleadings and the allegationsmust be sustained by proof

Imperfection in the 'ritten agreement

- !arol evidence is admissible :herethere is imperfection of the :riting


52/117

- "easonB parties cannot be presumed tohave intended the :ritten instrument tocover all their possible subse@uentagreements :hich for that reason may beconsidered as separate transactions.

RECENL# DECIDED C$!E!

4eirs of Poi)ronioUret(/ !r6 ,s6 4eirs ofLi0er(toUret(

%6R6 No6 1


53/117


54/117

Issue:Ahether or not the unilateral 5eed of %aleshould be the basis to determine the trueconsideration.

4ed:

+n any event, the finding that the trueconsideration :as only !##7,'>< and not!1,)$1,)>' is supported by the evidence on record.

0ere, the %andiganbayan found that the unilateral5eed of %ale :as the official document used by thebuyer (*!-"%% and seller !laIa in the registrationof the sale as :ell as in the payment of theregistration fee, transfer ta=, capital gains ta=, anddocumentary stamp ta= necessary to effecttransfer. This finding :as not disputed by thepetitioner.

(t most, petitioner relied on the testimony of!laIa, :hich referred to a consideration of!1,1$7,$' disbursed according to the %tatusTransaction "eport signed by petitioner.

6either did the seller or the buyer disputethe validity of the unilateral 5eed of (bsolute %ale.The subse@uent bilateral 5eed of (bsolute %ale didnot repeal or modify the earlier sale either. (s thedeed :as a valid agreement of conveyance,not:ithstanding that only the seller signed the

deed, the%andiganbayan did not err :hen it usedthe unilateral 5eed of %ale as basis to determine thetrue consideration.

"ODE!O LEOVER$!vs6 C$!I"ERO V$LDE

%6R6 No6 19, (lejandraOsheirs sold their predecessorOs one-half 1K# shareroughly e@uivalent to 1' s@uare meters to therespondent, as evidenced by a 5eed of (bsolute%ale. (lso on /une 1', 19>9, /osefa sold her o:none-half 1K# share 1su#ect propert&7to therespondent and the petitioner, as evidenced byanother 5eed of (bsolute %ale.

ears later, the respondent filed a complainagainst the petitioner, see?ing the reconveyance ofthe 1,


55/117

+n the present petition, ho:ever, the

petitioner made a damaging admission that

the &enign( Deedis fabricated, thereby completely

bolstering the respondentOs cause of action for

reconveyance of the disputed property on the

ground of fraudulent registration of title. %ince the

(ffidavit merely reflects :hat is embodied in the

enigna 5eed, the petitionerOs admission, coupled

:ith the respondentOs denial of his purportedsignature in the (ffidavit, placed in serious doubt the

reliability of this document, supposedly the bedroc?

of the petitionerOs defense.

INERPRE$ION OF DOCU"EN!

Inter.ret(tion of Contr()ts under the CIVILCODE:

%rticle (3= Civil Code- If the terms of a contractare c"ear an$ "ea%e no $ou#t upon the intention ofthe contracting parties) the "itera" meaning of its

stipu"ations sha"" contro"

If the 'or$s appear to #e contrar& to the e%i$entintention of the parties) the "atter sha"" pre%ai" o%erthe former

- +t is an elementary rule of contract that thela:s in force at the time the contract :asmade must govern its interpretation.

- &atters bearing upon the e=ecution,interpretation, and validity of a contract aredetermined by the la: of the place :herethe contract is made.

- The terms of the contract :hereunambiguous are conclusive, in theabsence of averment and proof of mista?e,the @uestion being not :hat the intentione=isted in the minds of the parties but :hatintention is e=pressed by the languageused.

%rticle (3=(! Civil Code @ In or$er to u$ge theintention of the contracting parties) theircontemporaneous an$ su#se/uent acts sha"" #e

principa""& consi$ere$

- The contemporaneous and subse@uent actsthat may serve as indicia of the intention ofthe parties are those in :hich both of themparticipate.

%rt. (3=2! Civil Code- 6o'e%er genera" the termsof a contract ma& #e) the& sha"" not #e un$erstoo$ tocomprehen$ things that are $istinct an$ cases thatare $ifferent from those upon 'hich the partiesinten$e$ to agree

- Ahere a specific provision in a contract isfollo:ed by a general provision covering thesame subject matter, the former :ill be heldto prevail over the latter :hen the t:ocannot stand together.

- Ahere both the general and speciaprovisions may be given reasonable effectboth are to be retained.

%rt. (3=3! Civil Code@ If some stipu"ation of an&contract shou"$ a$mit of se%era" meanings) it sha"#e un$erstoo$ as #earing that import 'hich is mosta$e/uate to ren$er it effectua"

- Ahen an agreement is susceptible oseveral meanings one of :hich :ould ma?eit effectual, it should be given suchinterpretation. The terms of a contract musif possible be construed to mean somethingrather than nothing.

%rt. (3=)! Civil Code- The %arious stipu"ations of acontract sha"" #e interprete$ together) attri#uting tothe $ou#tfu" ones that sense 'hich ma& resu"t froma"" of them ta0en oint"&

%rt. (3=*! Civil Code -


56/117

"east transmission of rights an$ interests sha""pre%ai" If the contract is onerous) the $ou#t sha"" #esett"e$ in fa%or of the greatest reciprocit& ofinterests

If the $ou#ts are cast upon the principa" o#ect of thecontract in such a 'a& that it cannot #e 0no'n 'hatma& ha%e #een the intention or 'i"" of the parties)the contract sha"" #e nu"" an$ %oi$

- Thus if the ontract is gratuitous suchinterpretation should be made :hich :ouldresult in the least transmission of rights andinterest.

- +f the doubt refers to the principal object ofthe contract in @uestion and such cannot beresolved not:ithstanding the application ofsaid rule, the contract shall be null and void.

%rt. (3=! Civil Code- The princip"es ofinterpretation state$ in Ru"e *54 of the Ru"es ofCourt sha"" "i0e'ise #e o#ser%e$ in the construction

of contracts

INERPRE$ION OF DOCU"EN! UNDER 4EREVI!ED RULE! OF COUR

!e)tion 1;: Interpretation of a #ritin accordinto its lealmeaning ; The language of a :riting isto be interpreted according to the legal meaning itbears in the place of its e=ecution, unless theparties intended other:ise.

REUI2ITE29

1. The court must give to the legal :ords orphrases the meaning they bear in the place

:here the :riting :as e=ecuted#. That such meaning shall be disregarded if

the contract sho:s that the parties haveintended to give such :ords or phrases ameaning different from that they have at theplace of the e=ecution of the :riting.

!e)tion 11B Instruments construed so as to iveeffect to all provisions; +n the construction of aninstrument :here there are several provisions orparticulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be

adopted as :ill give effect to all.

a. 36%T"T+36 (% ( A032E- ( contractmust be construed as a :hole, and theintention of the parties is to be collectedfrom the entire instrument and not fromdetached portions, it being necessary toconsider all of its parts in order to determinethe meaning of any particular part as :ell asof the :hole.

- (n agreement should be interpreted as a:hole and the meaning gathered from theentire conte=t, and not form the particula

:ords, phrases, or clauses.

b. +6TE"!"ET(T+36 3* %E4E"(2+6%T"&E6T% A0+0 ("E !("T 3*36E T"(6%(T+36- Ahere severainstruments are made as part of one

transaction, they :ill be read together, andeach :ill be construed :ith reference to theother.

!e)tion 12: Interpretation accordin to intention+eneral and particular provisions - +n theconstruction of an instrument, the intention of theparties is to be pursued and :hen a general and aparticular provision are inconsistent, the latter isparamount to the former. %o a particular intent :ilcontrol a general one that is inconsistent :ith it.

a. +6TE6T+36 3* T0E !("T+E% ; The cour

must ascertain the intention of the partiesonly :hen the terms of the contract are noclear and leave doubt upon the intention othe contracting parties, other:ise, the literameaning of its stipulation shall control.

!e)tion 17: Interpretation accordin tocircumstances; for the proper construction of aninstrument, the circumstances under :hich it :asmade, including the situation of the subject thereoand of the parties to it, may be sho:n, so that the

judge may be places in the position of those :hoselanguage he is to interpret.

a. 36%T"T+36 3* +6%T"&E6T(3"5+6 T3 %""365+6+"%T(6E% ; the surroundingcircumstances at the time it :as madeshould be considered for the purpose oascertaining its meaning, but not for thepurpose a ne: distinct underta?ing.

b. !"E2+&+6(" ("EE&E6T% (656E3T+(T+36% ; +n the interpretation of a

:riting :hich is intended to state the entireagreement, preliminary negotiationsbet:een the parties may, ho:ever, be

considered in order to determine theimeaning and intention, but not to vary ocontradict the plain terms of the instrument.

!e)tion 1: 8eculiar sinification of terms - Theterms of a :riting are presumed to have been usedin their primary and general acceptation, buevidence is admissible to sho: that they have local


57/117

technical, or other:ise peculiar signification, and:ere so used and understood in the particularinstance, in :hich case the agreement must beconstrued accordingly.

a. &E(6+6 3* A3"5%B 3"5+6("%E6%E - in construing a :ritten contract the

:ords employed :ill be given their ordinaryand popularly accepted meaning, in the

absence of anything to sho: that they :ereused in a different sense.b. TE06+(2 A3"5% 36%T"E5 ;

Ahere technical :ords are employed byparties :ho are obviously unfamiliar :iththeir meaning, they may be construed insuch manner as to effectuate the trueintention of the parties.

c. +5+3&(T+ %(E !"E4(+2% 34E"2+TE"(2 T"(6%2(T+36 ; ( translationmade in accordance :ith the idiomaticusage of the language from :hich it is made

:ill prevail over a literal translation :hich,:hile :ord for :ord correct, is not idiomatic.

!e)tion 1A::ritten #ords control printed@ Ahenan instrument consists partly of :ritten :ords andpartly of printed forms, and the t:o are inconsistent,the former controls the latter.

a. +636%+%TE6 ETAEE6 A"+TTE6(65 !"+6TE5 !"34+%+36% ; :here apart of a contract is :ritten and part isprinted, and the :ritten and printed parts areapparently inconsistent or there isreasonable doubt as to the sense andmeaning of the :hole, the :ords in :riting

:ill control.b. 5+%"E!(6 ETAEE6 A3"5% (65

*+"E% ; +n case of an inconsistencybet:een :ords and figures in a contract the

:ords govern.

!e)tion 1


58/117

(mbassadors of foreign countries by virtue

of treaty obligations

!resident of the !hilippines or other country

C(se: Peo.e Vs6 De esus

The fact that complainant displayed difficulty

in comprehending the @uestions propounded on her

is undisputed. 0o:ever there is no sho:ing that shecould not convey her ideas y :ords or signs. +t

appears in the records that complainant gave

sufficiently intelligent ans:ers to the @uestions

propounded by the court and the counsels. The trial

court is satisfied that the complainants can perceive

and transmit in her o:n :ay her o:n perceptions to

others. %he is therefore found to be a competent

:itness.

Testimonial 5uty of itiIens to support the

administration of justice by attending its courts and

giving his testimony :henever he is properlysummoned.

!rocess to enforce duty the performance of the

citiIenGs testimonial duty can only be invo?ed by the

%tate after ade@uate notice is given.

Aitness a person :ho testifies in a case or gives

evidence before a judicial tribunal.

a person called to be present at some

transaction soa s to be able to attest to its having

ta?en place.

+nterested persons as :itnesses :hile rightfully

subjected to careful scrutiny, should not be rejected

on the ground of bias alone.

if testimony is reasonable and consistent ad is not

contradicted by evidence from any reliable source,

there is no reason, as a general rule, for not

accepting it.

C(se: U! ,s6 "(nte 2@ Phi 17

The testimony s interested :itnesses should

be subjected to careful scrutiny but they should not

be rejected on the ground of bias alone.

aseB !eople vs. 6atividad ( )< 3 )8#'

%uch testimony must be judged on their o:n

merits. +f they are clear ad convinving and are not

destroyed by other evidence of record, they may be

believed. (nd the testimony of these :itnesses fulfil

the re@uirement.

(ttorney as :itness counsel should not testify as a

:itness unless it is necessary and that they should

:ithdra: from the active management of the case.

e=cept :hen it is essential to the ends o

justice

/udge as :itness judicial conduct should not besubject to cross-e=amination or comment, the

peculiar duties of the judge in administering oaths to

the :itnesses in case the court has no cler?, and in

deciding upon their competency, :ith his po:er to

commit for contempt :hen his testimony concerns

merely formal or preliminary matters about :hich

there is no dispute, as :here he testifies in a perjury

prosecution that the defendant gave testimony

before him in another proceeding in another court.

!ersons convicted of crime as :itness persons ho

have been convicted of perjury are not e=cluded la:

since perjury is a crime involving mora

turpitude, the convict :henever mad a co-accused in

any criminal case, cannot be discharged to become

a :itness for the government in that case, because

under the "3, the court may direct the discharge

of one of the several co-accusers for that purpose

:hen, in its judgement, such accused has ot at any

time been convicted of any offense involving mora

turpitude.

!resumption of competency of :itness means legafitness or ability of a :itness to be heard on the tria

of a cas

Documents

Francisco Book 1 (1)