Rem-#3 Evidence Edited

8/6/2019 Rem-#3 Evidence Edited

1/21

SIGNIFICANT DOCTRINES IN RULES ON EVIDENCE

APPLICABILITY OF THE RULES

It has been held that a reliance onthe technical rules of evidence in labor

cases is misplaced. Hence, the applicationof the concept of judicial admissions insuch cases would be to exact compliancewith technicalities of law that is contraryto the demands of substantial justice.(Mayon Hotel & Restaurant vs. Adana,G.R. No. 157634, 5/16/ 2005)

ADMISSIBILITY AND PROBATIVEVALUE

The admissibility of evidence shouldnot be confused with its probative value.

Admissibility refers to the question ofwhether certain pieces of evidence are tobe considered at all, while probative valuerefers to the question of whether theadmitted evidence proves an issue. Thus,a particular item of evidence may beadmissible, but its evidentiary weightdepends on judicial evaluation within theguidelines provided by the rules ofevidence. (Heirs of Lourdes SaezSabanpan vs. Cormoposa, G.R. No.152807, 812/ 2003)

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE vs.WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE

Admissibility of evidencedepends on its relevance and competence,while the weight of evidence pertains toevidence already admitted and itstendency to convince and persuade. (DBPPool of Accredited Insurance Companiesvs. Radio Mindanao Network, Inc., 480SCRA 314, January 27, 2006)

BASIC TENETS OF CREDIBILITY

Findings of credibility of the trialcourt will generally be respected onappeal; even findings of facts of the Courtof Appeals, when supported by substantialevidence, are conclusive and binding uponthe parties and not reviewable by theSupreme Court. (Millares vs. PLDT, G.R.No. 154078, 5/6/2005)

Factual findings of trial courts whichhave been affirmed in toto by the Court of

Appeals are entitled to great weight andrespect and will not be disturbed absentany showing that the trial courtoverlooked certain facts andcircumstances which could substantiallyaffect the outcome of the case. (Yulo vs.People, 452 SCRA 705, 3/4/2005; Mendozavs. People, 448 SCRA 158, 1/14/ 2005)

Questions concerning the credibilityof a witness are best addressed to thesound discretion of the trial court as it is inthe best position to observe their

demeanor and bodily movements. (Llantovs. Alzona, 450 SCRA 288, 1/31/ 2005)

The failure of a witness to recalleach and every detail of an occurrencemay even serve to strengthen rather thanweaken his credibility because it erasesany suspicion of a coached or rehearsedtestimony. The assessment of thecredibility of witnesses and theirtestimonies is best undertaken by the trialcourt.

The testimony of a single witness ifstraightforward and categorical issufficient to convict. Corroborativeevidence is deemed necessary only whenthere are reasons to warrant the suspicionthat the witness falsified the truth or thathis observations had been inaccurate.(Rivera vs. People, G.R. No. 138553,6/30/2005)

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

The principle offalsus in uno, falsusin omnibus is not strictly applied in this

jurisdiction. It deals only with the weight ofthe evidence and is not a positive rule oflaw. The rule is not an inflexible one ofuniversal application. Modern trend in

jurisprudence favors more flexibility whenthe testimony of a witness may be partlybelieved and partly disbelieved dependingon the corroborative evidence presentedat the trial. (People vs. Negosa, G.R. No.142856-57, 8/25/ 2003)

COLLATERAL MATTERS

Variations in the declarations ofwitnesses in respect of collateral orincidental matters do not impair theweight of their testimonies, taken in theirentirety, to the prominent facts, nor per sepreclude the establishment of the crimeand the positive identification of themalefactor. (People vs. Acosta, G.R. No.140386, 11/29/2001)

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

In a criminal case, circumstantialevidence may be sufficient for convictionprovided the following requisites concur:(1)There is more than one circumstance;(2)The facts from which the inferencesare derived are proven, and; (3) Thecombination of all the circumstances issuch as to produce a conviction beyond

1


2/21

reasonable doubt. (People vs. Sevilleno,G.R. No. 152954, 3/11/2004; Ungsod vs.People, 478 SCRA 282)

A conviction based oncircumstantial evidence must exclude

each and every hypothesis consistent withinnocence. Hence if the totality of thecircumstances eliminates beyondreasonable doubt the possibility ofinnocence, conviction is proper (Mallari vs.People, 446 SCRA 74, 12/ 10/2004)

Circumstantial evidence may be abasis for conviction and such convictioncan be upheld provided the circumstancesproven constitute an unbroken chainwhich leads to one fair and reasonableconclusion that points to the accused to

the exclusion of all others as the guiltyperson. Direct evidence is not the onlymatrix from which the trial court may drawthe conclusions and findings of fact.(People vs. Bernal, G.R. Nos.132791-140465-66, 9/2/2002)

Circumstantial evidence is not aweaker defense vis--vis direct evidence.(People vs. Matito, G.R. No. 144405,2/2/2004)

As to probative value, the Courtconsiders circumstantial evidence of anature identical to direct evidencebecause no greater degree of certainty isrequired when the evidence iscircumstantial than when it is direct. Inboth types of evidences what is required isproof beyond reasonable doubt. (Peoplevs. Bernal, G.R. Nos. 132791-140465-66,9/ 2/ 2002)

Direct evidence is not a conditionsine qua non to prove the guilt of an

accused beyond reasonable doubt. In theabsence of direct evidence, theprosecution may resort to adducingcircumstantial evidence. Crimes areusually committed in secret and underconditions where concealment is highlyprobable. If direct evidence is insisted onunder all circumstances, the prosecutionof vicious felons who commit heinouscrimes in secret or secluded places will beimpossible to prove. (People vs. Sevilleno,G.R. No. 152954, 3/11/2004)

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF DECISIONS

As a general rule, courts are notauthorized to take judicial notice in theadjudication of cases pending before themof the contents of other cases even whensuch cases have been tried or are pendingin the same court and notwithstanding thefact that both cases may have been tried

or are actually pending before the same judge. Courts may be required to take judicial notice of the decisions of thecoordinate trial courts, or even of adecision or the facts involved in anothercase tried by the same court itself, unless

the parties introduced the same inevidence or the court, as matter ofconvenience, decides to do so. Besides

judicial notice of matters which ought tobe known to judges because of their

judicial functions is only discretionaryupon the court. It is not mandatory.(Tboli Agro-Industrial Development, Inc.(TADI) vs. Solilapsi, Adm. Case No. 4766,12/27/2002)

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FINANCIALCONDITION OF THE GOVERNMENT

Judicial notice could be taken of thefact that the government is and has formany years been financially strapped, tothe point that even the most essentialservices have suffered seriouscurtailment. (La Bugal-Blaan Tribal

Association vs. Ramos, 445 SCRA1,12/1/2004)

However, the allegation that thereis a so-called consensus to extend theterms of barangay captains cannot be

subject of judicial notice. (Balajonda vs.Commission on Elections, 452 SCRA 643,2/28/ 2005)

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CERTAIN FACTS

Notwithstanding a persons standingin the business community, the courtcannot take judicial notice of said personshome address or office after his departurefrom the government as a cabinetmember. (Garrucho vs. Court of Appeals,448 SCRA 165, 1/14/ 2005)

The Court takes notice that it is notunusual that killings are perpetrated infront of witnesses. (Velasco vs. People,483 SCRA 649, March 28, 2006)

ADMISSIONS MADE IN THE COURSEOF COURT PROCEEDINGS

Judicial admissions do not requireproof and may not be contradicted in theabsence of a prior showing that theadmissions had been made throughpalpable mistake. (Abarquez vs. People,479 SCRA 225)

An admission made by a party,under the rules of evidence, binds him andmay be taken or used against him. If theadmission was made in the course of theproceedings in the same case, it does not

2


3/21


4/21

must be in writing. (People vs. Porio, G.R.No. 117202, 02/13/2002)

Under Sec. 3 of Rule 113 of theRules of Court, and extrajudicialconfession made by an accused shall not

be sufficient ground for conviction, unlesscorroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.Corpus delicti means the body of thecrime and, in its primary sense, that acrime has actually been committed.Applied to a particular offense, it is theactual commission by someone of theparticular crime charged. (People vs.Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, 02/06/2002)

The issue on the admissibility of anextrajudicial confession is addressed, inthe first instance, to the judge, and since

such discretion must be controlled by allthe attendant circumstances, courts havewisely forborne to mark with absoluteprecision any rule limiting the admissionor the exclusion of such confession. This

judicial reluctance in acceptingextrajudicial confession linking an accusedto the crime, particularly whensubsequently disputed, can beappreciated when it is shown that theconfession has been made freely andvoluntarily, without compulsion orinducement, or hope of reward of any sort.

(People vs. Tablon, G.R. No. 137280,03/13/2002)

In ascertaining whether or not anextrajudicial confession has beenvoluntarily made, courts resort to anexamination of the confession itself, thelanguage that is used, as well as how it iscomposed, and whether or not it is repletewith details that could only be supplied bythe accused himself and would not havebeen known to the investigating policeofficers. (People vs. Tablon, G.R. No.

137280, 03/13/2002)

A witness, who heard the confessionis competent to testify as to its substance.Proof of the contents of an oralextrajudicial confession may be made bythe testimony of a person who testifiesthat he was present, heard, understood,and remembers the substance of theconversion or statement made by theaccused. (People vs. Suela, G.R. Nos.133570-71, 01/15/2002)

Having been obtained withoutinfringing the Constitutional safeguards,accused-appellants confession constitutesevidence of the highest order since it isbacked up by the strong presumption thatno person of normal mind woulddeliberately and knowingly confess to acrime unless he is prompted by truth and

his conscience. (People vs. Ladao, G.R.Nos. 100940-41, 11/27/2001)

A confession of the accusedconstitutes evidence of a high order sinceit is supported by a strong presumption

that no person of normal mind woulddeliberately and knowingly confess to acrime unless prompted by truth and hisconscience. Once the prosecution hasshown that there was compliance with theconstitutional requirement on pre-interrogation advisories, a confession ispresumed to be voluntary, and the burdenis on the accused to destroy thispresumption. The declarant bears theburden of proving that his confession isinvoluntary and untrue. A confession isadmissible until the accused successfully

proved that it was given as a result ofviolence, intimidation, threat, or promiseof reward, or leniency. (People vs. Ranis,

Jr., G.R. No. 129113, 09/17/2002)

Where the prosecution failed todischarge the States burden of provingwith clear and convincing evidence thatthe accused had enjoyed effective andvigilant counsel before the extrajudiciallyadmitted his guilt, the extrajudicialconfession cannot be given any probativevalue. (People vs. Suela, G.R. Nos.

133570-71, 01/15/2002)

Consonant with the constitutionalprecept that a person under custodialinvestigation should have a right tocounsel in every phase of theinvestigation, the court has held in anumber of cases that a person undercustodial investigation should enjoy theright to counsel from its inception to itstermination. Truly, the accuseds counselof choice must be present and must beable to advise and assist his client from

the time he answers the first questionuntil the time he signs the extra-judicialconfession. (People vs. Felixminia, G.R.No. 125333, 03/20/2002)

It has been held that theconstitutional provision on custodialinvestigation does not apply to aspontaneous statement, not elicitedthrough questioning by the authorities,but given in an ordinary manner wherebythe suspect orally admits havingcommitted the crime. Neither can it apply

to admissions or confessions made by asuspect in the commission of a crimebefore he is placed under investigation.What the Constitution bars is thecompulsory disclosure of incriminatingfacts or confessions. The rights under Sec.12 of the Constitution are guaranteed topreclude the slightest use of coercion by

4


5/21

the state as would lead the accused toadmit something false, not to prevent himfrom freely and voluntarily telling thetruth. (People vs. Baloloy, G.R. No.140740, 04/12/2002)

CONCEPT OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

Physical evidence is a mute buteloquent manifestation of truth, and itranks high in the hierarchy of ourtrustworthy evidence. (Macalinao vs. Ong,477 SCRA 740, December 14, 2005) Forthis reason, it is regarded as evidence ofthe highest order. It speaks moreeloquently than a hundred witnesses.(Rabanal vs. People, 483 SCRA 601, March28, 2006; People vs. Mark Whisenhunt,G.R. No. 123819, 11/14/2001)

PARAFFIN TEST

Failure to conduct a paraffin test isnot fatal to the case of the prosecution asscientific experts agree that the paraffintest is extremely unreliable and it is notconclusive as to an accuseds complicity inthe crime committed. (Ungsod vs. People,478 SCRA 282)

Negative results of the paraffin testdo not conclusively show that a person did

not discharge a firearm at the time thecrime was committed for the absence ofnitrates is possible if a person dischargedof firearm with gloves on, or if hethoroughly washed his hands thereafter.

The absence of powder burns in asuspects hand is not conclusive proof thathe has not fired a gun. (People vs.Balleras, G.R. No. 134564, 06/26/2002)

Scientific experts concur in the viewthat the result of a paraffin test is notconclusive. While it can establish the

presence of nitrates or nitrites on thehand, it does not always indubitably showthat said nitrates or nitrites were causedby the discharge of firearm. The persontested may have handled one or more of anumber of substances which give thesame positive reaction for nitrates ornitrites, such as explosives, fireworks,fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, andleguminous plants such as peas, beans,and alfalfa. A person who uses tobaccomay also have nitrate or nitrite depositson his hands since these substances are

present in the products of combustion oftobacco. The presence of nitrates,therefore, should be taken only as anindication of a possibility but not ofinfallibility that the person tested has fireda gun. (People vs. Pacificador, G.R. No.126515, 02/06/2002)

While a negative result on a paraffintest is not conclusive proof that anaccused did not fire a gun, such fact ifconsidered with the other circumstancesof the case, which may be taken as anindication of his innocence. The

prosecutions evidence must stand or fallon its own merit, and cannot drawstrength from the weakness of theevidence of the defense. (People vs.Narvaez, G.R No. 140759,01/24/2002)

BLOODSTAINED SHIRT

The fact that there was bloodstainon the accuseds clothing could not betaken as an indication of guilt on his part.At most, this piece of circumstantial

evidence may lead to suspicion. But courtsdo not rely on circumstantial evidence thatmerely arises suspicion or conjecture. Forcircumstantial evidence to lead conviction,it must do more than just raise the merepossibility or even probability of guilt. Itmust engender moral certainty. (Peoplevs. Asis, G.R. No. 142531, 10/15/2002)

TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

As a matter of reliability andtrustworthiness, a telephone conversation

must first be authenticated before it caneven be received in evidence. To this end,it is critical that the person with whom thewitness was conversing on the phone isfirst satisfactorily identified, by voicerecognition or any other means. (Sandovalvs. Hret, G.R. No. 149380, 07/03/02)

PHOTOGRAPHS

According to Americancourts, photographs are admissible inevidence in motor vehicle cases when

they appear to have been accuratelytaken and are proved to be faithful andclear representation of the subject.(Macalinao vs. Ong, 477 SCRA 740,December 14, 2005)

ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT EVIDENCE

An object evidence is not taken inisolation. It is weighed in relation to thetestimony of a witness. Also, in givingcredence to a testimony, the court takesinto consideration the physical evidence. Ifthe testimony bears a striking similaritywith the physical evidence, the testimonybecomes worthy of belief. (People vs.Larraaga, G.R. 138874-75, 7/21/ 2005)

GENUINENESS OF A HANDWRITING;HOW PROVED

5


6/21

Sec. 22 of Rule 132 enumerateshow the genuineness of a handwritingmay be proved: (a) by any witness whobelieves it to be the handwriting of aperson because (1) he has seen theperson write, or; (2) he has seen writing

purporting to be his upon which thewitness has acted or been charged, andhas thus acquired knowledge of thehandwriting of such person, or; (3) by acomparison made by the witness or thecourt, with writings admitted or treated asgenuine by the party against whom thedocument is offered, or proved to begenuine to the satisfaction of the judge.(Heirs of Amado Celestial vs. Heirs ofEditha G. Celestial, G.R. No 142691,8/5/2003)

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

As a rule, documentary evidenceshould be presented to substantiate theclaim for damage for loss of earningcapacity. By way of exception, damagesfor loss of earning capacity may beawarded despite the absence ofdocumentary evidence, provided thatthere is testimony either that theminimum wage under current labor lawsand judicial notice may be taken of thefact that in the victim was employed as a

daily wage worker earning less than theminimum daily wage under the currentlabor laws. (People vs. Pajotal, G.R. No.142870, 11/14/01)

A witness testimony cannot beconsidered as competent proof and cannotreplace the probative value of officialreceipts to justify the award of actualdamages, for jurisprudence instructs thatthe same must be duly substantiated byreceipts. (Dino vs. Jardines, 481 SCRA 226,December 2006)

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS/EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS

Where the requisite circumstancesexist, a party may be entitled to theproduction of records for inspection,copying, and photocopying as a matter ofright. (Santos vs. Philippine National Bank,G.R. No. 148218, 04/29/02)

PUBLIC DOCUMENTS

A notarized documentcarries the evidentiary weightconferred upon it with respect to itsdue execution, and it has in itsfavor the presumption of regularitywhich may only be rebutted byevidence, so clear, strong andconvincing as to exclude all

controversy as to the falsity of thecertificate. (Pan Pacific IndustrialSales Co., Inc. vs. CA, 482 SCRA164, February 10, 2006)

View that what is

contextually considered a publicdocument is not the private writingbut the public record. (Yuchencovs.Sandiganbayan, 479 SCRA 1)

POLICE BLOTTERS

Although police blotters areof little probative value, they arenevertheless admitted and considered inthe absence of competent evidence torefute the facts stated therein. (Macalinaovs. Ong, 477 SCRA 740, December 14,

2005)

PRIVATE DOCUMENTS

Under the Rules on Evidence,documents are either public or private.Private documents are those that do notfall under any of the enumerations in Sec.19 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Sec.20 of the same law in turn, provides thatbefore any private document is received inevidence, its due execution andauthenticity must be proved either by

anyone who saw the document executedor written or by evidence of thegenuineness of the signature orhandwriting of the maker. (MalayanInsurance Co. Inc. vs. Philippine Nails andWires Corporation, G.R. No. 138084,04/10/02)

BAPTISMAL CERTIFICATE

A baptismal certificate is evidenceonly to prove the administration of thesacrament on the dates therein specified,

but not have veracity of the declarationtherein stated with respect to a personskinsfolk. The same is conclusive only ofthe baptism administered according to therites of the Catholic Church, by the priestwho baptized the subject child, but it doesnot prove the veracity of the declarationsand statements contained in thecertificate concerning the relationship ofthe person baptized. A baptismalcertificate, a private document, is notconclusive proof of filiation. More so arethe entries made in an income tax return,

which only shows that income tax hasbeen paid and the amount thereof.(Labagala vs. Santiago, G.R. No. 132305,12/04/2001)

BIRTH CERTIFICATE

6


7/21

A birth certificate is the bestevidence of a persons date of birth andthat late registration by the mother of herchilds birth does not affect its evidentiaryvalue. (Orfila vs. Arellano, 482 SCRA 280,February 13, 2006)

BEST EVIDENCE RULE

When the subject of inquiryis the contents of a document, noevidence shall be admissible other thanthe original document. (Ebreo vs. Ebreo,483 SCRA 583, March 28, 2006)

SECONDARY EVIDENCE

It is axiomatic that before aparty is allowed to adduce secondary

evidence to prove the contents of theoriginal of a deed or document, the partyhas to prove with the requisite quantum ofevidence, the loss or destruction orunavailability of all the copies of theoriginal of the said deed or document.(Ebreo vs. Ebreo, 483 SCRA 583, March28, 2006)

PAROL EVIDENCE

Sec. 9 of Rule 130 of the RevisedRules of Court provides that when theterms of an agreement have been reducedto writing, it is to be considered ascontaining all the terms agreed upon andthere can be, between the parties andtheir successors in interest, no evidence ofsuch terms other than the contents of thewritten agreement. Simply put, evidenceof a prior or contemporaneous verbalagreement is generally not admissible tovary, contradict, or defeat the operation ofa valid contract while parol evidence isadmissible to explain the meaning of awritten contract. It cannot serve the

purpose of incorporating into the contractadditional contemporaneous conditionswhich are not mentioned at all in writing,unless there has been fraud or mistake. Itis basic that parties are bound by theterms of their contract which is the lawbetween them. (MC Engineering, Inc. vs.Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104047,04/03/2002)

Under the rule, the terms of acontract are rendered conclusive upon theparties and evidence aliunde is notadmissible to vary or contradict acomplete and enforceable agreementembodied in a document. (Rosario TextileMills Corporation vs. Home BankersSavings and Trust Company, G.R. No.137232, 6/29/2005)

One of the exceptions to the parolevidence rule is when a party puts in issuein his pleading the validity of the writtendocument. (Aloria vs. Clemente, 483 SCRA634, March 28, 2006)

PAROL EVIDENCE;ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT

An acknowledgment receipt is validand binding between the parties whoexecuted it, as a document evidencing theloan agreement of the parties cannotstand against the acknowledgment receiptpresented by respondent. (Spouses Reyesvs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147758,06/26/2002)

QUALITY/NUMBER OF WITNESSES

It is the quality not the number, ofwitnesses, which may be considered afactor in the appreciation of evidence,preponderance does not necessarily lie inthe greatest number. (Jimenez vs.Commission on Ecumenical Mission andRelations of the United PresbyterianChurch in the United States of America,G.R. No. 140472, 06/10/2002)

AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE

Affidavits taken ex-parte aregenerally considered inferior to thetestimony given in open court, andaffidavits of recantation have beeninvariably regarded as exceedinglyunreliable, since they can easily besecured from poor and ignorant witnesses,for monetary consideration or throughintimidation and are most likely to berepudiated afterwards. (People vs.Somodio, G.R. Nos. 134139-40,02/15/2002)

An affidavit of desistance isregarded with suspicion as it can be easilyobtained through intimidation and attainsno probative value in light of the affiantstestimony to the contrary. (People vs.

Acojedo, G.R. No. 138661, 11/19/2001)

RELATIONSHIP TO ACCUSED

Relationship per se does not affectthe credibility of a witness. However, theCourt takes cognizance of the facts that

blood relatives tend to be naturallyprotective of each other and are givingfalse testimonies in favor of one another,especially a relative in danger of beingconvicted. (People vs. Acojedo, G.R. No.138661, 11/19/2001)

QUALIFICATION/DISQUALIFICATIONOF WITNESSES; MENTAL INCAPACITY

7


8/21

Unsoundness of mind does not perse render a witness incompetent, one maymentally or metaphysically insane, yet becapable in law of giving competenttestimony in the trial of a case. The

general rule is that a lunatic or a personaffected with insanity is admissible as awitness if he has sufficient understandingto apprehend the obligation of an oath andis capable of giving a correct account ofthe matters which he has been or heardwith respect to the questions at issue.

It is now held universally thatinsanity or intellectual weakness ofwitness, no matter what form it assumes,is not a valid objection to his competencyif, at the time he is testifying, he has

mental capacity to distinguish betweenright and wrong, so far as the facts inissue and his testimony thereon areinvolved, he understands the nature andobligation of an oath, and he can givefairly intelligent and reasonable narrativeof the matters about which he testifies.

The issue of competence of witnessto testify rests largely within the discretionof the trial court. (People vs. Caingat, G.R.No. 137963, 02/06/2002)

QUALIFICATION/DISQUALIFICATIONOF WITNESSES; CHILDREN

As a general rule, when a witnesstakes the witness stand, the law, onground of public policy, presumes that heis competent. The court cannot reject thewitness in the absence of proof of hisincompetency. The burden is upon theparty objecting to the competency of awitness to establish the ground ofincompetency.

Sec. 21 of Rule 130 of the Rules ofEvidence enumerates the persons who aredisqualified to be witnesses. Among thosedisqualified are children whose maturityis such as to render them incapable ofperceiving the facts respecting which theyare examined and relating themtruthfully.

No precise minimum age can befixed at which children shall be excludedfrom testifying. The intelligence, not theage, of a young child is the test of hiscompetency as a witness. It is settled that

a child, regardless of age, can be acompetent witness if he can perceive and,in perceiving, can make known hisperception to others and that he iscapable of relating truthfully the facts forwhich he is examined.

In determining the competency of achild witness, the court must consider hiscapacity: (a) at the time the fact to betestified occurred, such that he couldreceive correct impressions thereof; (b) tocomprehend the obligation of an oath,

and; (c) to relate those facts truly to thecourt at the time he is offered as awitness. The examination should showthat the child has some understanding ofthe punishment which may result fromfalse swearing. The requisite appreciationof consequences is disclosed where thechild states that he knows that it is wrongto tell a lie, and that he would be punishedif he does so, or that he uses languagewhich is equivalent to saying that hewould be sent to hell for false swearing. Achild can be disqualified only if it can beshown that his mental maturity rendershim incapable of perceiving facts withrespect to which he is being examined,and of relating them truthfully.

The question of competency of achild witness rests primarily in the sounddiscretion of the trial court. This is sobecause the trial judge sees the proposedwitness and observes his manner oftestifying, his apparent possession or lackof intelligence, as well as hisunderstanding of the obligation of an oath.Since many of the witness mannerscannot be photographed into the record,the finding of the trial judge will not bedisturbed or reversed unless from what ispreserved it is clear that such finding waserroneous. (People vs. Pruna, G.R. No.138471, 10/10/2002)

QUALIFICATION/DISQUALIFICATIONOF WITNESSES;MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION

Under the marital disqualificationrule, neither the husband nor the wife maytestify for or against the other without theconsent of the affected spouse, except incivil case by one against the other, or incriminal case for a crime committed byone against the other or the latters directdescendants or ascendants. However,objections to the competency of ahusband and wife to testify in a criminalprosecution against the other may bewaived as in the case of other witnessesgenerally. The objection to thecompetency of the spouse must be madewhen he or she is first offered as awitness. (People vs. Pansensoy, G.R. No.140634, 09/12/2002)

QUALIFICATION/DISQUALIFICATIONOF WITNESSES;MARITAL PRIVILEGE RULE

8


9/21

The marital privilege rule,being a rule of evidence, may be waivedby failure of the claimant to object timelyto its presentation or by any conduct thatmay be construed as implied consent.(Lacurom vs. Jacoba, 484 SCRA 206,

March 10, 2006)

QUALIFICATION/DISQUALIFICATIONOF WITNESSES; DEAD MANSSTATUTE

The dead mans statute does notoperate to close the mouth of a witness asto any matter of act coming to hisknowledge in any other way than throughpersonal dealings with the deceasedperson, or communication made by thedeceased to the witness. (Bordlaba vs.

Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112443,01/25/2002)

QUALIFIED PRIVILEGEDCOMMUNICATION

A written letter containinglibelous matter cannot be classified asprivileged when it is published andcirculated among the public. (Buatis, Jr.vs. People, 485 SCRA 275)

ABILITY TO MAKE KNOWN THE

PERCEPTION TO OTHERS

A deaf-mute is not necessarily anincompetent as a witness. They arecompetent where they: (a) can understandand appreciate the sanctity of an oath; (2)can comprehend facts they are going totestify on, and; (3) can communicate theirideas through a qualified interpreter.(People vs. Tuangco, G.R. No. 130331, 11/22/ 2000)

FLIGHT OF ACCUSED

The act, declaration or omission of aparty as to a relevant fact may be given inevidence against him. One type of act thatcan be given in evidence against him isflight. In Criminal Law, flight means anact of evading the course of justice byvoluntarily withdrawing oneself to avoidarrest or detention or the institution orcontinuance of criminal proceeding. Theunexplained flight of the accused personmay, as a general rule, be taken asevidence having tendency to establish hisguilt. In short, flight is an indication ofguilt. (People vs. Licayan, G.R. No.144422, 02/28/2002)

Although as a general rule flight isan indication of guilt, the same should notbe flippantly considered. Flight is acircumstance from which an inference of

guilt may be drawn only when it isunexplained and with an evident purposeof evading prosecution. (People vs. Monje,G.R. No. 146689, 09/27/2002)

OFFER OF COMPROMISE BY ACCUSED

Under Sec. 27 of Rule 130 of theRules of Court, an offer of compromise bythe accused may be received in evidenceas an implied admission of guilt. (Peoplevs. Viernes, G.R. Nos. 136733-35,12/13/2001)

Although the marriage of theaccused in a rape case extinguishes thepenal action (Alonto vs. Savellano, Jr., 287SCRA 245), an offer of marriage is,generally, speaking, an admission of guilt.

(People vs. Bulos, G.R. No. 123542,6/26 /2001)

RES INTER ALIOS ACTA

Under Section 34, Rule 130 of theRevised Rules of Court, evidence that onedid a certain thing at one time is notadmissible to prove that he did the sameor similar thing at another time, althoughsuch evidence may be received to provehabit, usage, pattern, of conduct or theintent of the parties.

Courts must contend with thecaveat that, before they admit evidence ofusage, of habit or pattern of conduct, theoffering party must establish the degree ofspecificity and frequency of uniformresponse that ensures more than a meretendency to act in a given manner butrather, conduct that is semi-automatic innature. It is only when examples offered toestablish pattern of conduct or habit arenumerous enough to lose an inference ofsystematic conduct that examples are

admissible. (Boston Bank of thePhilippines vs. Manalo, 482 SCRA 108,February 9, 2006)

Like any other fact, habits,customs, usage or patterns of conductmust be proved. (Pag-Asa Steel Works,Inc. vs. CA, 486 SCRA 475, March 31,2006)

RECEIPT OF PROPERTY SEIZED

The receipt of property seized is

issued by the police in accordance withtheir standard operating procedure in abuy bust operation to show what propertywas seized. The receipt should not betreated as an admission or confession.Indeed, the receipt could not beconsidered evidence against the accusedbecause it was signed by him without the

9


10/21

assistance of counsel. (People vs.Casimiro, G.R. No. 146277, 06/20/2002)

A suspects confession, whetherverbal or non-verbal, when taken withoutthe assistance of counsel without a valid

waiver of such assistance, regardless ofthe absence of such coercion or the factthat it had been voluntarily given, isinadmissible in evidence, even if suspectsconfession was gospel truth. (People vs.Sia, G.R. No. 137457, 11/21/2001)

HEARSAY EVIDENCE

The term hearsay as used in thelaw on evidence signifies evidence whichis not founded upon the personalknowledge of the witness from whom it is

elicited and which consequently does notdepend wholly for its credibility andweight upon the confidence which thecourt may have in him. Its value, if any, ismeasured by the credit to be given tosome third person not sworn as a witnessto that fact, and consequently not subjectto cross-examination. If one thereforetestifies to facts which he learned from athird person not sworn as a witness tothose facts, his testimony is inadmissibleas hearsay evidence.

The reason for the exclusion ofhearsay evidence is that the party againstwhom the hearsay testimony is presentedis deprived of the right or opportunity tocross-examine the person to whom thestatements are attributed. Moreover, thecourt is without opportunity to test thecredibility of hearsay statements byobserving the demeanor of the personwho made them. (People vs. Pruna, G.R.No. 138471, 10/10/2002)

The reliability of a testimony is

based on the personal knowledge of thewitness. If a witness testifies on the basisof what others have told him, and not onfacts which he knows of his own personalknowledge, the testimony would beexcluded as hearsay evidence. This isbecause the witness cannot be effectivelycross-examined on the matters hetestified to. His answers to questions inopen court would necessarily be based onthe knowledge of a person who is not inthe witness stand. The latter called theoutside declarant cannot be cross-

examined because he is not in court. Thereliability and truth of the perception ofthis outside declarant cannot be testedand verified in court. Hearsay evidence ifnot objected to is admissible. However,even if admitted, it has no probativevalue. (Mallari vs. People, 446 SCRA 74,12/10/2004)

As a rule, the inadmissibility oftestimony taken by deposition is anchoredon the ground that such testimony ishearsay, i.e. the party against whom it isoffered has no opportunity to cross-examine the deponent at the time his

testimony is offered. The act of cross-examining the deponent during the takingof the deposition cannot, without more, beconsidered a waiver of the right to objectto its admissibility as evidence in the trialproper. (Sales vs. Sabino, 477 SCRA 101,December 9, 2005)

TESTIMONYRAPE-CONVICTION ONSOLE TESTIMONY OF VICTIM

The rule is that there can beconviction even if there is no physical

evidence to corroborate her claim. This ison the supposition that her testimony wasclear and free from serious contradictions,and her sincerity and candor beyondsuspicion. If the complainants testimonyis not of such character, convincingcorroborative proof is required. (People vs.Benoza, G.R. No. 139470, 11/29/2001)

DOCTRINE OF INDEPENDENTLYRELEVANT STATEMENT

This doctrine holds that

conversation communicated to a witnessby a third person may be admitted asproof that, regardless of its truth or falsity,it was actually not secondary but primary,for in itself it: (a) constitutes a fact inissue, or; (b) is circumstantially relevant tothe existence of such fact. (Republic vs.Heirs of Alejaga, G.R. No. 146030,12/03/2002)

While it is true that the testimony ofa witness regarding a statement made byanother person, if intended to establish

the truth of the fact asserted in thestatement, is clearly hearsay evidence, itis otherwise if the purpose of placing thestatement in the record is merely toestablish the fact that the statement wasmade or the tenor of such statement.(Comilang vs. Burcena, 482 SCRA 342,February 13, 2006)

DYING DECLARATION

An ante mortem statement inarticulo mortis is admissible under the

following requisites: (1) death is imminentand the declarant is conscious of that fact;(2) the declaration refers to the cause andthe surrounding circumstances of suchdeath; (3) the declaration relates to a factwhich the victim is competent to testify to,and; (4) the declaration is offered in a

10


11/21

case wherein the declarants death is thesubject of the inquiry.

The issue of whether a declarationwas made under the consciousness of animpending death is a matter of evidence.

It must be shown that such declarationwas made under a realization that onesdemise or at least its imminence, not somuch its rapid occurrence, was at hand.

This may be proven by the statement ofthe victim or inferred from the nature andextent of the victims wounds or otherrelevant circumstances. (People vs.Mendoza, G.R. No. 142654, 11/16/2001)

The rule on dying declaration doesnot require that the person should be atthe time in the throes of death, or that he

should die immediately, or within anyspecified time thereafter, in order to givethe declaration probative force. Where aperson has been fatally wounded, is insore distress therefrom, and he believesthat he will not recover and is soon to die,his statement made in this belief relatingto the cause of his injury is admissible, if itappears that he subsequently died fromthe effects of the wound, although he mayhave revived after making the statementsor may have lived a considerable timethereafter, and may have again begun to

hope for recovery. (People vs. Mendoza,G.R. NO. 142654, 11/16/2001)

Dying declaration, also known as anante mortem statement or a statement inarticulo mortis, is one that refers to thecause and surrounding circumstances ofthe declarants death and is made underthe consciousness of impending death.Because of its necessity andtrustworthiness, it is admissible inevidence as an exception to the hearsayrule. Necessity because the declarants

death makes it impossible for him to takethe witness stand, and trustworthiness, forwhen a person is at the point of death,every motive for falsehood is silenced andthe mind is induced by the most powerfulconsideration to speak the truth.

An antemortem statement isadmissible, provided the followingrequisites are present: (1) death isimminent and the declarant is conscious ofthat fact; (2) the declaration refers to thecause and surrounding circumstances ofsuch death; (3) the declaration relates to afact that the victim is competent to testifyto, and; (4) the declaration is offered in acase wherein the declarants death is thesubject of the inquiry.

It must be shown that thedeclaration was made under a realizationthat ones demise or at least its

imminence not so much is rapidoccurrence, was at hand. This may beproven by the statement of the victim orinferred from the nature and the extent ofthe victims wounds or other relevantcircumstances. (People vs. De Leon, G.R.

No. 144052, 03/06/2002)

An ante-mortem statement or dyingdeclaration is entitled to probative weightif: (1) at the time the declaration wasmade, death was imminent and thedeclaarnt was conscious of that fact; (2)the declaration refers to the cause andsurrounding circumstances of such death;(3) the declaration relates to the factswhich the victim was competent to testifyto; (4) the declarant thereafter died, and;(5) the declaration is offered in a criminal

case wherein the declarants death is thesubject of the inquiry.

The significance of a victimsrealization or consciousness that he wason the brink of death cannot be gainsaid.Such ante-mortem statement is evidenceof the highest order because at thethreshold of death, all thoughts offabricating lies are stilled. The utterance ofa victim made immediately aftersustaining serious injuries may beconsidered the incident speaking throughthe victim. It is entitled to the highestcredence.

The crucial factor to consider is thecontemporaneity of the moment when thestatement was made and the moment ofthe realization of death. The time thestatement was being made must also bethe time the victim was aware that he wasdying. (People vs. Pena, G.R. No. 133964,02/13/2002)

Apart from the statements of the

declarant, his consciousness of impendingdeath can be proved by surroundingcircumstances, such as the nature ofinjury or by his conduct.(People vs.Calago, G.R. No. 141122, 04/22/2002).

The rule is that a dying declarationmay be oral or written. If oral, the witnesswho heard it may testify thereto withoutthe necessity of reproducing the word ofthe decedent, if he is able to givesubstance thereof. An unsigned dyingdeclaration may be used as a

memorandum by the witness who took itdown. (People vs. Boller, G.R. Nos.144222-24, 04/03/2002)

RES GESTATE

The declarants utterance areconsidered part of res gestae when made

11


12/21

immediately after a startling occurrence. The admission of such utterances arebased on the well founded belief thatwords spoken instinctively at the time of aspecific transactional event, without theopportunity for the speaker to effectively

concoct a fabricated version of thestartling event can only be but credible.(People vs. Calago, G.R. No. 141122,05/22/2002)

The term res gestae comprehendsa situation which presents a startling orunusual occurrence sufficient to produce aspontaneous and instinctive reaction,during which interval certain statementsare made under such circumstances as towho lack of forethought or deliberatedesign in the formulation of their contents.

Since res gestae refers to thoseexclamations and statements made byeither the participants, victims, orspectators to a crime before, during, orimmediately after the commission of thecrime, they should necessarily be the oneswho must not have the opportunity tocontrive or devise a falsehood but not thepersons to whom they gave their dyingdeclaration or spontaneous statement. Inother words, the witness who merelytestifies on a res geatae is not thedeclarant referred to in the secondrequisite whose statements had to bemade before he had the time to contriveor devise a falsehood. (People vs. Pena,G.R. No. 133964, 02/13/2002)

Res gestae utterances refer to thoseexclamation and statements made byeither the participants, victims, orspectators to a crime immediately before,during, or after the commission of thecrime when the circumstances are suchthat their statements were made as a

spontaneous reaction or utteranceinspired by the excitement of the occasionand there was no opportunity for thedeclarant to deliberate and to fabricate afalse statement. A declaration is deemedpart of the res gestae and thus admissiblein evidence as an exception to the hearsayrule when the following requisites concur:(1) the principal act, the res gestae, is astartling occurrence; (2) the statementswere made before the declarant had timeto contrive or devise, and; (3) thestatements must concern the occurrencein question and its immediately attendingcircumstances. (People vs. Cantonjos, G.R.No. 136748, 11/21/2001)

ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS

A witness can testify only to thosefacts, which he knows of his personalknowledge, which means those facts,

which are derived from his perception.Consequently, a witness may not testify asto what he merely learned from otherseither because he was told, read or heardthe same. Such testimony is consideredhearsay and may not be received as proof

of the truth of what he has learned. Suchis the hearsay rule, which applies not onlyto oral testimony or statements but also towritten evidence as well.

The hearsay rule is based uponserious concerns about thetrustworthiness and reliability of hearsayevidence inasmuch as such evidence arenot given under oath or solemnaffirmation and, more importantly, havenot been subjected to cross-examinationby opposing counsel to test theperception, memory, veracity andarticulateness of the out-of-court declarantor actor upon whose reliability on whichthe worth of the out-of-court declarant oractor upon whose reliability on which theworth of the out-of-court statementdepends.

There are exceptions to thehearsay rule, among which are entries inofficial records. To be admissible inevidence, however, 3 requisites mustconcur, to wit: (1) that the entry was madeby a public officer, or by anther personspecially enjoined by law to do so; (2) thatit was made by the public officer in theperformance of his duties, or by suchother person in the performance of a dutyspecially enjoined by law, and; (3) that thepublic officer or other person hadsufficient knowledge of the facts by himstated, which must have been acquired byhim personally or through officialinformation. (Country Bankers InsuranceCorp. vs. Lianga Bay And CommunityMulti-Purpose Coop., Inc., G.R. No.136914, 01/25/2002)

OPINION RULE

Having testified on mattersundeniably within the area of hisexpertise, and having performed athorough autopsy on the body ofthe victim, an experts findings asto the cause of death of the victimare more than just speculations ofan ordinary person. (Calimutan vs.People, 482 SCRA 44, February 9,2006)

EXPERT OPINION

Expert opinion is to beconsidered or weighed by the court likeany other testimony, in the light of theirown general knowledge and experienceupon the subject of inquiry.

12


13/21

The inclusion or exclusion by theexpert of factors or elements that shouldor should not be considered in thedetermination of his opinion is to beconsidered in determining the wieht to be

attached to his testimony. (People vs.Malejana, 479 SCRA 610)

OPINIONS OF HANDWRITING EXPERTS

It is also hornbook doctrine that theopinions of handwriting experts, eventhose from the NBI and the PC, are notbinding upon courts. This principle holdstrue especially when the question involvedis mere handwriting similarity ordissimilarity, which can be determined bya visual comparison of specimens of the

questioned signatures with those of thecurrently existing ones.

Handwriting experts are usuallyhelpful in the examination of forgeddocuments because of the technicalprocedure involved in analyzing them. Butresort to these experts is not mandatoryor indispensable to the examination or thecomparison of handwriting. (Jimenez vs.Commission On Ecumenical Mission AndRelations Of The United PresbyterianChurch In The USA, G.R. No. 140472,06/10/2002).

OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESSES;IDENTIFICATION OF OFFENDERS

Eyewitness identification is oftendecisive of the conviction or acquittal ofan accused. Identification of an accusedthrough mug shots as one of theestablished procedures in pinning downcriminals. However, to avoid charges ofimpermissible suggestion, there should benothing in the photograph that would

focus attention on a single person. (Peoplevs. Villena, G.R. No. 140066, 10/14/2002)

Various social psychological factorsincrease the danger of suggestibility in aline-up confrontation. Witnesses, like otherpeople, are motivated by a desire to becorrect and to avoid looking foolish. Byarranging a line-up, the police haveevidenced their belief that they havecaught the criminal. Witnesses, realizingthis, probably will feel foolish if theycannot identify anyone and therefore may

choose someone despite residualuncertainty. Moreover, the need to reducepsychological discomfort often motivates avictim to a crime to find likely target forfeelings of hostility.

Finally, witnesses are highlymotivated to behave like those aroundthem. This desire to conform produces an

increased need to identify someone toshow the police that they, too, feel thatthe criminals is in the line-up, and makesthe witnesses particularly vulnerable toany clues conveyed by the police or otherwitnesses as to whom they suspect of the

crime.

The test is whether or notprosecution was able to establish by clearand convincing evidence that the in-courtidentifications were based uponobservations of the suspect other than theline-up identification. (People vs.Escordial, G.R. Nos. 138934-35,01/16/2002)

While it might be easier for awitness to recognize the culprit if they are

known to each other, an identificationmade by a witness is not less credible justbecause the accused is a stranger.

Neither can the lapse of only a fewseconds in witnessing the crime diminishthe witness credibility. Time is not anaccurate measure of a persons ability torecognize a face. A startling or frightfulexperience creates an indelible impressionin the mind that can be recalled vividly.(People vs. Punsalan, G.R. No. 145475,11/22/2001)

Positive identification requiresessential proof of identity and not per sean eyewitness account of the very act ofcommitting the crime. Such identificationforms part of circumstantial evidencewhich, when taken together with otherpieces of evidence constituting anunbroken chain, leads to a fair andreasonable conclusion that accused-appellant is the author of the crime to theexplosion of the others. (People vs.Rubares, G.R. No. 143127, 11/29/2001)

Visibility is indeed a vital factor inthe determination of whether or not aneyewitness has identified the perpetratorof a crime. When conditions of visibilityare favorable and the witnesses do notappear to be biased, their assertion as tothe identity of the malefactor shouldnormally be accepted. Illuminationproduced by kerosene lamp or a flashlightis sufficient to allow identification ofpersons. Wicklamps, flashlights, evenmoonlight or starlight may, in proper

situations, be considered sufficientillumination, making the attack on thecredibility of witnesses solely on thatground unmeritorious. (People vs. Coca,

Jr., G.R. No. 133739, 05/19/2002)

CHARACTER EVIDENCE

13


14/21

Character is the possession by aperson of qualities of mind and morals.Distinguishing him from others is theopinion generally entertained of a personwhich is derived from the common reportof the people who are acquainted with

him, his reputation good moral characterincludes all the elements essential tomake up such a character, among theseare common honesty and veracity.Especially in all professional intercourse, acharacter that measures up as goodamong people of the community in whichthe person lives or that is up to thestandard of the average citizen, thatstatus which attaches to a man of goodbehavior and upright conduct.

The rule is that the character of

reputation of a party is regarded as legallyirrelevant in determining a controversy, sothat evidence relating thereto is notadmissible. Ordinarily, if the issues in thecase were allowed to be influenced beevidence of the character or reputation ofthe parties, the trial would be apt to havethe aspects of a popularity contest ratherthan a factual inquiry into the merits ofthe case. After all, the business of thecourt is to try the case, and not the man;and a very bad man may have a righteouscause. There are exceptions to this rulehowever and Sec. 51 of Rule 130 gives theexceptions in both criminal and civil cases.

In criminal cases, sub-paragraph 1of Sec. 51 of Rule 130 provides that theaccused may prove his good moralcharacter, which is pertinent to the moraltrait involved in the offense charged.When the accused presents proof of hisgood moral character, this strengthens thepresumption of innocence, and wheregood character and reputation areestablished, an inference arises that theaccused did not commit the crime

charged. This view proceeds from thetheory that a person of good characterand high reputation is not likely to havecommitted the act charged against him.Su-paragraph 2 provides that theprosecution may not prove the bad moralcharacter of the accused except only inthe rebuttal and when such evidence ispertinent to the moral that involved in theoffense charged. This is intended to avoidunfair prejudice to the accused who mightotherwise be convicted not because he isguilty but because he is a person of bad

character. The offering of characterevidence on his behalf is a privilege of thedefendant, and the prosecution cannotcomment on the failure of the defendantto produce such evidence. Once thedefendant raises the issue of his goodcharacter, the prosecution may, inrebuttal, offer evidence of the defendants

bad character. Otherwise, a defendant,would have a license to unscrupulouslyimpose a false character upon thetribunal.

Both sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 of

Sec. 51 of Rule 130 refer to characterevidence of the accused. And thisevidence must be pertinent to the moraltrait involved in the offense charged,meaning, that the character evidencemust be relevant and germane to the kindof the act charged, e.g., on a charge ofrape, character for chastity; on a charge ofassault, character for peacefulness orviolence; on a charge for embezzlement,character for honesty and integrity. Sub-paragraph 3 of Sec. 51 of the said Rulerefers to the character of the offendedparty. Character evidence, whether goodor bad, of the offended party may beproved if it tends to establish in anyreasonable degree the probability orimprobability of the offense charged.Such evidence is most commonly offeredto support a claim of self-defense in anassault or homicide case or a claim ofconsent in a rape case. (People vs. Lee,G.R. No. 139070, 05/29/2002)

GOOD MORAL CHARACTER OFACCUSED

It is true that the good moralcharacter of an accused having referenceto the moral trait involved in the offensecharged may be proven by him. But anaccused is not entitled to an acquittalsimply because of his previous good moralcharacter and exemplary conduct if theCourt believes he is guilty beyondreasonable doubt of the crime charged.

The affirmance or reversal of hisconviction must be resolved on the basicissue of whether the prosecution haddischarged its duty of proving his guiltbeyond reasonable doubt. (People vs.Concorcio, G.R. Nos. 121201-02,10/19/2001)

In the Philippine setting, proof of themoral character of the offended party isapplied with frequency index offenses. Inrape and acts of lasciviousness or in anyprosecution involving an unchaste actperpetrated by a man against a womanwhere the willingness of a woman ismaterial, the womans character as to herchastity is admissible to show whether ornot she consented to the mans act. Theexception to this is when the womans act.

The exception to this is when the womansconsent is immaterial such as in statutoryrape or rape with violence or intimidation.In the crimes of qualified seduction orconsented abduction, the offended partymust be a virgin which is presumed if

14


15/21

she is unmarried and of good reputationor a virtuous woman of good reputation.

The crime of a simple seduction involvesthe seduction of a woman who is singleor a widow of a good reputation, overtwelve but under eighteen years of age.

The burden of proof that the complaint is awoman of good reputation lies in theprosecution, and the accused mayintroduce evidence that the complainant isa woman of bad reputation.

In homicide cases, a pertinentcharacter trait of the victim is admissiblein two situations: (1) as evidence of thedeceaseds aggression, and; (2) asevidence of the state of mind of theaccused. The pugnacious, quarrelsome ortrouble-seeking character of the deceasedof his calmness, gentleness and peacefulnature, as the case may be, is relevant indetermining whether the deceased or theaccused was the aggressor. When theevidence tends to show that it produced areasonable belief of imminent danger inthe mind of the accused and a justifiableconviction that a prompt defense actionwas necessary.

Moreover, proof of the victims badmoral character is not necessary in casesof murder committed with treachery andpremeditation. Following the ruling inPeople vs. Soliman, the presence of theseaggravating circumstances negates thenecessity of proving the victims badcharacter to establish the probability orimprobability of the offense charged and,at the same time, qualifies the killing tomurder. (People vs. Lee, G.R. No. 139070,05/29/2002)

BURDEN OF PROOF

It is the burden of the applicant toprove not only his own good moralcharacter but also the good moralcharacter of his/her witnesses who mustbe credible. (Republic vs. Hong, 485SCRA 405)

It is well-settled that inadministrative proceedings, thecomplainant has the burden of proving bysubstantial evidence the allegations in hiscomplaint. (Cabarrubias vs. Apostol, 481SCRA 20, December 2006)

The burden of proof is shifted to thedefense once the prosecution hasproduced sufficient evidence to be entitledas a matter of law to a ruling in its favor. Itis not incumbent upon the prosecution toadduce positive evidence to support anegative averment the truth of which isfairly indicated by establishedcircumstances and which, if untrue, could

readily be disapproved by the productionof documents or other evidence probablywithin the defendants possession orcontrol. Moreover, where the subject-matter of a negative averment in anindictment, or a fact relied upon by

defendant as a justification or excuse,relates to him personally or otherwise liespeculiarly within his knowledge, thegeneral rule is that the burden of proof asto such averment or facts is on him.(Herrera vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.140651, 02/19/2002)

As a rule the burden of proving theexistence of a trust is on the partyasserting its existence, and such proofmust be clear and satisfactorily show theexistence of the trust and its elements.

(Oco vs. Limbaring, 481 SCRA 348,December 2006)

TEST FOR DETERMINING WHEREBURDEN OF PROOF LIES

The test for determining where theburden of proof lies is to ask which partyto an action or suit will fail if he offers noevidence competent to show the factsaverred as the basis for the relief he seeksto obtain. If the defendant has affirmativedefenses, he bears the burden of proof as

to those defenses which he sets up inanswer to the plaintiffs cause of action.Hence, if the defendant sets up theaffirmative defense of prescription, hemust prove the date when prescriptionbegan to run. (Aznar Brothers Realty Co.,vs. Aying, G.R. No. 144773, 5/16/2005)

ALIBI AS A DEFENSE

When an accuseds alibi can only beconfirmed by his relatives, who may notbe impartial witnesses, his denial of

culpability merits scant consideration. Onthe other hand, accuseds identification bycredible prosecution witnesses as theauthor of the crime makes his alibiindefensible. (People vs. Rubares, G.R. No.143127, 11/29/2001)

As a defense, alibi is inherentlyweak and crumbles in the light of positiveidentification by truthful witnesses. It is anevidence negative in nature and self-serving and cannot attain more credibilitythan the testimonies of prosecution

witnesses who testify on clear and positiveevidence. (People vs. Larraaga, G.R.Nos. 138874-75, 7/21/2005)

It cannot prevail over the positiveidentification of the accused asperpetrator of the crime. In the face ofpositive identification of the accused by

15


16/21


17/21

case, cannot be regarded as binding truth. The presumption of regularity in theperformance of official functions cannotpreponderate over the presumption ofinnocence that prevails over positiveaverments concerning violations of the

constitutional rights of the accused. Inshort, the presumption of regularity in theperformance of official duty cannot byitself overcome the presumption ofinnocence nor can constitute proof beyondreasonable doubt. (People vs. Canete, G.R.No. 138400, 07/11/2002)

REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCEOF OFFICIAL DUTY

It was never intended that thepresumption of regularity in the

performance of official duty would beapplied even in cases where there is noshowing of substantial compliance withthe requirements of the rules ofprocedure. (Bank of the Phil. Island vs.Spouses Evangelista, G.R. No. 146553,11/27/2002)

CROSS-EXAMINATION

It bears stressing that the cross-examination of a witness is an absoluteright, not a mere privilege, of the party

against whom he is called with regard tothe accused, it is a right guaranteed bythe fundamental law as part of the dueprocess. Article III Sec. 14 par. (2) of the1987 Constitution specifically mandatesthat the accused shall enjoy the right tomeet the witnesses face to face and Rule115, Sec. 1, par (f), of the 2000 Rules ofCriminal Procedure enjoins that in allcriminal prosecutions the accused shall beentitled to confront and cross-examine thewitnesses against him at the trial. Cross-examination serves as a safeguard to

combat unreliable testimony, providingmeans for discrediting a witnesstestimony, and is in the nature of anattack on the truth and accuracy of histestimony. The purpose of cross-examination, however, is not limited tobringing out a falsehood, since it is also aleading and searching inquiry of thewitness for further disclosure touching theparticular matters detailed by him in hisdirect examination, and it serves tomodify, or explain what has been said, inorder to develop new or old facts in a viewfavorable to the cross-examiner. Theobject of cross-examination therefore is toweaken or disprove the case of onesadversary, and break down his testimonyin chief, test the recollection, veracity,accuracy, honesty and bias or prejudice ofthe witness, his source of information hismotives, interest and memory and exhibitthe improbabilities of his testimony. In

other words, the ultimate purpose ofcross-examination is to test the truth orfalsity of the statements of a witnessduring direct examination.

The basic rule is that the testimony

of a witness given on direct examinationsshould be stricken off the record wherethere was no adequate opportunity forcross-examination. Of course, there arenotable modifications to the basic rulewhich make its application essentially on acase-to-case basis. Thus, where a partlyhad the opportunity to cross-examine awitness but failed to avail himself of it, henecessarily forfeits his right to cross-examine and the testimony given by thewitness on direct examination will beallowed to remain on record. But when thecross-examination is not or cannot bedone or completed due to causesattributable to the party offering thewitness, to the witness himself, theuncompleted testimony of a witness whodies before the conclusion of the cross-examination, and the absence of a witnessis not enough to warrant striking of histestimony for failure to appear for furthercross-examination where the witness hasalready been sufficiently cross-examined,which is not true in the present case, orthat the matter on which further cross-examination is sought is not incontroversy. (People vs. Monje, G.R. No.146689, 09/27/2002)

LEADING QUESTIONS

As a general rule, leading questionsare not allowed. However, when thewitness is a child of tender years, it isproper for the court to allow leadingquestions, as it is usually difficult for achild of such age to state facts withoutsuggestion. Leading questions arenecessary to coax the truth out of theirreluctant lips. (People vs. Cana,04/22/2002)

IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE PARTYSWITNESS;TESTIMONY OF CO-CONSPIRATOR

The fact that the witness may havebeen a co-conspirator in the commissionof the offense is not in itself sufficient todilute the credibility of or, mush less, be aground to disregard altogether his

testimony. Indeed, by way of exception,the testimony of a co-conspirator may,even if uncorroborated, be sufficient aswhen it is shown to be sincere in itself,because given unhesitatingly and in astraightforward manner, and is full ofdetails which by its nature could not havebeen the result of deliberate afterthought.

17


18/21

(People vs. Sia, G.R. No. 137457,11/21/2001)

HOW WITNESS IMPEACHED BYEVIDENCE OF INCONSISTENTSTATEMENTS

Previous extrajudicial statementscannot be employed to impeach thecredibility of a witness unless his attentionis first directed to the discrepancies, andhe must then be given an opportunity toexplain them. It is only when the witnesscannot give a reasonable explanation thathe shall be deemed impeached. (Peoplevs. Cortezano, G.R. No. 140732,01/29/2002)

INCONSISTENCIES/DISCREPANCIES IN

TESTIMONY

Inconsistencies in the testimony of awitness with respect to minor details andcollateral matters do not affect thesubstance, veracity, or weight of thewitness declarations. (People vs. Condino,G.R. No. 130945, 11/19/2001)

FORGERY

A finding of forgery does notdepend entirely on the testimonies of

handwriting experts, because the judgemust conduct an independent examinationof the questioned signature in order toarrive at a reasonable conclusion as to itsauthenticity.

Sec. 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules ofCourt explicitly authorizes the court, byitself, to make a comparison of thedisputed handwriting with writingsadmitted or treated as genuine by theparty against whom the evidence isoffered or proved by the party to the

satisfaction of the judge. (Jimenez vs.Commission on Ecumenical Mission andRelations of the United PresbyterianChurch in the USA, G.R. No. 140472,06/10/2002)

PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD OFFOREIGN LAW

Under Sec. 24 of Rule 132, therecord of public documents of a sovereignauthority or tribunal may be proved by: (1)an official publication thereof, or; (2) a

copy attested by the officer having thelegal custody thereof. Such officialpublication or copy must be accompanied,if the record is not kept in the Philippines,with a certificate that the attesting officerhas the legal custody thereof. Thecertificate may be issued by any of theauthorized Philippine embassy or consularofficials stationed in the foreign country in

which the record is kept, andauthenticated by the seal of his office. Theattestation must state, in substance, thatthe copy is a correct copy of the original,or a specific part thereof, as the case maybe, and must be under the official seal of

the attesting officer. (ManufacturersHanover Trust Co. vs. Guerrero, G.R. No.1366804, 02/19/2003)

FOREIGN JUDGMENTS

It is recognized in Philippinejurisprudence and international law that aforeign judgment may be barred fromrecognition if it runs counter to publicpolicy. (Republic vs. Gingoyon, 481 SCRA457, December 19, 2006)

TESTIMONY IN A SEPARATE TRIAL

Under Sec. 1(f) of Rule 115 of theRules of Court, either party may utilize aspart of the evidence the testimony of awitness who is deceased, out of, orcannot, with due diligence be found in thePhilippines, unavailable or otherwiseunable to testify, given in another case orproceeding, judicial or administrative,involving the party having parties andsubject matter, the adverse party havinghad opportunity to cross-examine him.

(People vs. Concorcio, G.R. Nos. 121201-02, 10/19/2001)

EVIDENCES NOT OFFERED, ADOPTEDBY THE PARTY

Nothing in Sec. 34 of Rule 132requires that the evidence be offered oradopted by a specific party before it couldbe considered in his favor. It is enoughthat the evidence is offered for the courtsconsideration. (Supreme Transliner, Inc.vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125356,

11/21/2001)

PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AFTER JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION

As a general rule, the presentationof evidence after judgment of convictionhas already attained finality is not allowed.However, it is well within the prerogativeof the Court to admit such evidence at thisstage of the proceedings in the exercise ofits power to review. Moreover, theexercise of this discretion is as much aduty of the court especially where thereception of such evidence could save theaccused from the grim and irrevocableconsequences of a death sentence.Indeed, the rule on finality of judgmentcannot divest the Supreme Court of its

jurisdiction to execute and enforce ajudgment for such finality does not mean

18


19/21

that the court has lost all its powers.(People vs. Alvero, G.R. No. 132364,09/27/2002)

WAIVER

In Sermonia v. CA, the court ruledthat as the ground raised for objecting to

the evidence presented was a violation ofthe rule on privileged communication, thepetitioner was considered to have waivedhis right to make an objection on theground of the evidence being hearsay.

In People vs. Competente, thecourt also ruled that the failure of theaccused to object to hearsay is a waver ofthe right to cross-examine the actualwitness to the occurrence, thereby

rendering the evidence admissible.(Mangio vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No.139849, 12/05/01)

An out-of-court identification of anaccused can be made in various ways in ashow-up, the accused alone is broughtface to face with the witness foridentification, while in a police line-up, andthe suspect is identified by a witness froma group of persons gathered for thatpurpose. During custodial investigation,these types of identification have beenrecognized as critical confrontations of theaccused by the prosecution, whichnecessitate the presence of the presenceof a counsel for the accused. This isbecause the result of these pre-trialproceedings might well settle the accusedfate and reduce the trial itself to a mereformality. We have, thus, ruled that anyidentification of an uncounseled accusedmade in a police line-up, or in a show-upfor that matter, after the start of thecustodial investigation is inadmissible asevidence against him.

However, if the defense failed toobject immediately when the prosecutionpresented the witnesses or when specificquestions regarding the matter wereasked of them, as required by Sec. 36 ofRule 132 of the Rules on Evidence,accused must be deemed to have waivedhis right to object to the admissibility ofthe testimonies.

Furthermore, the inadmissibility ofthese out- of-court identifications does notrender the in-court identification of

accused-appellant inadmissible for beingthe fruits of the poisonous tree. This in-court identification formed the basis of thetrial courts conviction of accusedappellant as it was not derived or drawnfrom the illegal arrest of accusedappellant or as a consequence thereof, itis admissible as evidence against him

however, whether or not such prosecutionevidence satisfies the requirement ofproof beyond reasonable doubt is anothermatter altogether. (People vs. Escordial,G.R. No. 138934-35, 01/16/02)

WAIVER; ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE ONMATTERS NOT ALLEGED IN THEPLEADINGS

The court may admit evidence on amatter not alleged in the pleadingswithout amendment thereof and evenagainst the objection of the adverse partywhere the latter fails to satisfy the courtthat the admission of the evidence wouldprejudice him in maintaining his defenseupon the merits. (Spouses Ong vs. Courtof Appeals, G.R. No. 144581, 07/05/02)

PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE

Fraud is never presumed but mustbe established by clear and convincingevidence. A mere preponderance ofevidence is not even adequate to provefraud. (MC Engineering, Inc. vs. Court of

Appeals, G.R. No. 104047, 04/03/02)

EQUIPOISE OR EQUIPONDERANCEDOCTRINE

Equiponderance of evidence rulestates: When the scales shall stand uponan equipoise and there is nothing in theevidence which shall incline it to one sideor the other, the court will find for thedefendant. Under said principle, theplaintiff must rely on the strength of hisevidence and not on the weaknesses ofdefendants claim. Even if the evidence ofthe plaintiff may be stronger than that ofthe defendant, there is no preponderanceof evidence on his side if such evidence isinsufficient in itself to establish his cause

of action. (Yuchenco vs.Sandiganbayan,479 SCRA 1)

The doctrine refers to a situationwhere the evidence of the parties isevenly balanced or there is doubt onwhich side the evidence preponderates. Inthis case the decision should be againstthe party with the burden of proof. Hence,where the burden of proof is on theplaintiff and the evidence does notsuggest that the scale of justice shouldweigh in his favor the court should render

a verdict for the defendant. (MarubeniCorp. vs. Lirag, G.R. No. 130998,8/10/2001)

In labor cases, if doubt existsbetween the evidence presented by theemployer and the employee, the scales of

justice must be tilted in favor of the latter.

19


20/21

(Mayon Hotel & Restaurant vs. Adana G.R.No. 157637, 5/16/ 2005)

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

Reasonable doubt is not such a

doubt as any man may start byquestioning for the sake of a doubtsuggested or surmised without foundationin facts or testimony. Reasonable doubtmust rise from the evidence adduced orfrom the lack of evidence, and it shouldpertain to the facts constitutive of thecrime charged. (People vs. Garcia, G.R.No. 133489 & 143970, 01/15/02)

CORPUS DELICTI

In murder, the corpus delicti refers

to the body, foundation or substance,upon which the crime has beencommitted, e.g., the corpse of a murderedman. Its elements are: (1) a certain crimehas been committed, and; (2) someperson is criminally responsible for it. Itdoes not refer to the autopsy reportevidencing the nature of the woundssustained by the victim nor the testimonyof the physician who conducted theautopsy or medical examination. (Peoplevs. Canno, G.R. No. 146346, 09/30/02)

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Substantial evidence, which is thequantum of evidence required to establisha fact in cases before administrative orquasi-judicial bodies, is that level ofrelevant evidence which a reasonablemind might accept as adequate to justify aconclusion. (Philemploy Services andResources, Inc. vs. Rodriguez, 486 SCRA302, March 31, 2006)

Substantial evidence, which is more

than a mere scintilla, but is such relevantevidence as a reasonable mind mightaccept as adequate to support aconclusion, suffices to hold oneadministratively liable, the substantialevidence rule does not authorize anyfinding to be made just as long as there isany evidence to support it. It does notexcuse administrative agencies fromtaking into account countervailingevidence, which fairly detracts from theevidence supporting a finding. (Baylon vs.Fact Finding Intelligence Bureau, G.R. No.

150870, 12/11/02)

In a relatively recent case however,while recognizing the rule that inadministrative proceedings, complainantshave the burden of proving the allegationsin their complaints by substantialevidence, the Supreme Court held that

administrative proceedings against judgesare highly penal in character and are to begoverned by the rules applicable tocriminal cases. The quantum of proofrequired to support administrative chargesagainst judges should thus be more than

substantial and requires proof beyondreasonable doubt. (Duduaco vs.Laquindanum, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1601, 8/11/2005)

PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE vs.SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

The concept of preponderance ofevidence refers to evidence which is ofgreater weight, or more convincing, thanthat which is offered in opposition to it; atbottom, it means probability of truth. On

the other hand, substantial evidencerefers to such relevant evidence as areasonable mind might accept asadequate to support a conclusion, eve ifother minds equally reasonable mightconceivably opine otherwise. (Republic vs.Guerrero, 485 SCRA 424, )

OFFER OF EVIDENCE

For evidence to be considered, thesame must be formally offered, and thatwhile a document has been identified and

marked as an exhibit, it does notautomatically mean that it has alreadybeen offered as part of the evidence of aparty. (Government vs. Aballe, 485SCRA308)

A formal offer of evidence is notrequired in certain cases: (a) in asummary proceeding because it is aproceeding where there is no full blowntrial; (b) documents judicially admitted ortaken judicial notice of; (c) documents,affidavits and depositions used in

rendering a summary judgment; (d)documents or affidavits used in decidingquasi-judicial or administrative cases(Bantolino vs. Coca Cola Bottlers, Inc.,G.R. No. 153660, 6/10/2003); (e) lostobjects previously marked, identified,described in the record and testified to bywitnesses who had been subjects of crossexamination in respect to said objects.(Tabuena vs. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA650)

The court shall consider the

evidence solely for the purpose for whichit is offered, not for any other purpose.(Spouses Ragudo vs. Fabella EstateTenants Association, Inc., G.R. No.146823, 8/9/2005)

Courts are required to resolve theadmissibility the evidence offered

20


21/21

immediately after the objection is made orwithin a reasonable time. (Deutsche BankManila vs. Chua Yok See, 481 SCRA 672,December 2006)

Documents

Rem-#3 Evidence Edited