EVIDENCE Midterms - Vinluan

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A.
Vinluan [1
st
Sem, AY1011]
KARICHI E. SANTOS up law
Page 1 of 27
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

College of Law Diliman, Quezon City
EVIDENCE
Prof. Rogelio A. Vinluan 1st Semester, AY 2010-2011
I.
Admissibility of Evidence
A.
Rule 128, Section 1. Evidence defined. Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. Regalado: y Evidence is the mode and manner of proving competent facts in a judicial proceeding. y Proof is the result or effect of evidence i.e. when the requisite quantum of evidence of a particular fact has been duly admitted and given weight y Factum probandum ultimate fact or the fact sought to be established; a proposition y Factum probans evidentiary fact or the fact by which the factum probandum is to be established; materials which establish that proposition y CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE 1. Object (real) evidence directly addressed to the sense of the court and consists tangible things exhibited to or demonstrated in open court, ocular inspection or at a place designated by the court for its view or observation of an exhibition, experiment or demonstration 2. Documentary evidence evidence supplied by the written instruments OR derived from conventional symbols such as letters by which ideas are represented on material substances 3. Testimonial evidence that which is submitted to the court through the testimony or deposition of a witness DIRECT That which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption CIRCUMSTANTIAL Proof of a fact/s from which taken either singly or collectively, the existence of the particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence RAV says:
- Additional reasoning needed to be believed in. Get the logical nexus between the fact in issue and the evidence. - The more steps, less probative value. Chain is only as strong as the weakest link. In the words of McCormick, a brick is not a wall
CUMULATIVE Evidence of the same kind and to the same state of facts PRIMA FACIE That which, standing alone, unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed PRIMARY aka best evidence That which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in questions POSITIVE When the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur; Entitled to greater weight since witness represents of his personal knowledge of the absence or presence of the fact
CORROBORATIVE Additional evidence of a different character to the same point CONCLUSIVE Class of evidence which the law does not allow to be contradicted SECONDARY aka substitutionary evidence That which is inferior to the primary evidence and is permitted by law only when the best evidence is not available NEGATIVE When the witness states he did not see or know the occurrence of a fact; just a total disclaimer of personal knowledge
RAV says: What is evidence? y The definition in the Code is not really accurate because some rules impede the search for truth. For instance, in the case of privileges, there are sociological values that are given more importance than the truth. y The common sense definition is it is any matter which serves as a proof of a factual representation y In the Code Revision Committee, we decided to just retain what s written there because we had a hard time defining it. What are the systems of evidence presentation? y Inquisitorial (Europe) Judge is responsible for production of evidence; he examines the witnesses while lawyers play a passive role y Adversarial (Philippines) Lawyers are responsible for production of evidence; judge plays a passive role of merely weighing the
EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 2 of 27
evidence. Judges are ideally neutral, impartial and inactive. What is truth, how do you understand truth? y Many of the cases are not decided on merits but on extra-legal considerations. Success depends on the imponderable. Rule 128, Section 2. Scope. The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, EXCEPT as otherwise provided by the law or these rules. Regalado: y Rules are applicable only in judicial proceedings , only suppletory or by analogy in case of quasi-judicial y Court of Agrarian Relations: Rules of Court not applicable even in suppletory character, EXCEPT in criminal and expropriation cases Reyes v. Court of Appeals (1993) RAV says:
- Affidavits where affiants did not testify is hearsay.
People v. Turco (2000) RAV says:

- Admissibility vs. weight. Medical certificate or official record is admissible, although it cannot carry weight because you must first show the qualifications of the doctor.
B. Relevance Rule 128, Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. Regalado: y Two requisites of admissibility: 1. Relevant to the issue sought to be proved determinable by the rules of logic and human experience 2. Competent determined by the prevailing exclusionary rules of evidence y Wigmore s restatement of axioms of admissibility: 1. None but facts having rational probative value are admissible 2. All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rule forbids their admission y Wigmore s notion of relevant evidence any class of evidence which has rationale probative value to establish the issue in controversy y Admissibility of evidence is determined at the time it is offered to the court (S. 35, R. 132) o Real: [1] presented for its view or evaluation (e.g. ocular inspections or demonstrations) OR [2] when the party rests his case and the real evidence consists objects exhibited in court o Testimonial: offered by calling the witness to the stand o Documentary: formally offered by the proponent immediately before he rests his case y Objection to the admissibility of the evidence shall be made at the time such evidence is offered OR as soon as thereafter as the objection to its admissibility shall have been apparent, otherwise, objection shall be deemed waived. y KINDS OF ADMISSIBILITY 1. Conditional 2. Multiple 3. Curative Rule 128, Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. Evidence must have such relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed EXCEPT when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. Regalado: y Relevant evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove any matter provable in an action o TEST OF RELEVANCY: logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the issue i.e. whether the former (evidentiary fact tends to establish the probability or improbability of the latter (issue) y Material evidence evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings o TEST OF MATERIALITY: whether the fact it intends to prove is in issue or not i.e. determined by the substantive law, pleadings, pre-trial order and admissions/confession on file o An evidence may be relevant BUT immaterial y Competent evidence one that is not excluded by the Rules, a statute or the Constitution y Collateral matters matters other than the facts in issue and which are offered as a basis for inference as to the existence or non-
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 3 of 27
existence of the facts in issue. Not all collateral matters are inadmissible, only those collateral matters which are not relevant. o When is collateral matter relevant? When it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue McCormick (Chapter 16): y Two components of relevant evidence: Materiality and probative value (see RAV discussion infra) y When is evidence irrelevant for want of probative value? The distinction between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence is instructive. The latter helps establishing a provable fact and therefore can never be irrelevant. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence can be offered to help prove a material fact, yet be so unrevealing as to be irrelevant to the fact. y Relevant evidence is evidence that in some degree advances the inquiry. It is material and probative and therefore, prima facie admissible. RAV says: y Relevance is a relational concept. It does not exist in the abstract. y It has two components: (1) Probative value the link between evidence and factual proposition; goes more to the weight, experience, common sense. E.g. flight indication of guilt? Yes because of historical experience. (2) Materiality when is something in issue? It is determined by the substantive law or the pleadings, pre-trial order Probative value i.e. tendency of the evidence to establish the proporition which it is offered to prove
Relevance
Material i.e. relation between the proposition and the fact in issue
Admissibility consists of... Competence
WON a fact is in "in issue" is detemined by the pleadings read in the light of substantive laws
Not excluded by rules or by law
y y y y
In order to be relevant, the probative value needs not be entire, it is sufficient that it advances inquiry even if only slightly. Consider the wisest judgment of all time i.e. Solomon and the two mothers fighting over a baby, wherein the mother who refused to slice the baby in two was recognized as the real mother. Is the evidence relevant? RATIONALE OF RELEVANCY: To put an end to litigation. In practice: Judges often say all exhibit admitted for what it s worth. Or Admitted as part of testimony Ano ng ibig sabihin non?? Judges should be more liberal. They should give an immediate ruling so the parties may adjust to the situation.
Bautista v. Aperece (1995) Lopez v. Heesen (1961) State v. Ball (1960)
C. Competence Rule 128, Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. 1. Exclusionary Rules under the 1987 Constitution, e.g., a. b. c. Sections 2 and 3, Art. III Section 12, Art. III Section 17, Art. III
2. Statutory Rules of Exclusion, e.g., a. b. c. Ganaan v. IAC (1986) Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA (1994) Ramirez v. CA (1995) Section 201, Tax Reform Act of 1997 R.A. 1405, Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits R.A. 4200, Wiretapping Act
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 4 of 27
RAV says: y Are the Garci tapes admissible? Considering they didn t admit it was them talking.
II.
What Need Not Be Proved

A.
Rule 129, Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. The court SHALL take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of a. existence and territorial extent of states b. their [states] political history c. forms of government [of states] d. symbols of nationality [of states] e. law of nations f. admiralty and maritime courts of the world g. their seals h. political constitution and history of the Philippines i. official acts of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial departments of the Philippines j. laws of nature k. measure of time l. geographical divisions. Rule 129, Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. The court MAY take judicial notice of matters which are a. of public knowledge OR b. capable of unquestionable demonstration OR c. ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. Regalado: y Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them. The current rules make a distinction between facts of which courts MUST (mandatory) take judicial notice and of which they MAY (discretionary) take judicial notice. y BASIS: o Considerations of expediency and convenience o Displaces evidence since being equivalent to proof, it fulfills the object which the evidence is intended to achieve and therefore, makes such evidence unnecessary y Power to exercise judicial notice must be exercised with caution and every reasonable doubt on the subject must be resolved in the negative (Republic v CA) y Judicial notice of ordinances (cf with laws) When RTC must take judicial notice of ordinances: o When required to do so by statute o In a case on appeal before them and wherein the inferior court took judicial notice of an ordinance involved in said case (US v Blanco, US v Hernandez) o Appellate court: facts capable of unquestionable demonstration (Gallego v Pp) o Reasons/scenarios above are also applicable to administrative regulations y Courts are required to take judicial notice of the decisions of the appellate courts but NOT of the decisions of coordinate trial courts, nor even of a decision or the facts involved in another case tried by the same court itself, UNLESS the parties introduce the same in evidence or where the court, as a matter of convenience, may decided to do so. y Judicial notice is not the same as judge s personal knowledge. y What are the laws of a foreign state? Question of fact, not law. Court may choose not to take judicial notice and have to be proved like any other fact. y How to prove a written foreign law? Complied requirements of Sec. 24 and 25 of Rule 132 on official publication or duly attested and authenticated copy thereof. y Doctrine of processual presumption - Absent any of the foregoing evidence, the foreign law is presumed to be the same as that of the Philippines McCormick (Chapter 35): y There are two categories of facts that fall within the perimeters of judicial notice: [1] adjudicative facts and [2] legislative facts y Adjucative facts facts about the particular event which gave rise to the lawsuit and help explain who did what, when, where how and with what motive and intent. Either because they were facts so commonly known in the jurisdiction OR so manifestly capable of accurate verification, they were facts reasonable informed people in the community would regard as propositions not reasonably subject to dispute. y Legislative facts judicial notice of these facts occurs when a judge is faced with the task of creating law, by deciding upon the constitutional validity of a statute or interpretation of a statue or the extension or restriction of a common law rule, upon grounds of policy and the policy is thought to hinge upon social, economic, political or scientific facts.

y y
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 5 of 27
Matters of common knowledge The fact is so commonly known in the community as to make it unprofitable to require proof and so certainly known as to make it indisputable among reasonable men; Loosely described as universal knowledge. Facts capable of certain verification when asked to notice a fact not generally known, but which obviously could easily be ascertained by consulting materials in common use such as the day of the week on which January 1 fell ten years ago, the judges resorted to calendars but purported to be refreshing memory as to a matter of common knowledge. It is under this caption that judges take judicial notice of the scientific principles which, while not verifiable but not likely commonly known, justify the evidentiary use of radar, blood tests for intoxication and non-paternity, handwriting and typewriting identification and ballistics.
RAV says: y Judicial notice is only applicable to adjudicative facts. y Brown v Board (as cited in McCormick) was the leading American case wherein the judge decided on the basis of legislative facts. Legislative facts are not disputed. y Custom is not a proper subject of judicial notice. See the Romulo Mabanta and Sycip firm name retention case (In Re Sycip). They invoked what kind of custom there? y White Plains v QC Finance and Development Corporation: Case which Sir lost due to stupid procedure of SC. White Plains Roadlot 1 which was supposedly part of Highway 38 from QC to Novaliches. Was Roadlot 1 subject of judicial notice? Rule 129, Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing is necessary. DURING TRIAL, the court may on its own initiative OR at the request of a party - announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter AND - allow the parties to be heard thereon. AFTER TRIAL, AND BEFORE JUDGMENT or ON APPEAL, the proper court, on its own initiative OR at the request of a party, may - take judicial notice of any matter AND - allow the parties to be heard thereon IF such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. RAV says: What is the purpose of the hearing? y Present evidence y Afford parties reasonable opportunity to present information relevant to the propriety of taking judicial notice or to the tenor of the matter to be noticed. When do is hearing required? y In discretionary judicial notice only. y HOWEVER Court may choose not to hold hearing in case of discretionary judicial notice if fact is capable of unquestionable demonstration y Mandatory judicial notice and legislative facts require no hearing. What is the effect of the court s taking of judicial notice? y It is conclusive upon the parties and therefore, is not rebuttable. Rule 129, Section 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal OR written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does NOT require proof. The admission may be CONTRADICTED only by showing that a. it was made through palpable mistake OR b. no such admission was made. Rule 11, Section 8. Effect of amended pleadings. An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. HOWEVER, admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader; and claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived. Regalado: y How are judicial admissions made? a. In the pleadings filed by the parties b. In the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations c. Other stages of the judicial proceedings e.g. pre-trial d. Admissions obtained through modes of discovery e.g. depositions, written interrogatories, requests for admissions y Where must the judicial admissions be made? GENERAL RULE: In the same case in which it is offered. If made in another case OR in another court, the fact of such admission must be proved as in the case of any other fact. Implication: Judicial admission in once case are admissible at the trial of another case PROVIDED they are proved and are pertinent to the issue involved in the latter. Effect of admission in another case offered as evidence: Since it was made in a judicial proceeding, it is entitled to a greater weight EXCEPTION: a. Admissions were made only for purposes of the first case e.g. rule in implied admissions (Rule 26)

y
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 6 of 27
b. Admissions were withdrawn with the permission of the court c. Court deems it proper to relieve the party therefrom Admission in a pleading which had been withdrawn or superseded by an amended pleading although filed in the same case are considered as extrajudicial admissions AND must be proved by the party who relies thereon by formal offer in evidence of the original pleading.
RAV says: y Can a party contradict that which hs been admitted by him? Contrast McCormick and Regalado s views. y What is the effect of admission? It is conclusive, takes the matter out of the controversy, it becomes a non-issue precisely because it has been stipulated already. y What about amendments in the original pleading, are they still admissions? No, It has lost its judicial character, it must first be offered in evidence. If you read Regalado, he says that amended admissions are still judicial. RAV disagrees citing the code. y Evidentiary admissions out of court admissions B. Cases: 1. Judicial Notice City of Manila v. Garcia (1967)
Municipal trial courts are required to take judicial notice of the ordinances of the municipality wherein they sit. However in the case of RTC, they must take such judicial notice only when required to do so by statute e.g. Manila as required by the City Charter
Baguio v. Vda. de Jalagat (1971)
Courts are not required to take judicial notice of the decision or the facts involved in another case tried by the same court itself, UNLESS the parties introduce the same in evidence or where the court, as a matter of convenience, may decided to do so.
Prieto v. Arroyo (1965) Yao-Kee v. Sy-Gonzales (1988) Tabuena v. CA (1991) People v. Godoy (1995) RAV says:
- The court should have said Lust is no respecter of menstrual period. - Story of Bryan Dy, son of Isabela Governor who is still at large after raping an American
BPI-Savings v. CTA (2000) 2. Judicial Admissions Lucido v. Calupitan (1914) Torres v. CA (1984)
III.
Real and Demonstrative Evidence

A.
Rule 130, Section 1. Objects as evidence. Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. Rule 130, Section 2. Documentary evidence. Documents as evidence consist of writings OR any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols and other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents.
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 7 of 27
Regalado: y Object evidence include any article or object which may be known or perceived by the use of any of the senses y Observations of the courts may be amplified by interpretations afforded by testimonial evidence especially by experts. y Documents may be object evidence IF the purpose is to prove their existence or physical condition e.g. nature of the handwritings thereon, age of the paper, blemishes or alterations y Includes Courts may refuse introduction of object evidence and rely on testimonial evidence alone if: o Exhibition of such object is contrary to public policy, morals or decency o To require it being viewed would result in delays, inconvenience, unnecessary expenses out of proportion to the evidentiary value of such object o Evidence would be confusing or misleading e.g. purpose is to prove the former condition of the object AND there is no preliminary showing that there has been no substantial change in said condition o Testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the object in question as to render a view thereof unnecessary y GENERAL RULE: Repulsive or indecent objects are not view. y EXCEPTION: View of the same is necessary in the interest of justice o Exclude the public from such view o Exhibit/examine in camera o If the indecent/immoral objects constitute the very basis for the criminal or civil action Ocular inspections y Depends on the discretion of the trial court (Pp v Moreno) y The fact that an ocular inspection has been held does not preclude a party from introducing other evidence on the same issue (Phil Movie Pictures Workers Assn. v Premiere Productions) y Must be conducted after notice to OR in the presence of the parties, otherwise invalid. McCormick (Chapter 21): y Demonstrative evidence RAV says: y Object evidence because to see is to believe. As compare with testimonial evidence which depends on the weight and credibility of the witness y McCormick uses demonstrative very broadly. But some authors distinguish it with real. o DEMONSTRATIVE - narrow sense, illustrative purpose; that which will help the court understand or appreciate better the testimony of the witness e.g. chart, diagram, flowchart, cartographic sketch (?) o REAL - an evidence that played an actual role e.g. tape from CCTV y What do you have to do with an object evidence? AUTHENTICATE it i.e. lay proper foundation for admission. Prove that the object is what you claim it to be. For some object evidence which are not readily identifiable e.g. chemical composition, you will need to establish chain of custody. Every person who handled the evidence from the time it was seized must be presented in court. Make them explain how they obtained and what they did to preserve the integrity of the evidence. E.g. in a buy-bust operation: Police chemist evidence custodian y However, if it has unique characteristics, the chain of custody is not required. y What kind of authentication is needed for demonstrative? It is enough that the evidence is an accurate representation. y How do you authenticate a CCTV? Present a person who is familiary with the process y In practice: Because of pre-trial, most of the authentication done away with when the adverse party admits the evidence. Pero may kalokohan sila diyan: We admit the existence, but not the authenticity. Ano ng ibig sabihin no n? B. Cases:
People v. Bardaje (1980) Sison v. People (1995) Adamczuk v. Holloway (1940) State v. Tatum (1961) RAV says: y Can document be object evidence? Yes, depending on purpose. If not contents and only its existence and physical condition is presented. y Whenever you offer evidence, you think of the purpose.

IV. Best Evidence Rule
A.
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 8 of 27
Rule 130, Section 2. Documentary evidence. Documents as evidence consist of writings OR any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. Rule 130, Section 3. Original documents must be produced; exception. When the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the document itself, except in the following cases: (a) When the original has been LOST, DESTROYED or CANNOT BE PRODUCED IN COURT without bad faith on the part of the offeror (b) When the original is in the CUSTODY or CONTROL of the party against whom evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice. (c) When the original consists of NUMEROUS ACCOUNTS or OTHER DOCUMENTS which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time AND the fact sought to be established from them is the general result of the whole (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer OR is recorded in a public office. Rule 130, Section 4. Original of a document. (a) An original of a document is one the contents of which is the subject of inquiry. (b) When the document is in two or more copies, executed AT or ABOUT the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals. (c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another, AT or NEAR the time of transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. Rule 130, Section 5. When original of a document is unavailable. When original document has been LOST, DESTROYED or CANNOT BE PRODUCED IN COURT, the offeror, upon [1] satisfactory proof of its existence or due execution and [2] cause of unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by [1] a copy, [2] a recital of its contents in an authentic document or [3] testimony of a witness in the order stated. Rule 130, Section 6. When the original is in the adverse party s custody or control. If the document is in the custody or control of the adverse party, he must have REASONABLE NOTICE to produce it. If after [1] such notice AND after [2] satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of LOSS. Rule 130, Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. When original document is [1] in the custody of a public officer OR [2] is recorded in a public office, its CONTENTS may be proved by a CERTIFIED COPY issued by the public officer in custody thereof. Rule 130, Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. A party who [1] CALLS for the production of document AND [2] INSPECTS the same is NOT OBLIGED to offer it as evidence. Rule 132, Sections 25. What attestation of copy must state. Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of the evidence, the attestation must state in substance, that the copy is a CORRECT copy of the original OR a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, OR if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. Rule 132, Sections 27. Public record of a private document. An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original record OR by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer ahs the custody. Electronic Commerce Act (R.A. 8792) Sections 5-15 Rules on Electronic Evidence ( REE ) Rule 2, Section 1 Rule 3 Rule 4 B. Cases:
Air France v. Carrascoso (1966) Meyers v. United States (1948) People v. Tan (1959)

Seiler v. Lucas Film, Ltd. (1986) People v. Tandoy (1990) U.S. v. Gregorio (1910) Fiscal of Pampanga v. Reyes (1931) Vda. de Corpus v. Brabangco (C.A.) (1963) Compania Maritima v. Allied Free Workers (1977) Villa Rey Transit v. Ferrer (1968) Michael & Co. v. Enriquez (1915) De Vera v. Aguilar (1983)
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 9 of 27
V.
Parole Evidence Rule

A.
Rule 130, Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. When the terms of an agreement are reduced into writing, [1] it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon AND [2] there can be, as between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. HOWEVER, the parties may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleadings: (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement (b) Failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties (c) Validity of the written agreement (d) Existence of other terms agreed upon by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. Art. 1403, Civil Code. Text here. B. Cases:
Enriquez v. Ramos (1962) Canute v. Mariano (1918) Yu Tek v. Gonzales (1915) Land Settlement & Dev. Corp v. Garcia Plantation (1963) Maulini v. Serrano (1914) PNB v. Seeto (1952) Woodhouse v. Halili (1953) Robles v. Lizarraga Cruz (1927) Cruz v. Court of Appeals (1990) Lechugas v. CA (1986) Inciong v. CA (1996) Ortanez v. CA

(1997) RAV says:
Applicable exception must be expressly invoked in the pleading. It s not enough to allege that the contract of sale was subject to condition.
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 10 of 27
VI.
Interpretation of Documents
A.
Rule 130, Section 10. Heading. Rule 130, Section 11. Heading. Rule 130, Section 12. Heading. Rule 130, Section 13. Heading. Rule 130, Section 14. Heading. Rule 130, Section 15. Heading. Rule 130, Section 16. Heading. Rule 130, Section 17. Heading. Rule 130, Section 18. Heading. Rule 130, Section 19. Heading. Art. 1370. Text here. To Art. 1379. Text here. B. Cases: Lambert v. Fox (1914) Capital Insurance v. Sadang (1967)
Text here. Text here. Text here. Text here. Text here. Text here. Text here. Text here. Text here. Text here.
VII.
Qualifications of Witnesses
RAV says: y Every person is presumed to be competent. Competent means qualification to be a witness. Burden of proof is on the person challenging the competency. Are there other requirements of the law before you can be allowed to testify? y Oath y Personal knowledge if it is clear that he does not possess personal from the initial questions. Later we distinguish that, lack of personal knowledge is often confused with hearsay rule but those two things are different. y There was a time when atheist and parties were not allowed to testify. But eventually all the states abolished that requirement. y Bias of the witness because he is a party in the case will not disqualify him but only in the weight of the testimony. y Conviction of a crime can be used to impeach the witness credibility A. Mental Incapacity or Immaturity Rule 130, Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who [1] can perceive AND [2] perceiving, can make know their perception to others, may be witnesses. [1] Religious and political belief, [2] interest in the outcome of the case and [3] conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law shall not be a ground for disqualification. Rule 130, Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. The following persons cannot be witnesses:
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 11 of 27
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others. (b) Children, whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of: [1] perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and [2] relating them truthfully. Regalado: y GENERAL RULE: Qualification of a witness is determined as of the time said witnesses are produced for examination. y EXCEPTION: In case of children of tender years, their competence at the time of the occurrence to be testified should also be taken into account, especially if such event took place long before their production as witnesses. Interest of witness y Interest of witness in the subject matter of the action OR in its outcome does not disqualify him from testifying, EXCEPT those covered by the rule on surviving parties aka Dead Man Statute. y Interest of witness affects only his credibility but not his competency y Defaulting defendant is not prohibited from testifying for his non-defaulting co-defendant even if he is interested in thec ase. Conviction of a crime y Also not a ground for disqualification BUT he must answer to the fact of a previous final conviction under Rule 132, Sec. 3(5). y Such fact may also be shown by his examination OR the record of the judgment y Why? Because the same may be taken into consideration as affecting his credibility y When is a person previously convicted of crime disqualified as witness? In CC Art. 8221, those convicted of [1] falsification of document, [2] perjury and [3] false testimony are disqualified from being witness to a will and the probate thereof. Unsound mind y Includes any mental aberration, whether organic or functional, or induced by drugs or hypnosis y Mental unsoundness at the time the fact to be testified to occurred affects only his credibility Deaf-mutes y Competent witnesses when they can o understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath o comprehend the facts they are going to testify to o communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter Child witness y In determining his competency, the court must consider his capacity o At the time the fact to be testified to occurred such that he could receive correct impressions thereof o To comprehend obligation of an oath o To relate those facts truly at the time he is offered as a witness y Otherwise stated, Court should take into account his capacity for: observation, recollection and communication. y Unless a child s testimony is punctured with serious inconsistencies as to lead one to believe he is coached, if he can perceive and make known his perception, he is considered as a competent witness. y A child s naivete and apparent accuracy make his testimony most impressive. RAV says: y Under the Child Witness Rule, every child is presumed to be competent. But the court may look into competency of child motu propio or by request of a party y Are you still considered a child under the rules? No, until 18 years old only y Take into account his ability to perceive at the time of the event he was to testify to. Especially if the case happened 7 years ago. With respect to children, consider their capacity to: o Observe o Recollect o Communicate What questions will you ask a 4-5 year old child? y Offer of testimony before you can proceed y Judge says: Okay proceed! y What do you ask child to show that he understands? y OBITER: Sir has a pro bono case in Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, habeas corpus for Custody. The dad brought the children from US to Philippines. Mother filed a case. The child was no longer English speaking, Ilocano na. In trial, the child said that his mother likes to go out with Blacks. Coached at pinalabas na loose morals yung nanay. y Ordinarily pag direct examinations, not leading questions: i.e. answer the question you desire. Pag sa child witnesses, pwede leading questions. y You know you have to tell the truth? You know what will happen if you don t say the truth? I go to hell or Congress.

y
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 12 of 27
Sec. 21 is superfluous because it s already covered by Sec. 20 when it said all persons
As long as the witness can convey ideas by words or signs, and give sufficiently intelligent answer to the questions propounded, she is a competent witness even if she is feebleminded.
People v. De Jesus (1984) People v. Salomon (1993) People v. Mendoza (1996) B. Marital Disqualification
Rule 130, Section 22 Disqualification by reason of marriage. During their marriage, neither husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, EXCEPT - in a civil case by one against the other, OR - in a criminal case for a crime committed against the other or the latter s direct descendants or ascendants. Regalado: y Sometimes referred to in American law as spousal immunity and is different from marital privilege under Sec. 24 (a) y Rationale for the rule: 1. Identity of interest between the spouses 2. Consequent danger of perjury where one spouse testifies against the other 3. Guarding the marital confidences and preventing domestic disunion 4. Danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of the other y RAV mentioned in class: Case of Alvarez v Ramirez the exception to MDR was applied even when the offended party in the crime of arson was the wife s sister (ergo, husband s sister-in-law) even if the rule is limited to crimes committed against the other or latter s direct descendant or ascendant. Rationale for the ruling: Where the marital and domestic relations are so strained, the foregoing considerations (see four rationale above) no longer apply. y REQUISITES FOR MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE TO APPLY: 1. Subsisting valid marriage 2. Time of the spouses testimony: during the existence of marriage 3. Either spouse is party to the case RAV says: y It is one of the marital privileges. In the US, it s limited to civil cases. Aka adverse spousal testimony privilege a spouse cannot testify in a criminal case but our law is broader because it applies to both criminal and civil. It s not only immunity against but for or against y I told you earlier, we have this because certain social values are more important that the truth. BUT please take note that this must be construed strictly because they are in derogation of search for truth. y What societal values are involved? Foster marital harmony. y Ewan ko bakit nilagay yung for eh. It is understandable bakit yung against. Kapag for kasi, sino ba mag-oobject dun? Walang mag-oobject. Pinapatangal ko yan sa bagong edition. y What will happen if you don t have this privilege? Danger of perjury, spouse s witness will be tempted to lie or the witness spouse may refuse to testify in which case the court may cite him for contempt or testifies and tells the truth and betrays his/her loved one. y Avoid placing the witness spouse in a trilemma: perjury, contempt and betrayal of loved one! y What if the spouse is willing to testify, what marital harmony is there to preserve? Holder of the privilege is with the witness spouses. That s the US SC but we don t follow that. It s simple that if a spouse is willing to testify, the marriage is beyond repair, no more marital harmony to preserve. Highly criticized decision because it encourages the government to pit one spouse against the other. Coconspirate yung wife to testify against husband, we ll let you go. For your information lang yan. US v Trammel. y What is the requirement about the marriage: it must be a valid marriage, not bigamous etc. Otherwise privilege will not apply y Can this privilege be waived by the affected spouse? Yes. In addition this, there is privilege relating to confidential info. Even when spouse allowed testify, the affected spouse can still object on the confidential communication. y What if you marry your GF just to prevent her from testifying against you. Take note: Applies even to acts or events that took place even before the marriage. This is a complete ban. Ordono v. Daquigan
RAV says: At the time this case arose, that was the old rule which did not include the witness s spouse direct descendants/ascendants. Husband raped daughter, wife filed a case against him. Wife not disqualified to testify for the prosecution since the crime may be considered as having been committed against the wife. Citing Cargill v State: When an offense directly attacks, or directly and vitally impairs the conjugal relation, it comes within the exception to the statue that one shall not be a witness against the other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime committed (by one) against the other. The conjugal harmony sought to be protected by the rule no longer exists. Exception to the marital disqualification rule.
People v. Castaeda
Wife filed case against husband who falsified her signature in a

People v. Francisco Lezama v. Rodriguez (1968; )
Sem, AY1011] KARICHI E. SANTOS up law Page 13 of deed of sale involving their conjugal property. Accused husband in his testimony impute the commission of the Husband is deemed to have waived his objection to the wife s crime (killing of son) to his wife. testimony in rebuttal.
st
27
Wife is a co-defendant in a suit charging her and her husband with collusive fraud.
The wife cannot be called as an adverse party witness because this will violate the marital disqualification rule.
C. Dead Man's Statute Rule 130, Section 23 Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. Parties or assignors of a parties to a case or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representatives of a deceased person or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. Regalado: y Aka Survivorship Disqualification Rule or Dead Man Statute y Only as a partial disqualification as the witness is not completely disqualified BUT is only prohibited from testifying on matters therein specified, unlike the MDR which is a complete and absolute disqualification. y Applies only to civil case or special proceedings over the estate of a deceased or insane person. y REQUISITES FOR THE DMS PRIVILEGE TO APPLY: 1. Who is the witness offered for examination? a. Party plaintiff b. Assignor of said party c. Person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted 2. Against whom is the case instituted? a. Executor or administrator b. Other representative of a person deceased 3. Subject matter of the case? a. Claim or demand against the estate of person deceased/of unsound mind 4. What matter cannot be testified? a. Any matter of fact occurring before the death/became of unsound mind -- bears upon a transaction or communication between the witness and decedent
y y
Applicable regardless of whether the deceased died before or after the suit against him is filed, provided he is already dead at the time of the testimony is sought to be given. NOT COVERED: o Negative testimony (that a fact did not occur during the lifetime of the deceased) o Testimony on the present possession by the witness of a written instrument signed by the deceased o If it is the decedent s representative filed the case, oppositors are considered defendants and may therefore testify against the petitioner. o Even if all the four requisites are met, the prohibition does not apply (ergo allowed to testify) where the testimony is offered to prove a [a] claim less than what is established under a written document [b] fraudulent transaction of the deceased RATIONALE: o Discourage perjury o Protect the estate from fictitious claims
RAV says: y Sort of compromise when the disqualification relating to parties was adopted. Surviving party will not be allowed if the other is dead. Remnant of old rule disqualifying parties from testifying. y RATIONALE: Level the playing field, equalize the opportunities for proof between the surviving party and the deceased. Why? In what sense? What do you understand by that? Unsound mind might recover his sanity someday, so let s focus on the deceased person muna. Where death has sealed the lips of one party, then the law will seal the lips of the other. y Question: Is that a good rationale? Jeremy Bentham thought this was blind and brainless rule. Cause justice to the dead and do injustice to the living. Is that fair rule, you lent 1 million to your now dead friend. Majority of the states have abolished this statute. They liberalized the rule. They ll allow the surviving party to testify but at the same time, rule allows the estate any hearsay evidence. that s the compromise in the US. The Evidence Rule revision committee has decided to adopt that. Magiging exception to the hearsay rule yun. Allow surviving party to testify but allow hearsay evidence to be introduced by the estate. y You should have no problem applying this rule. Why? You re given a problem. Can this witness testify. You look at the witness. If he is not a party or assignor of a party or person in whose behalf, rule will not apply. Then look at the action. y How about this situation: In a vehicle collision, one of the parties to the collision died. The surviving party sues the estate of the deceased driver on the theory that deceased was the one negligent. Can surviving party now testify on the manner how the accident occurred and how it was the fault of the deceased? As held in the States, it also applies to tort actions.

Guerrero v. St, Claire's Realty & Co. Abraham v. Recto-Kasten RAV says:
st
Sem, AY1011]
KARICHI E. SANTOS up law Page 14 of 27 Witnesses were neither parties to the case, their assignors nor persons in whose behalf the case is prosecuted.
It s usually a problem during trial, e.g. you object hearsay but court overruled your objection so when the time for your crossexamination comes, what will you do, will you cross examine? We will tell the court, without prejudice to our/waiving our objection? That s what we usually do. On appeal you assign it as error and then the appellee court sustains your objection. On the other hand, court sustains the ruling of the lower court, what will happen on appeal. The better practice is what we do. There is a decision of US court where that the ruling should be taken as law of the case if you cross-examine, you are deemed not to have waived your objection. It is still assignable as error.
Goi v. CA
Tongco v. Vianzon
Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf
Citing City Savings Bank v Enos: interest no longer disqualifies. Corporation has separate and distinct personality
Counterclaim has been interposed by the defendant as the plaintiff would thereby be testifying in his defense. Deceased contracted with the plaintiff through an agent and said agent is alive and can testify, but the testimony of the plaintiff would be limited to acts performed by the agent. Even if the property involved has already been adjudicated to the heirs, they are still protected under this rule as they are considered as representatives of the deceased. Rule does not apply where: - it is administrator who brings an action for recovery allegedly belonging to the estate. - cadastral cases where there is no plaintiff or defendant therein - disqualification is waived by defendant through crossexamination of the witness Disqualification under this rule is waived if the defendant crossexamines. Nominal party nor to officers and stockholders of a plaintiff corporation.
Razon v. IAC
VIII. Privileged Communications

Utilitarian justification Who may invoke? Persons protected thereunder Who may waive? Persons protected, expressly (through timely objection) OR impliedly (through cross-examination) McCormick: A. Procedural recognition of rules of privilege 1. Who may assert? 2. Where may privilege be asserted? Rules of privilege in conflict of laws B. Limitations on the effectiveness of privilege 1. Risk of eavesdropping and interception of letters 2. Adverse arguments and inferences from claims of privileges 3. Constitutional limitations on privilege A. Marital Communications
Rule 130, Section 24 (a) Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases: (a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage, EXCEPT [1] in a civil case by one against the other or [2] in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other OR the latter s direct descendants or ascendants. REQUISITES FOR THE MARITAL PRIVILEGE TO APPLY: 1. Valid marriage 2. With respect to a confidential communication between spouses y What does confidential mean? What are not considered confidential? a. Not intended to be kept in confidence e.g. dying declaration as to who killed him (because it was obviously intended to be reported to the authorities)

b.
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 15 of 27
3. 4.
Overheard or comes into hands of a third party, legally or not. Why? While the spouse is prohibited, third party is not and so, he can testify. EXCEPTION: There must be no collusion or voluntary disclosure by either spouse, otherwise the third party becomes an agent of the spouse and thereby covered by the prohibition. Communication during marriage y Privilege cannot be apply to those communications made prior to the marriage Spouse against whom such evidence is being offered has not given his or her consent to such testimony Husband Privilege is lost when it is overheard or comes into hands of a third party, legally or not
People v. Carlos (1925)
Marital disqualification vs. Marital privilege AS TO

When can you invoke? Duration Scope of prohibition Who can invoke?
Marital disqualification
Only if one of the spouses is party to the action Only during the marriage. It ceases upon death of spouse or annulment Total ban against any testimony for or against Spouse who is party to the action (affected spouse)
Marital privilege
Regardless of whether or not the spouse is party Forever! Even after dissolution of marriage Only to confidential communications between spouses Either spouse (Only some states limit it to only the spouse who made the communication minority view) Confidential communications during the marriage
Topics covered
Anything and everything!
Implication of distinction: y If information is not confidential, spouse party to the action can still prevent spouse testifying against him under the marital disqualification. y If spouse party to the action waived the marital disqualification, he can still prevent the disclosure by spouse witness of confidential communication covered by the privilege. RAV says: y What is the rationale underlying this privilege? Encourage candor between the spouses. y Do you think spouses are aware of this privilege? Most likely majority of spouses are not aware of this privilege and that they confide in each other out of love y What does confidential matter mean? If communicated in the presence of third persons/strangers/children who can understand will destroy the privilege. y What if they talked in a crowded elevator and somebody overheard? The modern trend: just like in the atty-client: If the parties took precautions to safeguard confidentiality of their communication, the privilege will not be loss. But we still follow the ruling in Pp v Carlos. y Situation: Husband arrived carrying bag of money after robbing the bank and in the presence of the wife, put the bag under the bed or some hidden closet. Assuming that we don t have marital disqualification rule, and we compelled the wife to testify as to what she saw (i.e. saw the husband arrive with the bag of loot). Will that be covered by confidential marital communication? There was no effort to hide it from the wife. It should not be covered because it is not a communication but some American courts (just FYI) apply the privilege even to acts which otherwise would not have been done by the other in the presence of the other spouse were it not for the marital trust. Rulings are conflicting with respect to application of the privilege to acts otherwise not have performed by the spouse in the presence of the other were it not for the presence of trust between them. B. Attorney-Client Privilege Rule 130, Section 24 (b). An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or his advice given thereon in the course of OR with a view to professional employment; nor can an attorney s secretary, stenographer or clerk be examined without the consent of the client AND his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity. McCormick: y This privilege dates back to Ancient Roman civilization. y Justifications for the lawyer s exemption from disclosing his client s secrets: 1. The law is complex and in order for citizens to comply with it in the management of their affairs and the settlement of their disputes they require the assistance of expert lawyers. 2. Lawyers are unable to discharge this function without the fullest possible knowledge of facts of the client s situation. 3. The client cannot be expected to place the lawyer in full possession of the facts without the assurance that the lawyer cannot be compelled, over the client s objection, to reveal the confidences in court. Theoretical considerations y Jeremy Bentham: The privilege is not needed by the innocent party with a righteous cause or defense, and that the guilty should not be given its aid in concerting a false one. y Wigmore: Although he subscribes to this view, he acknowledged that its benefits are all indirect and speculative; its obstruction is plain

y y
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 16 of 27
and concrete. Cartesian postulate: privilege effects some unknown and unknowable marginal alteration in client behavior. To the extent that the evidentiary privilege, then, is integrally related to an entire code of professional conduct, it is futile to envision drastic curtailment of the privilege without substantial modification of the underlying ethical system to which the privilege is merely ancillary.
Regalado: y REQUISITES FOR THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO APPLY: 1. Existence of attorney-client relation Applicable even to counsel de officio 2. Privilege is invoke with respect to a confidential communication between them in the course of professional employment Preliminary communications made for the purpose of creating Rule also allows with a view to professional employment 3. The client has not given consent to the attorney s testimony thereon 4. The purpose must be lawful y Communications covered by the privilege: o Verbal statements o Documents or papers entrusted to attorney o Facts learned by the attorney through the act or agency of his client y Not applicable to communications which are: o Intended to be made public o Intended to be communicated to others o Intended for an un lawful purpose o Received from third persons not acting in behalf OR as agents of the client o Made in the presence of third parties who are strangers to the attorney-client relationship y Period to be considered: that date when the privileged communication was made by the client to the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past OR with respect to a crime intended to be committed in the future Uy Chico v. Union Life (1915; Trent, J.) RAV says:
- We noted that what s covered by the privilege is confidential , what does confidential mean? It means not intended to be disclosed to other persons. - Privilege was not applicable here because it was intended to be disclosed. Uy Chico authorized his attorney to effect a compromise agreement on the insurance policies with the administrator of his father s estate. However, he later on sought to recover the face value of the policies. He consented to his attorney s testimony but on appeal, the attorney wanted to withdraw the waiver on the theory that it was privileged. ISSUE: Was the subject of attorney s testimony on the compromise agreement on policies privileged? NO. If the attorney has been authorized to transact with third persons on behalf of the client, the instruction by the client is no longer privileged communication. - The evidence concerns dealings of the plaintiff's attorney with a third person - Purpose of atty-client privilege: Advising the clients of his rd rights, i.e. communications not intended for information of 3 persons or to be acted upon by them. - A communication made by a client to his attorney for the express purpose of its being communicated to a third person is essentially inconsistent with the confidential relation. - Not covered by the privileged: When the attorney has faithfully carried out his instructions by delivering the communication to the third person for whom it was intended and the latter acts upon it. - Such a communication, after reaching the party for whom it was intended at least, is a communication between the client rd and a 3 person, and that the attorney simply occupies the role of intermediary/agent. - GENERAL RULE: A lawyer may NOT invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client. - RATIO FOR GENERAL RULE: 1. Court has a right to know that the client whose privileged information is sought to be protected is flesh and blood. 2. Privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client relationship has been established. The attorney-client privilege does not attach until there is a client 3. Privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the relationship. 4. Right to confrontation: Due process considerations require that the opposing party should know his -adversary. - EXCEPTIONS: 1. Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the client s name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer s advice. 2. Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his identity is privileged. 3. Where the government s lawyers have no case against an attorney s client unless, by revealing the client s name, the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime, the client s name is privileged. 4. Content of any client communication 5. Identity of the client REQUISITES:
Regala v. Sandiganbayan (1996; Kapunan, J.) RAV says:

- Notice that hindi ako sinali sa dispositive. Kaya hanggang ngayon, may kaso pa rin ako! - Read Puno s dissent. That s the correct one. The case should have been remanded and then we would have to prove that we come under the exceptions. - Inuna namin si Regala kasi pag si Angara ang nauna, it will draw much attention.
ACCRA lawyers acted as nominees-stockholders of corporations involved in the sequestration proceedings (because the money involved were from the coco levy fund). Roco was excluded as defendant because he promised to reveal identity (which he didn t) so ACCRA lawyers wanted the same treatment. However, PCGG laid down conditions for the ACCRA lawyers exclusion in the case i.e. to divulge their client s identity. SB finally denied their exclusion. ISSUE: WON the client s identity (allegedly Danding) and the deeds of assignment are privileged? YES. The case at bar falls under at least two exceptions: 1. Disclosure of the alleged client's name would lead to establish said client's connection with the very fact in issue of the case, which is privileged information, because the privilege, as stated earlier, protects the subject matter or the substance (without which there would be no attorney-client relationship). 2. Revelation of the client's name would obviously provide the necessary link for the prosecution to build its case, where none otherwise exists. Where the communicated information, which clearly falls within the privilege, would suggest possible criminal activity but there would be not much in the information known to the prosecution which would sustain a charge EXCEPT that
Barton v. Leyte Asphalt & Mineral Oil Co. (1924; Street, J.) RAV says:
- Notice that
Orient Insurance v. Revilla (1930; Street, J.)
Sem, AY1011] KARICHI E. SANTOS up law Page 17 of 27 revealing the name of the client would open up other privileged - nature of the attorney-client relationship has been previously information which would substantiate the prosecution s disclosed suspicions, then the client s identity is so inextricably linked to - identity is intended to be confidential the subject matter itself that it falls within the protection Why? Revelation would otherwise result in disclosure of the Compelling disclosure of the client's name in circumstances entire transaction. such as the one which exists in the case at bench amounts to sanctioning fishing expeditions by lazy prosecutors. Barton was sales agent for bituminous limestones mined from - The trial judge s ruling was erroneous; for even supposing that Lucio Property. In disproving Barton s claim for damages, the letter was within the privilege which protects defendant presented Exhibit 14 which consists of a carbon copy communications between attorney and client, this privilege was lost when the letter came to the hands of the adverse of a letter dated June 13, 1921, written by Barton to his attorney, Frank B. Ingersoll, and in which he states, among party. other things, that his profit from the San Francisco contract - It makes no difference how the adversary acquired possession. would have been at the rate of 85 cents (gold) per ton. The law protects the client from the effect of disclosures made Authenticity of the letter was admitted, and when it was by him to his attorney in the confidence of the legal relation, offered in evidence by the attorney for the defendant the but when such a document, containing admissions of the client, counsel for the plaintiff announced that he had no objection to comes to the hand of a third party, and reaches the adversary, the introduction of this carbon copy in evidence IF they would it is admissible in evidence. - Citing Wigmore: The law provides subjective freedom for the explain where this copy was secured. client by assuring him of exemption from its processes of Attorney for the defendant: Informed the court that he disclosure against himself or the attorney or their agents of received the letter from the former attorneys of the defendant communication. This much, but not a whit more, is necessary without explanation of the manner in which the document had for the maintenance of the privilege. Since the means of come into their possession. preserving secrecy of communication are entirely in the client's Attorney for the plaintiff: "We hereby give notice at this time hands, and since the privilege is a derogation from the general that unless such an explanation is made, explaining fully how testimonial duty and should be strictly construed, it would be this carbon copy came into the possession of the defendant improper to extend its prohibition to third persons who obtain company, or any one representing it, we propose to object to knowledge of the communications. One who overhears the its admission on the ground that it is a confidential communication, whether with or without the client's communication between client and lawyer." knowledge, is not within the protection of the privilege. The No further information was then given by the attorney for the same rule ought to apply to one who surreptitiously reads or defendant as to the manner in which the letter had come to obtains possession of a document in original or copy. his hands. - When papers are offered in evidence a court will take no Trial judge excluded the document, on the ground that it was a notice of how they were obtained, whether legally or illegally, privileged communication between client and attorney. properly or improperly; nor will it form a collateral issue to try that question - Insurance company refused to pay the proceeds because of the insured Teal Motor s incediarism and fraud. The insurance contract provides that insured must appeal/file a case within three months after notice of rejection otherwise, claim would be forfeited. - Insurance co s representative requested Teal Motors to defer judicial action due to possibilities of extrajudicial compromise.
st
Hickman v. Taylor (1947) Upjohn Company v. U.S. (1981) In re Grand Jury Investigation (1983) U.S. v. McPartlin (1979) U.S. v. Gordon-Nikkar (1975) U.S. v. Nobles (1975) People v. Sandiganbayan (1997)
Every communication between an attorney and a client for a criminal purpose is a conspiracy OR an attempt at a conspiracy which is not only lawful to divulge but must promptly be disclosed.
RAV says: y Assume you re already a lawyer: You cannot agree on the fees because you were charging too much so prospective client decides not to get your services. Will the privilege apply? Yes of course. y Situation: A cousin of yours thought you re already a lawyer, but at the time you were consulted, you were just a law student. He started gorging out his problems and disclosed all confidential information. Yes! In the states that s the ruling. Any reasonable basis, yes. y Can you explain to us what will happen if we don t have this privilege? Lawyer may be called to the stand to testify against me and I will have to get a new lawyer. I ll tell him everything again and then you call him again. That s a procedural nightmare without this privilege. You should give him the Miranda warning.

y y y
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 18 of 27
What is the rationale for this privilege? Promote candor between the client and the lawyer. What was Bentham s criticism? It s only for the guilty. It will apply on during his time when there were only few laws. Does this privilege really suppress the truth? The facts are not privileged. Illustration: You re the lawyer, I aaaah I was a pedestrian but I aah when I cross the street, it was against the red light. I was injured. We decided to sue the driver. So. I actually told you that when I cross the street, it was against the red light. That was the communication I gave you. What is covered by the privilege here? Lawyer cannot be compelled to tell what I told her. But can the other aaah counsel for the opposing party call me to the stand, whether at the time I crossed the street, the light was red. This does not cover the underlying facts. You can always ask client as to what really happened, but not what he told his lawyer. He can lie but that s another matter. Situation: Suppose you shot somebody but before end of our consultation I told you, this is the gun I used in the SOP, why don t you keep this for me? What is your obligation? Are you duty bound to surrender it to the authorities or is it covered by the privilege? 1. Are you duty bound? Yes, that s the majority view. 2. If you turn over the gun, should you disclose the source? Still not settled. 3. So you should never accept instruments of the crime from your client otherwise you are duty-bound to surrender it to authorities. Situation: During my consultation, I killed somebody and buried him somewhere and I tell you the location. Is that covered by privilege, can you be compelled to disclose? Yes, covered by the privilege. Sensational US case: Serial killer s 2 lawyers went to the site and saw the body of the victim. Parents went to the lawyers to plead where the body was buried. Sought to be disbarred because they refused to disclose. Is this privileged? What do you think was the verdict? They were absolved. It was covered, because they did not touch the body. You re not supposed to touch anything. What about pre-existing documents ? E.g. I m being charged with tax evasion. So I turn over to you pre-existing documents (not ones I specially prepare for you). Not covered by the privileged, turning them over to the lawyer will not make them privileged. Otherwise, if you want to keep it out of the reach of the law, you simply turn it over to your lawyers. Identity of the client: Is that covered by the client? 1. GENERAL RULE: Fact of engagement AND identity is not covered. Lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the identity of his client. 2. EXCEPTIONS: As held in the case of Regala, Vinluan etc. a. If there is a probability that disclosure of the identity would implicate the client in the very matter for which legal advice was sought in the first place b. The disclosure would open the client to civil liability c. Where the identity is intended to be confidential C. Physician-Patient Privilege
Rule 130, Section 24 (c). Any person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics, cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him OR any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, which such information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity AND which would blacken the reputation of the patient. Regalado: y Not necessary that the physician-patient privilege relationship was treated through the voluntary act of the patient. Thus, the treatment may have been given at the behest of another, the patient being in extremis. y REQUISITES FOR THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE TO APPLY: 1. Physician is authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics 2. Information was acquired or the advice or treatment was given by him in his professional capacity for the purpose of treating and curing the patient 3. The information, advice or treatment, if revealed, would blacken the reputation of the patient 4. The privileged is invoked in a CIVIL case, whether the patient is a party or not y Privilege not applicable when: o Communication was not given in confidence o Communication is irrelevant to the professional employment o Communication was made for an unlawful purpose i.e. intended for the commission or concealment of a crime o Information was intended to be made public o Waiver of the privilege either by the provisions of contract or law Rule 28 of RoC where results of physical and mental examination of a person, when ordered by the court are intended to be made public, hence can be divulged in that proceeding and cannot be objected to on the ground of privilege; Rule 28, Sec. 4: Party examined obtains a report on the said examination or takes the deposition of the examiner Results of autopsies or post-mortem examinations are generally intended to be divulged in court, aside from the fact that the doctor s services were not for purposes of medical treatment Stipulations in life insurance policies Lim v. Court of Appeals (1992)

Krohn v. Court of Appeals (1994) D. State Secrets
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 19 of 27
Rule 130, Section 24 (e). A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards as to communications made to him in official confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. U.S. v. Nixon (1974) Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board (1986) Neri v Senate E. Parental and Filial Privilege Rule 130, Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children, or other direct descendants. Art. 215, Family Code. Descendant may be compelled to testify against his parents and grandparents, if such testimony is indispensable in prosecuting a crime against the descendant OR by one parent against the other. Regalado: y People v. Publico (1972) F. Newsman's Privilege R.A. 53, as amended by R.A. 1477. Heading. Text here. Matter of Farber (A.B.) (1978) G. Priest-Penitent Privilege Rule 130, Section 24 (d). A priest or minister cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs.
Where no public interest would be prejudiced, the rule on State secrets does not apply.
IX.
Admissions and Confessions

A. Admissions
Rule 130, Section 26. Admissions of a party. The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. Regalado: y ADMISSION is any statement of fact made by a party against his interest OR unfavorable to the conclusion for which he contends or is consistent with the facts alleged by him. y Distinguish between admission and confession ADMISSION CONFESSION Statement of a fact which does not involve an acknowledgment of Involves acknowledgment of guilt or liability guilt or liability Express OR tacit Express Made by third person; admissible against a party Can only be made by the party himself; in some cases admissible against his co-accused
y
REQUISITES FOR AN ADMISSION TO BE ADMISSIBLE: 1. Involve matters of fact, not of law
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 20 of 27
y y y y
y y
2. Categorical and definite 3. Knowingly and voluntarily made 4. Adverse to the admitter s interest, otherwise it would be self-serving and inadmissible. Form? verbal or written Judicial admission is one made in connection with a judicial proceeding in which it is offered (Rule 129, Sec. 4) Extrajudicial admission is any other admission Admission by conduct e.g. o flight from justice circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt o destruction of documentary evidence OR eloignment of witnesses Not an admission by conduct act of repairing a machine, bridge or other facility after an injury Distinguish between admissions against interest and declarations against interest ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST Not necessary; although it goes to the weight (greatly enhance its Made against proprietary or pecuniary interest of the party probative weight) Made by the party himself and is a primary evidence and Made by a person who is either deceased OR unable to testify competent though he be present in court and ready to testify Made any time Made ante litem motam
Self-serving declaration y Is one which has been made extrajudicially by the party to favor his interest y Not admissible in evidence y Refers to the extrajudicial statement of a party which is being urged for admission in court y Does not include his testimony as witness in court y No application to a court declaration y Where the statement was not made in anticipation of a future litigation, the same cannot be considered self-serving Rule 130, Section 32. Admission by silence. An act or declaration [1] made in the presence AND [2] within the hearing OR observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, AND when proper or possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him. Regalado: y REQUISITES FOR ADOPTIVE ADMISSION TO APPLY: 1. He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other person 2. He must have had the opportunity to deny 3. He must have understood the statement 4. He must have an interest to object, such that he would naturally have done so if the statement was not true 5. The facts were within his knowledge 6. The fact is admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is material to the issue (Pp v Paragsa) y Applicable when: o Person was surprised in the act o Even if he is already in the custody of the police o Voluntary participation in the reenactment of the crime conducted by the police is considered a tacit admission of complicity o Adverse statements in writing if the party was carrying on a mutual correspondence with the declarant y Not applicable if: o Statements adverse to the party were made in the course of an official investigated o Pointed out in the course of a custodial investigation and was neither asked to reply nor comment on such imputations (Pp v Alegre) o Party had a justifiable reason to remain silent e.g. acting on the advice of counsel, otherwise, right to silence will be illusory o Viacrucis v. CA (1972) Keller & Co. v. COB (1986) People v. Paragsa (1978) People v. Alegre (1979) Griffin v. California (1965) B. Compromises
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 21 of 27
Rule 130, Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. In CIVIL cases, an offer of compromise is NOT an admission of any liability AND is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. In CRIMINAL cases, EXCEPT [1] those involving quasi-offense (criminal negligence) AND [2] those allowed by law to be compromise, an offer of compromise may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. A plea of guilty later withdrawn OR an unaccepted offer of plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. An offer to pay or payment of medical, hospital and other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of any civil or criminal liability for the injury. In rape cases; instances showing implied admission of guilt y An offer to compromise for a monetary consideration, and not to marry the victim y The attempt of the parents of the accused to settle the case with the complainant y An offer of marriage by the accused, during the investigation of the rape case Veradero v. Insular Lumber (1924) RAV says:
Liability was admitted, only the amount was in issue An offer of compromise in a CIVIL case is not a tacit admission of liability and cannot be proved over the objection of the offeror, UNLESS such offer is clearly not only to buy peace but amounts to an admission of liability, the offered compromise being directed only to the amount to be paid.
U.S. v. Torres (1916) People v. Godoy (1995) People v. De Guzman (1996) People v. Yparriguirre (1997) RAV says:
How about the fact that civil action is impliedly instituted and the offer of compromise only was only with respect to the civil aspect, pwede bang argument yun? Nowadays, judges very tolerant on this.
Compromise was not admitted as evidence. He was not aware of the compromise offered by his mother. He was part of the compromise scheme
Compromise was performed before an information was filed. It does not make any difference.
People v. Maqui (1914)
The accused may be permitted to prove that such offer was not made under consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid the risks of criminal action against him.
C. Res Inter Alios Acta Rule 130, Section 28. Admissions by third party. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission by another, EXCEPT as hereinafter provided. Regalado: y Refers to the first branch of the rule res inter alios acta nocere non debet RAV says: y RATIONALE: Unjust and unfair for a person to be bound by the acts of stranger, unless that someone has been authorized by you. SC laid down the rationale for this rule in Pp v Raquel (RAV read a paragraph from the decision) People v. Alegre (1979) People v. Raquel (1996)
When no independent evidence is available EJC of accused cannot be used as against his co-accused as the res inter alios rule applies to both extrajudicial admissions and confessions. Must be repeated in open court Exceptions to the rule that it may not be admitted (statement of another cannot prejudice another): Interlocking confessions accused voluntarily and
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 22 of 27
independently give confessions and these confessions jive with one another and are corroborated by other evidence
D. Exceptions to the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule 1. Partner's/Agent's Admissions Rule 130, Section 29. Admissions by a co-partner OR agent. The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party, within the scope of his authority AND during the existence of the partnership/agency may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership/agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor or other persons jointly interested with the party. Regalado: y REQUISITES FOR THE EXCEPTION TO APPLY: 1. Partnership/agency/joint interest as established by an independent evidence 2. Act/declaration is within the scope of the partnership/agency/joint interest 3. Such act/declaration must have been made during the existence of the partnership/agency/joint interest y Statements made AFTER a partnership has been dissolved do not fall within this exception, BUT where the admissions are made in connection with the winding up of the partnership affairs, said admissions are still admissible as the partner is acting as an agent of his co-partners in said winding up. y Admissions by counsel are admissible against the client as the former acts in representation and agent of the client, subject to the limitation that the same should not amount to [1] compromise OR [2] confession of judgment. y JOINT DEBTOR does not refer to mere community of interest but should be understood according to its meaning in the common law system which the provision was taken, i.e. in solidum and not mancomunada. Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Center (Year)
ISSUE: WON a party can be bound by the admission of an agent who has no personal knowledge of the fact? RAV says: This case is authority on the point that oral admission of an agent to be admissible against a party, no requirement that there should be personal knowledge on the part of the agent. It is still binding on the other party.
RAV says: y RATIONALE according to McCormick: There are reasons to believe that the agent s statements during and about the agency have some special likelihood or liability. The statements offered against employer are likely y Situation: Vehicular collision involving company driver. Right after the accident he said I m sorry, I m in a business errand for my company. Is that admission that he was on company business and not just a joyride? Is it admissible against the company that this driver during the collision was driving on company business when the accident happened? PROVIDED that it is shown by evidence other than the admission. 2. Co-conspirator's Statements Rule 130, Section 30. Admission by conspirators. The act or declaration of a conspirator, relating to the conspiracy AND during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator, after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. Regalado: y Only to extrajudicial acts or statements AND not to testimony given on the witness stand at the trial where the party adversely affected thereby has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant (Pp v Serrano). y REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY 1. Such conspiracy is shown is by independent evidence 2. Admission was made during the existence of conspiracy How to know the existence of conspiracy? Infer from d. Acts of the accused e. Confessions of the accused f. Prima facie proof thereof When no independent evidence is available EJC of accused cannot be used as against his co-accused as the res inter alios rule applies to both extrajudicial admissions and confessions. (Pp v Alegre) Extrajudicial admissions made by a conspirator after the conspiracy had terminated and even before trial are also NOT admissible against the co-conspirator, EXCEPT: a. Made in the presence of the latter who expressly or impliedly agreed therein, as in the latter case, would be a tacit admission under Sec. 32. (adoptive admission) b. Where the facts in said admission are confirmed in the individual extrajudicial confessions made by the coconspirators after their apprehension (interlocking confessions) c. As a circumstance to determine the credibility of a witness d. As a circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the latter s participation in the offense 3. Admission relates to the conspiracy itself

y
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 23 of 27
In order that the extrajudicial statements of a co-accused may be taken into consideration in judging the testimony of a witness, it is necessary that the statement are made by several accused, the same are in all material respects identical and there could have been no collusion among said co-accused in making such statements.
If statement was made after arrest, not admissible
People v. Cabrera (1974) People v. Yatco (1955)
RAV says: There s something unusual in this case, i.e. conduct

of the judge. Was there an objection by the counsel OR was it motu proprio exclusion of the evidence? I invite your attention to the ruling of the SC: objection based on hearsay BUT excluded it based on other grounds. Is that proper conduct on the part of the judge? As I ve said, if you object but invoke wrong grounds, although evidence is inadmissible based on other grounds, you cannot appeal. Not only must it be timely objection but also on the proper grounds. Pero daming ganung judges mas magaling pa sayo. If that happens, wag kang matakot to put on record your objection to the CONDUCT of the judge. But the Court, instead of ruling on this objection, put up its own objection to the confessions that it could not be admitted to prove conspiracy between Consunji and Panganiban without prior evidence of such conspiracy by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, circumstances, etc. and completely excluded the confessions on that ground. By so doing, the Court overlooked that the right to object is a mere privilege which the parties may waive; and if the ground for objection is known and not reasonably made, the objection is deemed waived and the Court has no power, on its own motion, to disregard the evidence.
EJ admissions made by a conspirator after the conspiracy had terminated and even before trial are also not admissible against the co-conspirator. Judicial confession made by the accused was admissible against him but not against co-accused
People v. Chaw Yaw Shun (1968) People v. Serrano (1959)
RAV says: Sec. 30 apply only to extrajudicial statements/admissions/proceedings, NOT testimony on the witness stand. Why? Because the witness is subject to crossexamination.
Only to extrajudicial acts or statements AND not to testimony given on the witness stand at the trial where the party adversely affected thereby has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
RAV says: y In the US, Federal Rule uses in furtherance of the conspiracy In the revised rules, we have decided to adopt this phrase. The SC has been using this anyway. y RATIONALE: They re supposed to know the members of the conspiracy. They are considered partners in crime It s difficult to prove conspiracy. y What if the declaration was made after the arrest? Admissible or not? y Construction of during the conspiracy In the US, unless there is also the conspiracy to conceal but not accepted here 3. Admission by Privies Rule 130, Section 31. Admission by privies. When one derives title to property from another, the acts, declarations or omissions of the latter, while holding title, in relation to property, is evidence against the former. Regalado: y REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY 1. There must be a relation of privity between the party and the declarant 2. The admission was made by the declarant, as predecessor-in-interest, while holding the title to the property 3. The admission is in relation to said property Alpuerto v. Pastor (1918) City of Manila v. Del Rosario (1905) E. Confessions 1. Art. III, Section 17, 1987 Constitution. Heading. Text here.
RAV says: Rule applies not only to real property but also other personal properties The privity in estate may have arisen by succession, by acts mortis cause or by acts inter vivos.
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 24 of 27
Rule 130, Section 33. Confession. The declaration of a party acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged OR of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him. Rule 115 (e). Heading. Text here. Regalado: y CONFESSION is a categorical acknowledgment of guilty made by an accused in a criminal case, WITHOUT any exculpatory statement or explanation. y If the accused admits having committed the act in question but alleges a justification therefor, the same is merely an admission. (US v Tolosa) y There can also be a confession of judgment in a civil case where the party expressly admits his liability. y Form of confession? Oral OR in writing. If in writing, it need not be under oath. y The fact that the extrajudicial confession was made while the accused was under arrest does not render it admissible where the same was made and admitted prior to the 1973 Constitution. y JUDICIAL CONFESSION one made before the court in which the case is pending AND in the course of legal proceedings therein AND by itself, can sustain a conviction even in capital offenses. y EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION one made in any other place or occasion AND cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti y REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY 1. Confession must involve an express and categorical acknowledgment of guilt 2. Facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense 3. The confession must have been given voluntarily 4. The confession must have been intelligently made, the accused realizing the importance or legal significance of his act 5. There must have been no violation of Art. III of 1987 Constitution y Confessions are presumed to be voluntary and the onus is on the defense to prove that it was involuntary for having been obtained by violence, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or leniency y E.g. of indicia of voluntariness of a confession: o Contains details which the police could not have supplied or invented o Contains details which could have been known only to the accused o Contains statements which are exculpatory in nature o Contains corrections made by the accused in his handwriting OR with his initials and which corrected facts are best known to the accused o Accused is sufficiently educated and aware of the consequences of his acts o It was made in the presence of impartial witness with the accused acting normally on that occasion o There is lack of motive on the part of the investigators to extract a confession, with improbabilities and inconsistencies in the attempt of the accused to repudiate his confession o Accused questioned the voluntariness of the confession only for the first time at the trial of the case o Contents of the confession were affirmed by the accused in his voluntary participation in the re-enactment of the crime, as shown by his silent acquiescence o Facts contained in the confession were confirmed by other subsequent facts o After his confession, the accused was subjected to physical examination AND there were no signs of maltreatment OR the accused never complained thereof, BUT NOT where he failed to complain to the judge on a reasonable apprehension of further maltreatment as he was still in the custody of his torturers y BASIS OF INADMISSIBILITY OF INVOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS: unreliable OR on the gourds of humanitarian considerations of their being violative of the constitutional right against self-incrimination y Confession made under the influence of threat or promise or reward is inadmissible (Pp v Alto) y Entire confession should be admitted in evidence, UNLESS the court, in appreciating the same, rejects some portions as are incredible (US v Mercado) y GENERAL RULE: EJC of an accused is binding only upon himself and is not admissible against his co-accused. y EXCEPTION: a. ADOPTIVE ADMISSION If the latter acquiesced in OR adopted said confession by not questioning its truthfulness, as where it was made in his presence and he did not remonstrate against being implicated therein. b. INTERLOCKING CONFESSIONS If the accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical confessions without conclusion, which confessions are corroborated by other evidence AND without contradiction by the co-accused who was present c. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after being apprised of such confession d. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which was confessed by one of the accused and said confession is used only as corroborating evidence e. Where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation by the co-conspirator f. Where the confessant testified for his co-defendant g. Where the co-conspirator s extrajudicial confession is corroborated by other evidence of record
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 25 of 27
RAV says: y What if he presents an exculpatory defense? NOT. It should be an acknowledgement of the crime. 2. Cases:
Written confession but belated arrival of the CLAO lawyer the following day. What happened from the time he was captured? RAV says: In the last bar, there was a question with the same facts The operative act: no longer a general inquiry but has began to focus on a particular suspect
People v. Compil (1995) People v. Wong Chuen Ming (1996) People v. Alegre (1979) People v. Yip Wai Ming (1996) People v. Maqueda (1995) Parker v. Randolph (1979)
Happened in Mt. Province
Bruton case not applicable because of interlocking confessions separate confessions which jive with one another; th 6 amendment right to confrontation
Sinumpaang salaysay inadmissible; Confession made to Salvosa admissible; Bill of Rights applies only to police officers and that confessions to private individuals are admissible. Even if it is voluntary/told the truth, but if there is no compliance with constitutional provisions on giving of Miranda Warnings, provisions of RA 7438, the confession will not be admissible and therefore void.
RAV says: y As you will learn later, the doctrine of presumption that regular duties have been performed does not apply to cases of custodial investigation. You should prove that the police officer has performed his duties. Ang mga pulis natin mahuhusay, sabi nga nung Assistant Director of NBI, Isa lang alam nilang imbestigasyon, bugbog. Pag nagconfess na, tapos na. Kaya pagdating sa court, hindi naadmit yung confession kaya nadismiss yung kaso tapos sasabihin nalagyan yung judge. y Dito wala yung CSI CSI nay an. We still use the paraffin test which the SC has already held unreliable. Kasi nga we can t afford this neutron activation analysis worth $300,000. Di natin kayang bilhin. Parafiin test pa rin pero pagdating sa court, hindi naman admissible.
X.
Conduct and Character As Evidence

A.
Rule 130, Section 34. Similar acts as evidence. Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is NOT ADMISSIBLE to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time; BUT it may be received to prove a [a] specific intent or knowledge [b] identity [c] plan, system, scheme [d] habit, [e] custom or usage and the like Regalado: y The second branch of the rule of res inter alios acta y Applies to both CIVIL and CRIMINAL cases y Strictly enforced where it is applicable. y Exceptions are provided in the text. y Evidence of another crime is admissible where it has the tendency to identify the accused or show his presence at the scene of the crime (Pp v Irang) y Not admissible when evidence only seeks to prove that accused committed another crime wholly independent of that for which he is on trial (Pp v Asinas) y Previous acts of negligence, e.g. selling barium chlorate instead of potassium chlorate, is admissible to show knowledge or intent. (US v Pineda) Rule 130, Section 35. Unaccepted offer. An offer in writing to [1] pay a particular sum of money OR to [2] deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause EQUIVALENT to the actual production and tender of the money, instrument or property. Regalado: y Merely an evidentiary complement to the rule on tender of payment (A1256,CC) by providing that the said offer of payment must be made in writing. y McLaughlin v CA: The tender must be followed by the consignation of the amount in court in order to produce the effect of valid

payment.
st
Sem, AY1011]
Page 26 of 27
Rule 130, Section 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions. (a) In criminal cases (1) The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. (2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. (3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved IF it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. (b) In civil cases: Evidence of the moral character of a party is admissible ONLY when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. (c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14. Rule 132, Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness. Evidence of the good character of a witness is NOT ADMISSIBLE until such character has been impeached.
ACCUSED (in crim case) Who? Defense/Accused When? May prove ANYTIME Who? Prosecution can prove When? Only when accused tried to prove his GMC, therefore, doable only in REBUTTAL Pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged e.g. estafa/perjury/false testimony moral trait for honesty or probity OFFENDED PARTY (in crim case) Who? May be proved by EITHER PARTY When? ANYTIME EITHER PARTY (civil case) GENERAL RULE: Cannot be proved EXCEPTION: pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case Issue involved must be character e.g. civil actions for damages arising from the offenses of libel, slander or seduction. WITNESS (criminal or civil) Only when the character of the witness has been impeached Who? May be proved by EITHER PARTY When? ANY TIME Must refer to general reputation for truth, honesty, integrity affecting his credibility
Good moral character Bad moral character
Nature or Substance of character evidences
Evidence tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged. e.g. rape victim s chastity; homicide quarrelsome or trouble-seeking character BUT EXCEPTION if qualified or attended with aggravating circumstances [Pp v Soliman ]
Regalado: y Prosecution cannot initially attack the character of the accused and can only do so if the accused opens that issue by introducing evidence of his GMC when he makes his defense y RATIONALE: Avoid unfair prejudice to the accused who might otherwise be convicted not because he is guilty of the charge but because he is a person of bad character. McCormick: y Character of a witness for truthfulness or mendacity is relevant circumstantial evidence on the question of the truth of particular testimony of the witness. y Character - Misconduct for which there has been no criminal conviction: o Cross examination upon acts of misconduct which show bad moral character should be distinguished from the showing of conduct [1] which indicates partiality, [2] as an admission AND [3] for impeachment by contradiction: RAV says:
y y Why is character evidence not admissible? It is circumstantial evidence that a person acted in conformity with his character RATIONALE OF: o Character evidence: Avoid unfair prejudice o Similar acts: Introduce evidence of so many past acts; give rise to so many collateral issues. Confuse the issues As to PROBATIVE VALUE: People change! Nagpakabait na ngayon. Daming convicts na pag nasa preso, nagiging pastor pa. People don t always act in conformity with character. When you re charged with a crime, you re supposed to base it on to the case link. Unless you take the stand, kahit pa you had a prior criminal conviction and as you will learn later, it is a ground for impeachment of the witness. But with respect to the accused, if he doesn t take the stand, it cannot be brought up. That s why in many cases where accused has prior criminal record, he opts not to take the stand. During the cross-examination, prosecution can bring out the fact of prior criminal conviction.
y y
EXCEPTIONS IN A CRIMINAL CASE y Rationale: Give all the chances to the accused to prove his innocence, based on the saying that it s better for 10 guilty men to go scot-free than to convict one innocent man. y But then, why do we allow prosecution to introduce BMC in rebuttal, because the accused opens the door. He s put his character in issue. y Please take note that the prosecutor can only do it on rebuttal. Wait for the accused to initiate. Good before bad. y What does PERTINENT MORAL TRAIT INVOLVED IN THE OFFENSE CHARGED mean? Give an example. Classmate gives an example: priest who is charged of rape Pero bakit si Carcar, honest and religious naman pero manyak. Hindi interested sa girls? Sige nga. Sir: In a crime of homicide: peaceful or non-violent character. Yung honest at truthful, hindi pertinent. y You think it is a defense in RAPE that the girl is a flirt? What are the elements of the crime of seduction? Think of another example na
EVIDENCE - Prof. R. A. Vinluan | AY 2010-2011

madali. Homicide! Violent character of the victim to bolster self-defense
Page 27 of 27
EXCEPTIONS IN A CIVIL CASE y Very limited: Only when pertinent to the issue in the case y In libel: truth is a defense so you can prove the BMC of the complainant y Impeach the witness when: general reputation for truth, honest and integrity is bad OR prior conviction y Therefore, it s only when the character is impeached that the GMC may be proved. E.g. prior conviction was 25 years ago. You can prove that the witness is already living an exemplary life. y If you want to introduce character evidence, you can do it through: o Reputation o Or present a witness who will give his opinion that the accused is an honest person OR with a non-violent character o Specific acts (honesty e.g. one time he came across a bag with $10M and he returned it) y In our jurisdiction, which evidence is admissible among the three? (In Babiera case) only reputation. You cannot introduce evidence of specific acts as what was done in Pp v Babiera. But under the Federal Rules, just FYI, opinion evidence is also allowed. Why? Because actually, according to the commentators, REPUTATION is opinion evidence in disguise. So why not allow opinion? y SITUATION: You have a witness on stand and you want to prove the good character of the accused? Pinakasimple yan. What do you ask? o Do you know the accused? o How long? (duration) o Why do you know him? (relationship) o Do you know him to be quarrelsome/honest/truthful? y In the proposed revised rules which we have signed last Friday, we will allow opinion evidence! Ganun rin naman yun diba! y If you are the opposing counsel: Reputation evidence, can you ask questions relating to particular/specific acts? e.g. Miss Roldan, you testified that he has this reputation in your neighborhood, have you heard that 3 months ago, he was arrested for estafa? Have you heard that last year? is this allowed during cross-examination? y IN THE US: What if the witness answers: No I haven t heard. Can you introduce evidence that the accused was convicted beofre? NO. You will have to take the answer of witness as it is. But your questions must have good faith basis for asking the questions. Hindi ka pwedeng mag-imbento! y If the witness answers yes? What is the effect of that? His testimony is medyo questionable. Not worthy of credence. How could he say that there is a very good reputation. B. U.S. v. Pineda (1918) People v. Irang (1937) People v. Soliman (1957) People v. Babiera (1928) U.S. v. Mercado (1913) Cases:
RAV says: It comes under exception i.e. knowledge or intent Previous acts of negligence, i.e. selling barium chlorate instead of potassium chlorate, is ADMISSIBLE to show knowledge or intent. Evidence of another crime is ADMISSIBLE where it has the tendency to identify the accused or show his presence at the scene of the crime. Proof of the bad character of the victim in a murder case is NOT ADMISSIBLE if the crime was committed through treachery or premeditation.
RAV says: Question as to the identity of the accused: pockmarks was identified by the surviving victim Prove his presence in the vicinity

EVIDENCE Midterms - Vinluan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVIDENCE Midterms - Vinluan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A.

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

People v. Turco (2000) RAV says:

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

Admissibility consists of... Competence

Not excluded by rules or by law

Bautista v. Aperece (1995) Lopez v. Heesen (1961) State v. Ball (1960)

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

What Need Not Be Proved

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

Baguio v. Vda. de Jalagat (1971)

Real and Demonstrative Evidence

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

Parole Evidence Rule

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

Wife filed case against husband who falsified her signature in a

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf

VIII. Privileged Communications

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

People v. Carlos (1925)

Marital disqualification vs. Marital privilege AS TO

Anything and everything!

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

Regala v. Sandiganbayan (1996; Kapunan, J.) RAV says:

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

Orient Insurance v. Revilla (1930; Street, J.)

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

Admissions and Confessions

REQUISITES FOR AN ADMISSION TO BE ADMISSIBLE: 1. Involve matters of fact, not of law

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

People v. Maqui (1914)

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS Prof. R. A. Vinluan [1

KARICHI E. SANTOS up law

People v. Cabrera (1974) People v. Yatco (1955)