governing law on that particular proceeding specifically adopts the rules of evidence in the Rules of Court.

RULE 128 GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Evidence defined Section 2. Scope PROOF - the result or effect of evidence. When the requisite quantum of evidence of a particular fact has been duly admitted and given weight, the result is called the proof of such fact. FACTUM PROBANDUM - the ultimate fact or the fact sought to be established. - Refers to proposition FACTUM PROBANS - is the evidentiary fact or the fact by which the factum probandum is to be established. - Materials which establish the proposition.

In cases before the Court of Agrarian Relations, the Rules of Court were not applicable even in a suppletory character, except in criminal and expropriation cases, which procedure has been superseded by the provisions of RA 6657.


addressed to the senses of the court and consist of tangible things exhibited or demonstrated in open court, in an ocular inspection, or at place designated by the court for its view or observation of an exhibition, experiment or demonstration. This is referred to as autoptic preference.

supplied by written instruments or derived from conventional symbols, such as letters, by which ideas are represented on material substances

The law of evidence is fundamentally a procedural law. In criminal cases, if the alteration of these rules may validly be made applicable to cases pending at the time of such change, as the parties to an action have no vested right in the rules of evidence. In criminal cases, if the alteration of these rules of evidence would, for instance, permit the reception of a lesser quantum of evidence than what the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict, then the retroactive application of such amendatory law would be unconstitutional for being ex post facto.

3. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE – is that which is
submitted to the court through the testimony or deposition of a witness. RELEVANT, EVIDENCE MATERIAL AND COMPETENT

RELEVANT EVIDENCE – evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove any matter provable in an action. The test is the logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact in issue, whether the former tends to establish the probability or improbability of the latter.

The rules of evidence are specifically applicable only in judicial proceedings. In quasi-judicial proceedings, the rules of evidence shall apply by analogy, or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient except where the

Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
MATERIAL EVIDENCE – evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings. The test is whether the fact it intends to prove is an issue or not. AS to whether a fact is in issue or not is in turn determined by the substantive law, the pleadings, the pre-trial order and by the admissions or confessions on file. Consequently, evidence may be relevant but may be immaterial in the case. COMPETENT EVIDENCE– one that is not excluded by this Rules, a stature or the Constitution. POSITIVE EVIDENCE – when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur. Entitled to a greater weight since the witness represents of his personal knowledge the presence or absence of a fact. NEGATIVE EVIDENCE - when the witness did not see or know of the occurrence of a fact. There is a total disclaimer of persona knowledge, hence without any representation or disavowal that the fact in question could or could not have existed or happened. It is admissible only if it tends to contradict positive evidence of the other side or would tend to exclude the existence of fact sworn to by the other side. What do the rules of evidence determine? All rights and liabilities are dependent upon and arise out of facts. Every judicial proceeding whatever has for its purpose the ascertaining of some right or liability. If the proceeding is Criminal, the object is to ascertain the liability to punishment of the person accused. If the proceeding is Civil, the object is to ascertain some right of property or status, or the right of one party and the liability of other to some form of relief. Two branches of the law of procedure: 1. The law of the pleadings which determines the questions in a dispute between the parties 2. The law of evidence, which determines how the party can convince the court of the existence of facts which according to the provisions of substantive law, would establish the existence of the right or liability which they allege to exist. Why should the rule of evidence be uniform? 1. the relation between the evidentiary fact and a particular proposition is always the same, without regard to the kind of litigation in which that proposition becomes material to be proved. 2. if the rules of evidence prescribe the best course to arrive at the truth, that must be and are the same in all civilized countries. Differences in the Rules of Evidence in Criminal and Civil Cases Civil Criminal Parties attend by The accused attends accord by compulsion There is no Presumption of presumption as to innocence attends the either party accused throughout the trial until the same has been overcome by
Page 2 of 53

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DIRECT EVIDENCE – that which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - is the proof of a fact or facts from which taken either singly or collectively, the existence or a particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence. CUMULATIVE AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE – evidence of the same kind and to the same state of facts. CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE – is additional evidence of a difference character to the same point. PRIMA FACIE AND CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE – that which is standing alone, unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed. CONCLUSVE EVIDENCE – the class of evidence which the law does not allow to be contradicted. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE PRIMARY EVIDENCE – that which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question. Also referred to as the best evidence. SECONDARY EVIDENCE – that which is inferior to the primary evidence and is permitted by law only when the best evidence is not available. Known as the substitutionary evidence. POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EVIDENCE

Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
An offer to compromise does not, as a general rule, amount to an admission of liability Must prove by preponderance of evidence: Reason is that there is no presumption and due to the fact that the proof will only result in a judgment of pecuniary damages or establish CIVIL RIGHT.  prima facie evidence of his guilt It is an implied admission of guilt. competent; on the other hand, their admission, if they turn out later to be irrelevant or incompetent, can easily be remedied by completely discarding them or ignoring them. Section. 3 Admissibility of evidence. Guilt beyond reasonable doubetween Section. 4 Relevancy; collateral matters. 2 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. The Admissibility of Evidence is Determined at the Time it is Offered to the Court When offered When may be objected When the Be made same is either at the presented for the time it is its view or presented in evaluation, as an ocular Object in ocular inspection or evidence inspection or demonstration demonstration s or when it is s, or when the formally party rest his offered case and the real evidence consists of objects exhibited in court. By calling of As to the the witness to qualification of the stand the witness – should be made at the time he is called to the stand. If otherwise qualified Testimonial objection evidence should be raised when the objectionable question is asked or after the answer is given if the objectionable
Page 3 of 53

Any evidence inadmissible according to the laws in force at the time the action accrued, but admissible according to the laws in force at the time of the trial, is receivable. There is no vested right of property in rules of evidence. Reason: The rules of evidence are merely methods for ascertaining facts. It must be supposed that change of law merely makes it more likely that the fact will be truly ascertained, either by admitting evidence whose former suppression or by suppressing evidence helped to conceal the truth.

 There are rules of evidence established merely
for the protection of the parties. If according to the well-established doctrine, the parties may waive such rules during the trial of a case, there is no reason why they cannot make the waiver in a contract. However, if the rule of evidence waived by the parties has been established by law on grounds of public policy, the waiver is void.  Trial courts are enjoined to observe the strict enforcement of the rules of evidence which crystallized through constant use and practice and are very useful and effective aids in the search for truth and for the effective administration of justice. But in connection with evidence which may appear to be of doubtful relevancy or incompetence or admissibility, it is safest policy to be liberal, not rejecting them on doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting them unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent, for the reason that their rejection places them beyond the consideration of the court, if they are thereafter found relevant or

Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
features became apparent by reason of such answer. At the time it is formally offered. by similar incompetent evidence.

b. English rule – if a party has
presented inadmissible evidence, the adverse party may resort to similar inadmissible evidence



Formally offered by the proponent immediately before he rests his case.

c. Massachusetts rule – the adverse
party may be permitted to introduce similar incompetent evidence in order to avoid a plain and unfair prejudice caused by the admission of the other party’s evidence. What should determine the application of the rule of curative admissibility: 1) whether the incompetent evidence was seasonably objected to 2) whether, regardless of the objection, the admission of such evidence shall cause a plain and unfair prejudice to the party against whom it is admitted.

Every objection to the admissibility of evidence shall be made at the time such evidence is offered, or as soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibility shall have become apparent, otherwise the objection shall be considered waived. OR RULES OF


1. Conditional admissibility Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may be received ob condition that the other facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence given will be stricken out. This is subject to the qualification that there should be no bad faith on the part of the proponent. 2. Multiple admissibility Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or all the purposes for which it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for its admissibility therefore. 3. Curative admissibility This treats upon the right of the party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by the adverse party.

The evidence which was illegally obtained is inadmissible on a timely motion or action to suppress. The rules prohibit the admission of irrelevant collateral facts only. Circumstantial evidence is legal evidence and if sufficient, can sustain a judgment. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant collateral facts.

ISSUE – is the point or points in question, at the conclusion of the pleadings which one side affirms, and the other side denies. FACT – thing done or existing. FACTS IN ISSUE - are those facts which the plaintiff must prove in order to establish his claim and those facts which the defendant must prove in order to establish a defense set up by him, but only when the fact alleged by the one party is not admitted by the other party.. FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE - are those facts which render the probable existence or non-existence of a fact in issue, or some other relevant fact. The effect of the pleadings is that they help in determining whether the evidence offered is relevant to the case, for it is a familiar proposition that the
Page 4 of 53

Three theories on curative admissibility:

a. American rule – the admission of
such incompetent evidence, without objection by the opponent does not justify such opponent in rebutting it

Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
evidence must be confined to the facts put in issue by the pleadings. RULE 129 WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED Section 1. Judicial Notice, when mandatory

Courts are required to take judicial notice of the decisions of the appellate courts but not of the decisions of coordinate trial courts

Section 2. Judicial Notice, when discretionary .

JUDICIAL NOTICE – no more than that the court will bring to its aid and consider, without proof of the facts, its knowledge of those matters of public concern which are known by all well-informed persons. – cognizance of certain facts which judges may take and act on without proof because they are already known to them

The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court; Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters which are commonly known. It is not essential that matters of judicial cognizance be actually known to the judge if the subject is proper for judicial knowledge, the judge may at his discretion, inform himself in any way which may seem best to him, and act accordingly. The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt upon the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative. Foreign laws may not be taken judicial notice of and have to be proved like any other fact EXCEPT where said laws are within the actual knowledge of the court such as when they are well and generally known or they have been actually ruled upon in other cases before it and none of the parties claim otherwise. To prove a written foreign law, the requirements must be complied with, that is, by an official publication or by a duly attested and authenticated copy thereof.

The object of judicial notice is to save time, labor and expense in securing and introducing evidence on matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute and not actually bona fide disputed, and the tenor of which can safely be assumed form the tribunal’s general knowledge or from slight search on its part. Judicial notice is based on convenience and expediency.

 

Two kinds of judicial notice : 1) mandatory 2) discretionary

The direct effect of judicial notice upon the burden of proving a fact is to relieve the parties from the necessity of introducing evidence to prove the fact noticed. It makes evidence unnecessary. The stipulation and admission of the parties or counsel cannot prevail over the operation of the doctrine of judicial notice, and such stipulation and admissions are all subject to the operation of the doctrine. Municipal trial courts are required to take judicial notice of the ordinances of the municipality or city wherein they sit.

DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION – absent any of the evidence or admission, the foreign law is presumed to be the same as that in the Philippines. Section 3. necessary





In the RTC, they must take such judicial notice only 1. when required to do so by statute and 2. in a case on appeal before them and wherein the inferior court took judicial notice of an ordinance involved in said case.

The purpose of the hearing is not for the presentation of evidence but to afford the parties reasonable opportunity to present information relevant to the proprietary of taking such judicial notice or to the tenor of the matter to be noticed.

Page 5 of 53

  JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS are those so made in the pleadings filed or in the progress of a trial. or may be in writing as in pleading. a withdrawal of a contention or a disclosure made before the court. disputable. and in order that any statements contained therein may be considered as an extrajudicial admission. or an admission made by a witness in the course of his testimony or deposition. to require its being viewed in court or in an ocular inspection would result in delays.  EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS are those made out of court. A judicial admission may be oral as a verbal waiver of proof made in open court. Whether an ocular inspection is to be made or not lies in the discretion of the trial court. in which case such object becomes object evidence or by receiving testimonial evidence thereon. unnecessary expenses out of proportion to the evidentiary value of such object 3. or arts. such a failure does not amount to an admission of the facts alleged in the complaint. An ocular inspection conducted by a judge without notice to or presence of the parties is invalid as an ocular inspection is a part of the trial. bill of particulars. To be considered a judicial admission.  A DISTINCTION is made between judicial notice taken during trial and that taken after trial but before judgment or on appeal. as when the 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 4. as a rule and where elements of estoppel are not present. it is an extrajudicial admission. appeal   the courts unless contrary to public policy or good morals. or in a judicial proceeding other than the one under consideration   Extrajudicial admissions or other admissions are. after trial and before judgment 3. After trial but before judgment or on appeal: the Court 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  Object as evidence The judge may consult works on collateral science. touching the topic on trial. When a defendant is declared in default for having failed to answer the complaint. Section 4. the court may acquire knowledge thereof by actually viewing the object. request for admission. However. Where an object is relevant to a fact in issue. or a judicial admission contained in an affidavit used in the case. it should be offered formally in evidence. the exhibition of such object is contrary to morals or decency 2. The fact that an ocular inspection has been held does not preclude a party from introducing other evidence on the same issue. otherwise. During the trial: the Court may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and may hear the parties thereon. stipulation of facts. During trial 2. the admission must be made in the same case. Stipulations voluntarily entered into between the parties will be respected and enforced by      THE COURT MAY REFUSE THE INTRODUCTION OF OBJECT EVIDENCE AND RELY ON TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE ALONE IF: 1. the binding effect of the facts applies only to the parties in agreement. the testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the object in question as to render a view thereof unnecessary. such object evidence would be confusing or misleading. inconvenience.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 What stage may the court take judicial notice of a fact? 1. RULE 130 RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY Section 1. Page 6 of 53 . Judicial Admissions. Pleadings superseded or amended disappear from the record of judicial admissions.

Photographs may be verified by the photographer or any person acquainted with the object represented and testify that the same faithfully represents the object.  Authenticated fingerprints may be compared to fingerprints found on the crime scene. manner of the preservation of the recording 6.  Physical evidence is the highest form of evidence. The foundation for DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE. such evidence may still be exhibited but the court may exclude the public from such view. a knife. For instance.  In order that photographs may be given as evidence. Object evidence includes any article or object which may be known or perceived by the use of any of the senses. diagrams or sketches. it may also be a mere inspection of an object or an experiment. they are considered documentary evidence if the purpose is to establish the contents or tenor a tangible object that played some actual role on the matter that gave rise to the litigation. Object must be authenticated before it is admitted.    OBJECT EVIDENCE . which may be exhibited inside or outside the courtroom. The gun must have some connection to the crime. The DISTINCTION between object and demonstrative evidence is important because it helps determine the standards that the evidence must meet to be admissible.  underlying event. it must be shown that it is the true and faithful representation of the place or object which to which they refer. DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE .  REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE OBJECT EVIDENCE: 1. Object evidence may consist of articles or persons. especially by a tangible evidence that merely illustrates a matter of importance in the litigation such as maps. Example: examination of the anatomy of a person or of any substance taken therefrom. changes have not been made 5. or to determine the age of the paper used. or the blemishes or alterations thereon. additions. Just like ocular inspection. Must be relevant to the fact in issue. 2. Testimony elicited was voluntarily made. must explain what he did with it. Page 7 of 53 .Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007  Even if the object is repulsive or indecent. The “chain of custody” method of authentication requires that every link in the chain of custody – every person who possessed the object since it was first recognized as being relevant to the case. Documents are object evidence if the purpose is to prove their existence or condition. provided the same are properly authenticated. must be shown: 1. such as maps. the recording device was capable of recording testimony 2. diagrams. For OBJECT EVIDENCE. or the nature of the handwriting thereon. Authentication usually consists of showing that the object was involved in underlying event. the prosecution offered in evidence a gun. but the foundation generally involves the showing that the demonstrative object fairly represents or illustrates what it is alleged to illustrate. deletions. the operator of the device was competent 3. if a view of the same is necessary in the interest of justice. the required foundation relates to proving that the evidence is indeed the object used in the For tape recordings. Otherwise. identification of the speakers 7. which are only auxiliary remedies afforded to the court. Example: In murder case. pictures or audio-visual recordings. does not involve showing that the object was the one used in the underlying event. summaries and other materials created especially for litigation. such observations of the court may be amplified by interpretations afforded by testimonial evidence. establishment of the correctness or authenticity of the recording 4. as where falsification is alleged. the ff. or the examination of the representative portrayals of the object in question. models. There must be a logical nexus between the evidence and the point on which it is offered.

or cannot be produced in court. Weight of authority favors the first 2nd theory  The accused may be compelled to submit himself to an inspection of his body for the purpose of ascertaining identity or for other purpose. Purpose of the rule requiring the production of the best evidence: is the prevention of fraud because if the best evidence is not presented then the presumption of suppression of evidence will be present. of business. be first duly identified. Yes.  For the application of the best evidence. There cannot be any compulsion as to the accused taking dictation from the prosecuting officer for the purpose of determining his participation in the offense charged. 3. When the original has been lost or destroyed. and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice. 2. and 4. Original document. exceptions GENERAL RULE: the original document must be WHAT IS AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT? (a) the original of a document is one in two the contents of which are the subject of inquiry. No. all entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.  If it is produced without regard to the message which it contains. executed at or about the same time. it is essential that: the original writing or if it is a private document. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered. Original document must be produced. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office BEST EVIDENCE RULE . denies that a certain writing or signature is in his own hand he may on cross-examination be compelled to write in open court in order that the jury may be able to compare his handwriting with the one in question. Section 2 Documentary evidence DOCUMENT – any substance having any matter expressed or described upon it by marks capable of being read. Whenever the defendant. all such copies are equally regarded as originals (c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course. because the right of a person to be secured of the possession or control of his person is sacred. Document . 2. (b) When a document is in two or more copies. and it must be available to the opposite party for cross-examination Section 4. because if it is not allowed then the court will be an instrument of the grossest injustice and therefore the object for which courts are instituted would be defeated since the courts will be compelled to give a onesided decision. without bad faith on the part of the offeror. testifying in his own behalf. it is treated as real evidence. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE produced EXCEPTIONS: 1. 1. Where the object in question cannot be produced in court because it is immovable or inconvenient to a deed.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 2 theories on whether the court may compel the plaintiff to submit his body for inspection in personal injury cases: 1. Page 8 of 53 .is that rule which requires the highest grade of evidence obtainable to prove a disputed fact. Best Evidence Rule Section 3. instrument or other duly authorized appear by which something is proved.    Best evidence rule applies only when the purpose of the proof is to establish the terms of writing. and a sufficient and a sufficient foundation be laid. so as to entitle the writing to be admitted in evidence. with identical contents. one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction. 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 only the general result of the whole. it is proper for the tribunal to go to the object in its place and there observe it. at the trial of his case.

When original document is unavailable SECONDARY EVIDENCE – shows that better or primary evidence exists as to the proof of fact in question. except in the four instances mentioned in Section 3. gives rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence. secondary evidence of the fact in issue may readily be introduced without having to account for the non-production of such primary evidence. secondary evidence is admissible. The due execution can be proved through the testimony of either: 1) the person who executed it 2) The person before whom its execution was acknowledged 3) any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered or who thereafter saw it and recognized the signatures. If the issue is the inaccuracy of transmission. Affidavits and depositions are considered as not being the best evidence. the rule of evidence might have been successfully invoked if proper and timely objection had been taken. a copy of said document 2.   The non-production of the original document unless justified in Section 3. GENERAL RULE: an objection by the party against whom secondary evidence is sought to be introduced is essential to bring the best evidence rule into application. they are considered as originals. the original is the message delivered for transmission. and on the issue as to the telegram sent by the sender. When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business. In the case of real evidence. If carbon copies are signed. In criminal cases. or one to whom the parties thereto had previously confessed the execution thereof       Intentional destruction of the originals by a party who. the best evidence rule applies only when the content of such document is the subject of inquiry. Secondary Evidence Section 5. the original itself must be presented. With respect to documentary evidence. however. where the issue is not only with respect to the contents of the document but also as to whether such document actually existed.  2.  RULE OF EXCLUSION: that which is secondary evidence cannot inceptively be introduced as the original writing itself must be produced in court.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 evidenced or set forth.  Documentary evidence is that which is furnished by written instruments. both telegrams as sent and received are originals. destruction or unavailability of all such originals (c) Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to produce the original. When the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court.   When a duplicate or a copy is amended or Secondary evidence may consist of (IN THE SAME ORDER): 1. What must be proved to admit secondary evidence? (a) The execution of the original (b) loss.  altered by the party. It is deemed less reliable. Where secondary evidence has been admitted. inscriptions and documents of all kinds. all the entries are regarded as originals. hence not admissible if the affiants or deponents are available as witness. had acted in good faith does not preclude his introduction of secondary evidence of the contents thereof. as when it is in a foreign country. one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction. Xerox copies are not originals since they are reproduced at a latter time. recital of its contents in an authentic document Page 9 of 53 . If the issue is the contents of the telegram as received by the addressee. then the original dispatch received is the best evidence. Blueprints and vellum tracings have been held to be originals rather than copies. it becomes the original.

The fact of loss or destruction must.   No particular form of notice is required. It should be observed that the duplicate copy. It is not expected of a witness to state the contents of a document with verbal accuracy. It is also sufficient where the person who made the original a short time thereafter made a copy by writing down the dictation of another reading from the original. It need not be a public document.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 3.             Section 7. even if the document is in the actual possession of a third party.  Where the law specifically provides for the class and quantum of secondary evidence to establish the contents of a document. is itself an original copy and the only point in issue is the receipt of the basic original copy thereof The justified refusal or failure of the adverse party to produce the document does not give rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence or create an unfavorable inference against him. as long as it fairly apprises the other party as to what papers are desired. Even an oral demand in open court for production at a reasonable time thereafter will suffice. the production of the original document is procured by mere notice to adverse party and the requirements for such notice must be complied with as a condition precedent for the subsequent introduction of secondary evidence by the proponent. In proving the contents of the original in some authentic document. 2) That reasonable notice was given to the adverse party who has the custody or control of the document 3) Satisfactory proof of its existence 4) Failure or refusal by the adverse party to produce it in court. It authorizes the introduction of secondary evidence. The fact that a writing is really a true copy of the original may be shown by the testimony of a person who has had the opportunity to compare the copy with the original and found it to be correct. the recollection of the witnesses  Section 6. Where the nature of the action is in itself a notice. it is enough that the substance of the documents be stated. and the burden of proof is upon the party questioning its authenticity to show that it is not a true copy of the original. – When original document is in adverse party’s custody or control FACTS WHICH MUST BE SHOWN BY THE PARTY OFFERING SECONDARY EVIDENCE: 1) The adverse party’s custody or control of the original document. Notice must be given to the adverse party. it is sufficient to warrant the reception of secondary evidence. if complete. it is sufficient that the original was read to him by another person while he read the copy and found that it corresponded with what was read to him. A reasonable probability of its loss is sufficient. and this may be shown by bona fide and diligent search for it in place where it is likely to be found. Under this rule. As long as the originals of a public document in the possession of the parties have been proven lost. it is sufficient if it appears in a private document which is proved to be authentic. and this is sufficient. or his attorney. Evidence admissible when original Page 10 of 53 . It is not necessary to prove the loss beyond all possibility of mistake. like any other fact. In order that the testimony of such person may be admissible. Where both parties admit that an instrument has been lost. be proved by a fair preponderance of evidence. there is no need for a notice to the other party to produce the original of the latter. a certified copy of the document made before it was lost is admissible as secondary evidence of its contents. as where it is for the recovery or annulment of documents wrongfully obtained or withheld by the other party. such requirement is controlling. no notice to produce said document is required. “Authentic” means that the document should be genuine. Where receipt of the original of a letter is acknowledged on a carbon copy thereof.

all their previous and contemporaneous agreements on the matter are merged therein. (c) The validity of the written agreement. hence evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is Formerly. which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document. explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading any of the following: (a) An intrinsic ambiguity. Parol Evidence Rule 1) 2) 3) 4) Section 9. and may not properly be invoked by either party to the litigation against the other. whether oral or written. PAROL EVIDENCE – any evidence aliunde. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. The term “agreement” includes wills. (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 documents is a public record  generally not admissible to vary. Evidence of written agreements GENERAL RULE: When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing. mistake or imperfection in the written agreement. Parol evidence rule does not apply. no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. It is not until the party who demanded the production of the papers examine them and offers them in evidence that they assume the status of evidentiary matter. where at least one party to the suit is not a party or privy to the written instrument in question and does not base a claim or assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby. the same may also be proved by a copy thereof attested by the legal keeper of the record.  Production of papers or documents upon the trial. a party may present evidence to modify. or (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. in the ff instances: Where the collateral agreement is not inconsistent with the terms of the written contract Where the collateral agreement has not been integrated in and is independent of the written contract as where it is suppletory to the original contract where the collateral agreement is subsequent to or novatory of the written contract. Best Evidence Rule Contemplates the situation wherein the original writing is not available and/or there is a dispute as to whether said writing is the original. it is to be considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be. and Where the collateral agreement constitutes a condition precedent which determines whether the written contract may become operative or effective. does not make such papers or documents evidence.  Such document may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record. between the parties and their successors in interest. pursuant to a notice duly served. but this exception shall not apply to a condition subsequent not stated in the agreement. the parol evidence rule did not apply to or bar evidence of a collateral agreement between the same parties on the same or related subject matter. The parol evidence rule is based upon the consideration that when the parties have reduced their agreement on a particular matter into writing. or defeat the operation of a valid document. contradict. and in case of an authorized public record of a private writing. even if there was a written agreement on a particular subject matter. Prohibits the introduction of substitutionary evidence in lieu of the original document regardless of whether or not it varies the contents of the original Applies to all kinds of Page 11 of 53  Parol Evidence Rule It presupposes that the original document is available in court Prohibits the varying of the terms of a written agreement With the exception of . However. 3. Section 8.

or the presence of inconsistent provisions therein. parol evidence is not admissible. Such mistake or imperfection must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. It can be invoked by any party to an action regardless of whether or not such party has participated in the writing involved. The purpose of the second exception is to enable the court to ascertain the true intention of the parties or the true nature of the transaction between the parties. is actually equivocal and admits of two interpretations. but the parol evidence is not objected to. the instrument may be reformed. There is latent ambiguity when the writing on its face appears clear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters or circumstances which make the meaning uncertain. Example: Dollars. their such ambiguity which is apparent on the face of the writing itself and requires something to be added in order to ascertain the meaning of the words used. INTERMEDIATE AMBIGUITY – situation where an ambiguity partakes of the nature of both patent and latent. he cannot introduce parol evidence thereon. or the validity of the agreement must be put in issue by the pleadings. when one party was mistaken and the other knew that the instrument did not state their real agreement but concealed the fact from the former. No express trust concerning an immovable or Page 12 of 53  . and if the other party against whom such evidence was presented crossexamined the witnesses who testified in respect to the contract. If the defendant invoked such fact in his answer. The incorrect description shall be rejected as surplusage while the correct and complete description standing alone shall sustain the validity of the writing. As earlier stated. it now includes a latent or intrinsic ambiguity in the writing. Where the plaintiff failed to allege any such fact in his complaint. Parol evidence under those facts is competent and admissible. otherwise the court would be creating a contract between the parties. or any party directly affected thereby (this is to prevent fraudulent operation of the instrument upon the rights of strangers)  writings  imposed upon by unfair dealing of the other. the mistake or imperfection of the document. parol evidence may be introduced as such fact is now put in issue. As a matter of substantive law. When no timely objection or protest is made to the admission of parol evidence in respect to a contract relative to real estate and when the motion to strike out said evidence came too late.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 the wills. the words are seemingly clear and with a settled meaning. said party will be understood to have waived the benefits of the law. The “mistake” under the first exception refers to a mistake of fact which is mutual to the parties where the innocent party was     PATENT OR EXTRINSIC AMBIGUITY . Even if such defenses were not raised in the pleadings. tons and ounces    False description does not vitiate a document if the subject is sufficiently identified. In this case. An intrinsic ambiguity in the written agreement is now required to be put in issue in the pleading in order that parol evidence therein may be admitted. “Imperfection” includes an inaccurate statement in the agreement. Here. the parol evidence rule applies only to documents which are contractual in nature Can be invoked only when the controversy is between the parties to the written agreement. or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties. or where a writing admits of two constructions both of which are in harmony with the language used. In this.   In order that the parol evidence may be admissible. or incompleteness in the writing. parol evidence is admissible to clarify the ambiguity provided that the matter is put in issue by the pleader. Example of latent ambiguity is when the documents refers to a particular person but such name pertains to many persons with same name. such objection is deemed waived.

The prohibition does not apply when the intent is to show that there is no meeting of the minds or there is no perfected contract. To determine whether or not the subject of an oral agreement is separate and distinct from the subject of a writing: it is essential to ascertain first what is the whole subject intended by the parties to be covered by such writing. Then a comparison should be made between the writing and the oral negotiation and from that comparison it may be seen whether or not the subject of the writing is separate and distinct from that of the oral negotiation. The mistake should be alleged and proved by clear and convincing evidence  When the operation of the contract is made to depend upon the occurrence of an event. to be adopted as will give effect to all. Section 11 Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions In the construction of an instrument where there are several provisions or particulars such a construction is. This rule has no application to conditions or stipulations which are antecedent to the existence of the contract and on the faith of which the supposed contract is executed. the rule is inflexible that parol evidence cannot be admitted to supply the deficiency. such may be established parol evidence. Mistake should be mutual or common to both parties to the instrument – Reformation is then given because mistake is mutual. Section 12 Interpretation according to intention. 3. the concurrence of three things is necessary:  prohibits is varying the terms of the writing by parol evidence. Due execution of a writing may proved by parol evidence because what the rule  . the ambiguity may be helped by parole evidence (Latent ambiguity) 2) Where the ambiguity consists in the use of equivocal words designing the person or subject-matter. Mistake should be of fact – does not correctly express the intention of the parties applies only to a mistake of facts  2.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 any interest therein may be proved by parol evidence. To justify the reformation of a written instrument upon the ground of mistake. This question may be determined from the contract itself. general and particular provisions Page 13 of 53   1. parol evidence is admissible to prove the real agreement of the parties. Rules governing the admissibility of parol evidence to explain ambiguity 1) Where the instrument itself seem to be clear and certain on its face. which for that reason is a condition precedent. in the light of the subject matter with which it deals and of the circumstances standing its execution. Parol evidence is admitted if the subject of the oral negotiation is not so closely connected with the subject of the writing. This is not varying the terms of the written contract by extrinsic agreement for the simple reason that there is no contract in existence. Where the provisions of a written contract are ambiguous and there is sufficient evidence showing the existence of other agreements collateral thereto. The next step is to ascertain the subject of the oral agreement offered to be proved. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of the execution unless the parties intended otherwise. if possible. Interpretation of Documents Section 10. there is nothing to which to apply the excluding rule. and the ambiguity arises from extrinsic or collateral matter. The parties must have come to an actual oral agreement before they have attempted to reduce it in writing. parole evidence of collateral or extrinsic matter may be introduced for the purpose of aiding the court in arriving at the meaning of the language used (Intermediate ambiguity) 3) Where the ambiguity is such that a perusal of the instrument shows plainly that something more must be added before the reader can determine what of several things is meant. 4.

which preferred When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it. Section 16 Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered. in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly Section 15 Written words control printed When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form. The objection to the competency of a witness must be made before he has given any testimony if a party knows before the trial that the witness is incompetent. the circumstances under which it was made. may be shown. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. the former is to be adopted. that it is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made. that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it. and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper. When the incompetency of a witness is only partial. one in favor of natural rights and the other against it. or the language is not understood by the court. The laws in force at the time the contract was made must govern its interpretation and application. Page 14 of 53     . on grounds of public policy. the intention of the parties is to be pursued and when a general and a particular provisions are inconsistent. the law. The court cannot reject the witness if there is not proof of his incompetency. Section 17 Of two constructions. including the situation of the object thereof and of the parties to it. is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language. Section 14 Peculiar signification of terms The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation. and were so used and understood in the particular instance. the objection need not be raised until he is asked to testify to those matters as to which he is incapacitated. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES C. and if the incompetency appears on the trial. the former controls the latter. or otherwise peculiar signification. in order to determine its true character. should not be rejected on the ground of bias alone. the objection must be interpreted as soon as it becomes apparent. the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters. Section 13 circumstances Interpretation according to  interpretations. their qualifications – WITNESS – reference to a person who testifies in a case or gives evidence before a judicial tribunal COMPETENCY OF A WITNESS – is the legal fitness or ability of a witness to be heard on the trial of a cause. presumes that he is competent.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 In the construction of an instrument. Section 19 Interpretation according to usage An instrument may be construed according to usage. but evidence is admissible to show that they have been a local. technical. or who understand the language. Testimonial Evidence Section 20 Witness. while rightfully subjected to careful scrutiny. It is the judge who has the decision as to the competency of the witness. so that the judge may be placed in the position of those whose language he is to interpret. Section 18 Construction in favor of natural right When an instrument is equally susceptible of two  The burden is upon the party objecting to the competency of a witness to establish the grounds of incomeptency. the latter is paramount to the former. The clear terms of the contract should not be subject to interpretations. The testimony of the interested witness. and the two are inconsistent.  For the proper construction of an instrument. GENERAL RULE: when a witness takes the stand to testify.

as where he testifies in a perjury prosecution that the defendant gave testimony before him in another proceeding in another court. or induced by drugs or hypnosis. to rule on the objection accordingly. especially if such event took place long before their production as witnesses. the judge has no right to discard it solely for the reason that it could have been excluded had it been objected to. except as to merely formal matters. With respect to children of tender years. a lawyer should avoid testifying in court in behalf of his client.    UNSOUND MIND . This is because the insanity is presumed to continue as a mental state. whether organic or functional. Except when essential to the ends of justice.  Acts of a party entitled to object that can be considered as waiver of an objection: 1) where the party fails to raise the objection when the witness testifies. However. THE FOLLOWING CANNOT BE WITNESSES: 1) Those whose mental conditions. Page 15 of 53 . They may be classed as insane persons.  GENERAL RULE: lunatic or a person affected with insanity is admissible as a witness if he has sufficient understanding to apprehend the obligation of an oath and is capable of giving a correct account of the matters which he has seen or heard with respect to the questions at issue. Upon the timely objection to the incompetency of a witness being raised.  Unsoundness of mind does not per se render a witness incompetent. The same goes for witnesses to a will.any mental aberration. though at that time the party knows of his incompetency. he will not be presumed to be competent and before he can testify his competency should be made to appear by the party offering him. it is the duty of the court to make such examination as will satisfy him as to the competency or incompetency of the witness to testify in the case. if it has once existed. 2) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and relating to them truthfully. at the time of their production for examination. Section 21. the law presumes that he will never attain any.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007  The interest of the witness affects only his credibility but not his competency. the trial judge is competent when his testimony concerns merely formal or preliminary matters about which there is no dispute. An idiot. Idiots are incompetent witnesses. until the contrary is shown. one may be medically insane but in law capable of giving competent testimony. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity  If the witness is a lawful inmate of an asylum for the insane. is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others. being one who has no understanding of his nativity. he should leave the trial of the case to other counsel. such as the attestation or custody of an instrument and the like. 2) where one party who might have made the objection calls the witness in support of his own case.    The qualifications and disqualifications of witnesses are determined as of the time the said witnesses are produced for examination in court or at the taking of their depositions. and thereupon. The failure to object to the competency of a witness is tantamount to a waiver and once the evidence is admitted the same shall stay in the records and be judge according to its merits. Persons who have been convicted of perjury is cannot be discharged as a witness for the government when he is a co-accused in a criminal case. It is objectionable for a judge to be a witness on the same trial. When an attorney is a witness to his client. their competence at the time of the occurrence to be testified to should be taken into account.

is a competent witness. 2. it is a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other. can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter. the security and confidence of private life which the law aims at protecting will be nothing but ideals which.  Section 22 Disqualification by reason of marriage  This is called the “spousal immunity”. This can be waived just like any other Page 16 of 53  . and that this is regarded as more important to the public welfare than that the exigencies of the lawsuits should  The reason for the exception is that the identity of the interest of person disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is non-existent.  authorize domestic peace to be disregarded for the sake of ferreting out facts within the knowledge of strangers. In the case of a child witness. not the judge as an individual. the privilege ceases. is to be satisfied of the competency of the child   EXCEPTION TO THE RULE: 1. for the reason ceases. or at the time of giving his testimony.       A child who witnessed the crime when he was 11 years old and testified thereto when he was already 15. and 3. The rule applies to any form of testimony. can comprehend facts they are going to testify to. The privilege to object to testimony concerning anti-marital facts may be claimed only when the spouse for or against whom the testimony of the other is offered as a party to the case. The intelligence of the child is the test of his competency and not his age. that the case in which the husband or the wife is called to testify is a civil case instituted by one against the other 2. The court. This is different from marital privilege. The court should take into account his capacity for observation. through their absence. they can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath. it is not prudent to admit the interpretation of a teacher if he cannot understand properly the signs given by the deaf-mute who was not even his student. The point of inquiry is the moment of examination.   Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses when: 1. recollection and communication. No unfavorable inference may be drawn from the fact that a party spouse invokes the privilege to prevent the witness-spouse from testifying against him or her  Drunkenness does not per se disqualify a witness from testifying. After the death or the divorce of one spouse. it is necessary that the marriage is valid and existing as of the time of the offer of testimony and that the other spouse is a party to the action. In order that this will apply. The prosecuting attorney has no right to call a wife as a witness or to attempt to draw from her statements that the accused had married her for the purpose of suppressing her testimony. merely leave a void in the unhappy home. The rule forbidding one spouse to testify for or against the other is based on principles which are deemed important to preserve the marriage relation as one of full confidence and affection.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007  However. the court in determining his competency must consider his capacity: (a) at the time the fact to be testified to occurred such that he could received correct impressions thereof (b) to comprehend the obligation of an oath and (c) to relate those facts truly at the time he is offered as a witness. And in such a situation. The wife is competent to testify for the other defendant if the case against his husband as a party was dismissed. A witness is not rendered incompetent by the fact that he was under the influence of a drug at the time of the occurrence as to which he testifies. therefore it protects against using the spouse-witness’s admission or against compelling him to produce documents.

or a person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. the case is against the executor or administrator or other representative of a person deceased or of unsound mind . they are still protected under this rule against such prohibited testimony as they are considered as the representatives of the deceased. the wife is not disqualified to testify for the prosecution since the crime may be considered as having been committed against the wife and the conjugal harmony sought to be protected by this rule no loner exists. The exception to the marital disqualification rule was applied where the wife was the complainant in a case against her husband for falsification of her signature in a deed of sale involving their conjugal property. In a prosecution of the husband for the rape of their daughter.The term “representative of a deceased person” has been interpreted to include not only the executor or administrator of a deceased person. Where the wife is a co-defendant in a suit charging her and her husband with collusive fraud. Even if the properties have been judicially adjudicated to the heirs. and not the assignor of a right assigned before any cause of action has arisen A witness may testify against an estate.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 objection to the competency of other witnesses.The rule applies regardless of whether the deceased died before or alter the suit against him is filed provided he is already dead at the time the testimony is sought to be given 3. -  - by the defendant as the plaintiff would thereby be testifying in his defense. unlike the marital disqualification rule which is complete and absolute disqualification. This disqualification does not apply where a counterclaim has been interposed - . seemingly. does not disqualify a witness from testifying   Section 23 Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party  This section is called THE SURVIVORSHIP DISQUALIFICATION RULE OR DEAD MAN STATUTE. or a person in whose behalf the suit is instituted. An action for damages for breach of agreement to devise property for services Page 17 of 53  REQUISITES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THIS RULE: 1. the term “assignor” of a party means assignor of a cause of action which has arisen. It constitutes only a partial disqualification as the witness is not completely disqualified but is only prohibited from testifying on the matters therein specified. provided he is not a party. this is restricted to debts or demands enforceable by personal actions upon which money judgments can be rendered. . Can be waived through failure to interpose timely objection or by calling the other spouse as a witness  Where the accused husband in his testimony imputed the commission of the crime to his wife. or the assignor of said party. the case is upon a claim or demand against the estate of such person who is deceased or of unsound mind the rule does not apply where it is administrator who brings an action to recover property allegedly belonging to the estate or the action is by the heirs of a deceased plaintiff who were substituted for the latter. per se. he is deemed to have waived his objection to the latter’s testimony in rebuttal. such plaintiff must be the real party in interest. the witness offered for examination is a party plaintiff. or an assignor of a party.It is necessary that the said defendant is being sued and defends in such representative capacity and not in his individual capacity. This applies to both civil and criminal cases  2. . The same is true where the deceased contracted with the plaintiff through an agent and said agent is alive and can testify. whether by purchase or descent or operation of law. but the testimony of the plaintiff should be limited to acts performed by the agent. she cannot be called as an adverse party witness as this will violate the disqualification rule. Interest in the outcome of the suit. but also the person who has succeeded to the right of the deceased.

Negative testimony. In land registration case instituted by the decedent’s representatives. or with a view to. An attorney cannot. without the consent of the patient. 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 in a civil case by one against the other. belonging to the deceased person. without the consent of his client. Section 24. the law has certainly no reason for its application.  4. be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any Page 18 of 53    . the court should compel such parties to clearly establish the alleged fraudulent acts. testify against the petitioner. If the case is brought against the partnership of the deceased. Disqualification privileged communication THE FOLLOWING PERSONS CANNOT TESTIFY AS TO MATTERS LEARNED IN CONFIDENCE IN THE FF CASES: 1. nor can an attorney’s secretary. or his advice given thereon in the course of. is not covered by the prohibition. concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity. the witness is still credible because the testimony is not against the deceased nor his estate. or clerk be examined. the prohibition does not apply even if all the 4 requisites above are present. Estate of a deceased person includes all properties. real and personal. the parties plaintiff to an action is not rendered incompetent to testify to fraudulent transactions of the deceased. which information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity. 3. 4. or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants 2. The husband or the wife. this prohibition does not apply as the oppositors are considered defendants and may therefore. without the consent of the patient. that the fact did not occur during the life time of the deceased. by reason of - - - This includes any matter of fact which bears upon a transaction or communication between the witness and the decedent. But before admitting the testimony of parties plaintiff in this kind of action. be examined as to any evidence or treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity. stenographer. If the purpose of the oral testimony is to prove a lesser claim than what might be warranted by clear evidence. to avoid prejudice to the estate of the deceased. and which would blacken the reputation of the patient. of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. A person authorized to practice medicine. as such fact exists even after the decedent’s demise.  The disqualification under this rule is waived if the defendant does not timely object to the admission of such evidence or testifies on the prohibited matters or cross-examines thereon. during or after the marriage. professional employment. without the consent of the client and his employer. provided such fraud is first established by evidence aliunde This is designed to close the lips of the party as plaintiff when the death has closed the lips of the party defendant. Since the purpose of this rule is to discourage perjury and protect the estate from fictitious claims. A minister or priest cannot. surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case. be examined as to any communication made by the client to him. hence the plaintiff is not a competent witness. where the testimony is offered to prove a claim less than what is established under a written document or is intended to prove a fraudulent transaction of the deceased.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 rendered is a claim against an estate. The testimony to be given is on matter of fact occurring before the death. as the rule is not designed to shield wrongdoers. This prohibition does not also apply in cadastral cases since there is no plaintiff or defendants therein. even though without the presence or participation of the latter. Testimony on the present possession by the witness of a written instrument signed by the deceased is also not covered by the prohibition.

EXCEPTIONS TO MARITAL PRIVILEGE: 1. Since the confidential nature of the communication is the basis of the privilege. that there was no collusion with or voluntary disclosure by either spouse to the third person. by reason of the fact that while the spouse is covered by the prohibition. which information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity. A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards. It is necessary. Marital Privilege REQUISITES FOR MARITAL PRIVILEGE TO APPLY: 1) there was a valid marital relation 2) the privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential communication between the spouses during said marriage 3) the spouse against whom such evidence is being offered has not given his or her to such testimony  Consequently. whether legally or not. and which would blacken the reputation of the patient.  third party. Usually this will be a communication in words but it may also include conduct. thus waiving the marital disqualification. as in the case of a dying declaration of the husband to his wife as to who was his assailant. that it is not a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other Disqualification by reason of Marriage Can be invoked only if one of the spouses is a party to the action. belongs to the communicating spouse not to the other one. can testify thereon. however. Can be claimed even after the marriage has been dissolved Applies only to confidential communications between the spouse Objections under the disqualification rules can be invoked only by the persons protected thereunder and may be waived by said persons in the same manner. as to communications made to him in official confidence. This does not apply when spouses are living separately and there is an active hostility. Even if the communication between the spouse who is a party to the action can still prevent the other spouse from testifying against him under the marital disqualification rule Even if the spouse who is a party to the action does not object to the other testifying therein. such third party is not and. he can still prevent the disclosure by said spouse-witness of confidential communications covered by the privilege. Marital communications are presumed to be confidential but the presumption may be overcome by proof that they were not intended to be private. when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. that the case in which the husband or the wife is called to be examined is not a civil case instituted by one against the other 2. either expressly or impliedly. Conspiracy between spouses to commit a crime is not covered by the privilege since it is not the intention of the law to protect the commission of a crime.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity. otherwise the latter becomes an agent of the spouse and would thereby be covered by the prohibition. But Page 19 of 53        . which communications was obviously intended to be reported to the authorities. the privilege cannot be claimed with respect to communications made prior to the marriage of the spouse The privilege on principle applies to any form of confident disclosure. 5. the same cannot be invoked where it was not intended to be kept in confidence by the spouse who received the same. The privilege is lost if the communication is overheard or comes into the hands of a   The privilege in principle. consequently. Applies only if the marriage is existing at the time the testimony is offered Constitutes a total prohibition against the spouse of the witness Marital Privilege Can be claimed whether or not the spouse is a party to the action.

intended to be communicated to others 3. and so there is nothing of a confidential character to conceal. they will not be covered by the privilege even if thereafter the lawyer becomes the counsel of the party in a case involving said statements The test is whether the communications are made to an attorney with a view of obtaining professional assistance or advice. in such cases. the testator waives privilege as to his attorney’s testimony concerning testamentary communications. Confidential relations made in reliance upon the supposed relation of attorney and client. either civil or criminal. intended for an unlawful purpose 4. are excluded by the court. Communication made by a client to an attorney as a public officer to enable him to act in his capacity is not privilege The privilege does not apply when the action was brought by the client against the attorney. it is his duty to ask first to be relieved and have another attorney take his place before testifying so that he may be cross-examined and not leave his client without proper representation. may testify to the attending circumstances of the execution of his client’s will for by requesting his attorney to become a subscribing witness to the will. the attorney must have been consulted in his professional capacity. then this privilege will apply (sabi ni sir. no facts are or need be disclosed implicating the client. The communications covered by the privilege include verbal statements and documents or papers entrusted to the attorney. give them a chance) Attorney-Client Privilege  question for which no compensation is asked or expected and none given except a luncheon. Basis: public policy   The client owns the privilege and therefore he alone can invoke it. should not be regarded as privileged communications The privilege is applicable to counsel de oficio. consulted as such. if the communications were not made for the purpose of creating that relationship. Sidewalk advice from attorney upon legal       THE PRIVILEGE DOES NOT APPLY TO COMMUNICATIONS WHICH ARE: 1.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 if there is a chance to reconcile. However. whether the party assuming to act as such is an attorney or not. and of facts learned by the attorney through the act or agency of his client. Communications to an attorney are not privileged where they are voluntary made after he has refused to accept employment. made in the presence of third parties who are strangers to the attorney-client relationship   The period to be considered is 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 Professional communications continues even after the relation of client and attorney is terminated Communications regarding a crime already committed made by the offender to an attorney. For the privilege to apply. received from third person not acting in behalf or as agent of the client 5. There is no privilege communication in cases where abstract legal opinions are sought and obtained on general questions of law. Even in cases where the consent of the client is obtained. even if no fee has been paid therefore. are privileged communications Contemplated criminal acts are not covered Page 20 of 53      . An attorney who becomes a subscribing witness to his client’s will. REQUISITES: 1) there is an attorney and client relation 2) The privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential communication between them in the course of professional employment 3) The client has not given his consent to the attorney’s testimony. intended to be made public 2.

or obstetrics 2) the 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. aside from the fact the doctor’s services were not for purposes of medical treatment An example of a waiver of the privilege by provision of law is found in Section 4 of said Rule 28 under which if the party examined obtains a report on said examination or takes the deposition of the examiner. surgery. Waiver of the privilege by contract may be found in stipulations in life insurance policies. full and confidential disclosure by patient to physician of all facts. untrammeled by apprehension of their subsequent and enforced disclosure and publication on the witness stand. The disqualification due to privilege communications between ministers or priests and penitents require that the same were made pursuant to a religious duty enjoined in the course of discipline of the sect or denomination to which they belong and must be confidential and penitential in character. if revealed. Death of the patient does not extinguish the relation Under Rule 28 of the Rules of Court. hence they can be divulged in that proceeding and cannot be objected to on the ground of privilege Result of autopsies or post mortem examinations are generally intended to be divulged in court. advice or treatment. as when it is intended for the commission or concealment of a crime 4) the information was intended to be made public 5) there was a waiver of the privilege either by provisions of contract or law  Privileged communications to Public Officers REQUISITES: Page 21 of 53 . If the physician confined himself merely to the ascertainment of the nature and character of the injury for the purpose of reporting them to the defendant. the results of the physical and mental examination of a person. and be enabled safely and efficaciously to treat his patient.    REQUISITES: 1) the physician is authorized to practice medicine. would blacken the reputation of the patient 4) the privilege is invoked in a civil case. The burden of proving that such relation does not exist is upon the person objecting it. are intended to be made public. whether patient is a party or not    It is not necessary that the physician-patient relationship was created through the voluntary act of the patient. 3) The information.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007   The privilege does not attach when the attorney is a conspirator The privilege does not apply when all the attorney has to do it to either affirm or deny the secret revealed by the client to the court. physician may testify. to the end that the physician may form a correct opinion. Example: under seal of the confessional    This privilege is intended to facilitate and make safe. the patient being in extremis The privilege extends to all forms of communications as well as to the professional observations and examinations of the patient   THE PRIVILEGE DOES NOT APPLY WHERE: 1) the communication was not given in confidence 2) the communication is irrelevant to the professional employment 3) the communication was made for an unlawful purpose. and symptoms. when ordered by the court. circumstances. he thereby waives any privilege regarding any other examination of said physical or mental condition conducted or to be conducted on him by any other physician. For example the treatment may have been given at the behest of another. Physician-Patient Privilege The rule does not apply to mere causal information stated by the witness because such information is not necessary for the treatment of the patient.

 This section is an expanded amendment of the former provision found in Section 20 (e).Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 1) 2) that it was made to the public officer in official confidence that public interest would suffer by the disclosure of such communication. 3. under the Family Code. Page 22 of 53 . Anti-graft cases  Admission is a voluntary acknowledgment in express terms or by implication. 315 of the Civil Code. which privileges against compulsory testimony he can invoke in any case against any of his parents. editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper. but was actually a privilege to testify. authorized by depositor 2.   EXCEPTION: 1. When the subject matter is the deposits 5. by a party interest or by another by whose statement he is legally bound. Impeachment under the Constitution 3. of the existence or truth of a fact in dispute material to the issue (Francisco). both parental and filial privileges are granted to any person.any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him. Art. against his interest. as the descendant was not incompetent or disqualified to testify against his ascendants. Upon order of the court in case of bribery or deriliction of duty 4. was reproduced from Art. 215) Under the present formulation. as in the case of State secrets. a disqualification by reason of relationship which. direct ascendants. 2. Where no public interest will be prejudiced. GENERAL RULE: Bank deposits may not be disclosed  Section 26 Admission of a party ADMISSION . The reason for the rule is to preserve “family cohesion” deploring the lack of this provision under former laws as doing violence to the most sacred sentiments between members of the same family. this rule will not apply. Voters are cannot be compelled to reveal their bets        Trade Secrets will be covered by this privilege Prosecutor is not to be compelled to dispose the identity of the informer unless the informer is already known to the accused and when the identity of the informer is vital. and conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any matter taken up at the conciliation proceedings conducted by them. It was not correctly a rule of disqualification. 233 of the Labor Code provides that all information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communications and shall not be used as evidence in the National Labor Relations Commission. magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to him unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the Security of the State. hence it was referred to as “filial privilege”. children or direct descendants. However. the publisher. Testimonial Privilege Section 25 Parental and filial Privilege   PUBLIC INTEREST – something in which the community at large has some pecuniary interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. the descendant may be compelled to testify against his parents and grandparents. Admissions and Confessions Other instances of privilege  Under RA 53 as amended by RA 1477.” The privilege may now be invoked in both civil and criminal cases. if such testimony is indispensable in prosecuting a crime against the descendant by one parent against the other (Art. in turn.

Therefore. and that so far as the liability extended (D) was responsible. Example: Action for personal injuries caused by a collision between P’s carriage and D’s automobile. declaration or omission of a party may be given in evidence against him is based upon the presumption that no man could declare anything against himself. under a reasonable construction.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007   EXPRESS ADMISSIONS are those made in definite. unless such declarations were true. and admissible against him. since it is human nature for a person to assert his rights most strongly when they are threatened or invaded. It is a rule that a “statement is not competent as an admission where it does not. D was not in the automobile when the accident occurred. creates suspicion about the motive of the supposed offended party and gives rise to reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant. since there is no duty upon the addressee to reply. statement of silence of a party. certain and unequivocal language. after an unexpected accident has occurred. D’s son was driving the automobile. are admissible against his co-accused an of  IMPLIED ADMISSIONS are those which may be inferred from the acts. Likewise. acquiescence may be inferred from nondenial. The immediate flight of the accused and prolong stay in other country is the implied consciousness of guilt. where the good faith requires that the addressee state his position frankly so that the addressee be not misled. declarations or omission of a party. This is founded on sound reason and good policy. Implied admission is cannot be inferred from an act of repairing a defect which caused on injury. On the bases of this express admission. verdict was rendered for P.”   REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF ADMISSIONS: 1) They must involve matters of fact and not of law 2) They must be categorical and definite 3) They must be knowingly and voluntarily made 4) They must be adverse to the admitter’s interests. otherwise it would be self-serving and inadmissible. the payment of interest of a debt is an implied admission of the existence of the debetween The repair made by the landlord is the implied admission that it is not the duty of the tenant to repair. Before trial D told P’s husband that he had bought the automobile for the pleasure of his family and for business. A person may have exercised all the care which the law required and yet. An admission may be introduced in evidence in Page 23 of 53 . that members of the family might take it without asking. he may adopt additional safeguards.  Delay in instituting a criminal prosecution unless satisfactorily explained.  Admission and Confession Distinguished Admission An admission is a statement of fact which does not involve an acknowledgement of guilt or liability It may be express or tacit May be made by third persons Confession It involves acknowledgment guilt or liability Must be express Can be made only by the party himself and in some instance. appear to admit or acknowledge the fact which is sought to be proved by it. and as a measure of extreme caution. is competent evidence (but rebuttable) that the account is correct. an admission may be implied from conduct. in the light of his new experience. Said document is an express admission that defendant is not the owner of the land. Undue delay in the enforcement of a right is strongly persuasive of a lack of merit in the claim. For instance. defendant duly executes and signs a document before a notary public stating therein that his wife is the true and absolute owner of the lands which are the subject matter of the litigation. within a reasonable time. Failure to return or object to a bill or statement sent by the debtor. Failure to answer a letter does not give rise to an implied admission as to the truth of the statements contained therein. having taken it without express permission from D.   The rule that the act. However.

impeaching evidence Independent evidence – admissions are original evidence and no foundation is necessary for their introduction in evidence  extrajudicial admissions. the same cannot be Page 24 of 53 . the fact that if testified to by one other than the declarant. The law does not require impossibilities. while an extrajudicial admission is any other admission. express or tacit. To permit introduction would open the door to frauds and perjuries. The claim is for P175 due on July 31.  Admissions may be verbal or written. Example to illustrate the rules regarding the introduction of admissions in evidence either as an independent or as impeaching evidence: P sues D for a balance due and unpaid for groceries furnished. there is a letter of D to P dated June 1. the inherent untrustworthiness of the declarations 2. It is not admissible in evidence The vital objection to the admission of this kind of evidence is its hearsay character. Impeaching evidence –a proper foundation must be laid for the impeaching questions. Section 26 and 32 of this Rule refer to Reasons for the inadmissibility of self-serving declarations: 1. P claims the interest at 8% was understood to be charged monthly on balances. D disputes the amount due. Where the statement was not made in anticipation of a future litigation. The manager testifies that the interest was to be 5%. it may be proved by any competent witness who heard them or by the declarant himself. A JUDICIAL ADMISSION is one made in connection with a judicial proceeding in which it is offered. although. the fact that to permit their introduction would open the door to fraud and fabrication of testimony. judicial or extrajudicial. it would be necessary for P’s counsel to ask D if he had written such a letter. It does not include his testimony as a witness in court. I expect to pay 8% interest on monthly balances. it will greatly enhance its probative weight if it be so made Made by a party himself. before introducing it in rebuttal as D’s admission for the purpose of discrediting D’s testimony. 3. and is a primary evidence and competent though he be present in court and ready to testify Admission can be made any time  SELF SERVING DECLARATION is one which has been made extrajudicially by The party to favor his interests. independent evidence 2.  Testimony of the accused in a particular case to the effect that he was married to the victim is an admission against his penal interest and sustain his conviction even in the absence of independent evidence to prove such marriage Admission Declaration Against Interest The declaration against interest must have been made against the proprietary or pecuniary interest of the parties Must have been made by person who is either deceased or unable to testify The declaration against interest must have been made ante litem motam If the admission was made orally. Action was brought by broker P for commissions on stock shares bought and sold for D. This is admissible and may be presented as part of the evidence in chief of D. If the witness states the substance of the conversation or declaration. of course. containing the sentence “as usual this year.   An admission need to be.    Self serving testimony refers to extrajudicial statement of a party which is being urged for admission in court. All the transactions had been made through D’s office manager. and offers a statement of account sent by P in September reading “Balance due – P75”. the admission of his testimony is not erroneous. I D had taken the stand as a witness and had testified in corroboration of his manager’s statements as to the understanding.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 two ways: 1. they would be hearsay. by calling attention of such party to his former statement so as to give him an opportunity to explain before such admissions are offered in evidence. It has no application to a court declaration. However.

The act of reporting a machine. are inadmissible because they are self-serving in nature. including spontaneous statements and verbal acts 2) when they are in the form of complaint and exclamations of pain and suffering 3) when they are part of a confession offered by the prosecution. bridge. Carbon copies of letters of demands sent to defendant. is admissible.  unless they have the nature of books of account. an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. that his testimony is a recent fabrication. as regards am owner of property Self serving declarations made by a party are admissible in his own behalf in the ff: 1) When they form part of res gestae. An invoice prepared by a merchant in the city covering merchandise consigned to his agent in the province. 5) when they are offered without objection. Flight from justice is an admission by conduct and circumstantial evidence of consciousness guilt. if it was against interest when made. It is merely a measure of extreme caution by adopting additional safeguards since.  Diaries. Every written statements of a party in his own favor can be successfully turned when such statements are offered against him. are not selfserving if they had been prepared not in anticipation of litigation in which they were presented as evidence. or other facility after an injury has been sustained therein is not an implied admission of negligence by conduct. being in the nature of a declaration. may be admitted. Persons whose unsworn declarations in behalf of a party are not admissible in favor of the latter: 1) agents. admissions or declarations of the deceased person during his life-time. despite due care and diligence.except those involving quasioffenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised.     Section 27. as regards the other 3) a guardian as regards his word. even of a self serving character.  Unsworn declarations by others for the declarant would be an agreement made between two or more parties as a settlement matters in dispute. Evidence of attempts to suppress evidence. and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. The objections which have been pointed out do not apply against the reception of the statements of one party as evidence when such statements are offered by his adversary. GENERAL RULE – an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability and is not admissible in evidence against an offeror Page 25 of 53 . 4) a principal as regards his surety 5) a husband or wife as regards his or her spouse 6) an employee.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 considered self-serving. Civil cases . Offer of compromise not admissible COMPROMISE . 4) where they are offered by the argument.  The mere fact of death alone does not render competent self-serving conduct. but it has been held that an entry in diary. an unexpected accident can still occur. Criminal cases . as regards his employer 7) officers of the corporation 8) public officers as regards public corporation 9) predecessors in title. receipt of which was acknowledged. and a letter of said merchant requesting confirmation of the receipt of said merchandise by the agent. in which case his prior declaration. the evidence cannot afterward be objected to as incompetent. as a general rule. provided they were made at a time when a motive to misrepresent did not exist. as by destruction of documentary evidence are admissible under the same rationale. A compromise agreement is valid when the true essence of which resides in reciprocal concessions. as regards their principals 2) a co-defendant or offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability.

he can introduce the fact that the driver was drunk. to foster compromise. Actual marriage. In prosecution for violation of the internal revenue law. The court allows the accused to change plea when the previous plea was made improvidently. If every offer to buy peace could be used as evidence against him who presents it.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 EXCEPTIONS: 1. many settlements would be prevented. 2.  No compromise may be entered into as regards the penal action. however it may be with respect to the civil liability.           In criminal cases. What matter is the fact of marriage and not the intent behind the marriage. criminal liability is extinguished. An express admission of liability made during negotiations for a compromise has been held admissible. the fact that a writing contains an offer of compromise does not render it inadmissible in evidence if it is competent evidence for other purposes. during the investigation of the rape case is also admission of guilt. an express admission of liability made during negotiations for a compromise. In criminal cases where compromise is allowed by law as in opium or usury cases.  offer was not made under consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid the risks of criminal action against him. One of the practical reasons advanced is that encouragement of negotiations between the defense and prosecution counsel with respect to pleas requires flexibility in making and withdrawing them without prejudice. admission involving interest in property. although the accused may be permitted to prove that such Page 26 of 53 . If a statement forming part of an offer of compromise or made in the course of negotiations to effect a settlement is an admission of fact pertinent to an issue between the parties. is a tentative or hypothetical statement as distinguished from a definite statement of fact or is expressly made without prejudice or indicates that it is made in confidence that a compromise will be affected. and all criminal violations may likewise be compromised. and unnecessary litigation would be produced and prolonged. 3. 5. such offers of compromise are not admissible in evidence as the law provides that the payment of any internal revenue tax may be compromised. However.  It is the policy of the law to favor the settlement of disputes. An offer to compromise a monetary consideration and not to marry the victim. it does not matter whether the accused married the victim for the reason of exculpating him from criminal liability. The SC has held that an offer of marriage by the accused. in rape case. A pedestrian is run over by a driver. An admission of the correctness of an account or of specific items. admission affecting liability for a tort. 4. except those already filed in court and those involving fraud. The amendment regarding the admissibility of a plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense as a consequence of the present provisions in criminal procedure on plea bargaining. is an implied admission of guilt. it is admissible on the trial of such issue. Later on the driver approached the pedestrian and said sorry because he was drunk that night and offered a payment. Express and unqualified admission of indebtedness accompanying an offer of compromise. The attempt of the parents of the accused to settle the case with the complainant was considered an implied admission of guilt. unless it is so closely connected with the offer of compromise as to be inseparable therefrom. an offer of compromise is an implied admission of guilt. The pedestrian may not introduce the fact that he was offered a money to show that driver is liable. and to promote peace. no implied admission of guilt arises against the accused who makes an offer to compromise. Example. While a bare offer to compromise does not constitute an admission on the part of the person making it. he was injured.

the act or declaration is within the scope of the partnership. or a privy of the party (Section 31). such hostility may affect the question Page 27 of 53   . is   REQUISITES: 1. Section 28. an offer of settlement is not an implied admission of guilt. and that in justice a person should not be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers. agent.  The declaration of one partner. The term “privy” is the orthodox catchword for the relation. Even where one partner is shown to be hostile to another. Such humanitarian acts or charitable responses should be encouraged and rewarded.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007  Criminal cases involving criminal negligence. although. agency. are evidence against the others. A troublesome question arises when an express admission of liability is coupled with an offer of assistance. agency or joint interest – the fact that each has individually made a substantially similar admission does not render the aggregate admission competent against the firm. declaration or omission of another is generally irrelevant. 365 of the RPC. found in Section 34 of Rule 130. The existence of a partnership is cannot be established by general reputation. An offer to pay or the actual payment of the medical. and that each is agent for the other and that the acts or declarations of one during the existence of the partnership. while transacting its business and within the scope of the business. That the partnership. This section refers to the first branch of the rule of “RES INTER ALIOS ACTA ALTERI NOCERE NON DEBET”. Admissibility by third party  Unless he assents thereto. the admissions of such first partner may be received. EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE: 1. or is a con-conspirator (Section 30) . Such act or declaration must have been made during the existence of the partnership. of course. The act. 3. act or omission of another. The rule is well-settled that a party is not bound by any agreement of which he has no knowledge and to which he has not given his consent and that his rights cannot be prejudiced by the declaration. or joint interest is established by evidence other than the act or declaration – partnership relation must be shown 2. are allowed to be compromised under the amendment to this section. humor or hearsay. agency or joint interest. except by virtue of a particular relation between them. but some admission of fault”. not made in the presence of his co-partner.   The basis of the exceptions is that a third party may be so united in interest with the party-opponent that the other person’s admissions may be receivable against the party himself. are not competent to prove the existence of a partnership between them as against such other partner. 2. a party to an action cannot be affected by the admission of a person who does not occupy toward him any relation of privity.  Section 29. joint debtor or has a joint interest with the party (Section 29). hence. or the quasi-offenses contemplated in Art. joint owner. are in those instances where the third person is a partner. It is corollary known as the second branch of the rule. hospital or other expenses by reason of the victim’s injuries is not admissible to prove civil or criminal liability therefore. Some courts have stated that both should be admitted since the express admission insured that the offer or tender of assistance was “not merely an act of benevolence. this is with regard to a nonpartnership affair. agency or joint interest. offering or promise to pay medical expenses. If the admission can be disclosed without mentioning the furnishing. Admission by co-partner or agent  The admission of one partner is received against another on the ground that they are identified in interest . 3. instead of being discouraged or penalized by being considered as admissions of liability. then it should be admitted.

When a party to any proceeding expressly refers to any other person for an answer on a particular subject in dispute. such answer. The quantum of interest of the declarant does not affect the application of the rule. statements made after a partnership has been dissolved do not fall within this exception. so as to complete it. or evidence against his principal. The declarations of a deceased partner. evidence against said party. or after this agency has terminated are not binding upon. that is.  Declarations or admissions made by a partner after the dissolution of the partnership are not competent against the other partners in the absence of prior authority or subsequent ratification. The admissions of a third person are receivable in evidence against the party who has expressly referred another to him for But such a reference does not make the person referred to an agent for the purpose of making general admissions. if restricted to the subject matter in relation to which the reference is made. With respect to the relevant substantive provisions on these matters. What is done by an agent is done by the principal through him. Page 28 of 53 . in solidum. with a view to the attainment of the same object.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 of weight of the evidence. are admissible against his survivors. and circumstances which vary according to the purposes to be accomplished. though not conclusive against his principal. not the size of the fractional part.         Section 30. coowners and solidary debtors As a rule. is in general. but where the admissions are made in connection with the winding up of the partnership affairs. which is within the cope of his employment. or during his employment. as agent. relating to the partnership business. When the reference was not made to any particular person but in general. one will be justified in the conclusion that they were engaged in the conspiracy to effect that object. which governs. It is the fact of joint interest. even though such declarations relate to matters pending at the time of dissolution. agents. If it be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object. and not mancomunada.    Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of indefinite acts. If he is liable to the plaintiff in the same manner that his co-defendants are liable. one performing one part and another performing part of the same. But when the admission or declaration is made at the time of the transaction. Admissions by counsel are admissible against the client as the former acts in representation and as an agent of the client. The admission or declaration of an agent subsequent to a transaction in controversy. conditions. as through a mere instrument. refer to the Civil Code provisions on partners. the rule above-stated is not applicable. his admissions and declarations are competent. Admission by conspirator  Under the Revised Penal Code. the declarations are not evidence unless strictly within the subject matter in relation to which reference is made. a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. the extent to which they are bound by his admission cannot be measured or graduated by the quantity of his interest in the contract.  information in regard to an uncertain or disputed matter. for the reason that he makes such third person his accredited agent for the purpose of giving such answer. said admissions are still admissible as the partner is acting as an agent of his co-partners in said winding up. when it pertains to the matter in hand. subject to the limitation that the same should not amount to a compromise or confession of judgment The phrase “joint debtor” does not refer to mere community of interest but should be understood according to its meaning in the common law system from which the provision was taken.

Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007  This rule applies 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. Conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. The concurrence of minds essential to conspiracy may be inferred where the parties are apparently pursuing the same object whether acting separately or together by common or different means leading to the same lawful result. as a circumstance to determine the credibility of a witness 4. and there could have been no collusion among said co-accused in making such statements. In order that the extrajudicial statements of a co-accused may be taken into consideration in judging the testimony of a witness. The conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused or from the confessions of the accused or by prima facie proof thereof. the statements of one conspirator may not be accepted as evidence against any of the other conspirators. the declaration will be admissible only against the person who made it. the extrajudicial confession of an accused cannot be used against his co-accused as the res inter alios rule applies to both extrajudicial confessions and admissions REQUISITES: 1. as there would be a tacit admission under Section 32 2. the same are in all material respects identical. it is necessary that the statements are made by several accused. the termination of a conspiracy. made in the presence of the latter who expressly or impliedly agreed therein. it will be hearsay. Where the facts stated in said admission are confirmed in the individual extrajudicial confessions made by the co-conspirators after their apprehension (interlocking confessions) 3. admissions. 2.     If this testimony is introduced to prove the truth of B’s statement.    If made after the act designed is fully accomplished and after the object of the conspiracy has been either attained of finally defeated. 3. such conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde – conspiracy must be established by prima facie proof in the judgment of the court. the admission was made during the existence of the conspiracy –after. the requirement that the conspiracy must preliminary be proved by evidence other than the conspirator’s admission applies only to extrajudicial. and the burden is on the prosecution to establish his guilt. as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the latter’s participation in the offense. The rule of evidence with regard to conspiracy is founded on the principle which  GENERAL RULE: Extra judicial admissions made by a conspirator after the conspiracy has terminated and even before trial are also not admissible against the co-conspirator EXCEPTIONS: 1. the association should be bound by the acts of one of its members in carrying out the design. the admission related to the conspiracy itselfshould relate to the common object  These are not required in admissions during the trial as the co-accused can crossexamine the declarant and besides these are admissions after the conspiracy has ended.  Where there is no independent evidence of the alleged conspiracy. and a common purpose is inferable from concerted action converging to a definite objective and whether or not the parties meet. but it will fall within the co-conspirator exception to hearsay rule. apply to agencies and partnerships. A person charged with conspiracy is presumed to be innocent. or confer and formulate their plans. Hence. but no to judicial. This is because the statement was: 1) made by a co-conspirator 2) made during the course of the conspiracy 3) made in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy  Page 29 of 53 .

. which leads us to resist an unfounded demand.  GENERAL RULE: Declarations of the transferor. 4. PRIVIES . In order to render an admission of a former owner of property competent against his successor in title. It is an established rule in evidence that the declaration of a person under whom the title is claimed are receivable against the successor so claiming. REQUISITES: 1. while holding the title to the property. He must have had the opportunity to deny it 3. it must have been made at a time when the title was in the declarant. and the possession of the thing after the sale or transfer. 2. the facts are within his knowledge 6.  The rule that the silence of the party against whom a claim or a right is asserted may be construed as an admission of the truth of the assertion rests on that instinct of our nature. However. voluntary grantee or judgment creditors or purchasers from them without notices to the fact.   This rule applies in both criminal as well as in civil cases. and that the rights of the latter are those of the former. 3. He must have understood the succession of relationship to the same rights of property. The admission is in relation to said property. devisees. heirs. assigns. The principle on which such evidence is received is that the declarant was so situated that he probably knew the truth.those who have mutual or successive relationship to the same right of property or subject matter.  made subsequent to the transfer.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 Section 31. legatees. The implication of guilt is not derived from mere silence but from appellant’s silent Page 30 of 53  An admission of a former owner may not be received against his successor in title. Voluntary participation in a reenactment of the crime conducted by the police is considered a tacit admission of complicity. are inadmissible EXCEPTIONS: 1. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is material to the issue. The admission was made by the declarant. unless they were true. unless the successor has concurred or acquiesced therein.  REQUISITES: 1. for a reenactment to be given any evidentiary weight. 2. as predecessor in interest. and his interest were such that he would not have made the admissions to the prejudice of his title or possession. He must have an interest to object. Section 32. remains with the seller or transferor. such that he would naturally have done so. he must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other person. such as “personal representatives. if it was made either before declarant acquired title or after it had passed from him. Admission by privies PRIVITY . The regard which one so situated would have to his interest is considered sufficient security against falsehood. as if the statement was not true.   The rule on admission by silence applies where a person was surprised in the act or even if he is already in the custody of the police. on the theory that there is sufficient identity of interest to render the statements of the former equally receivable with the admissions of the present owner. Where the evidence establishes a continuing conspiracy to defraud. the validity and efficacy of the confession must first be shown. Admission by silence  The privity in estate may have arisen by succession by acts mortis cause or by acts inter vivos. there must be a relation of privity between the party and the declarant 2. 3. Where there has been a prima facie case of fraud established as where the thing granted has a corpus. Where the declarations are made in the presence of the transferee and he acquiesces in the statements or asserts no rights where he ought to speak. 5. which conspiracy exists between the vendor and the vendee.

There can also be a confession of judgment in a civil case where the party expressly admits his liability. counsel.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 acquiescence in participating reenactment of the crime  in the  The rule does not apply if the statements adverse to the party were made in the course of an official investigation. If the accused admits having committed the act in question but alleges a justification therefore. such as the delivery of a sermon. or believed that he had no interest. magistrate. III of the 1987 Constitution. where the statement was not addressed to him or was in his made before a court in which the case is pending and in the course of legal proceedings therein and. Confession may either be oral or in writing and if in writing.  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.categorical acknowledgement of guilt made by an accused in a criminal case. by itself. such prompt response can generally not be expected if the party still has to resort to a written reply. JUDICIAL CONFESSION . 2. intimidation. as where he was pointed out in the course of a custodial investigation and was neither asked to reply nor comment on such imputations or where the party had a justifiable reason to remain silent. it need not be under made in any other place or occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti. However. EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION .          REQUISITES: 1. or the party was not aware at the time that he had an interest. he had no interest to object. The same absence of relevancy occurs where an answer would be unseemly interruption of orderly proceedings then in progress. The confession must have been given voluntarily 4. The following circumstances have been held to be indicia of the voluntariness of a confession: • The confession contains details which the police could not have supplied or invented. The rule applies to adverse statements in writing if the party was carrying on a mutual correspondence with the declarant. the same is merely an admission. the taking of the deposition or of testimony in open court or the discharge by a judge. No admission can be implied from silence where the failure to answer was caused by constraint. Section 33. 5. without any exculpatory statement or explanation. for example. threat or promise of reward or leniency. or was only indirectly affected. This section refers to extrajudicial confessions. or where as the matter was presented. The facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense 3. It should be kept in mind that a person under investigation for the commission of an offense has the right to remain silent and to be informed of that right. as where he was acting on advice of counsel. There must have been no violation of Section 12. if there was no such mutual correspondence. the accused realizing the importance or legal significance of this act. otherwise his right to silence would be illusory. the confession must have been intelligently made. • The confession contains details which could have been known only to the accused • The confession contains statements which are exculpatory in nature • The confession contains corrections made by Page 31 of 53 . the rule is relaxed on the theory that while the party would have immediately reacted by a denial of the statement were orally made in his presence. Art. Confession CONFESSION . or other person of his proper function in court proceedings. A confession may either be judicial or extrajudicial. The fact that the extrajudicial confession was made while the accused was under arrest does not render it inadmissible where the same was made and admitted prior to the 1973 Constitution. can sustain a conviction even in capital offenses. The confession must involve an express and categorical acknowledgment of guilt.

and the statement which he signed states that he had been apprised of his constitutional rights with the warning that anything he would say might be used for or against him in court. The accused questioned the voluntariness of the confession only for the first time at the trial of the case. IV of the 1973 Constitution and he answered in the affirmative. such extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence. Under the current rule. Where the extrajudicial confession of the accused while under custodial investigation was merely prefaced by the investigator with a statement of his constitutional rights. such as an investigator Page 32 of 53 •  • • •         .Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 the accused in his handwriting or with his initials and which corrected facts are best known to the accused. His short answer does not show that he knew the legal significance of what were asked of him. It was made in the presence of impartial witnesses with the accused acting normally on that occasion There is lack of motive on the part of the investigators to extract a confession. mental or emotional. but he was never asked whether he wanted to exercise or avail himself of such rights. Counsel must be independent and competent. renders the extrajudicial confession inadmissible. as shown by his silent acquiescence thereto. whether physical. the accused was asked whether he was familiar with the provisions of then Section 20. Any form of coercion. Where. especially where the accused is illiterate and it was not shown how his constitutional rights were explained by the investigator. 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 If the extrajudicial confession was obtained before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution on January 17. his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible. 1973. aside from the consideration that no custodial investigation was involved. The accused is sufficiently educated and aware of the consequences of his act. especially where he thereafter failed to impugn the same by not taking the witness stand although assisted by counsel. with much more reason should the same be inadmissible against third accused who had no participation therein. Art. and not a retrospective effective and this doctrine applies even if the confession was made while the accused was under arrest. to which he answered that he was going to tell the truth. with improbabilities and inconsistencies in the attempt of the accused to repudiate his confession. The facts contained in the confession were confirmed by other subsequent facts After his confession. are not admissible against them. the accused was subjected to physical examination and there were no signs of maltreatment or the accused never complained thereof. the same is inadmissible as his answer does not constitute a waiver of his right to counsel and he was not assisted by one when he signed the confession. The waiver of the right to counsel during custodial investigation must be made with the assistance of counsel. Where a confession was illegally obtained from two of the accused and. consequently.  • • • Where the verbal extrajudicial confession was made without counsel. The contents of the confession were affirmed by the accused in his voluntary participation in the reenactment of the crime. the confession is inadmissible if there is a violation of the accused’s right to counsel and to silence. before the statement containing the extrajudicial confession of guilt was taken. Where the accused was merely told of his constitutional rights and asked if he understood what he was told. the same is admissible not under the confession rule but as part of the res gestae. the same is admissible in evidence even if the confessant was not informed of his right to silence and to counsel as this constitutional mandate should be given a prospective. but it was spontaneously made by the accused immediately after the assault. A promise of immunity or leniency vitiates a confession if given by the offended party or by the fiscal. but not if given by a person whom the accused could not have reasonably expected to be able to comply with such promise.

5. a specific intent or knowledge. in appreciating the same. a specific habit.  SEC. such second confession is admissible only if it can be proved that he was already relieved of the fear generated by the previous maltreatment. and thus diverts the attention of the court from the charge immediately before it. raises a variety of issue. declares as admissible the confession of the accused not only with respect to the offense charged but also any offense necessarily included therein. and without contradiction but the co-accused who was present. identity. 2. Rule 130. If the accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical confessions without conclusion. Where the extrajudicial confession was obtained by maltreatment. illegal confessions and admissions are inadmissible against the confessant or the admitter. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after being apprised of such confession 5. 6. On the other hand. commonly known as interlocking confessions which confessions are corroborated by other evidence and without contradiction by the co-accused who was present. Section 34. Where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the  The reason for the rule is to compel the defendant to meet charges of which the indictment gives him no information. If the accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical confessions without conclusion. the 1987 Constitution specifically provides that. commonly known as interlocking confessions.    This section. if the latter impliedly 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 his being implicated therein 2. In other words. is strictly enforced in all cases where it is applicable. where the confessant testified for his codefendant or 9. the judgment based solely thereon is null and void and the accused may obtain his release on a writ of habeas corpus. 34 IS THE SECOND BRANCH OF THE RULE OF RES INTER ALIOS ACTA AND APPLIES TO BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES. Similar acts as evidence GENERAL RULE: 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 EXCEPTIONS: Where the evidence or similar acts may prove: 1. probability of participation by the coconspirator. confuses him in his defense. 28. It is an application of the principle that the evidence must be confined to the point in issue in the case on trial.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 who is not a prosecuting or could not bind the offended party which was a corporation  Where the accused voluntarily made a second extrajudicial confession after he had been maltreated in order to extort the first confession. reject such portions as are incredible. usages and the like GENERAL RULE: The extrajudicial confession of an accused is binding only upon himself and is not admissible against his co-accused EXCEPTIONS: 1. evidence of collateral offenses must not be received as substantive evidence of the offense on trial. which confessions are corroborated by other evidence. 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 a corroborating evidence. 4. 7. The entire confession should be admitted in evidence but the court may. where the co-conspirator’s extra judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence of record. system or scheme. This section just like the first branch of the res inter alias acta rule provided for in Sec. as now amended. 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 a corroborating evidence. Page 33 of 53 . 3. 8. a plan. 4. hence they are admissible against the persons who violated the constitutional prohibition against obtaining illegal confessions or admissions. 3. stablished customs.

whether oral or documentary is hearsay if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge. Dying Declaration 2. which will only be taken into account to resolve definitely whether the consignation made will be efficacious against his opposition. Previous acts of negligence. has no probative value. be followed by consignation of the amount in court in order to produce the effects of valid payment. It should be noted that the requirement that the tender of payment must have been refused without just cause by the creditor does not imply that for the judicial authority to accept consignation it has to examine whether or not the creditor had a just reason for refusing the tender. that is. In civil cases the rule as to proof of commission of an act by showing the commission of similar acts by the same person at other times and under other circumstances is the same as in a criminal prosecution. selling barium chlorate instead of potassium chlorate. Declaration Against Interest 3. Hearsay evidence not objected to may be admissible but whether objected to or not. without regard to the reason for his refusal.  Upon a valid unaccepted offer. HEARSAY RULE Any evidence. The court has to resolve the issue on whether there is a just cause in the refusal if the creditor denied the consignation of the debtor in the basis that there is no just cause. Unaccepted offer  This section complements the rule on tender of payment (Art. creditor may refused acceptance.  GENERAL RULE: Hearsay Evidence is inadmissible EXCEPTIONS: 1. Res Gestae 7. delivery of document – if not that agreed document. the latter always prevails. payment of sum of money . the debtor must prove that there is no negligent on his part. Family Reputation Or Tradition Against Pedigree 5. Evidence of a number of crimes is admissible in a prosecution for robbery where it has the tendency to identify the accused or show his presence at the scene of the crime but not where the evidence is to prove that the accused committed another crime wholly independent of that for which he is on trial. he made them with intent to deceive. the creditor shall absorb all the circumstantial damages to the property. Entries In The Ordinary Course of Business Page 34 of 53 . the creditor has a reason not to accept the tender. The rule covers: 1.      Section 36. Act Or Declaration Against Pedigree 4. 3. Section 35. delivery of personal property – creditor may refuse and it does not amount to a tender if the personal property is not that one agreed upon  Delivery or unaccepted offer does not release the debtor from obligation but it can excuse the debtor from delivery. Such tender of payment must. 1256. and as opposed to direct primary evidence. However. In order that the consignation of an amount or thing may be made the refusal of the creditor of the tender of payment is enough. hearsay excluded.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007  Evidence of similar offenses involving the making of other false representations. Civil Code) by providing that said offer of payment must be made in writing.if the amount is short of the amount of liability or not in the currency which is the legal tender here in the Philippines. is admissible against the prisoner to show that he is aware of the falsity of the statements made by him in the present case and that knowing them to be false.  Hearsay evidence is excluded because the party against whom it is presented is deprived of his right and opportunity to cross examine the person to whom the statements or writings are attributed. Common Reputation 6. is admissible to show knowledge or intent. Or even if the legal tender is not that one to which the parties agreed 2. however.

circumstances – that at the time of the making of the declaration.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 8.  It applies to any case where the death of the declarant is the subject of the inquiry.    REQUISITES: . Statement of a person showing his state of mind that is. stating the fact concerning the cause of and the circumstances surrounding the attack. good/bad faith of the latter. hopeless expectation that death is at hand. Dying declaration. person in question. (People vs. It is sufficient that he believed himself in imminent danger of death at the time of such declaration. Statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to the state of mind of another. the declarant did not expect to survive the injury from which he actually died 3. Dying declarations favorable to the accused are admissible.  There must be settled. 2. utterances 2. The mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth. 10. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness  Section 37. A dying declaration may be attacked on the Page 35 of 53  The exceptions are admissible for reasons of NECESSITY and TRUSTWORTHINESS. if for instance. d. That the statement must be complete in itself. Entries In Official Records Commercial Lists Learned Treatises Testimony Or Deposition At A Former Proceeding 1. his mental condition. ill-will. Statements which may identify the date. That the declaration refers to the cause and the surrounding circumstances of such death 3. 11. they are relevant since they are the facts in issue or are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue. That the death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of such fact 2. e. every motive for falsehood is silenced. Those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the fact in issue. Dying declaration is not considered as a confidential communication between the spouses. DYING DECLARATION . By his conduct. Those statement s which are the very fact in issue. Determination of consciousness of impending death: 1. 5. knowledge. that is. intention. A dying declaration may be oral or written or made by signs which could be interpreted and testified to by a witness thereto. Statements of persons which shows his physical condition as illness and the like. motive.The ante mortem statements made by a person after the mortal wound has been inflicted under the belief that the death is certain. TWO CLASSES OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS 1. Reason for its admission 1. belief. That the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarant’s death is subject of the inquiry (the victim necessarily must have died) 5. place. 9. c. b. and other emotions. Dying declarations may also be regarded as part of the res gestae as they were made soon after the startling occurrence without the opportunity for fabrication or concoction. belief. That the declaration refers to the facts which the victim is competent to testify to 4. De Joya. Necessity – because the declarant’s death renders impossible his taking the witness stand 2. It includes the following: a. actual character and seriousness of his wounds 4. 203 SCRA 343). knowledge. Trustworthiness – at the point of death. DOCTRINE OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS The witness may testify to the statements made by a person. the fact that such statements were made by the latter would indicate the latter’s mental state and physical condition. Independent of whether the facts stated are true or not.

Act or declaration against pedigree Witness need not be a member of the family Testimony is about what declarant. family genealogy. Reasons for such admission: 1. Section 39. REQUISITES: 1. Part of res gestae RES GESTAE – literally means things done. facts. That the declarant had no motive to falsify and he believed such actual declarant to be true. future or unconditional. that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true. Trustworthiness – persons do not make statements that are disadvantageous to themselves without substantial reason to believe that the statements are true.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 ground that any of the requisites for its admissibility are not present and the same may be impeached in the same manner as the testimony of any of the witness on the stand. THE FOLLOWING MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY COMMON REPUTATION: 1. death. we can safely trust a man when he speaks against his interest. birth. otherwise. EVIDENCE OF NEGATIVE GOOD REPUTE Where the foundation proof shows that the witness was in such position that he would have heard reports derogatory to one’s character. Declaration against interest. That it relates to facts against the interest of the declarant. That the declarant is dead and unable to testify. Interest covered: 1. Selfinterest induces men to be cautious in saying anything against themselves. 4. That at the time he made the said declaration the declarant was aware that the same was contrary to his aforesaid interest. the reputation testimony may be predicated on the absence of reports of bad reputation or on the fact that the witness heard nothing against the person. Section 39 Section 40 . matters respecting marriage or moral character and related facts. Individual moral character. the dates when. It means the general or substantially undivided reputation. Section 40. COMMON REPUTATION – is the definite opinion of the community in which the fact to be proved is known or exists. Section 42. Page 36 of 53  It is essential that at the time of the statement. the reputation of a person should be that existing in the place of his residence. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. and the placer where these facts occurred and the names of their relatives. penal interest 3. pecuniary interest  The declarant must realize at the very time of making the declaration that his declaration is against his interest. marriage. it includes circumstances. although it need not be unanimous. he said concerning the pedigree of the declarant’s family Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree Witness is a member of the family Testimony is about family reputation or tradition covering matters of pedigree. who is dead or unable to testify. matters of public interest more than 30 years old. the declaration would not in reality be against interest. proprietary interest 2. In other words. 2. and declarations incidental to the main facts or transaction necessary to illustrate its character and also includes acts. Common reputation. Family reputation or tradition. it may also be that existing in the place where he is best known. PEDIGREE – includes relationship. and 4. Section 38. Section 41. 3. Act or declaration about pedigree. As a general rule. 3. Necessity – such declarations are the only mode of proof available 2. matters of general interest more than 30 years old. 2. the declarant’s interest affected thereby should be actual/real/apparent not merely contingent. as distinguished from a partial or qualified one.

and 4. or immediately after the startling occurrence. 5. It is sufficient that the entry was made within a reasonable period of time so that it may appear to have taken place while the Page 37 of 53  It is essential that spontaneous statements should have been caused by something startling enough to produce nervous excitement. SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS The res gestae is the startling occurrence Statements may be made prior. acts and What the law distrusts is not the “after speech” but the after thought. Justification in the spontaneity of the statement. The declarant must be a witness to the event to which the utterance relates. The entry was made in the ordinary course of business or entry. 4. Trustworthiness based upon in its being given in awareness of impending death. 3. Necessity – natural and spontaneous utterances are more convincing than the testimony of the same person on the stand. The entries must have been made at or near the time of the transaction to which they relate. equivocal act must be relevant to the issue. May precede or be made after the homicidal attack was committed. characterize or and explain the 3. Distinctions between verbal spontaneous statements VERBAL ACTS The res gestae is the equivocal act. Grounds for admissibility 1.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 words. occurrence 2. Made only after the homicidal attack has been committed. circumstances of the 2. Distinctions between Res Gestae in connection with a homicidal act and dying declaration REQUISITES 1. Trustworthiness – the statement is made indistinctively. . The entrant must have been in a position to know the facts stated in the entries. verbal acts must startling occurrence. the act or startling occurrence.  The law does not fix any precise moment when the entry should be made. there must be a 1. Dying declarations Can be made only by the victim. the statement must characterized must relate to the be equivocal. The statement must equivocal act. 2. 3. be spontaneous. Section 43. That the entrant made the entry in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty. Verbal act must be contemporaneous with or accompany the equivocal act. 2. Verbal act must be contemporaneous with the equivocal act. TWO TYPES OF RES GESTAE SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS spontaneous statements in connection with a startling occurrence relating to that fact and in effect forming part thereof. VERBAL ACTS statements accompanied by AN EQUIVOCAL ACT MATERIAL TO THE ISSUE AND giving it a legal significance RES GESTAE in connection with a homicidal act May be made by the killer himself after or during the killing OR that of a 3rd person. The facts speaking thru the party not the party talking about the facts. The entrant must be deceased or unable to testify. or declarations which are closely connected therewith as to constitute part of the transaction. Entries in the course of business REQUISITES: 1. He must have personally observed the fact.

5. Reasons for admission 1. No. People vs. 2. register. . register. that it was made any a public officer in the performance of his duty specially enjoined by law. 4. Commercial list and the like REQUISITES: 1. 3. or pamphlet on a subject of law. 2. Reasons for admission 1. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding REQUISITES: 1. A witness expert on the subject testifies that the writer of the statement in the treatise. register. Section 46. Trustworthiness – there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. Involving the same parties. Statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation. He is aware that his work will be carefully scrutinized by the learned members of his profession and that he may be subject to criticisms and ultimately rejected as an authority of the subject matter if his conclusions are found to be invalid. Hence. or 2. the expense is frequently disproportionate. 2. Entries in official records REQUISITES: 1. science. The adverse party having had an opportunity to cross-examine him. G.. judicial or administrative. OPINION RULE Page 38 of 53  Probative value: only prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. their work will have no commercial and probative value. and 2. The public officer or the other person has sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated. that it was made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined by the law to do so. Necessity – even if such person is legally procurable. That the court can take judicial notice of it. Necessity – because of the unusual accessibility of the persons responsible for the compilation of matters contained in a list. 2. Reasons for admission: 1. It is not essential for the officer making the official statement to have a personal knowledge of the facts stated by him. history. The statements must be contained in a list. Is generally relied upon by them. which must have been acquired by him personally or through official information. periodical. The testimony was given in a former case or proceeding.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 memory of the facts was unimpaired. Section 45. Learned Treatises In order that a published treatise.R. periodical or other published compilation and tremendous inconvenience it would cause to the court if it would issue summons to these numerous individuals. or art may be admissible. Necessity – practical impossibility of requiring the official’s attendance as a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions occurring in the course of his duty. 138266. periodical. How regularity of the entries proved  It may be proved by the form in which they appear in the corresponding book. April 30. it is necessary either: 1. 2003 It is well settled that entries in the police blotter should not be given due significance or probative value as they are not conclusive evidence of the truth of their contents but merely of the fact that they were recorded. The compilation was published for use by persons engaged in that occupation. Relating to the subject matter. The testimony or depositions of a witness deceased or unable to testify. they do not constitute conclusive proof. Trustworthiness – learned writers have no motive to misrepresent. Section 47. or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. 3. periodical or other published compilation are prepared with care and accuracy. Cabrera Jr. periodical or other published compilation. and 4. Section 44. and 3. Trustworthiness – they have no motive to deceive and they further realize that unless the list. 2. it being sufficient that the official information was acquired by officers who prepared the report from persons who not only have personal knowledge of the facts stated but must have the duty to give such statements for the record.

The witness’ impressions of the emotion. It is sufficient that the following factors are present: 1. CHARACTER – the aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to and distinguish an individual person. Opinion of ordinary witness ORDINARY OPINION EVIDENCE – that which is given by a witness who is of ordinary capacity and who has by opportunity acquired a particular knowledge which is outside the limits of common observation and which may be of value in elucidating a matter under consideration. Opinion of expert witnesses EXPERT WITNESS – one who belongs to the profession or calling to which the subject matter of the inquiry relates to and who possesses special knowledge on questions on which he proposes to express an opinion. The identity of a person about whom he ahs adequate knowledge (Section 50[a]). to give his opinion on the point. Character admissible evidence not generally There is no definite standard of determining the degree of skill or knowledge that a witness must possess in order to testify as an expert. 3. The prosecution may not prove bad moral character of the accused unless in rebuttal when the latter opens the issue by introducing evidence of his good moral character. after he has answered affirmatively. 4. Section 48. his good or bad moral character may be proved as long as it tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged. skill. Section 50. Introduce and qualify the witness. first hand familiarity with the facts of the case 3. A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity (Section 50 [b]). asking him. by first asking the expert if he has an opinion on a certain point assuming that these facts are true and secondly. The witness has been qualified as an expert. proof of the bad character of the victim in a murder case is not admissible if Page 39 of 53 evidence is not  Expert evidence is admissible only if: 1. the matter to be testified requires expertise. formulates his opinion on the hypothesis. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted (Section 50[c]) 5. Conclude the question. 4. conclusions.  An expert witness may base his opinion either on the first-hand knowledge of the facts or on the basis of hypothetical questions where the facts are presented to him and on the assumption that they are true. training and education 2. 3. experience or training which he is shown to possess (Section 49). Accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charge. GENERAL RULE: character admissible in evidence EXCEPTIONS: CRIMINAL CASES 1. Exceptions to this exception: 1.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 OPINION – an inference or conclusion drawn from facts observed. behavior. Begin the hypothetical question by asking him to assume certain facts as true. 2. if he has knowledge of the facts. 3. are NOT necessarily bound by the expert’s findings. Let him give his factual testimony. 2. ask him to give his reasons. or opinions EXCEPTIONS: 1. Courts. presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based. condition. As to the offended party. How to present an expert witness .  1. After he has stated his opinion. however. CHARACTER AS EVIDENCE Sec 51. 2. General Rule GENERAL RULE: Witnesses must give the facts and not their inference. and 2. or appearance of a person (Section 50[d]) Section 49. 5. On a matter requiring SPECIAL knowledge. particular. Hypothetical questions may be asked on an expert to elicit his opinion.

Republic Act 8493). Civil Cases – Preponderance of evidence B. NOTE: In a civil case. Thus he has the duty to prove the existence of this affirmative allegation. it is futile to waste time in considering the evidence presented by the defense. When the defendant files his answer and sets up purely a negative defense and no evidence is presented by both sides. On the other hand. RA 8505 Section 6) compelled to allege affirmative assertions in his complaint. PROOF– the establishment of a requisite degree of belief in the mind of the trier of fact as to the fact in issue. Burden of proof BURDEN OF PROOF/RISK OF NON-PERSUASION – the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. When he alleges a cause of action. the burden is shifted upon the accused to prove otherwise. CIVIL CASES The moral character of either party thereto CANNOT be proved UNLESS it is pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. The defendant has the burden of proof if he raises an affirmative defense on the complaint of the plaintiff. the bad moral character of a witness may always be proved by either party (Section 11. Should the prosecution succeed in establishing a prima facie case against the accused. opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted unless. he will be forced to allege that he has a right and that such right was violated by the other party. it is the defendant who will lose the case. that there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused that committed an offense. B. UPON WHOM BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS: A. C. and only to the extent that the court finds that such evidence is material and relevant to the case. the information shall be dismissed on the motion of the accused. It is required that courts determine first if the evidence of the prosecution has at least shown a prima facie case before considering the evidence of the defense. (Rape Shield. and In prosecution for rape.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 the crime was committed through treachery and evident premeditation. Burden of persuasion – the burden of persuading the trier of fact that the burdened party is entitled to prevail. (Section 14) RULE 131 BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS Section 1. if the accused was NOT brought to trial within the time required. Under the Speedy Trial Act. THE BURDEN OF PROOF of supporting such motion is with the accused (Section 13. Rule 132) but not of his good moral character. evidence of complainant’s past sexual conduct. Criminal Cases The burden of proof is on the prosecution by reason of presumption of innocence. Preliminary investigation – Engenders a well founded belief of the fact of the commission of a crime. Criminal Cases To sustain conviction – Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. AS TO WITNESSES Both criminal and civil. when the defendant in his answer sets up an affirmative defense. Civil Cases 1.e. the plaintiff is always . DEGREE OF PROOF THAT SATISFIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF A. In this case. Administrative Cases – Substantial evidence. Page 40 of 53 2. the plaintiff has the burden of proof to show the truth of his allegations if the defendant raises a negative defense. unless such character has been impeached. The burden of proof as to the guilt of the accused must be borne by the prosecution. it is the defendant who would win the case since the plaintiff has not presented the quantum evidence required by law. burden of going forward – that of producing evidence 2. 2. if there is no evidence presented by both sides. If the prosecution does not have a prima facie case. Two separate burdens in burden of proof: 1. i. Issuance of warrant of arrest – Probable cause.

PRINCIPLE OF NEGATIVE AVERMENTS: GENERAL RULE: Negative allegations need not be proved. while the DEFENSE has to prove its affirmative allegations regarding the existence of justifying or exempting circumstances. Burden of Proof and EXCEPTION: When such negative allegations are essential parts of the cause of action or defense in a civil case. . clear and convincing evidence 3. Reduced to fixed rules and form a part of the system of jurisprudence. 564) PRESUMPTION . the burden of evidence lies on the party who asserts an affirmative allegation. Distinctions Between Burden of Evidence BURDEN OF PROOF Does not shift and remains throughout the entire case exactly where the original pleadings placed it. UPON WHOM BURDEN OF EVIDENCE RESTS: A. the prosecution has the burden of proving the same. or by the provisions of substantive law or procedural rules which may relieve the party from presenting evidence on the facts alleged. 2. Generally determined by the pleadings filed by the party. proof beyond reasonable doubt 2.An inference as to the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted to draw from the proof of other facts. A presumption shifts the burden of going forward with the evidence. the prosecution. PRESUMPTION JURIS OR OF LAW – is a deduction which the law expressly directs to be made from particular facts. 68 Phil. under such circumstance. such negative allegation does not have to be proved if it is only for the purpose of denying the existence of a document which should properly be in the custody of the adverse party. even if the negative allegation is an essential part of the cause of action or defense. In both civil and criminal cases. CLASSIFICATION OF PRESUMPTIONS: 1. (People vs. Criminal Cases: The PROSECUTION has to prove its affirmative allegations in the information regarding the elements of the crime as well as the attendant circumstances. In a CRIMINAL CASE. Derived wholly and directly from the circumstances of the particular case by means of the common experience of Page 41 of 53 BURDEN OF EVIDENCE Shifts from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in the course of the trial Generally determined by the developments of the trial. absolutory causes or mitigating circumstances. In view however. B. PRESUMPTION HOMINIS OR OF FACT – is a deduction which reason draws from facts proved without an express direction from the law to that effect PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW Certain inference must be made whenever the facts appear which furnish the basis of the inference. or are essential ingredients of the offense in a criminal case or defenses thereto. It imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to meet or rebut the presumption. in CIVIL CASES. preponderance of evidence 4. Civil Cases: The plaintiff is to prove his affirmative allegations in his counter claim and his affirmative defenses. need to do no more than make a prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable. PRESUMPTIONS OF FACT Discretion is vested in the tribunal as to drawing the inference. of the difficult office of proving a negative allegation.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCE 1. the rule if the subject of a negative averment inheres in the offense as an essential ingredient thereof. substantial evidence BURDEN OF EVIDENCE– logical necessity on a party during a particular time of the trail to create a prima facie case in his favor or to destroy that created against him by presenting evidence. whether in a civil or criminal action. HOWEVER. Cabral.

the commission of what the law known as an actionable wrong before the courts is authorized to lay hold of the situation and remedy it. The new presumption of guilt takes place.  BASIS: founded on the principles of justice and is intended not to protect the guilty but to prevent the conviction of an innocent persons. 35 PHIL 769) All men are presumed to be sane and normal and subject to be moved by substantially the same motives. Presumption that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns: (Vales vs. act. Disputable presumptions CLASSES OF DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS 1. in any litigation arising out of such declaration. an accused is not called upon to offer evidence on his . Villa. 2. act or omission. At the start of the criminal case.  Equipose Rule: Where the evidence gives rise to two probabilities. by his own declaration. ESTOPPEL BY DEED (Rule 131. But once the prosecution is able to prove that a certain object has been unlawfully taken. and another indicative of his guilt. they must take care of themselves. Presumption of Innocence . Courts operate not because one person has been defeated or overcome by another but because he has been defeated or overcome illegally. he cannot. or omission.Applies to both civil and criminal cases This presumption accompanies the accused throughout the trial down to the moment of conviction. 1. Section 2. Presumption from possession of stolen goods: This is not in conflict with the presumption of innocence. that which is favorable to the accused should be that which the law permits to be overcome or contradicted by proofs to the contrary. If the title asserted is one that is alleged to have been acquired subsequent to the commencement of that relation. otherwise the same remains satisfactory. This presumption disappears after conviction and the appellate court then will presume the accused guilty. When of age and sane. Presumption that a person in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it: REASON: It would cause great inconvenience if in the first instance strict proof were required of appointment or election to office in all cases where it might Page 42 of 53 1. By reason of this presumption. and then the presumption of innocence disappears. PRESUMPTION JURIS may be divided into: behalf for his freedom is forfeited only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence. 3. Conslusive Presumptions CLASSES OF CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS 2. intentionally and deliberately lead another to believe a particular thing to be true and act upon such belief. 4. that there is a crime of theft committed and that the prosecution has also proven that the accused is in possession of this object unlawfully taken. CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION (juris et de jure) – which is a presumption of law that is not permitted to be overcome by any proof to the contrary. the presumption will not apply. and DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS (juris tantum) . 2(a)) – whenever a party has. be permitted to falsify it. Sec. There must be a violation of law. Section 3. the court will apply the presumption of innocence. 2. Sec. 2 (b)) – the tenant is not permitted to deny title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the land-lord tenant relationship. ESTOPPEL IN PAIS (Rule 131.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 mankind. one consistent with defendant’s innocence.

and in good faith. Jurisdiction is presumed in all cases. the testimonies of witnesses cannot be presented in affidavits. In the absence of proof to the contrary. be it . Two fold object in requiring a witness to be sworn: 1. innocence and not the wrongdoing is to be presumed 2. and appearance. How oral evidence is given: It is usually given orally in open court. superior or inferior court. Presumption that an ordinary course of business has been followed: Those who were engaged in a given trade or business are presumed to be acquainted with the general customs and usages of the occupation and with such other facts as are necessarily incident to the proper conduct of the business. Therefore. by affecting the conscience of the witness to compel him to speak the truth. It has been extended to persons who have been appointed pursuant to a local or special statute to act in quasi-public or quasi-official capacities and to professional men like surgeons and lawyers. GENERAL RULE: Testimony of witnesses shall be given under oath or affirmation. a republican form of government cannot survive un less a limit is placed upon controversies and certain trust and confidence reposed in each government. generally. an adverse assumption may arise when the official act in question appears to be irregular upon its face. Examination to be done in open court. department. Presumption that an official duty has been regularly performed Reasons: 1. irregularity will not be presumed. Page 43 of 53 6. or against persons may not be presumed when the record itself shows that jurisdiction has not been acquired or there was something on the record showing the absence of jurisdiction. The copurt rendering the judgement is presumed to have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the poarties and to have rendered a judgement valid in every respect. or agent at least to the extent of such presumption. 8. 7. RULE 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES Section 1. an official oath will not be violated 3. whether in the Philippines or elsewhere. However. Purpose: to enable the court to judge the credibility of the witness by the witness’ manner of testifying. While ordinarily. One instance when the testimonies of witnesses may be given in affidavits is under the Rules of Summary Procedure. Presumptions of regularity of judicial proceedings. 9. Omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta donec probetur in contrarium – all things are presumed to have been done regularly and with due formality until the contrary is proved. 5. jurisdiction to render a judgement in a particular case or against a particular case. Presumption that private transactions have been done fair and regular: An individual intends to do right rather than wrong and intends to only whet he has the right to do. that a court. was acting in a lawful exercise jurisdiction. The burden of proof is on the adverse party to show that he was not appointed or designated.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 be collaterally in issue. there is a presumption that all men act fairly honestly. their intelligence. or judge acting as such. The presumption of regularity and legality of official acts is applicable to criminal as well as civil cases. This presumption of authority is not confined to official appointees.

not call for a narration. He cannot be required wither for the prosecution. the law providing for the forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property. he will be deemed to have waived his objection. To be protected from irrelevant . Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation. or even for himself. Rationale against testimonial compulsion: The court may not extract from the defendant’s own lips and against his will an admission of his guilt. The exception under no. cannot be compelled be compelled to testify or produce evidence in the criminal case in which he is the accused or one of the accused.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 2. R. Scope of the right against self-incrimination: 1. which his attorney had the right to protest and demand that the incident be made of record. No person should be compelled to be a witness against himself. Section 2. not be leading. The rule covers only testimonial compulsion and production by him of incriminating documents and articles. he cannot be compelled to do so even by subpoena or other process or order of the court. 6. the plaintiff must first prove that he has submitted written interrogatories of the defendant. When is there compulsion? It is present only when a witness has asserted a right to refuse to disclose selfincriminating information and this refusal has been overridden. 5. 4 refers to IMMUNITY STATUTES wherein the witness is granted immunity from criminal prosecution for offenses admitted in his testimony. unless it be to the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact at issue would be presumed. and under PD 749. The right to have the witness sworn may be waived. not for conclusion of law. not be indefinite or uncertain. Rights and obligations of a witness RIGHTS OF A WITNESS 1. Right of a witness to be free from personal violence The act of the judge in seizing the witness by the shoulder and turning him about was unwarrante4d and an interference with that freedom from unlawful personal violence to which every witness is entitled while giving the testimony in court. or insulting questions. not be argumentative. and from harsh or insulting demeanor. Proceedings to be recorded Section 3. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue. The rule may be invoked in any court or proceedings. 5. Forced Reenactment comes within the ban since prohibition against testimonial compulsion extends to those communicative in nature. 9. 2. 3.A. not to tend reputation of witness. not to be repetitions. in prosecutions for bribery and graft. not call for self-incriminating testimony. 2. 1379. 8. not be misleading. 11. 3. Questions propounded to a witness must: 1. When is an act testimonial? If it explicitly or implicitly relate a factual assertion or discloses information. e. 4. Limitation if a witness is a party in a civil action: Before the plaintiff can compel the defendant to be a witness. 7. if a party fails to object to the taking of the testimony of a witness without the administration of an oath. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law. under Sec. 10. not call for opinion or hearsay evidence.g. 3. improper. Not to be detained loinger than the interest of justice require. Use Immunity – Only prohibits the unse of Page 44 of 53 . 2. 12. be relevant. But a witness must answeer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense. CLASSIFICATION OF IMMUNITY STATUTES 1. for coaccused. An ordinary witness of a party in a civil action An ordinary witness may be compelled to testify by subpoena having only the right to refuse to answer a particular incriminating question at the time it is put to him. if he willfully falsifies that truth. that he may be punished by perjury. Rights of a defendant He has the right to be exempt from being a witness against himself. not call for illegal answer. 8. 4.

al. director or a corporation or partnership which is an adverse party  A misleading question.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 witness’ compelled testimony and its fruits in any manner in connection with the criminial prosecution of the witness. he would do “anything and everything” for the victim. Such relationship lends more credence to the testimony considering her natural interest to see the guilty punished. Adverse party or an officer.  Right against self-incrimination extends to administrative proceedings with a criminal or penal aspect. Not voluntarily offered but required by law (e. A argued that E’s testimony should not have been given credence because she was biased. Unwilling or hostile witness e. will not be evidence of the fact assumed by the improper question. 2001) Facts: A was found guilty of murder. or to state what is false. Givera 349 SCRA 573 (Jan. People v. On cross b. It would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime to accuse anyone other than the real culprit. of adverse party iii. Unwilling or adverse witness so declared Page 45 of 53 2. W’s testimony that he would do anything for his fellow brothers was too broad and general so as to constitute a motive to lie before the court. Transactional Immunity – grants immunity to the witness from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimony relates. GENERAL RULE: One who voluntarily offers a witness’ testimony is bound by such (i. On preliminary matters c. 2001) Facts: A was charged with murder.e. prejudice or incompetence d. The defense did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the medico-legal officer so his testimony cannot be used in evidence against the accused. testified that A was among those present at the crime scene. Held: No. Evidence of bias. Hostile witness ii. sensory derangement or defect e. Contradictory evidence from testimony in same . especially witness W. IMPEACHING OWN WITNESS GENERAL RULE: A party is not allowed to impeach his own witness EXCEPTIONS: a. there was no proper impeachment by bias of the 3 prosecution witnesses. subscribing witnesses to a will) People v. Issue: Whether E is a biased witness. Mere relationship of the victim to a witness does not automatically impair her credibility and render her testimony less worthy of credence where no improper motive can be ascribed. It does not render a witness immune from prosecution. interest. Impeaching witness of adverse party a. E. The prosecution formally offered the testimony of the medico-legal officer taken in the first case involving 3 other accused for the death of the same victim. Difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers d. A witness may be said to biased when his relation to the cause or to the parties is such that he has an incentive to exaggerate or give false color or pervert the truth. the counsel must lay the proper foundation of the bias by asking the witness facts constituting the bias. Evidence of conviction of an offense which affects credibility of witness People v. Held: No. In this case. To impeach a biased witness. Peralta 350 SCRA 198 (Jan. When leading questions allowed: a. Held: No. though not objected to. Adverse party or rep. The fact that E is the sister of deceased does not per se make her a biased witness. Evidence of prior inconsistent statement c. Issue: Whether A was able to properly impeach the witnesses on account of bias. A attempted to impeach the credibility of 3 prosecution witnesses. cannot impeach or contradict). EXCEPTIONS: i.. Macandog et. a witness of the prosecution. Evidence of mental.   Right against self-incrimination is granted only in favor of individuals. For purposes of evidence.g. case b. Issue: Whether the said testimony is admissible. A pointed out that W testified that as the victim’s fraternity brother. right against selfincrimination refers only to testimonial compulsion. as she was the sister of the deceased. 6 June 2001 Facts: A was accused of the murder of V.

Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 by the court b. However. Aniano Desierto 03 Apr. Professor Bautista does not like this decision because although the cross was substantially complete. Señeris (99 SCRA 92). in the trial court’s discretion. Written by him: i. Memorandum has been written by him or under his direction. stated that: “ Production of the original may be dispensed with. examination of witness (laying the predicate) Additional modes of authenticating a private writing: a. Witness who is also an adverse party c. Rule of authentication by the adverse party Where reply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the sending and his receipt of the letter in question. the direct testimony of a witness who dies before conclusion of the cross can be stricken only insofar as not covered by the cross. AUTHENTICATION NOT REQUIRED FOR: a. a copy of which the proponent is offering as evidence. 2001 Facts: The Court. his direct examination cannot be expunged. Estrada had an opportunity to object to the admissibility of the AD when he filed his Memorandum. The Supreme Court. the burden of proof rests upon him who alleges the contrary. Estrada v. Produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine Page 46 of 53 . In People v. 1. More than 30 years old ii. REQUISITES OF REVIVAL OF PRESENT MEMORY: a. Public documents are entitled to a presumption of regularity. still. consequently. Held: No. whenever in the case in hand the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring publication.. When a witness who is partly cross-examined dies. citing Wigmore. People v. in a previous decision. A POEA certification is a public document issued by a public officer in the performance of an official duty. but he did not object to its admissibility. Banzales 336 SCRA 64 (July 2000) Facts: A was charged with illegal recruitment.g. Contains no alterations or circumstances of suspicion iii. and b. At any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was correctly recorded REQUISITES OF REVIVAL OF PAST RECOLLECTION: a. b. 2. or ii. the court ordered the direct examination to be stricken out. Doctrine of self-authentication Where the facts in the writing could only have been known by the writer b. subscribing witnesses to a will) May be impeached in all respects as if called by other party. When the fact occurred or immediately thereafter. The POEA issued a certificate stating that A was an unlicensed illegal recruiter. But he his able to swear that the record or writing correctly stated the transaction when made Revival of present memory and Revival of past recollection distinguished Present Recollection Past Recollection Revived Recorded Applies if the witness Applies where the remembers the facts witness does not recall regarding his entries the facts involved Entitled to greater weight Entitled to lesser weight Evidence is the testimony Evidence is the writing or record Rule of evidence affected Rule of evidence affected is competency of is the best evidence rule witness. relied not upon the original but only a copy of the Angara Diary as published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. EXCEPT by evidence of bad moral character. A argued that the prosecution filed to establish 1 element of the offense considering that no representative of the POEA was presented in court to testify as to the authenticity of the certificate. Witness retains no recollection of the particular facts. Issue: Whether authenticity of the certificate needs to be proved. Supplemental Memorandum and Second Supplemental Memorandum. Issue: Does the use of the AD violate the rule on authentication of private writings and best evidence? Held: No. Witnesses required by law (e. Ancient document i. hence it is prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated (Rule 132 § 23). He was not therefore denied due process.

When a witness dies or becomes incapacitated to testify and the other party has not been given the opportunity to crossexamine the witness. also known as OFFER OF PROOF: b. Familiar with handwriting and witness can give opinion c.. failure to deny under oath)  Computer printouts are inadmissible unless properly authenticated by a witness attesting that they came from the computer system or that the data stored in the system were not and could not have been tampered with before the same were printed out. he cannot later on avail a motion to strike to exclude the evidence. A party cannot insist that competent and relevant evidence be stricken out for reasons going to his weight. b. A party who has introduced evidence is not entitled as matter of right to withdraw it in finding that it does not answer his purpose.  There must be an objection first before a motion to strike. Comparison of questioned handwriting and admitted genuine specimens d. Offered orally Question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness Offer of evidence in writing Made immediately after the offer is made Shall be made as soon as the grounds thereof shall become reasonably apparent Shall be objected to within 3 days after notice of the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court. Offer WHEN TO OBJECT Time to Object WHEN A MOTION TO STRIKE OUT ANSWER IS PROPER a. Where a question which is not objectionable may be followed by an objectionable unresponsive answer b. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. When the witness answered the question before the counsel has a chance to object a. The document must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded. The document must have been incorporated to the records of the case. Evidence offered is presumed to be admissible or competent until the contrary has been established. Two requisites must concur (People v. proved or certified d. If the party slept on his right to object. Notarial document acknowledged. Testimonial – by stating the personal circumstances of witness and the substance of proposed testimony Page 47 of 53 . sufficiency or credibility b. One cannot move to strike it out because it proves unfavorable to him If court improperly excludes otherwise admissible evidence. Public document or record c. WHEN A MOTION TO STRIKE OUT IS IMPROPER a. indicating that the documents were part of the prosecution’s evidence. BUT he may withdraw an offer of an exhibit any time before the court has passed on its admissibility. remedy is to tender the excluded evidence. Documentary – by attaching the document or making it part of the record c. Where a witness has volunteered statements in such a way that the party has not been able to object thereto c. Expert evidence OFFER AND OBJECTION GENERAL RULE: The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. Where a witness testifies beyond the ruling of the court prescribing the limits within which he may answer e. Authenticity and due execution has been expressly or impliedly admitted (e. EXCEPTION: If there was repeated reference thereto in the course of the trial by adverse party’s counsel and of the court. Where a witness testifies without a question being addressed to him d. actionable documents. the opposing party must OBJECT to its introduction.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 b. Napta) a. EVIDENCE OF GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING: a.g. Thus. Witness actually saw person writing the instrument b.

taken in their entirety. Pertinent Provisions of the Implementing Rules of the E-Commerce Act: CHAPTER II LEGAL RECOGNITION OF ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGES AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS Section 7. The dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence against an accused who is a respondent in an administrative case does not foreclose the administrative proceeding against him or give him a clean bill of health in all respects. Pedigero 337 SCRA 274 (Aug. In dismissing the case. the quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence. the court is simply saying that the prosecution was unable to prove the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. A was acquitted. Rayos 7 Feb. The circumstances must be consistent with each other from which the only rational hypothesis that can be drawn therefrom would be that the accused is guilty. A’s culpability has been proven by substantial evidence. coherent and intrinsically believable. validity or enforceability as any other document or legal writing. purporting to give rise to such legal effect. People v. the evidence against the accused is basically circumstantial because of the nature of the crime. A argued that the dismissal of the criminal case against him meant that the administrative case cannot prosper. The dismissal of the criminal case cannot bind this Court in the disposition of the instant administrative case. Issue: Whether A is correct. Complainants filed an administrative case against A to dismiss him from the service. A claimed that the court erred in holding that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution sufficiently established his guilt. Legal Recognition of Electronic Data Messages and Electronic Documents Information shall not be denied validity or enforceability solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic data message or electronic document. that pinpoints the accused. Issue: When is circumstantial evidence sufficient to convict? Held: Rule 133 § 4 enumerates the 3 elements that should be present in order for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction. as the culprit. resort to circumstantial evidence becomes almost certainly unavoidable. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE  That amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. subject to the provisions of the Act and these Rules: a. In administrative proceedings. unmistakably point to the guilt of A. Held: No. 2000) Facts: A was convicted of robbery with homicide. In particular. Electronic data messages or electronic documents shall have the legal effect. was criminally charged before the court. and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilt. Mollaneda v. to the exclusion of all others. The circumstances must create a solid chain of events. A requirement under law that information is in writing is satisfied if the information is in the form of an electronic data message Page 48 of 53 . He argued that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 2001 Facts: A was charged and convicted of the rapeslay of a 9-year old mental retardate. There was justifiable ground for A’s dismissal from the service. consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty. the Schools Division Superintendent. PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT  Does not mean such degree of proof as. Umacob 6 June 2001 Facts: A. Combination of all circumstances such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt 3. produces absolute certainty  Moral certainty only is required. Facts from which inferences are derived are proven c. Circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction: a. excluding possibility of error. as being the perpetrator of the crime and thereby sufficiently overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. Issue: When is circumstantial evidence sufficient to convict? Held: When there are no eyewitnesses to a crime. In rape with homicide. to the exclusion of others.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 RULE 133 WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE 1. The circumstances proved must be consistent with each other. or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind 2. More than one circumstance b. People v. The circumstantial pieces of evidence in this case. A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained only when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused.

when the law requires that a contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable. but a person's consent to do so may be inferred from the person's conduct. nothing in the Act or these Rules requires a person to use or accept information contained in electronic data messages. d. that requirement is absolute and indispensable. The electronic document or electronic data message is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented. There exists a reliable assurance as to the integrity of the electronic document or electronic data message from the time when it was first generated in its final form and such integrity is shown by evidence aliunde (that is. apart from the addition of any endorsement and any authorized change. storage and display. c.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 or electronic document. storage and display. Legal Recognition of Electronic Signatures An electronic signature relating to an electronic Page 49 of 53 . and b. The standard of reliability required shall be assessed in the light of the purpose for which the information was generated and in the light of all relevant circumstances. an electronic document or electronic data message will be sufficient if the latter: a. or that a contract is proved in a certain way. A requirement under law for a person to provide information to another person in a specified non-electronic form is satisfied by the provision of the information in an electronic data message or electronic document if the information is provided in the same or substantially the same form. For the purposes of paragraph (a) above: i. time or location. Section 10. or any change which arises in the normal course of communication. Section 12. Section 9. Solemn Contracts No provision of the Act shall apply to vary any and all requirements of existing laws and relevant judicial pronouncements respecting formalities required in the execution of documents for their validity. and ii. Writing Where the law requires a document to be in writing. apart from the addition of any endorsement and any change which arises in the normal course of communication. and b. It has remained complete and unaltered. evidence other than the electronic data message itself) or otherwise. electronic documents. that requirement is met by an electronic document or electronic data message if – a. Hence. Section 8. Use Not Mandatory Without prejudice to the application of Section 27 of the Act and Section 37 of these Rules. The criteria for assessing integrity shall be whether the information has remained complete and unaltered. Can be authenticated so as to be usable for subsequent reference. It is reliable in the light of the purpose for which it was generated and in the light of all relevant circumstances. Incorporation by Reference Information shall not be denied validity or enforceability solely on the ground that it is not contained in an electronic data message or electronic document but is merely incorporated by reference therein. and implemented. LEGAL RECOGNITION OF ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES Section 13. and b. A requirement under law for a person to provide information in writing to another person is satisfied by the provision of the information in an electronic data message or electronic document. b. Nothing limits the operation of any requirement under law for information to be posted or displayed in specified manner. An electronic data message or electronic document meeting and complying with the requirements of Sections 6 or 7 of the Act shall be the best evidence of the agreement and transaction contained therein. or electronic signatures. c. Maintains its integrity and reliability. or for any information or document to be communicated by a specified method unless and until a functional equivalent shall have been developed. Original Where the law requires that a document be presented or retained in its original form. Section 11. or obliges the parties to conform to a writing. in that: a. installed. or provides consequences in the event information is not presented or retained in its original form.

iii. The parties may agree to adopt supplementary or alternative procedures provided that the requirements of paragraph (b) are complied with. MODES OF AUTHENTICATION Section 15. The electronic data message or electronic document shall be authenticated by proof that an appropriate security procedure. Burden of Authenticating Electronic Page 50 of 53 . The other party is authorized and enabled to verify the electronic signature and to make the decision to proceed with the transaction authenticated by the same. and Electronic Signatures Electronic documents. when applicable. using algorithm or codes. or another entity in an information or communication system. iv. The electronic signature is the signature of the person to whom it correlates. when applicable was adopted and employed for the purpose of verifying the originator of an electronic data message or electronic document. electronic data messages and electronic signatures. The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of signing or approving the electronic data message or electronic document unless the person relying on the electronically signed electronic data message or electronic document knows or has notice of defects in or unreliability of the signature or reliance on the electronic signature is not reasonable under the circumstances. shall have so provided. and b. substantiating and validating a claimed identity of a user. or similar security devices. electronic data messages and electronic signatures. were employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person. Until the Supreme Court. by appropriate rules. with the intention of authenticating or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. answers back or acknowledgement procedures. device. in the light of all circumstances. to have executed or provided the electronic signature. not alterable by the parties interested in the electronic document or electronic data message. electronic document. Said method is reliable and appropriate for the purpose for which the electronic document or electronic data message was generated or communicated. Method of Authenticating Electronic Documents. electronic documents. It is necessary for the party sought to be bound. content or storage of an electronic document or electronic data message from a specific point. Is an electronic signature as defined in Section 6(g) of these Rules. among other ways. Presumption Relating to Electronic Signatures In any proceeding involving an electronic signature. in the following manner: a. including any relevant agreement. which. encryptions. Section 16. identifying words or numbers. the factors referred to in Annex “2” may be taken into account. and. ii. shall be authenticated. A method is used to identify the party sought to be bound and to indicate said party’s access to the electronic document or electronic data message necessary for his consent or approval through the electronic signature. or that the appropriate methodology or security procedures. and b. Section 14. number or other symbol in electronic form representing the persons named in and attached to or logically associated with an electronic data message. Is proved by showing that a prescribed procedure. shall be authenticated by demonstrating. The electronic signature shall be authenticated by proof that a letter. b. For purposes of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (b). existed under which: i. in order to proceed further with the transaction. character. Electronic Data Messages. or detecting error or alteration in the communication. v.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 document or electronic data message shall be equivalent to the signature of a person on a written document if the signature: a. the proof of the electronic signature shall give rise to the rebuttable presumption that: a.

the reliability of the manner in which it was generated. an electronic document or electronic data message shall be the functional equivalent of a written document under existing laws. sent or received. or b. or in a format which can be demonstrated to accurately represent the electronic data message or electronic document generated. On the ground that it is not in the standard written form. Remains accessible so as to be usable for subsequent reference. On the sole ground that it is in electronic form. By showing that the electronic document or electronic data message was recorded or stored in the usual and ordinary course of business by a person who is not a party to the proceedings and who did not act under the control of the party using the record. the integrity of the information and communication system in which an electronic data message or electronic document is recorded or stored may be established in any legal proceeding. paragraph 4. rule or regulation to the contrary: a.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 Documents or Electronic Data Messages The person seeking to introduce an electronic document or electronic data message in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity by evidence capable of supporting a finding that the electronic data message or electronic document is what the person claims it to be. RETENTION DOCUMENT OF ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE AND ELECTRONIC Section 20. enables the Page 51 of 53 . ADMISSIBILITY AND EVIDENTIAL WEIGHT Section 18. among other methods a. In any legal proceeding. Is retained in the format in which it was generated. and there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the information and communication system. and. and Section 9 of the Act on the presumption of integrity of electronic signatures. By evidence that at all material times the information and communication system or other similar device was operating in a manner that did not affect the integrity of the electronic document or electronic data message. b. Admissibility and Evidential Weight of Electronic Data Messages and Electronic Documents For evidentiary purposes. The requirement in any provision of law that certain documents be retained in their original form is satisfied by retaining them in the form of an electronic data message or electronic document which: i. except the rules relating to authentication and best evidence. Proof by Affidavit and CrossExamination The matters referred to in Section 12 of the Act on admissibility and evidentiary weight. or c. The Act does not modify any statutory rule relating to the admissibility of electronic data messages or electronic documents. sent or received. Section 19. and other relevant factors shall be given due regard. the reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified. may be presumed to have been established by an affidavit given to the best of the deponent’s or affiant’s personal knowledge subject to the rights of parties in interest to cross-examine such deponent or affiant as a matter of right. nothing in the application of the rules on evidence shall deny the admissibility of an electronic data message or electronic document in evidence: a. Any party to the proceedings has the right to cross-examine a person referred to in Section 11. Retention of Electronic Data Message and Electronic Document Notwithstanding any provision of law. stored or communicated. and sub-paragraph (c) of the Act. By showing that the electronic document or electronic data message was recorded or stored by a party to the proceedings who is adverse in interest to the party using it. Where applicable. In assessing the evidential weight of an electronic data message or electronic document. Such right of cross-examination may likewise be enjoyed by a party to the proceedings who is adverse in interest to the party who has introduced the affidavit or has caused the affidavit to be introduced. iii. MODES FOR ESTABLISHING INTEGRITY Section 17. Method of Establishing the Integrity of an Electronic Document or Electronic Data Message In the absence of evidence to the contrary. ii.

and narrations that are contrary to common experience. old V who was asleep at the time of the commission of the crime. b. Alibi People v. Medical/Chemical Evidence People v. In the course of the trial. A raised the defense that the victim desisted in pursuing the case against her father by showing two letters.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 identification of its originator and addressee. as well as the determination of the date and the time it was sent or received. During the initial reception of evidence for the prosecution. Issue: Whether V is a credible witness. she admitted that what she said was false because actually A is their neighbor. and not by credible persons. being usually taken ex parte. al. finding of guilt by the TC which was based on her own clear and convincing testimony given during a full-blown trial. provided that the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (i). guilty of murder. However. where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter. 28 June 2001 Facts: RTC found A et. Held: Yes. are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. it is not uncommon for the young girl to conceal the assaults because of the rapist's threats on her life. The TC thought that considering that the offended party is a very young girl of 15 years. Credibility People v. Held: No. Even if sworn to. but later on cross-examination. In this case. A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration. Relevant government agencies tasked with enforcing or implementing applicable laws relating to the retention of certain documents may. while admissible in evidence. the testimony of the complainant is not credible because it is replete with inconsistencies. A recantation of a testimony is exceedingly unreliable for there is always the probability that such recantation may later on be itself repudiated. A previous decision or judgment. Courts look with disfavor upon retractions because they can easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for monetary consideration. if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. recantations made after the conviction of the accused deserve only scant consideration. c. Issue: Should the letters be admitted in order to acquit the accused? Held: No. may only prove that an accused was previously convicted of a crime. V said she did not know A because it was her first time to see his face at the time the incident took place. FELWA 20 Apr. the victim’s recantation could hardly suffice to overturn the . Buenaflor 27 June 2001 Facts: RTC found A guilty for raping 14-yr. (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (a) are met. the prosecution attempted to bring out A’s former conviction of another crime. An affidavit of recantation. impose regulations to ensure the integrity. 2001 Facts: A was charged with rape by his 14-year old daughter. Nardo 1 Mar. committed Page 52 of 53 Proof of Previous Conviction People v. He was convicted by the TC and sentenced to death. 2001 Facts: A was charged with kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The trial court gavwe credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that there was treachery and conspiracy in the killing of the victim. who was asleep when he was fatally shot. Alibi becomes unworthy of credit when it is established mainly by the accused himself and his relative. Positive identification. In a prosecution for rape. Issue: Whether the trial court was correct in not giving weight to A’s alibi. would be considered inferior to the testimony given in open court. It may not be used to prove that the accused is guilty of a crime charged in a subsequent case. Nubla 19 June 2001 Facts: A was convicted for the rape of V. A argued that the trial court erred in ignoring his alibi. Issue: Can the proof of A’s past conviction be used to prove his guilt of the crime charged? Held: No. prevails over alibi and denial which. human nature and the natural course of things. al. Recantation People v. reliability of such documents and the proper implementation of Section 13 of the Act. Abendan et. these were not subscribed and sworn to by the victim. the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue. Especially. by appropriate issuances. The requirement referred to in paragraph (a) is satisfied by using the services of a third party.

by inducing V to drink iced tea laced with drugs causing the latter to lose consciousness. Held: Yes. bodily weakness. the physical manifestations (dizziness. in particular. Page 53 of 53 . Issue: Whether the fact that V was drugged was sufficiently proven. strong desire to sleep) were proved during the trial.Remedial Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 by means of force and intimidation. While no chemical analysis was conducted on the blood of the complainant immediately after the incident. A denied that V was drugged and pointed to the absence of any medical or chemical evidence to support her claim.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful