Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evidence Reviewer Prof San Pedro
Evidence Reviewer Prof San Pedro
ysr
PART ONE
I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A.
2)
3)
Test of relevancy
The logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact in
issue, i.e. whether the former tends to establish the
probability or improbability of the latter
Law of evidence
Materiality of evidence
Determined by whether the fact it intends to prove is in
issue or not, w/c is in turn determined by the substantive
law, the pleadings, the pre-trial order and by the
admissions or confessions on file
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
ysr
RIANO:
Not every circumstance which affords an inference as to the
truth or falsity of a matter alleged is considered evidence.
Purpose of evidence
Ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact in a judicial
proceeding (1, R128)
ysr
2)
Conditional admissibility
3
ysr
Collateral matters
Matters other than the facts in issue and which are offered as
a basis for inference as to the existence or non-existence of
the facts in issue.
Not all collateral matters are prohibited by the Rules.
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
therefor.
Circumstantial evidence
RIANO:
Ex. Depending upon the circumstances, the declaration
of a dying person may be admissible for several
purposes:
o Dying declaration (37, R130)
o Part of the res gestae (42, R130)
o Declaration against interest (38, R130)
Curative admissibility
Treats upon the right of a party to introduce
incompetent evidence in his behalf where the court has
admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by the
adverse party
RIANO:
Liberal construction of the rules of evidence
6, R1
RIANO:
It is submitted that in our jurisdiction, the principle of
curative admissibility should not be made to apply where
the evidence was admitted without objection because
the failure to object constitutes a waiver of the
inadmissibility of the evidence. In our jurisdiction,
inadmissible evidence not objected to becomes
admissible.
Rules of Exclusion
ysr
ysr
communication. If only one party authorizes the recording
and the other does not, there is a violation of the law.
ysr
ysr
Appeal shall not stay the decision or order except where the
ejectment of a tenant-farmer, agricultural lessee or tiller,
settler, or amortizing owner-cultivator is directed.
C.
Cases
ysr
xxx
Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Magsino: Section 2 of [RA 1405] allows
the disclosure of bank deposits in cases where the money
deposited is the subject matter of the litigation. Inasmuch as
Civil Case No. 26899 is aimed at recovering the amount
converted by the Javiers for their own benefit, necessarily, an
inquiry into the whereabouts of the illegally acquired amount
extends to whatever is concealed by being held or recorded
in the name of persons other than the one responsible for
the illegal acquisition
ysr
Judicial notice
The cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly
take and act on without proof because they already know
them
JN is based on considerations of expediency and
convenience. It displaces evidence since, being equivalent to
proof, it fulfills the object which the evidence is intended to
achieve and, therefore, makes such evidence unnecessary.
(Alzua vs. Johnson)
10
ysr
Cases
BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC. V. CA, CTA (2000)
As a rule, "courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of
the contents of the records of other cases, even when such
cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and
notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been
heard or are actually pending before the same judge."
Be that as it may, Section 2, Rule 129 provides that courts may
take judicial notice of matters ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions.
MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST V. GUERRERO (2003)
There can be no summary judgment where questions of fact
are in issue or where material allegations of the pleadings are
in dispute. The resolution of whether a foreign law allows
only the recovery of actual damages is a question of fact as
far as the trial court is concerned since foreign laws do not
prove themselves in our courts. Foreign laws are not a matter
of judicial notice. Like any other fact, they must be alleged
and proven. Certainly, the conflicting allegations as to
whether NY law or Philippine law applies to Guerreros claims
present a clear dispute on material allegations which can be
resolved only by a trial on the merits.
RIANO:
JN is based on the maxim, what is known need not be
proved, hence, when the rule is invoked, the court may
dispense with the presentation of evidence on judicially
cognizable facts.
Function of JN
To abbreviate litigation by the admission of matters that need
no evidence because JN is a substitute for formal proof of a
matter by evidence
When JN is mandatory
A matter of JN may either be mandatory or discretionary.
When the matter is subject to a mandatory JN, no motion or
hearing is necessary for the court to take JN of a fact because
this is a matter which a court ought to take JN of.
ysr
ysr
2. 8, R10
Sec 8. Effect of amended pleadings. An amended pleading
supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions
in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against
the pleader, and claims or defenses alleged therein not
incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed
waived.
Judicial admissions
3. 1-4, R26
R24: Admission by Adverse Party
Sec. 1. Request for admission. At any time after issues have
been joined, a party may file and serve upon any other party
may file and serve upon any other party a written request for
the admission by the latter of the genuineness of any material
and relevant document described in and exhibited with the
request or of the truth of any material and relevant matter of
fact set forth in the request. Copies of the documents shall be
delivered with the request unless copies have already been
furnished. (1a)
1. 4, R129
Section 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or
written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings
in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may
be contradicted only by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. (2a)
Judicial admissions may be made in:
a) The pleadings filed by the parties;
b) In the course of the trial either by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations; or
c) In other stages of the judicial proceeding, as in the pretrial of the case.
Admissions
obtained
through
depositions, written
interrogatories, or requests for admission are also considered
judicial admissions.
To be considered as a JA, the same must be made in the
same case in which it is offered.
13
ysr
5. FC 48, 60
Art. 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute
nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting
attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the
State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties
and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.
ysr
4.
Chain of custody
The third category (non-unique objects) refers to those
objects which are not readily identifiable, were not made
identifiable or cannot be made identifiable (ex. Drops of
blood or oil, drugs in powder form, etc.). Under this situation,
the proponent of the evidence must establish a chain of
custody.
his physique,
ysr
Scientific tests, demonstrations and experiments
Matter subject to judicial discretion. In-court reenactment
of material events by witnesses has been held
permissible to help illustrate the testimony of a witness.
Demonstrative evidence
It represents or demonstrates the real thing. Consider: does
the evidence sufficiently and accurately represent the object it
seeks to demonstrate or represent? If it does, the evidence
would be admissible.
Photographs
Under the electronic evidence rules, photographic
evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be
admissible in evidence provided:
a) It shall be presented, displayed and shown to the
court; and
b) It shall be identified, explained or authenticated by
either
i)
The person who made the recording, or by
ii) Some other person competent to testify on the
accuracy thereof
Cases:
PEOPLE V. BARDAJE (1980)
Physical evidence is of the highest order and speaks more
eloquently than any number of witnesses put together.
Documentary Evidence
ysr
RIANO:
Documentary evidence: that which is furnished by written
instruments, inscriptions and documents of all kinds.
Case:
YAP V. INOPIQUEZ, JR. (2003)
It is a basic rule of evidence that between documentary and
oral evidence, the former carries more weight.
RIANO:
BER a.k.a. original document or primary evidence rule
17
ysr
2.
3.
Sec. 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it.
A party who calls for the production of a document and
inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. (6a)
18
ysr
Cases:
VDA. DE CORPUS V. BRABANGCO (1963)
Its not necessary, in order to admit evidence of the contents
of lost instrument, that the witnesses should be able to testify
with verbal accuracy to its contents; it is sufficient if they are
able to state it in substance. Its enough if intelligent witnesses
have read the paper and state substantially its contents and
import with reasonable accuracy.
Rule of production of
documents under R27
Situation: document is either
assumed to be favorable to
the party in possession
thereof or that the party
seeking its production is not
sufficiently informed of the
contents of the same
Production of such
doc is in the nature of a
mode of discovery and
can be sought only by
proper motion in TC,
but is permitted only
upon good cause
shown
19
ysr
3.
TENEBRO V. CA (2004)
There is absolutely no requirement in the law that a marriage
contract needs to be submitted to the civil registrar as a
condition precedent for the validity of a marriage. The mere
fact that no record of a marriage exists does not invalidate the
marriage, provided all the requisites for its validity are present.
ysr
Cases
MAULINI V. SERRANO (1914)
The prohibition against the introduction of parol evidence
was designed to prevent alteration, change, modification,
variation or contraction of the terms of a written instrument
admittedly existing EXCEPT in cases specifically named
therein.
The prohibition does not apply where the purpose of the
parol evidence is to show:
21
ysr
LECHUGAS V. CA (1986)
The PER does not apply, and may not properly be invoked by
either party to the litigation against the other, where at least
one of the parties to the suit is not party or a privy of a party
to the written instrument in question and does not base a
claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the
instrument or the relation established thereby.
Rules for interpretation of contracts are provided by CC 13701379. For the rules on interpretation or construction of wills,
see CC 788-794.
C.
Testimonial Evidence
GEN RULE: all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can
make known their perception to others, may be witnesses
RIANO:
Testimonial or oral evidence: Evidence elicited from the
mouth of the witness as distinguished from real and
documentary evidence
ysr
Involves 2 factors:
a. The ability to remember what has been
perceived; and
b. The ability to communicate the remembered
perception
Case:
RECTO V. REPUBLIC (2004)
Requirements of a childs competence as a witness:
a. Capacity of observation
b. Capacity of recollection
c. Capacity of communication
There is no showing that as a child, claimant did not possess
the foregoing qualifications. Its not necessary that a witness
knowledge of the fact to which he testifies was obtained in
adulthood.
Related provisions
a. CC 821
Art. 821. The following are disqualified from being witnesses
to a will:
(1) Any person not domiciled in the Philippines;
(2) Those who have been convicted of falsification of a
document, perjury or false testimony. (n)
ysr
NOTE: the court should take into account his capacity for
observation, recollection, and communication. (Republic v.
CA)
The rule does not prohibit a testimony for or against the other
after the marriage is dissolved.
RIANO:
The mental incapacity of the witness at the time of his
perception of the events subject of the testimony does not
affect his competency as long as he is competent at the time
he is produced for examination to make known his
perception to others.
Cases:
RIANO:
24
ysr
The prohibition does not apply where the testimony is
offered to prove a claim less than what is established
under a written document (Icard v. Marasigan), or is
intended to prove a fraudulent transaction of the
deceased (Ong Chua v. Carr), provided such fraud is first
established by evidence aliunde
RIANO:
The object of the rule is to guard against the temptation to
give false testimony in regard to the transaction on the part of
the surviving party and thereby put the parties upon equal
terms. (Tan v. CA)
2.
The rule does not altogether intend to keep the witness out
of the stand altogether. The witness is merely precluded from
testifying on particular topics.
The survivorship DQ rule is intended to benefit the estate of
the deceased or insane person. Hence, this protection may
be waived by:
a. Failing to object to the testimony; or
b. Cross-examining the witness on the prohibited
testimony; or
c. Offering evidence to rebut the testimony.
Cases:
TONGCO V. VIANZON (1927)
The object and purpose of [DMS] is to guard against the
temptation to give false testimony in regard to the transaction
in question on the part of the surviving party. The law was
designed to aid in arriving at the truth and was not designed
to suppress the truth.
ysr
within the prohibition of DMS, private respondent is deemed
to have waived the rule.
5.
ASTURIAS V. CA (1963)
[DMS] waived where no timely objected has been made
against the admission of such evidence and one of the
petitioners was made to testify on such prohibited matters
covered by the exclusion rule.
GUERRERO V. ST. CLAIRES REALTY & CO. (1983)
DMS does not apply:
GOI V. CA (1986)
Waiver [of DMS] occurs where:
Marital Privileged
Communication Rule
[R130.24(a)]
Refers to confidential
communications received by
one spouse from the other
during the marriage
Applies only to testimonies of a
ysr
presentation or by any conduct that may be construed as
implied consent.
Cases:
US V. ANTIPOLO (1916)
For the information to be confidential, it must be made
during and by reason of the marital relations and is intended
not to be shared with others. Without such intention,
common reason suggests that the information is not
confidential.
Requisites:
1. A communication made by the client to the attorney or
an advice given by the attorney to his client
2. The communication or advice must have been given in
confidence
3. The communication or advice mustve been given either:
a. In the course of the professional employment; or
b. With a view to professional employment
Perfected attorney-client relationship not required for the
privilege to exist enough that the communication or advice
be with a view to professional employment
EXCEPTIONS:
ysr
MERCADO V. VITRIOLO
The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a
presumption of confidentiality. The client must intend the
communication to be confidential. The communication made
by a client to his attorney must have been transmitted for the
purpose of seeking legal advice.
Requisites:
1. The physician is authorized to practice medicine, surgery
or obstetrics;
ysr
aside from the fact that the doctors services were not for
purposes of medical treatment.
Cases:
LIM V. CA (1992)
The privilege is not violated by permitting a physician to give
expert opinion testimony. Such opinion must exclude from his
consideration his personal knowledge of the patient acquired
through the physician-patient relationship.
KROHN V. CA (1994)
In the instant case, the person against whom the privilege is
claimed is not one duly authorized to practice medicine,
surgery, or obstetrics. He is simply the patients husband who
wishes to testify on a document executed by medical
practitioners. Clearly, this does not fall within the claimed
prohibition.
RIANO:
The privilege applies to a civil case, whether the patient is a
party or not.
RIANO:
The person making the confession holds the privilege.
Requisites:
1. The communication was made to the public officer in
official confidence; and
29
2.
ysr
enforcement agencies before the prosecution of the accused
were exempted from the right to information. (Chavez v.
PCGG)
RIANO:
National security matters and State secrets are confidential. A
court will most likely uphold the privilege.
TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
f.
Parental and filial privilege
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. No person may be
compelled to testify against his parents, other direct
ascendants, children or other direct descendants. (20a)
Cases:
BANCO FILIPINO V. MONETARY BOARD (1986)
Tapes and transcripts of Monetary Board deliberations on the
closure of BF may be confidential, but they are not necessarily
absolute and privileged. Theres no specific provision in the
Central Bank Act w/c prohibits absolutely the courts from
conducting an inquiry on said deliberations when these are
relevant or material to a matter subject of a suit pending
before it.
RA 7653 (New Central Bank Act), 16. Responsibility. Members of the Monetary Board, officials, examiners, and
employees of the Bangko Sentral who willfully violate this Act
or who are guilty of negligence, abuses or acts of
malfeasance or misfeasance or fail to exercise extraordinary
diligence in the performance of his duties shall be held liable
for any loss or injury suffered by the Bangko Sentral or other
banking institutions as a result of such violation, negligence,
abuse, malfeasance, misfeasance or failure to exercise
extraordinary diligence.
Case:
PEOPLE V. INVENCION (2003)
The rule on filial privilege refers to a privilege not to testify,
which can be invoked or waived like other privileges.
g. Newsmans Privilege (RA No. 53, as amended
by RA 1477)
ysr
PART TWO
Section 32. Admission by silence. An act or declaration
made in the presence and within the hearing or observation
of a party who does or says nothing when the act or
declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if
not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so,
may be given in evidence against him.
Confession
A statement of fact which
involves an acknowledgment
of guilt or liability
Admission
Need not be made against
the partys proprietary or
pecuniary interest, although
it will greatly enhance its
probative weight if it be so
made
Made by the party himself
and is a primary evidence
and competent though he
be present in court and
ready to testify
Made any time
The rule does not apply if the statements adverse to the party
were made in the course of an official investigation (US v. de
la Cruz)
2. 13, R132
Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of
inconsistent statements. Before a witness can be
impeached by evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the
statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of
the times and places and the persons present, and he must
be asked whether he made such statements, and if so,
allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing they
must be shown to the witness before any question is put to
him concerning them. (16)
Must be express
Made only by the party
himself and, in some
instances, are admissible
against his co-accused
ysr
Exceptions:
1. Hostile witness;
2. Where the witness is the adverse party or the
representative of a juridical person w/c is the adverse
party; and
3. When the witness is not voluntarily offered but is
required by law to be presented by the proponent, as in
the case of subscribing witnesses to a will. (Fernandez v.
Tantoco)
Requisites:
a. Must appear that party heard and understood the
statement
b. He was at liberty to interpose a denial
c. Statement was in respect to some matter affecting
his rights or in which he was then interested, and
calling, naturally, for an answer
d. The facts were within his knowledge
e. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn
from his silence would be material to the issue
ysr
Compromises
4.
1.
2.
1(f), R116
1 & 2, R118
3. 27, R130
Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. In civil
cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any
liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
Cases:
VARADERO V. INSULAR LUMBER (1924)
GEN RULE: offer of compromise is inadmissible
CRIMINAL CASES
An offer of compromise is an implied admission of guilt,
although the accused may be permitted to prove that such
offer was not made under consciousness of guilt but merely
to avoid the risks of criminal action against him.
First branch of the rule of res inter alios acta alteri nocere
non debet
Exceptions:
1. 29: Where the third person is a partner, agent, joint
owner, joint debtor or has a joint interest with the party
2. 30: Third person is a co-conspirator
3. 31: Third person is a privy of the party
Criminal cases involving criminal negligence, or the quasioffenses contemplated in RPC 365, are allowed to be
compromised under the amendment to this section, hence
an offer of settlement is not an implied admission of guilt.
Good Samaritan doctrine
33
ysr
Second branch of res inter alios acta (first branch is R130 28:
the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another)
a. 29, R130
Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. The act or
declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the
scope of his authority and during the existence of the
partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against
such party after the partnership or agency is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule
applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor,
or other person jointly interested with the party.
Refer to CC 1803 (on partners), 1910 (agents), 487 (coowners), and 1222 (solidary debtors).
As a rule, statements made after a partnership has been
dissolved do not fall within this exception.
RIANO:
The rule prohibits the admission of propensity evidence,
evidence that tends to show that what a person has done at
one time is probative of the contention that he has done a
similar act at another time. Evidence of similar acts or
occurrences compels the defendant to meet allegations not
mentioned in the complaint, confuses him in his defense,
raises a variety of relevant issues, and diverts the attention of
the court from the issues immediately before it. Hence, the
evidentiary rule guards against the practical inconvenience of
trying collateral issues and protracting the trial and prevents
surprise or other mischief prejudicial to litigants. (Cruz v. CA)
Cases:
Cases:
23, R138
ysr
Requirements to be admissible:
1. Relation of privity between the party and the declarant
2. Admission was made by the declarant, as predecessor-ininterest, while holding the title to the property
3. Admission is in relation to said property
Privity in estate may have arisen by succession by acts mortis
causa or by acts inter vivos.
RIANO:
Privies: persons who are partakers or have an interest in any
action or thing, or any relation to another
Cases:
E.
Confessions
1. 33, R130
Section 33. Confession. The declaration of an accused
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any
offense necessarily included therein, may be given in
evidence against him. (29a)
Confession: a categorical acknowledgment of guilt made by
an accused in a criminal case, without any exculpatory
statement or explanation.
May be oral or in writing
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.
Cases:
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
ysr
2. 3, R133
Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for
conviction. An extrajudicial confession made by an
accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3)
ysr
1)
5)
US V. PINEDA (1918)
GEN RULE: evidence of other offenses committed by a
defendant is inadmissible.
2)
3)
4)
2. CC 1256
CC 1256. If the creditor to whom tender of payment has
been made refuses without just cause to accept it, the debtor
shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of
the thing or sum due.
A.
37
ysr
RIANO:
Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force depends,
in whole or in part, on the competency and credibility of
some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to
produce it (Estrada v. Desierto).
Hearsay evidence
One that is not based on
ones personal perception
but based on the knowledge
of others to prove the truth
of the matter asserted in an
out-of-court declaration
(R130 36)
Opinion evidence
Based on the personal
knowledge or personal
conclusions of the witness
based on his skill, training, or
experience (R130 49)
Cases:
RICHMOND V. ANCHUELO (1905)
Defense witness told by defendant, Plaintiff agreed to cure
me for PhP 200, no charge if successful this is hearsay (and
as such inadmissible), as the witness didnt know that plaintiff
made such statements. All he knows is that defendant told
him thats what plaintiff said.
LEA MER INDUSTRIES, INC. V. MALAYAN INSURANCE CO.,
INC. (2005)
Unless the affiant is presented as a witness, an affidavit is
considered hearsay.
38
ysr
1.
2.
ESTRADA V. DESIERTO
The ban on hearsay does not include statements which are
relevant independently of whether they are true or not, like
statements of a person to show, among others, his state of
mind, mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill will,
and other emotions.
3.
Specific Exceptions
1) DYING DECLARATIONS
Requisites
1. That death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of
the fact
A declaration will be deemed as having been made
under the consciousness of imminent death, in
consideration of:
a) The words or statements of the declarant on the same
occasion;
b) His conduct at the time the declaration was made (US
v. Virrey); or
RIANO:
Requisites
39
ysr
4.
RIANO:
As an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence, a dying
declaration is evidence of the highest order and is entitled to
utmost credence since no person aware of his impending
death would make a careless and false accusation. It is thus
admissible, to provide the identity of the accused and the
deceased, to show the cause of death of the deceased, and
the circumstances under which the assault was made upon
him. The reason for its admissibility is necessity and
trustworthiness (People v. Cerilla).
3.
ysr
4.
Cases:
PEOPLE V. SABIO (1981)
It is the belief in impending death at the time the statement
was made, and not the rapid succession of death, that
renders the dying declaration admissible.
RIANO:
As a rule, the interest against which the declaration may have
been made should be either a pecuniary or moral interest,
but in our jurisdiction, the declaration could be against ones
penal interest because if one admits to a crime, he is also
civilly liable, a liability that is pecuniary (People v. Toledo).
Cases:
VIACRUCIS V. CA
Previous recognition by a party in physical possession of the
property in dispute of the ownership in another constitutes a
declaration against the interest of the former and may be
received in evidence not only against such party who made
the declaration or his successors in interest but also against
third persons.
FUENTES, JR. V. CA
Requisites of declaration against interest:
a. Declarant must not be available to testify
b. Declaration must concern a fact cognizable by the
declarant
c. Circumstances must render it improbable that a motive
to falsify existed
PAREL V. PRUDENCIO
The theory under which declarations against interest are
received in evidence notwithstanding they are hearsay is that
the necessity of the occasion renders the reception of such
evidence advisable and, further that the reliability of such
declaration asserts facts against his own pecuniary or moral
interest.
3. Pedigree (R130.39)
Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. The act or
declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify, in
41
ysr
Requisites
1. The witness testifying thereto must be a member, by
consanguinity or affinity, of the same family as the
subject
2. Such reputation or tradition must have existed in that
family ante litem motam
Requisites
1. The actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify
2. The act or declaration is made by a person related to the
subject by birth or marriage
3. The relationship between the declarant or actor and the
subject is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration
Cases:
FERRER V. DE INCHAUSTI
The law does not require that the entries in [deceaseds
daybook] be made at the same time as the occurrence of
those events; hence, the written memorandum in the same is
not subject to the defect attributed to it.
RIANO:
The declaration about pedigree may be received in evidence
if the relationship is shown by evidence other than the
declaration.
PEOPLE V. ALEGADO
The word pedigree under R130.39 includes relationship,
family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and
the places where these facts occurred and the names of the
relatives.
Cases:
GRAVADOR V. MAMIGO
TISON V. CA
GEN RULE: where the party claiming seeks recovery against a
relative common to both claimant and declarant, but not
from the declarant himself or the declarants estate, the
relationship of the declarant to the common relative may not
be proved by the declaration itself. There must be some
independent proof of this fact.
5) COMMON REPUTATION
General reputation; the definite opinion of the community in
which the fact to be proved is known or exists; the general or
substantially undivided reputation, as distinguished from a
partial or qualified one, although it need not be unanimous.
Character
The inherent qualities of a
person
Reputation
The opinion of him by others
ysr
Refers to
a) Spontaneous statements in connection with a startling
occurrence relating to that fact and in effect forming part
thereof
Requisites
1. The principal act, the res gestae, is a startling
occurrence
2. The statements forming part thereof were made
before the declarant had the opportunity to
contrive
3. The statements refer to the occurrence in question
and its attending circumstances (People v. Siscar).
Marriage
Moral character
Dying declarations
Can be made only by the
victim
Made only after the
homicidal attack has been
committed
Trustworthiness of
declaration based upon its
being given under an
awareness of impending
death
ysr
RIANO:
The admissibily of a spontaneous statement is anchored on
the theory that the statement was uttered under
circumstances where the opportunity to fabricate is absent.
The statement is a reflex action rather than a deliberate act,
instinctive rather than deliberate.
Such verbal acts must have been made at the time, and not
after, the equivocal act was being performed unlike
spontaneous exclamations which may have been made
before, during or immediately subsequent to the startling
occurrence.
Term verbal act is used to denote that such statements
are the verbal parts of the equivocal act of which such
statements are explanatory, hence they constitute part of
this form of res gestae.
Notes taken regarding a transaction by a person who is not a
party thereto and who has not been requested to take down
such notes are not part of the res gestae. (Borromeo v. CA)
RIANO:
Objections to the admissibility of verbal acts depend upon
W/N the proponent has established the foundations for
admissibility. The objector has to consider the ff:
RIANO:
The exception is commonly encountered in breach of
contract suits and suits for collection of a sum of money.
Rules on Electronic Evidence also expressly exempt business
records from the hearsay rule (R8 1).
PEOPLE V. LATAYADA
The utterances separately made by the victim to each of the
witnesses were correctly appreciated as part of the res gestae,
since they had been made immediately after a startling
occurrence and had complied w/ the ff. requirements:
a. Statements were spontaneous;
b. Made immediately before, during, and after the startling
occurrence; and
c. They related the circumstances thereof.
ysr
Cases:
US V. QUE PING
Exhibits in the nature of entries in public records, made in the
performance of their duty by public officers, are prima facie
evidence of the facts stated therein. Such documents,
however, are not conclusive evidence. Their probative value
may either be substantiated or nullified by other competent
evidence.
ESCOBAR V. LUNA
Certifications issued by government offices (and certified to by
authorized personnel who were clothed with authority and
duty to issue such certifications), without testimony of the
person giving the certification, is sufficient and competent
evidence w/c is an exception to the hearsay rule per R130.44.
This section should be read in conjunction w/ R132.28 which
allows the admission of said document.
9. Commercial lists (R130.45)
Section 45. Commercial lists and the like. Evidence of
statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an
occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other
published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the
truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is
published for use by persons engaged in that occupation
and is generally used and relied upon by them therein. (39)
PNOC SHIPPING V. CA
Requisites for commercial lists:
a. Its a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged
in an occupation;
b. Such statement is contained in a list, registet, periodical
or other published compilation;
c. Said compilation is published for the use of persons
engaged in that occupation; and
d. Its generally used and relied upon by persons in the
same occupation.
ysr
(Ed. A. Keller & Co. [Ltd.] v. Ellerman & Bucknall, City of Manila
v. Manila Electric)
Requisites
1. Court takes judicial notice thereof; OR
2. The same are testified to by an expert witness
OR
DEPOSITION
AT
Cases:
FORMER
SALES V. SABINO
As a rule, the inadmissibility of testimony taken by deposition
is anchored on the ground that such testimony is hearsay, i.e.,
the party against whom it is offered has no opportunity to
cross-examine the deponent at the time his testimony is
offered.
Requisites
1. Witness is dead or unable to testify (Guevara v. Almario)
2. His testimony or deposition was given in a former case
or proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the
same parties or those representing the same interests
3. The former case involved the same subject as that in the
present case, although on different causes of action
4. The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is
the same issue involved in the present case
5. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine
the witness in the former case
Subsequent failure or refusal to appear at the second trial, or
hostility since testifying at the first trial, does not amount to
inability to testify. Such inability should proceed from a grave
cause, almost amounting to death, as when the witness is old
and has lost the power of speech. Where the witnesses in
question are available, but they refused to testify, they do not
come within the legal purview of those unable to testify
contemplated in R130 47 (Tan v. CA, Toledo Jr. v. People)
The admissibility of a prior judgment, and not the previous
testimony, in a criminal action is governed by different rules. A
judgment in a criminal proceeding cannot be read in
evidence in a civil action against a person not a party thereto
to establish any fact therein determined. The matter is res inter
alios and cannot be invoked as res judicata (Almeida
Chantangco v. Abaroa). Such judgment may only be
admitted in evidence in a civil case by way of inducement, or
to show a collateral fact relevant to the issue in the civil action
MANLICLIC V. CALAUNAN
Though R130.47 speaks only of testimony and deposition, it
does not mean that documents from a former case or
proceeding cannot be admitted. Said documents can be
admitted they being part of the testimonies of witnesses that
have been admitted.
IV. OPINION RULE
46
ysr
A. R130.48-50
Section 48. General rule. The opinion of witness is not
admissible, except as indicated in the following sections. (42)
Section 49. Opinion of expert witness. The opinion of a
witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience or training which he shown to posses, may be
received in evidence. (43a)
B. R132.22
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. The
handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who
believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he
has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to
be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged,
and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such
person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be
given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court,
with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party
against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (23a)
EXCEPTIONS
1. Opinion of expert witnesses on matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he
possesses (R130.49)
2. Opinion of ordinary witnesses (R130.50) re:
a. Identity of person about whom he has adequate
knowledge
b. Handwriting he is sufficiently familiar w/
c. Mental sanity of person hes sufficiently acquainted
w/
d. Emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a
person he has observed
e. Ordinary matters known to all men of common
perception, such as the value of ordinary household
articles (Galian v. State Assurance Co., Ltd.)
Expert witness
One who belongs to the profession or calling to which the
subject matter of the inquiry relates and who possesses
special knowledge on questions on w/c he proposes to
express an opinion.
PEOPLE V. DURANAN
If the mother of an offended party in a rape case knows the
partys physical and mental condition, how she was born,
what she is suffering from, and what her attainments are, she
ysr
3.
ILAO-QUIANAY V. MAPILE
Courts are not bound by expert testimonies. The problem of
the evaluation of expert testimony is left to the discretion of
the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in
the absence of an abuse of that discretion.
PEOPLE V. UMANITO
RIANO:
Character: the aggregate of the moral qualities w/c belong to
and distinguish an individual person; the general results of
ones distinguishing attributes.
V. CHARACTER AS EVIDENCE
A. R130.51
Sec.
51.
Character
evidence
not
generally
admissible; exceptions:
(a) In Criminal Cases:
1) The accused may prove his good moral character
which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged.
2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove
his bad moral character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged.
3) The good or bad moral character of the offended
party may be proved if it tends to establish in any
reasonable degree the probability or improbability
of the offense charged.
(b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is
admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character
involved in the case.
(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14, (46a, 47a)
B. R132.14
Sec. 14. Evidence of good character of witness. Evidence of
the good character of a witness is not admissible until such
character has been impeached. (17)
PEOPLE V. SOLIMAN
While good or bad character may be availed of as an aid to
determine the probability or improbability of the commission
of an offense, such is not necessary in murder, where the
killing is committed through treachery of premeditation. The
proof of such character may only be allowed in homicide
cases to show "that it has produced a reasonable belief of
imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable
conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary."
PEOPLE V. CHENG
Loose morals per se is not a ground to discredit a witness.
There must be clear indications militating against her
credibility other than her being a person of ill repute.
C. 6, RA 8505
Section 6. Rape Shield. - In prosecutions for rape, evidence of
complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of
his/her reputation shall not be admitted unless, and only to
the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material
and relevant to the case.
Cases:
PEOPLE V. BABIERA
While it is true that when the defense of the accused is that
he acted in self-defense, he may prove the deceased to have
been of a quarrelsome, provoking and irascible disposition,
the proof must be of his general reputation in the community
and not of isolated and specific acts.
2.
48
ysr
CSC V. BELAGAN
49
ysr
The burden of proof is fixed by the pleadings. The plaintiffs
claim w/c he must prove is spelled out in his complaint.
Defendants defenses which he must likewise prove are
found in his answer to the complaint. The burdens of proof of
both parties do not shift during the course of the trial.
Ex. Burden of proof to establish that defendant owes plaintiff
remains w/ the latter; burden of proof to establish that
the loan has been paid remains w/ defendant
throughout the litigation
PART THREE
I. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS
A. Burden of proof (R131.1)
Section 1. Burden of proof. Burden of proof is 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. (1a, 2a)
Equipoise rule
Refers to a situation where the parties pieces of evidence are
evenly balanced or theres doubt on which side the evidence
preponderates. In such case, the decision should be against
the party w/ the burden of proof.
Where burden of proof is on the plaintiff and the evidence
does not suggest that the scale of justice should weigh
in his favor court should render verdict for defendant.
In a criminal case, the equipoise rule provides that where the
evidence is evenly balanced, the constitutional
presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the
accused.
NOT APPLICABLE where the evidence presented is not
equally weighty, such as where prosecution evidence is
overwhelming
Burden of evidence
Shifts from party to party
depending upon the
exigencies of the case in the
course of the trial
Generally determined by
developments at the trial, or
by the provisions of the
substantive law or procedural
rules w/c may relieve the
party from presenting
evidence on the fact alleged
(i.e. presumptions, judicial
notice & admissions)
Cases:
PEOPLE V. PAJENADO
In criminal cases burden of proof as to offense charged lies
w/ prosecution, and a negative fact must be proved if it is an
essential ingredient of the crime burden of proof w/
prosecution to prove that the firearm used by the accused in
committing the offense charged was not properly licensed.
SAMBAR V. LEVI STRAUSS & CO.
In civil cases, the burden of proof may be on either the
plaintiff or the defendant. It is on the latter, if in his answer he
alleges an affirmative defense, which is not a denial of an
essential ingredient in the plaintiffs cause of action, but is one
which, if established, will be a good defense i.e., an
avoidance of the claim, which prima facie, the plaintiff
already has because of the defendants own admissions in
the pleadings.
PEOPLE V. MACALABA
GEN RULE: if a criminal charge is predicated on a negative
allegation, or that a negative averment is an essential element
of a crime, the prosecution has the burden of proving the
charge.
Presumption: an inference of the existence or nonexistence of a fact which courts are permitted to
draw from the proof of other facts
a. Presumptions of fact: derived wholly and
directly from the circumstances of the
particular case by means of the common
experience of mankind
b. Presumptions of law: reduced to fixed rules
and form a part of the system of jurisprudence
o Conclusive/absolute presumptions
o Disputable/rebuttable presumptions
PEOPLE V. FLORENDO
The onus probandi rests upon him who invokes insanity as
an exempting circumstance, and he must prove it by clear
and convincing evidence.
RUDECON MGMT. CORP. V. CAMACHO
In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against
lawyers, the quantum of proof required is clearly
preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon
the complainant.
RIANO:
50
ysr
B. Presumptions (R131.2-4)
Sec. 2. Conclusive presumptions. The following are
instances of conclusive presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or
omission, intentionally and deliberately led to another to
believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such
belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such
declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it:
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord
at the time of commencement of the relation of landlord
and tenant between them. (3a)
Pars. a & b: estoppel in pais.
Under the doctrine of estoppel, the person making the
representation cannot claim benefit from the wrong he
himself committed.
Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. The following
presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his
voluntary act;
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if
produced;
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the
latter;
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been
paid;
(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a
receipt for the later one is produced;
ysr
ysr
ONG V. SANDIGANBAYAN
The constitutional assurance of the right against self
incrimination likewise cannot be invoked by petitioners. The
right is a prohibition against the use of physical or moral
compulsion to extort communications from the accused. It is
simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the
accuseds own lips, against his will, admission of his guilt. In
this case, petitioners are not compelled to present themselves
as witnesses in rebutting the presumption established by law.
They may present documents evidencing the purported bank
loans, money market placements and other fund sources in
their defense.
Provides a presumption of
simultaneity in the deaths of
the persons called to
succeed each other
Par (jj)
Parties mustve perished in a
calamity
Applies only where the
deaths occurred during a
calamity and applies to cases
not involving successional
rights
Provides for presumptions of
survivorship
Cases:
A.
PEOPLE V. MAGBANUA
It is true that a government doctors post-mortem
examination is presumed by law to have been regularly
performed. This rebuttable presumption, however, cannot be
successfully invoked in the present case, it appearing that the
examining doctor was remiss in the performance of his duties
as a medico-legal officer.
Examination of witnesses
1. R132.1-2
Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. The
examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall
be done in open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless
the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the questions calls for
a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall
be given orally. (1a)
MABUNGA V. PEOPLE
ysr
PEOPLE V. GO
PEOPLE V. BISDA
A witness testimony in court cannot be considered selfserving since he can be subjected to cross-examination. (Co v.
CA)
Self-serving evidence: one made out of court and is
excluded on the same ground as hearsay evidence, i.e.
deprivation of the right of cross-examination
2. 36, BP 129
Per BP 129, summary procedure may be authorized by the SC
in special cases like ejectment, traffic law violation, etc.
B.
Rights of a witness
1. R132.3
Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. A witness
must answer questions, although his answer may tend to
establish a claim against him. However, it is the right of a
witness:
1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting
questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor;
2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice
require;
3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent
to the issue;
4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to
a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by
law; or
Cases:
54
ysr
Bermudez case: testimony given by complainant who, unlike
an accused person, could not refuse to testify without an
unfavorable inference being drawn against her. She did
not open the issue in her direct examination as it was
raised during cross, thus she didnt waive the privilege
against self-incrimination of her own volition or by acts
imputable to her.
2. 8, RA 1379
Sec. 8. Protection against self-incrimination. Neither the
respondent nor any other person shall be excused from
attending and testifying or from producing books, papers,
correspondence, memoranda and other records on the
ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or
otherwise, required of him may tend to incriminate him or
subject him to prosecution; but no individual shall be
prosecuted criminally for or on account of any transaction,
matter or thing concerning which he is compelled, after
having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, to
testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise,
except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt
from prosecution and conviction for perjury or false testimony
committed in so testifying or from administrative proceedings.
3. PD 749
GRANTING IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION TO GIVERS OF
BRIBES AND OTHER GIFTS AND TO THEIR ACCOMPLICES IN
BRIBERY AND OTHER GRAFT CASES AGAINST PUBLIC
OFFICERS
ysr
C.
Order of examination
1. R132.4-10
Sec. 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness.
The order in which the individual witness may be examined is
as follows:
(a) Direct examination by the proponent;
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent.
Cases:
GALMAN V. PAMARAN
Classes of immunity statutes
a. Use immunity: prohibits use of witness compelled
testimony and its fruits in any manner in connection w/
the criminal prosecution of the witness
ROSETE V. LIM
As a rule, only an accused in a criminal case can refuse to
take the witness stand. The right to refuse to take the stand
does not generally apply to parties in administrative cases or
proceedings. The parties thereto can only refuse to answer if
incriminating questions are propounded. But there is an
exception a party who is not an accused in a criminal case
is allowed not to take the witness stand in administrative
cases/proceedings that partook of the nature of a criminal
proceeding or analogous to a criminal proceeding. It is the
opinion of the Court that said exception applies to parties in
civil actions which are criminal in nature. As long as the suit is
criminal in nature, the party thereto can altogether decline to
take the witness stand. It is not the character of the suit
involved but the nature of the proceedings that controls.
ysr
RIANO:
Basic purposes of cross-examination:
1. Bring out facts favorable to counsels client not
established by the direct testimony
2. To enable counsel to impeach or to impair the witness
credibility
2. R115.1(d)
Sec. 1. Rights of accused at trial. In all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: xxx
d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to
cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination.
His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him;
Cases:
Where all sides in the case have concluded witness
examination, his recall for further examination is discretionary
w/ the court as the interest of justice requires. However,
where such examination has not been concluded, or if the
recall of the witness was expressly reserved by a party w/ the
approval of the court, then his recall is a matter of right.
PEOPLE V. SANTOS
A judge may examine or cross-examine a witness. He may
propound clarificatory questions to test the credibility of the
witness and to extract the truth. He may seek to draw out
relevant and material testimony though that testimony may
tend to support or rebut the position taken by one or the
other party. It cannot be taken against him if the clarificatory
questions he propounds happen to reveal certain truths
which tend to destroy the theory of one party.
D.
Impeachment of witnesses
1. R132.11-15
Sec. 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. A witness
may be impeached by the party against whom he was called,
by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his general
reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or by
evidence that he has made at other times statements
inconsistent with his present, testimony, but not by evidence
of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by
the examination of the witness, or the record of the
judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense. (15)
Sec. 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. Except
with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e)
57
ysr
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Hostile witness;
2. Where the witness is the adverse party or the
representative of a juridical person w/c is the adverse
party; and
3. When the witness is not voluntarily offered but is
required by law to be presented by the proponent, as in
the case of subscribing witnesses to a will. (Fernandez v.
Tantoco)
2.
58
R23.4
ysr
Second sentence = revival of past recollection. Applies
where the witness does not recall the facts involved, and is
entitled to lesser weight
Case:
CANQUE V. CA
ysr
must be proved in accordance w/ Secs. 24 & 25 of the same
Rule.
Public documents
1. R132.19, 23-30
Sec. 19. Classes of Documents. For the purpose of their
presentation evidence, documents are either public or
private.
ysr
NOTE: While recognizing the primacy of a birth certificate as
proof of the victims age, SC held that in the absence of such
evidence, the victims minority may be proved by other
documentary evidence such as her baptismal certificate or
other authentic records. (People v. Llandelar)
RIANO:
Judicial record: the record of judicial proceedings. Includes
official entries or files, official acts of a judicial officer, and
judgment of the court
2. CC408
CC403. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding
article, a daughter above twenty-one but below twenty-three
years of age cannot leave the parental home without the
consent of the father or mother in whose company she lives,
except to become a wife, or when she exercises a profession
or calling, or when the father or mother has contracted a
subsequent marriage. (321a)
3. 201, RA 8424
NIRC, Sec. 201. Effect of Failure to Stamp Taxable Document. An instrument, document or paper which is required by law
to be stamped and which has been signed, issued, accepted
or transferred without being duly stamped, shall not be
recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or any record of
transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any
court until the requisite stamp or stamps are affixed thereto
and cancelled.
Cases:
PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING CORP. V. NLRC
PEOPLE V. LAZARO
Either the testimony of a representative of, or a certification
from, the PNP Firearms and Explosive Office attesting that a
person is not a licensee of any firearm would suffice to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the second element of possession
of illegal firearms. Moreover, the rule on hearsay evidence
admits of several exceptions. One such exception is that
provided for under R130.44 (Entries in official records).
Relative to this provision, R132.28 of the same Rules allows
the admission of the said document.
61
ysr
MONTEVERDE V. PEOPLE
A private document acquires the character of a public
document when it becomes part of an official record and is
certified by a public officer duly authorized by law.
Where the reply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the
transmittal to him and his receipt of the letter in question, a
copy of which the proponent is offering as evidence
SORIANO V. GALIT
Public documents by themselves may be adequate to
establish the presumption of their validity. However, their
probative weight must be evaluated not in isolation but in
conjunction with other evidence adduced by the parties in
the controversy, much more so in this case where the
contents of a copy thereof subsequently registered for
documentation purposes is being contested.
DELFIN V. BILLONES
Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the
performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated. Nevertheless, this
presumption is disputable and is satisfactory only if
uncontradicted, and may be overcome by other evidence to
the contrary.
SEVILLA V. CARDENAS
The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted
by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a
duty.
B. Private documents (R132.20-22, 32-33)
Sec. 20. Proof of private document. Before any private
document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved either:
a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
or
b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker.
Cases:
BARTOLOME V. IAC
Under R132.21, the due execution and authenticity of a
private writing must be proved either by anyone who saw
the writing executed, by evidence of the genuineness of the
handwriting of the maker, or by a subscribing witness.
Doctrine of self-authentication
Where the facts in the writing could only have been known
by the writer
CEQUEA V. BOLANTE
62
ysr
Cases:
ASUNCION V. NLRC
Handwritten listing and unsigned computer printouts which
are unauthenticated are unreliable. The SC has consistently
required some proof of authenticity or reliability as condition
for the admission of documents.
VIDALLON-MAGTOLIS V. SALUD
Cases:
CABOTAJE V. PADUNAN
<Restated the provision>
CIRELOS V. HERNANDEZ
The party producing a document as genuine which has been
altered in a part material to the question in dispute must
account for the alteration.
D. Rule on Electronic Evidence
Rule 5. Authentication of Electronic Documents
Sec. 1. The person seeking to introduce an electronic
document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving
its authenticity.
RIANO:
When formal offer of evidence is not required
1. In a summary proceeding, as its a proceeding where
theres no full-blown trial
63
ysr
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out
of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise
improper. (n)
64
ysr
YU V. CA
It is apparent [from R132.40] that before tender of excluded
evidence is made, the evidence must have been formally
offered before the court. And before formal offer of evidence
is made, the evidence must have been identified and
presented before the court.
VALENCIA V. SANDIGANBAYAN
RAMOS V. DIZON
In People v. Napat-a, we relaxed [R132.34] and allowed
evidence not formally offered to be admitted and considered
by the trial court provided the following requirements are
present, viz: first, the same must have been duly identified by
testimony duly recorded and, second, the same must have
been incorporated in the records of the case.
TAN V. PEOPLE
SC has ruled that objection to the admissibility of evidence, if
not made at the time such evidence is offered, shall be
deemed waived. However, in all cases where said rule had
been applied, the assailed testimonial or object evidence had
been duly presented during the course of the trial.
CABUGAO V. PEOPLE
Where a party fails to object to evidence when offered, he is
deemed to have waived his objection thereto. Consequently,
the evidence offered may be admitted.
ysr
to him and, at times, it weakens his resistance to outside
influence. (People v. Juarez)
The fact that a person has reached the twilight of his life is
not always a guarantee that he would tell the truth. Its also
quite common that advanced age makes a person mentally
dull and completely hazy about things which have happened
66
ysr
67
ysr
2.
Cases:
HABAGAT GRILL V. DMC-URBAN PROPERTY DEVELOPER
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence
adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater
weight than that of the other. Where the evidence presented
by one side is insufficient to ascertain the claim, there is no
preponderance of evidence. In criminal cases in which the
quantum of evidence required is greater than in civil cases,
the testimony of only one witness if credible,
straightforward, and worthy of belief is sufficient to convict.
ysr
PEOPLE V. PADUA
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld,
provided the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken
chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that
points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the
guilty person.
RIANO:
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence must exclude
each and every hypothesis consistent w/ innocence. If the
totality of the circumstances eliminates beyond reasonable
doubt the possibility of innocence, conviction is proper.
Cases:
UNGSOD V. PEOPLE
Cases:
REYES V. MANGINO
MARTURILLAS V. PEOPLE
Conviction in a criminal case does not require a degree of
proof that, excluding the possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that
degree of proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind.
PEOPLE V. VILLANUEVA
To sustain a conviction under a single prosecution witness,
such testimony needs only to establish sufficiently: 1) the
identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and 2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.
D.
Credibility of witnesses
RIANO:
Credibility of the witness refers to the believability of the
witness and has nothing to do with the law or the rules. It
refers to the weight and trustworthiness or reliability of the
testimony.
Cases:
PEOPLE V. DOMINGCIL
69
ysr
PEOPLE V. MONTEIRO
The trial court should have applied R133.7 on evidence on
motion. In Sapida v De Villanueva, the SC had ruled that
while the court may rule upon motions solely on the basis of
affidavits and counter-affidavits, if the affidavits contradict
each other on matters of fact, the court can have no basis to
make its findings of facts and the prudent course is to subject
the affiants to cross-examination so that the court can decide
whom to believe.
PEOPLE V. ALCANTARA
We have followed the rule in accord with human nature and
experience that honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial
matters serve to strengthen, rather than destroy, the credibility
of a witness, especially of witnesses to crimes shocking to
conscience and numbing to senses.
E. Termination of presentation of evidence (R133.6)
Sec. 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. The
court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon
any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so
full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be
reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. But this
power should be exercised with caution. (6)
The court has the power to stop the introduction of
testimony which will merely be cumulative. (Guinea v. Vda de
Pamonal)
Case:
PEOPLE V. SUBIDA
While justice must be administered with dispatch, the
essential ingredient is that the proceedings must be orderly
expeditious and not merely speedy. The judicial conscience
certainly cannot rest easy on a conviction based solely on
prosecution evidence just because the presentation of the
defense evidence had been barred by technicality.
70