P. 1
ATENEO Evidence

ATENEO Evidence

|Views: 2,773|Likes:
Published by vanessa pagharion

More info:

Published by: vanessa pagharion on Jun 27, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/10/2015

pdf

text

original

ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 Remedial Law SUMMER REVIEWER

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 governing law on that particular proceeding specifically adopts the rules of evidence in the Rules of Court. 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not applicable even in a suppletory character, except in criminal and expropriation cases, which procedure has been superseded by the provisions of RA 6657. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE ACCORDING TO FORM 1. OBJECTIVE OR REAL EVIDENCE – directly 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. 2. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – evidence supplied by written instruments or derived from conventional symbols, such as letters, by which ideas are represented on material substances 3. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE – is that which is submitted to the court through the testimony or deposition of a witness. RELEVANT, EVIDENCE MATERIAL AND COMPETENT

EVIDENCE

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. 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 QuickTime™ instance, permit the rules of evidence would, for and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are quantum picture. reception of a lesser needed to see thisof 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. The rules of evidence are specifically applicable only in judicial proceedings.

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. 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.

—Advisers: Atty. Tranquil Salvador III; Head: Mary Elizabeth M. Belmonte, Renee Lynn C. Miciano, Ma. Cecillia G. Natividad; Understudies: Neliza Macapayag, Benjamin C. Yan—

Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
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. 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.
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EVIDENCE are needed to see this picture. QuickTime™ and 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 prima facie evidence of his guilt An offer to It is an implied compromise does not, admission of guilt. as a general rule,
Page 240 of 289

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

Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
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. Guilt beyond reasonable doubt 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

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 wellestablished 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 QuickTime™ and a rejecting them on doubtful ordecompressor grounds, but technical TIFF (Uncompressed) are needed to see irrelevant, immaterial or admitting them unless plainly this picture. incompetent, for the reason that their rejection places them beyond the consideration of the court, if they are thereafter found relevant or 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.

Object evidence

When the same is presented for its view or evaluation, as in ocular inspection or demonstrations, or when the party rest his case and the real evidence consists of objects exhibited in court. By calling of the witness to the stand

Be made either at the the time it is presented in an ocular inspection or demonstrations or when it is formally offered

Testimonial evidence

Documentar y evidence

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

As to the qualification of the witness – should be made at the time he is called to the stand. If otherwise qualified objection should be raised when the objectionable question is asked or after the answer is given if the objectionable features became apparent by reason of such answer. At the time it is formally offered.

Page 241 of 289

Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
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. CERTAIN DOCTRINES ADMISSIBILITY OR RULES OF 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. 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 evidence must be confined to the facts put in issue by the pleadings.

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. 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 by similar incompetent evidence. b. English rule – if a party has presented inadmissible evidence, the adverseQuickTime™ and a resort to similar party may TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor inadmissible evidence are needed to see this picture. 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.

RULE 129 WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED Section 1. Judicial Notice, when mandatory 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.

Page 242 of 289

Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007
- cognizance of certain facts which judges may take and act on without proof because they are already known to them 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. 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. 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 . The mere personal knowledge of a judge is not the QuickTime™ and the TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor judicial knowledge of neededcourt; Judicial cognizance is are the to see this picture. 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. During the trial: the Court may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and may hear the parties thereon. 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 The judge may consult works on collateral science, or arts, touching the topic on trial.
Page 243 of 289

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. 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 Judicial notice, when hearing

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. What stage may the court take judicial notice of a fact? 1. During trial 2. after trial and before judgment 3. appeal A DISTINCTION is made between judicial notice taken during trial and that taken after trial but before judgment or on appeal.

or an admission made by a witness in the course of his testimony or deposition. bill of particulars. it is an extrajudicial admission. such as maps. THE COURT MAY REFUSE THE INTRODUCTION OF OBJECT EVIDENCE AND RELY ON TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE ALONE IF: 1. it should be offered formally in evidence. provided the same are properly authenticated. otherwise. When a defendant is declared in default for having failed to answer the complaint.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 Section 4. Even if the object is repulsive or indecent. pictures or audio-visual recordings. in which case such object becomes object evidence or by receiving testimonial evidence thereon. Just like ocular inspection. The fact that an ocular inspection has been held does not preclude a party from introducing other evidence on the same issue. if a view of the same is necessary in the interest of justice. diagrams or sketches. Stipulations voluntarily entered into between the parties will be respected and enforced by the courts unless contrary to public policy or good morals. as a rule and where elements of estoppel are not present. the binding effect of the facts applies only to the parties in agreement. 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. stipulation of facts. Section 1. Example: examination of the anatomy of a person or of any substance taken therefrom. or may be in writing as in pleading. EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS are those made out of court. Judicial Admissions. request for admission. . or in a judicial proceeding other than the one under consideration Extrajudicial admissions or other admissions are. or to determine the age of Page 244 of 289 RULE 130 a QuickTime™ and TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY are needed to see this picture. such a failure does not amount to an admission of the facts alleged in the complaint. A judicial admission may be oral as a verbal waiver of proof made in open court. or the nature of the handwriting thereon. disputable. or a judicial admission contained in an affidavit used in the case. inconvenience. However. especially by experts. 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. JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS are those so made in the pleadings filed or in the progress of a trial. and in order that any statements contained therein may be considered as an extrajudicial admission. a withdrawal of a contention or a disclosure made before the court. such observations of the court may be amplified by interpretations afforded by testimonial evidence. Object as evidence Where an object is relevant to a fact in issue. unnecessary expenses out of proportion to the evidentiary value of such object 3. Object evidence includes any article or object which may be known or perceived by the use of any of the senses. such object evidence would be confusing or misleading. NOTE: Documents are object evidence if the purpose is to prove their existence or condition. the court may acquire knowledge thereof by actually viewing the object. to require its being viewed in court or in an ocular inspection would result in delays. which are only auxiliary remedies afforded to the court. Whether an ocular inspection is to be made or not lies in the discretion of the trial court. the testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the object in question as to render a view thereof unnecessary. Pleadings superseded or amended disappear from the record of judicial admissions. the admission must be made in the same case. such evidence may still be exhibited but the court may exclude the public from such view. To be considered a judicial admission. or the examination of the representative portrayals of the object in question. the exhibition of such object is contrary to morals or decency 2.

2 theories on whether the court may compel the plaintiff to submit his body for inspection in personal injury cases: 1. manner of the preservation of the recording 6.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 the paper used. which may be exhibited inside or outside the courtroom. deletions. 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. Whenever the defendant. DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE . The gun must have some connection to the crime. identification of the speakers 7. as where falsification is alleged. a knife. because the right of a person to be secured of the possession or control of his person is sacred. models. it must be shown that it is the true and faithful representation of the place or object which to which they refer. The foundation for DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE. the prosecution offered in evidence a gun. Authentication usually consists of showing that the object was involved in underlying event. Otherwise. they are considered documentary evidence if the purpose is to establish the contents or tenor thereof. 2. or the blemishes or alterations thereon. 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. it may also be a mere inspection of an object or an experiment. additions. The DISTINCTION between object and demonstrative evidence is important because it helps determine the standards that the evidence must meet to be admissible. at the trial of his case.is a tangible object that played some actual role on the matter that gave rise to the litigation. For instance. are be authenticated before it is admitted. Physical evidence is the highest form of evidence. For tape recordings. There must be a logical nexus between the evidence and the point on which it is offered. For OBJECT EVIDENCE. the recording device was capable of recording testimony 2. Must be relevant to the fact in issue. Photographs may be verified by the photographer or any person acquainted with the object represented and testify that the same faithfully represents the object. Object must needed to see this picture. Testimony elicited was voluntarily made. 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. establishment of the correctness or authenticity of the recording 4. diagrams. 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. 2. No.is a tangible evidence that merely illustrates a matter of importance in the litigation such as maps. the required foundation relates to proving that the evidence is indeed the object used in the underlying event. Object evidence may consist of articles or persons. In order that photographs may be given as evidence. does not involve showing that the object was the one used in the underlying event. but the foundation generally involves the showing that the demonstrative object fairly represents or illustrates what it is alleged to illustrate. the ff. REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE OBJECT EVIDENCE: 1. Authenticated fingerprints may be compared to fingerprints found on the crime scene. Yes. must explain what he did with it. OBJECT EVIDENCE . must be shown: 1. testifying in his own behalf. the operator of the device was competent 3. summaries and other materials created especially for litigation. changes have not been made 5. 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 QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor first recognized as being relevant to the case. Example: In murder case. Page 245 of 289 .

1. Documentary evidence is that which is furnished by written instruments. Page 246 of 289 . secondary evidence of the fact in issue may readily be introduced without having to account for the non-production of such primary evidence. 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. the best evidence rule applies only when the content of such document is the subject of inquiry. Original document must be produced. it is proper for the tribunal to go to the object in its place and there observe it. For the application of the best evidence. executed at or about the same time. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office BEST EVIDENCE RULE . With respect to documentary evidence. EXCEPTIONS: 1. In the case of real evidence. without bad faith on the part of the offeror. and it must be available to the opposite party for cross-examination Section 4. all such copies are equally regarded as originals (c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course. gives rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence. they are considered as originals. Documentary evidence DOCUMENT – any substance having any matter expressed or described upon it by marks capable of being read. Original document. all entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. When the original has been lost or destroyed. of business. exceptions GENERAL RULE: The original document must be produced. be first duly identified. Document . and a sufficient and a sufficient foundation be laid. so as to entitle the writing to be admitted in evidence. If carbon copies are signed. (b) When a document is in two or more copies. evidenced or set forth. and 4.is a deed. 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. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Section 2.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 Where the object in question cannot be produced in court because it is immovable or inconvenient to remove. instrument or other duly authorized appear by which something is proved. one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction. inscriptions and documents of all kinds. it is essential that: the original writing or if it is a private document. NOTE: Best evidence rule applies only when the purpose of the proof is to establish the terms of writing. with identical contents. 2. RULE OF EXCLUSION: that which is secondary evidence cannot inceptively be introduced as the original writing itself must be produced in court. it is treated as real evidence. and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice. or cannot be produced in court. NOTE: If it is produced without regard to the message which it contains. The non-production of the original document unless justified in Section 3. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered. 3. except in the four instances mentioned in Section 3. Best Evidence Rule Section 3. QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. WHAT IS AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT? (a) the original of a document is one in two the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.is that rule which requires the highest grade of evidence obtainable to prove a disputed fact.

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. they are It is not necessary to prove the loss beyond all possibility of mistake. it is sufficient to warrant the reception of secondary evidence. then the original dispatch received is the best evidence. In order that the testimony of such person may be admissible. recital of its contents in an authentic document 3. and this is sufficient. all the entries are regarded as originals. 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. proved to admit secondary evidence? (a) The execution of the original (b) loss. like any other fact. one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 In criminal cases. such requirement is controlling. When original document is unavailable SECONDARY EVIDENCE – shows that better or primary evidence exists as to the proof of fact in question. 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. however. A reasonable probability of its loss is sufficient. Secondary evidence may consist of (IN THE SAME ORDER): 1. It is deemed less reliable. The fact of loss or destruction must. If the issue is the inaccuracy of transmission. Where secondary evidence has been admitted. it becomes the original. as when it is in a foreign country. Affidavits and depositions are considered as not being the best evidence. and this may be shown by bona fide and diligent search for it in place where it is likely to be found. Blueprints and vellum tracings have been held to be originals rather than copies. QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor Page 247 of 289 . When a duplicate or a copy is amended or altered by the party. where the issue is not only with respect to the contents of the document but also as to whether such document actually existed. 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. It is also sufficient where the person who made the original a 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. What must be are needed to see this picture. 2. both telegrams as sent and received are originals. or one to whom the parties thereto had previously confessed the execution thereof Intentional destruction of the originals by a party who. If the issue is the contents of the telegram as received by the addressee. the recollection of the witnesses Where the law specifically provides for the class and quantum of secondary evidence to establish the contents of a document. Photocopies are not originals since reproduced at a latter time. Where both parties admit that an instrument has been lost. When the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court. be proved by a fair preponderance of evidence. secondary evidence is admissible. destruction or unavailability of all such originals (c) Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to produce the original. When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business. the rule of evidence might have been successfully invoked if proper and timely objection had been taken. the original itself must be presented. a copy of said document 2. Secondary Evidence Section 5. and on the issue as to the telegram sent by the sender. the original is the message delivered for transmission.

As long as the originals of a public document in the possession of the parties have been proven lost. it is to be considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be. or his attorney. 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. 3. 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. and the burden of proof is upon the party questioning its authenticity to show that it is not a true copy of the original. even if the document is in the actual possession of a third party. It need not be a public document. between the parties and their successors in interest.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 short time thereafter made a copy by writing down the dictation of another reading from the original. Under this rule. a certified copy of the document made before it was lost is admissible as secondary evidence of its contents. Even an oral demand in open court for production at a reasonable time thereafter will suffice. it is enough that the substance of the documents be stated. Parol Evidence Rule Section 9. Evidence of written agreements GENERAL RULE: When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing. Section 7. as long as it fairly apprises the other party as to what papers are desired. and in case of an authorized public record of a private writing. the same may also be proved by a copy thereof attested by the legal keeper of the record. if complete. Notice must be given to the adverse party. pursuant to a notice duly served. no notice to produce said document is required. explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading any of the following: Page 248 of 289 . are needed to copy thereof. Section 8. Section 6. is itself an original copy and the only point in issue is the receipt of the basic original copy thereof. No particular form of notice is required. EXCEPTION: aparty may present evidence to modify. there is no need for a notice to the other party to produce the original of the latter. Where the nature of the action is in itself a notice. no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. Production of papers or documents upon the trial. 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. Where receipt of the original of a letter is QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor acknowledged on a carbonsee this picture. 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. Evidence admissible when original documents is a public record 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. “Authentic” means that the document should be genuine. does not make such papers or documents evidence. In proving the contents of the original in some authentic document. It authorizes the introduction of secondary evidence. it is sufficient if it appears in a private document which is proved to be authentic. It is not expected of a witness to state the contents of a document with verbal accuracy. 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. as where it is for the recovery or annulment of documents wrongfully obtained or withheld by the other party. It should be observed that the duplicate copy. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it.

and may not properly be invoked by either party to the litigation against the other. 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 writings It can be invoked by any party to an action regardless of whether or not such party has participated in the writing involved. but the parol evidence is not objected to. he cannot introduce parol evidence thereon. but this exception shall not apply to a condition subsequent not stated in the agreement.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 (a) An intrinsic ambiguity. Where the plaintiff failed to allege any such fact in his complaint. In order that the parol evidence may be admissible. or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties. whether oral or written. the mistake or imperfection of the document. contradict. Even if such defenses were not raised in the pleadings. or (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. 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. all their previous and contemporaneous agreements on the matter are merged therein. . PAROL EVIDENCE – any evidence aliunde. hence evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary. parol evidence may be introduced as such fact is now put in issue. in the ff instances: 1) Where the collateral agreement is not inconsistent with the terms of the written contract 2) 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 3) where the collateral agreement is subsequent to or novatory of the written contract. which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document. 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. mistake or imperfection in the written agreement. Formerly. or defeat the operation of a valid document. 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 the wills. 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. The parol evidence rule is based upon the consideration that when the parties have reduced their agreement on a particular matter into writing. (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto. If the defendant invoked such fact in his answer. Such mistake or imperfection must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. even if there was a written agreement on a particular subject matter. or the validity of the agreement must be put in issue by the pleadings. The term “agreement” includes wills. such objection is deemed waived. or any party directly affected thereby (this is to prevent fraudulent operation of the instrument upon the rights of strangers) 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. (c) The validity of the written agreement. and 4) Where the collateral agreement constitutes a condition precedent which determines whether the written contract may become operative or effective. their privies. a QuickTime™ and TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. When no timely objection or protest is made to the admission of parol evidence in respect to a contract Page 249 of 289 Parol evidence rule does not apply.

In this TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor case. 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. parol evidence needed to see this picture. To justify the reformation of a written instrument upon the ground of mistake. or the presence of inconsistent provisions therein.is such ambiguity which is apparent on the face of the writing itself and requires something to be added in order to ascertain the meaning QuickTime™ and a of the words used. Example: Dollars. said party will be understood to have waived the benefits of the law. the rule is inflexible that parol evidence cannot be admitted to supply the deficiency. Mistake should be of fact – does not correctly express the intention of the parties applies only to a mistake of facts 2. otherwise the court would be creating a contract between the parties. which for Page 250 of 289 . As a matter of substantive law.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 relative to real estate and when the motion to strike out said evidence came too late. Example of latent ambiguity is when the documents refers to a particular person but such name pertains to many persons with same name. “Imperfection” includes an inaccurate statement in the agreement. are is not admissible. The incorrect description shall be rejected as surplusage while the correct and complete description standing alone shall sustain the validity of the writing. and if the other party against whom such evidence was presented cross-examined the witnesses who testified in respect to the contract. 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. 3. Mistake should be mutual or common to both parties to the instrument – Reformation is then given because mistake is mutual. 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 any interest therein may be proved by parol evidence. Rules governing the admissibility of parol evidence to explain ambiguity 1) Where the instrument itself seem to be clear and certain on its face. 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. The “mistake” under the first exception refers to a mistake of fact which is mutual to the parties where the innocent party was imposed upon by unfair dealing of the other. As earlier stated. 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. the instrument may be reformed. Here. it now includes a latent or intrinsic ambiguity in the 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. or where a writing admits of two constructions both of which are in harmony with the language used. In this. is actually equivocal and admits of two interpretations. The parties must have come to an actual oral agreement before they have attempted to reduce it in writing. PATENT OR EXTRINSIC AMBIGUITY . and the ambiguity arises from extrinsic or collateral matter. the words are seemingly clear and with a settled meaning. 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. INTERMEDIATE AMBIGUITY – situation where an ambiguity partakes of the nature of both patent and latent. or incompleteness in the writing. Parol evidence under those facts is competent and admissible. tons and ounces NOTE: False description does not vitiate a document if the subject is sufficiently identified. parol evidence is admissible to clarify the ambiguity provided that the matter is put in issue by the pleader. the concurrence of three things is necessary: 1.

Interpretation of Documents Section 10. Written words control printed When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form. This question may be determined from the contract itself. or the language is not understood by the court. Interpretation of and awriting according QuickTime™ a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor to its legal meaning needed to see this picture. Parol evidence is admitted if the subject of the oral negotiation is not so closely connected with the subject of the writing. and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally Page 251 of 289 . Of two constructions. parol evidence is admissible to prove the real agreement of the parties. 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. and the two are inconsistent. there is nothing to which to apply the excluding rule. may be shown.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 that reason is a condition precedent. Section 16. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. circumstances Interpretation according to For the proper construction of an instrument. the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters. the circumstances under which it was made. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered. Section 17. Peculiar signification of terms The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation. This is not varying the terms of the written contract by extrinsic agreement for the simple reason that there is no contract in existence. Section 11. including the situation of the object thereof and of the parties to it. the former controls the latter. 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. in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly Section 15. Section 13. to be adopted as will give effect to all. Where the provisions of a written contract are ambiguous and there is sufficient evidence showing the existence of other agreements collateral thereto. Section 12. or otherwise peculiar signification. 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. technical. is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language. so that the judge may be placed in the position of those whose language he is to interpret. Interpretation according to intention. general and particular provisions In the construction of an instrument. or who understand the language. 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. the latter is paramount to the former. if possible. the intention of the parties is to be pursued and when a general and a particular provisions are inconsistent. 4. and were so used and understood in the particular instance. such may be established parol evidence. but evidence is admissible to show that they have been a local. are 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. that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it. Due execution of a writing may proved by parol evidence because what the rule prohibits is varying the terms of the writing by parol evidence. in the light of the subject matter with which it deals and of the circumstances standing its execution. The next step is to ascertain the subject of the oral agreement offered to be proved. 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. which preferred When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it. Section 14.

the judge has no right to discard it solely for the reason that it could have been excluded had it been objected to. GENERAL RULE: When a witness takes the stand to testify. are 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. a lawyer should avoid testifying in court in behalf of his client. while rightfully subjected to careful scrutiny. to rule on the objection accordingly. that it is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made. 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. Section 18. The court cannot reject the witness if there is not proof of his incompetency. Section 19. and if the incompetency appears on the trial. except as to merely formal matters. NOTE: When the incompetency of a witness is only partial. Testimonial Evidence Section 20. in order to determine its true character. 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. Witness. 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. though at that time the party knows of his incompetency. Except when essential to the ends of justice. NOTE: The objectionneeded to see this picture. he should leave the trial of the case to other counsel. Construction in favor of natural right When an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations. However. should not be rejected on the ground of bias alone. The clear terms of the contract should not be subject to interpretations.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 proper. the objection must be interpreted as soon as it becomes apparent. on grounds of public policy. Section 21. NOTE: 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. The burden is upon the party objecting to the competency of a witness to establish the grounds of incompetency. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES C. The same goes for witnesses to a will. presumes that he is competent. NOTE: The interest of the witness affects only his credibility but not his competency. 2) where one party who might have made the objection calls the witness in support of his own case. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity Page 252 of 289 . Interpretation according to usage An instrument may be construed according to usage. the law. Upon the timely objection to the incompetency of a witness being raised. It is the judge who has the decision as to the competency of the witness. The laws in force at the time the contract was made must govern its interpretation and application. When an attorney is a witness to his client. The testimony of the interested witness. as where he testifies in a perjury prosecution that the defendant gave testimony before him in another proceeding in another court. such as the attestation or custody of an instrument and the like. and thereupon. It is objectionable for a judge to be a witness on the same trial. one in favor of natural rights and the other against it. the objection need not be raised until he is QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor asked to testify to those matters as to which he is incapacitated. the trial judge is competent when his testimony concerns merely formal or preliminary matters about which there is no dispute. 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. the former is to be adopted.

is to be satisfied of the competency of the child Section 22. Anand a QuickTime™ idiot. The intelligence of the child is the test of his competency and not his age. 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. can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter. recollection and communication. 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. 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. or at the time of giving his testimony. EXCEPTION: If the witness is a lawful inmate of an asylum for the insane. and 3. This is because the insanity is presumed to continue as a mental state. Drunkenness does not per se disqualify a witness from testifying. nativity. Basis 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. and that this is regarded as more important to the public welfare than that the exigencies of the lawsuits should authorize domestic peace to be disregarded for the sake of ferreting out facts within the knowledge of strangers. whether organic or functional.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 THE FOLLOWING CANNOT BE WITNESSES: 1) Those whose mental conditions. In the case of a child witness. The point of inquiry is the moment of examination. 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. 2. can comprehend facts they are going to testify to. Unsoundness of mind does not per se render a witness incompetent. They may be classed as insane persons. 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. A child who witnessed the crime when he was 11 years old and testified thereto when he was already 15. is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others. 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. they can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath. With respect to children of tender years. This is different from marital privilege. However. one may be medically insane but in law capable of giving competent testimony. The court should take into account his capacity for observation. Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses when: 1. 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 court. is a competent witness. not the judge as an individual.any mental aberration. the law are needed see his presumes that he will never attain any. Idiots are incompetent witnesses. at the time of their production for examination. especially if such event took place long before their production as witnesses. their competence at the time of the occurrence to be testified to should be taken into account. When Rule Applicable Page 253 of 289 . or induced by drugs or hypnosis. Disqualification by reason of marriage This is called the “spousal immunity”. UNSOUND MIND . being one who TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor has no understanding toof this picture. until the contrary is shown.

The privilege to object to testimony concerning antimarital 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. . 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. 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. the witness offered for examination is a party plaintiff. In order that this will apply. to have waived his objection to the latter’s testimony in rebuttal. In a prosecution of the husband for the rape of their daughter. 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 EXCEPTION TO THE RULE: 1. 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. for the reason ceases. After the death or the divorce of one spouse.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 The rule applies to any form of testimony. This disqualification does not apply where a counterclaim has been interposed by the defendant as the plaintiff would thereby be testifying in his defense. The wife is competent to testify for the other defendant if the case against his husband as a party was dismissed. or the assignor of said party. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party This section is called THE SURVIVORSHIP DISQUALIFICATION RULE OR DEAD MAN STATUTE. QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. 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. through their absence.The term “assignor” of a party means assignor of a cause of action which has arisen. Section 23. merely leave a void in the unhappy home. It constitutes only a partial disqualification as the witness is not completely disqualified but is only prohibited from testifying on the matters therein specified. and not the assignor of a right assigned before any cause of action has arisen Page 254 of 289 This can be waived just like any other objection to the competency of other witnesses. . unlike the marital disqualification rule which is complete and absolute disqualification. 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. therefore it protects against using the spouse-witness’s admission or against compelling him to produce documents. the security and confidence of private life which the law aims at protecting will be nothing but ideals which. it is a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other. Where the wife is a co-defendant in a suit charging her and her husband with collusive fraud. NOTE: This applies to both civil and criminal cases REQUISITES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THIS RULE: 1. Reason for the Exception 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 nonexistent. but the testimony of the plaintiff should be limited to acts performed by the agent. or a person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. 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. The same is true where the deceased contracted with the plaintiff through an agent and said agent is alive and can testify.Such plaintiff must be the real party in interest. she cannot be called as an adverse party witness as this will violate the disqualification rule. the privilege ceases. And in such a situation. he is deemed .

they are still protected under this rule against such prohibited testimony as they are considered as the representatives of the deceased. 4. whether by purchase or descent or operation of law. seemingly. The testimony to be given is on matter of fact occurring before the death. hence the plaintiff is not a competent witness. the parties plaintiff to an action is not rendered incompetent to testify to fraudulent transactions of the deceased. If the case is brought against the partnership of the deceased. this prohibition does not apply as the oppositors are considered defendants and may therefore. or a person in whose behalf the suit is instituted. of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. When Deemed Waived 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. the court should compel such parties to clearly establish the alleged fraudulent acts.It is necessary that the said defendant is being sued and defends in such representative capacity and not in his individual capacity. that the fact did not occur during the life time of the deceased. as such fact exists even after the decedent’s demise. or an assignor of a party. belonging to the deceased person.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 A witness may testify against an estate. the law has certainly no reason for its application. If the purpose of the oral testimony is to prove a lesser claim than what might be warranted by clear evidence.This includes any matter of fact which bears upon a transaction or communication - In land registration case instituted by the decedent’s representatives. Since the purpose of this rule is to discourage perjury and protect the estate from fictitious claims. 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. Testimony on the present possession by the witness of a written instrument signed by the deceased is also not covered by the prohibition. the prohibition does not apply even if all the 4 requisites above are present. This prohibition does not also apply in cadastral cases since there is no plaintiff or defendants therein. the case is upon a claim or demand against the estate of such person who is deceased or of unsound mind . per se.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.The term “representative of a deceased person” has been interpreted to include not only the executor or administrator of a deceased person. the case is against the executor or administrator or other representative of a person deceased or of unsound mind . - 2. provided he is not a party. to avoid prejudice to the estate of the deceased. .Estate of a deceasedandperson includes all QuickTime™ a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor properties. provided such fraud is first established by evidence aliunde.This is restricted to debts or demands enforceable by personal actions upon which money judgments can be rendered. Even if the properties have been judicially adjudicated to the heirs. real and personal. even though without the presence or participation of the latter. . testify against the petitioner. . is not covered by the prohibition. . . Page 255 of 289 . as the rule is not designed to shield wrongdoers.An action for damages for breach of agreement to devise property for services rendered is a claim against an estate. But before admitting the testimony of parties plaintiff in this kind of action. are needed to see this picture. Purpose This is designed to close the lips of the party as plaintiff when the death has closed the lips of the party defendant. Interest in the outcome of the suit. . does not disqualify a witness from testifying between the witness and the decedent.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. Negative testimony. the witness is still credible because the testimony is not against the deceased nor his estate. but also the person who has succeeded to the right of the deceased.

which information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 Section 24. Objections under the disqualification rules can be invoked only by the persons protected thereunder . or his advice given thereon in the course of. professional employment. consequently. such third party is not and. or with a view to. A minister or priest cannot. Disqualification privileged communication by reason of and may be waived by said persons in the same manner. Marital communications are presumed to be confidential but the presumption may be overcome by proof that they were not intended to be private. or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants 2. QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. nor can an attorney’s secretary. and which would blacken the reputation of the patient. 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. however. 5. 4. when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards. or clerk be examined. The husband or the wife. the same cannot be invoked where it was not intended to be kept in confidence by the spouse who received the same. otherwise the latter becomes an agent of the spouse and would thereby be covered by the prohibition. be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity. The privilege is lost if the communication is overheard or comes into the hands of a third party. either expressly or impliedly. which communications was obviously intended to be reported to the authorities. without the consent of the client and his employer. without the consent of the patient. as to communications made to him in official confidence. that there was no collusion with or voluntary disclosure by either spouse to the third person. 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. be examined as to any communication made by the client to him. which information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity. and which would blacken the reputation of the patient. EXCEPTIONS TO MARITAL PRIVILEGE: 1. 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 MARITAL PRIVILEGE Page 256 of 289 THE FOLLOWING PERSONS CANNOT TESTIFY AS TO MATTERS LEARNED IN CONFIDENCE IN THE FF CASES: 1. 3. Since the confidential nature of the communication is the basis of the privilege. 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. An attorney cannot. surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case. without the consent of the patient. Usually this will be a communication in words but it may also include conduct. by reason of the fact that while the spouse is covered by the prohibition. It is necessary. whether legally or not. 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 NOTE: 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. concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity. without the consent of his client. stenographer. A person authorized to practice medicine. during or after the marriage. can testify thereon.

Even in cases where the consent of the client is obtained. thus waiving the marital disqualification. the 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. are excluded by the court. in such cases. Sidewalk advice from attorney upon legal question for which no compensation is asked or expected and none given except a luncheon. Applies only if the marriage is existing at the time the testimony is offered Constitutes a total prohibition against the spouse of the witness creating that relationship. should not be regarded as privileged communications NOTE: The privilege is applicable to counsel de oficio. This does not apply when spouses are living separately and there is an active hostility. Communication made by a client to an attorney as a public officer to enable him to act in his capacity is not privilege. the testator waives privilege as to his attorney’s testimony concerning testamentary communications. even if no fee has been paid therefore. Basis: public policyare needed to see this picture. whether the party assuming to act as such is an attorney or not. no facts are or need be disclosed implicating the client.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 BY REASON OF MARRIAGE Can be invoked only if one of the spouses is a party to the action. Can be claimed whether or not the spouse is a party to the action. For the privilege to apply. the attorney must have been consulted in his professional capacity. then this privilege will apply. Communications to an attorney are not privileged where they are voluntary made after he has refused to accept employment. 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. belongs to communicating spouse not to the other one. However. he can still prevent the disclosure by said spouse-witness of confidential communications covered by the privilege. But if there is a chance to reconcile. There is NO privilege communication in cases where abstract legal opinions are sought and obtained on general questions of law. and of facts learned by the attorney through the act or agency of his client. 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. if the communications were not made for the purpose of Page 257 of 289 . Attorney-Client Privilege 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. Confidential relations made in reliance upon the supposed relation of attorney and client. 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. QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor The client owns the privilege and therefore he alone can invoke it. An attorney who becomes a subscribing witness to his client’s will. Can be claimed even after the marriage has been dissolved Applies only confidential communications between the spouse to The privilege in principle. and so there is nothing of a confidential character to conceal. either civil or criminal. The communications covered by the privilege include verbal statements and documents or papers entrusted to the attorney. 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.

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. consulted as such. Under Rule 28 of the Rules of Court. 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 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. intended to be made public 2. The burden of proving that such relation does not exist is upon the person objecting it.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 The privilege DOES NOT apply when the action was brought by the client against the attorney. 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. 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. full and confidential disclosure by patient to physician of all facts. are intended to be made public. are privileged communications Contemplated criminal acts are not covered. aside from the fact the doctor’s services were not for purposes of medical treatment REQUISITES: 1) the physician is authorized to practice medicine. to the end that the physician may form a correct opinion. received from third person not acting in behalf or as agent of the client 5. Death of the patient does not extinguish the relation. circumstances. TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. the results of the physical and mental examination of a person. 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. Page 258 of 289 . and be enabled safely and efficaciously to treat his QuickTime™ and a patient. For example the treatment may have been given at the behest of another. would blacken the reputation of the patient 4) the privilege is invoked in a civil case. 3) The information. 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 privilege DOES NOT attach when the attorney is a conspirator. intended for an unlawful purpose 4. Physician-Patient Privilege Purpose This privilege is intended to facilitate and make safe. THE PRIVILEGE DOES NOT APPLY TO COMMUNICATIONS WHICH ARE: 1. and symptoms. 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. if revealed. intended to be communicated to others 3. physician may testify. advice or treatment. surgery. untrammeled by apprehension of their subsequent and enforced disclosure and publication on the witness stand. when ordered by the 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.

was reproduced from Art. if such testimony is indispensable in prosecuting a crime against the descendant by one parent against the other (Art. However. a disqualification by reason of relationship which. When the subject matter is the deposits 5. 315 of the Civil Code. 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 QuickTime™ and a or committee of a House TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor Congress finds that such to see this picture. direct ascendants. GENERAL RULE: Bank deposits may not be disclosed EXCEPTION: 1. this rule will not apply. but was actually a privilege to testify. editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper. as the descendant was not incompetent or disqualified to testify against his ascendants. the descendant may be compelled to testify against his parents and grandparents. Upon order of the court in case of bribery or deriliction of duty 4. Testimonial Privilege Section 25. as in the case of State secrets. Example: under seal of the confessional Privileged communications to Public Officers REQUISITES: 1) that it was made to the public officer in official confidence 2) that public interest would suffer by the disclosure of such communication. PUBLIC INTEREST – something in which the community at large has some pecuniary interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. children or direct descendants. both parental and filial privileges are granted to any person. Where no public interest will be prejudiced. Art. Under the present formulation.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 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. Parental and filial Privilege This section is an expanded amendment of the former provision found in Section 20 (e). hence it was referred to as “filial privilege”. authorized by depositor 2. which privileges against compulsory testimony he can invoke in any case against any of his parents. 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. is demanded by are needed revelation the Security of the State. 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. It was not correctly a rule of disqualification. Impeachment under the Constitution 3. 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. Reason for the Rule The reason for the rule is to preserve “family cohesion” deploring the lack of this provision under Page 259 of 289 . Waiver of the privilege by contract may be found in stipulations in life insurance policies. 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. Anti-graft cases 2. in turn. under the Family Code. 215). Other instances of Privilege Under RA 53 as amended by RA 1477. 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. the publisher.

3. having taken it without express permission from D. This is founded on sound reason and good policy. Said document is an express admission that defendant is not the owner of the land. Admission of a party ADMISSION . unless such declarations were true. an admission and a be implied from QuickTime™ may TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor conduct. Examples: The payment of interest of a debt is an implied admission of the existence of the debt. 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.” NOTE: The privilege may now be invoked in both civil and criminal cases. However. It is a voluntary acknowledgment in express terms or by implication. 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. Admissions and Confessions Section 26. are admissible against his co-accused The rule that the act. Before trial D told P’s husband that he had bought the automobile for the pleasure of his family and for business. is competent evidence (but rebuttable) that the account is correct. Failure to return or object to a bill or statement sent by the debtor. statement are needed to see this picture.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. creates suspicion about the motive of the supposed offended party and gives rise to reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant. On the bases of this express admission. by a party interest or by another by whose statement he is legally bound. It is a rule that a “statement is not competent as an admission where it does not. and that so far as the liability extended (D) was responsible. since it is human nature for a person to assert his rights most strongly when they are threatened or invaded. where the good faith requires that the addressee state his position frankly so that the addressee be not misled. The repair made by the landlord is the implied admission that it is not the duty of the tenant to repair. D’s son was driving the automobile. D was not in the automobile when the accident occurred. certain and unequivocal language. and as a measure of extreme caution. Therefore. and admissible against him. verdict was rendered for P. in the light of his new experience. Admission and Confession Distinguished ADMISSION CONFESSION An admission is a It involves an statement of fact which acknowledgment of does not involve an guilt or liability acknowledgement of guilt or liability It may be express or Must be express tacit May be made by third Can be made only by persons the party himself and in some instance. since there is no duty upon the addressee to reply. that members of the family might take it without asking. Example: Action for personal injuries caused by a collision between P’s carriage and D’s automobile. EXPRESS ADMISSIONS are those made in definite. Implied admission is cannot be inferred from an act of repairing a defect which caused on injury. within a reasonable time. A person may have exercised all the care which the law required and yet. of silence of a party. declarations or omission of a party. under a reasonable Page 260 of 289 . against his interest. Delay in instituting a criminal prosecution unless satisfactorily explained. acquiescence may be inferred from non-denial. Likewise. he may adopt additional safeguards. Undue delay in the enforcement of a right is strongly persuasive of a lack of merit in the claim. IMPLIED ADMISSIONS are those which may be inferred from the acts. of the existence or truth of a fact in dispute material to the issue (Francisco). The immediate flight of the accused and prolong stay in other country is the implied consciousness of guilt.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 former laws as doing violence to the most sacred sentiments between members of the same family. NOTE: Failure to answer a letter does not give rise to an implied admission as to the truth of the statements contained therein. after an unexpected accident has occurred.

P claims the interest at 8% was understood to be charged monthly on balances. there is a letter of D to P dated June 1. Impeaching evidence –a proper foundation must be laid for the impeaching questions. They must be adverse to the admitter’s interests. D disputes the amount due. I D had taken the stand as a witness and had testified in corroboration of his manager’s statements as to the understanding. the inherent untrustworthiness of the declarations 2.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 construction. before introducing it in rebuttal as D’s admission for the purpose of discrediting D’s testimony. NOTE: Section 26 and 32 of this Rule refer to extrajudicial admissions. judicial or extrajudicial. They must be categorical and definite. interest must have been it will greatly enhance made against the its probative weight if it proprietary or pecuniary be so made interest of the parties Made by a party Must have been made by himself. Declaration Against Interest ADMISSION DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST An admission need to The declaration against be. the admission of his testimony is not erroneous. QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor All the transactions are needed to see this picture. express or tacit. containing the sentence “as usual this year. The claim is for P175 due on July 31. 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. 2. impeaching evidence Independent evidence – admissions are original evidence and no foundation is necessary for their introduction in evidence If the admission was made orally. 4. otherwise it would be self-serving and inadmissible. If the witness states the substance of the conversation or declaration. The manager testifies that the interest was to be 5%. it would be necessary for P’s counsel to ask D if he had written such a letter. However. An admission may be introduced in evidence in two ways: 1. The law does not require impossibilities. and offers a statement of account sent by P in September reading “Balance due – P75”. This is admissible and may be presented as part of the evidence in chief of D. while an extrajudicial admission is any other admission.” REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF ADMISSIONS: 1. They must be knowingly and voluntarily made. 3. JUDICIAL ADMISSION It is one made in connection with a judicial proceeding in which it is offered.through D’s office had been made manager. To permit introduction would open the door to frauds and perjuries. although. 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 v. of course. independent evidence 2. Admissions may be verbal or written. Reasons for the inadmissibility of self-serving declarations: 1. 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. Action was brought by broker P for commissions on stock shares bought and sold for D. the fact that to permit their introduction would open the door to fraud and fabrication of testimony. It is not admissible in evidence The vital objection to the admission of this kind of evidence is its hearsay character. and is a person who is either primary evidence and deceased or unable to competent though he testify be present in court and ready to testify Admission can be made The declaration against any time interest must have been made ante litem motam SELF SERVING DECLARATION is one which has been made extrajudicially by the party to favor his interests. it may be proved by any competent witness who heard them or by the declarant himself. appear to admit or acknowledge the fact which is sought to be proved by it. Page 261 of 289 . I expect to pay 8% interest on monthly balances. They must involve matters of fact and not of law.

that his testimony is a recent fabrication. Section 27. Criminal cases . 3) when they are part of a confession offered by the prosecution. 2) when they are in the form of complaint and exclamations of pain and suffering. including spontaneous statements and verbal acts. Diaries.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 3. 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.an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability. may be admitted. Persons whose unsworn declarations in behalf of a party are not admissible in favor of the latter: 1) agents. and a letter of said merchant requesting confirmation of the receipt of said merchandise by the agent. Civil cases . bridge. despite due care and diligence. Carbon copies of letters of demands sent to defendant. It does not include his testimony as a witness in court. the same cannot be considered self-serving. Self serving testimony refers to extrajudicial statement of a party which is being urged for admission in court. A compromise agreement is valid when the true essence of which resides in reciprocal concessions. Offer of compromise not admissible COMPROMISE . 5) when they are offered without objection. as a general rule. 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. Every written statements of a party in his own favor can be successfully turned when such statements are offered against him. in which case his prior declaration. 4) a principal as regards his surety 5) a husband or wife as regards his or her spouse 6) an employee. even of a self serving character. but it has been held that an entry in diary. The act of reporting a machine.except those involving quasioffenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised. provided they were made at a time when a motive to misrepresent did not exist. the fact that if testified to by one other than the declarant. as regards the other 3) a guardian as regards his word. The mere fact of death alone does not render competent self-serving conduct. if it was against interest when made. being in the nature of a declaration. It is merely a measure of extreme caution by adopting additional safeguards since. the evidence cannot afterward be objected to as incompetent.is an agreement made between two or more parties as a settlement matters in dispute. they would be hearsay. admissions or declarations of the deceased person during his lifetime. an unexpected accident can still occur. are inadmissible because they are self-serving in nature. Where the statement was not made in anticipation of a future litigation. as by destruction of documentary evidence are admissible under the same rationale. receipt of which was acknowledged. and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. GENERAL RULE Page 262 of 289 . as regards his employer 7) officers of the corporation 8) public officers as regards public corporation 9) predecessors in title. Evidence of attempts to suppress evidence. Unsworn declarations by others for the declarant would be inadmissible. It has no application to a court declaration. an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. or other facility after an injury has been sustained therein is not an implied admission of negligence by conduct. QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor 4) where theyare needed to see this by the argument. UNLESS they have the nature of books of account. as regards their principals 2) a co-defendant or co-partner. Flight from justice is an admission by conduct and circumstantial evidence of consciousness guilt. is admissible. The are offered picture. are not self-serving if they had been prepared not in anticipation of litigation in which they were presented as evidence.

The pedestrian may not introduce the fact that he was offered a money to show that driver is liable. Express and unqualified admission of indebtedness accompanying an offer of compromise. However. and unnecessary litigation would be produced and prolonged. EXCEPTION: Compromise may be entered into with respect to the civil liability. An admission of the correctness of an account or of specific items. 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. 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. during the investigation of the rape case is also admission of guilt. hence. such offers of compromise are not admissible in evidence as the law provides that the payment of any internal revenue tax may be compromised. in rape case. The amendment regarding the admissibility of a plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is a consequence of the present provisions in criminal procedure on plea bargaining. In criminal cases. and all criminal violations may likewise be compromised. admission affecting liability for a tort. 3. many settlements would be prevented. no implied admission of guilt arises against the accused who makes an offer to compromise. 4. an express admission of liability made during negotiations for a compromise. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Criminal cases involving criminal negligence. 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. he was injured. If every offer to buy peace could be used as evidence against him who presents it. NOTE: What matters is the fact of marriage and not the intent behind the marriage. Example. The SC has held that an offer of marriage by the accused. In prosecution for violation of the internal revenue law. The court allows the accused to change plea when the previous plea was made improvidently. to foster compromise. In criminal cases where compromise is allowed by law as in opium or usury cases. 2. 365 of the RPC. criminal liability is extinguished. it is admissible on the trial of such issue. and to promote peace. A pedestrian is run over by a driver. An offer to compromise a monetary consideration and not to marry the victim.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 An offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability and is not admissible in evidence against an offeror. 5. an offer of settlement is not an implied admission of guilt. or the quasi-offenses contemplated in Art. are needed to see this picture. except those already filed in court and those involving fraud. is an implied admission of guilt. it does not matter whether the accused married the victim for the reason of exculpating him from criminal liability. It is the policy of the law to favor the settlement of disputes. 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. Later on the driver approached the pedestrian and said sorry because heQuickTime™ drunk that night and was and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor offered a payment. Page 263 of 289 . While a bare offer to compromise does not constitute an admission on the part of the person making it. Actual marriage. an offer of compromise is an implied admission of guilt. admission involving interest in property. are allowed to be compromised under the amendment to this section. he can introduce the fact that the driver was drunk. The attempt of the parents of the accused to settle the case with the complainant was considered an implied admission of guilt. An express admission of liability made during negotiations for a compromise has been held admissible. GENERAL RULE: No compromise may be entered into as regards the penal action. unless it is so closely connected with the offer of compromise as to be inseparable therefrom. 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.

act or omission of another. relating to the partnership business. the act or declaration is within the scope of the partnership. Such act or declaration must have been made during the existence of the partnership. this is with regard to a nonpartnership affair. even though such declarations relate to matters pending at the time of dissolution. a party to an action cannot be affected by the admission of a person who does not occupy toward him any relation of privity. 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. Admission by co-partner or agent The admission of one partner is received against another on the ground that they are identified in interest . then it should be admitted. except by virtue of a particular relation between them. agency. 3. are admissible against his survivors. joint owner. and that each is agent for the other and that the acts or declarations of one during the existence of the partnership. Even where one partner is shown to be hostile to another. refer to the Civil Code provisions on partners. agency or joint interest. 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. instead of being discouraged or penalized by being considered as admissions of liability. QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor 2. not made in the presence of his co-partner. statements made after a partnership has been dissolved do not fall within this exception. or joint interest is established by evidence other than the act or declaration – partnership relation must be shown 2. the admissions of such first partner may be received. co-owners and solidary debtors NOTE: As a rule. and that in justice a person should not be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers. hospital or other expenses by reason of the victim’s injuries is not admissible to prove civil or criminal liability therefore. such hostility may affect the question of weight of the evidence. offering or promise to pay medical expenses. of course. humor or hearsay. those instances where the third person is a partner. Section 28. are evidence against the others. declaration or omission of another is generally irrelevant. The declarations of a deceased partner. or is a con-conspirator (Section 30) . are needed to see this picture. That the partnership.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 An offer to pay or the actual payment of the medical. With respect to the relevant substantive provisions on these matters. A troublesome question arises when an express admission of liability is coupled with an offer of assistance. 3. 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. This section refers to the first branch of the rule of “RES INTER ALIOS ACTA ALTERI NOCERE NON DEBET”. Basis of the Exceptions 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. agency or joint interest. but where the admissions are made in connection with the winding up of the partnership Page 264 of 289 . REQUISITES: 1. The existence of a partnership is cannot be established by general reputation. but some admission of fault”. while transacting its business and within the scope of the business. The act. It is corollary known as the second branch of the rule. Section 29. Admissibility by third party Unless he assents thereto. joint debtor or has a joint interest with the party (Section 29). although. Such humanitarian acts or charitable responses should be encouraged and rewarded. or a privy of the party (Section 31). The declaration of one partner. 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. agents. EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE: 1. If the admission can be disclosed without mentioning the furnishing. is found in Section 34 of Rule 130. The term “privy” is the orthodox catchword for the relation. agent. are not competent to prove the existence of a partnership between them as against such other partner.

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. if restricted to the subject matter in relation to which the reference is made. or after this agency has terminated are not binding upon. a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. is in general. as agent. in solidum. one will be justified in the conclusion that they were engaged in the conspiracy to effect that object. so as to complete it. such answer. NOTE: 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. What is done by an agent is done by the principal through him. 3. subject to the limitation that the same should not amount to a compromise or confession of judgment QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. The admission or declaration of an agent subsequent to a transaction in controversy. and circumstances which vary according to the purposes to be accomplished. But such a reference does not make the person referred to an agent for the purpose of making general admissions. the declarations are not evidence unless strictly within the subject matter in relation to which reference is made. Admissions by counsel are admissible against the client as the former acts in representation and as an agent of the client.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 affairs. REQUISITES: 1. one performing one part and another performing part of the same. The admissions of a third person are receivable in evidence against the party who has expressly referred another to him for information in regard to an uncertain or disputed matter. or during his employment. evidence against said party. If he is liable to the plaintiff in the same manner that his co-defendants are liable. or evidence against his principal. with a view to the attainment of the same object. interest. It is the fact of joint Page 265 of 289 . the requirement that the conspiracy must preliminary be proved by evidence other than the conspirator’s admission applies only to extrajudicial. conditions. 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 cross-examine the declarant and besides these are admissions after the conspiracy has ended. the admission was made during the existence of the conspiracy –after. though not conclusive against his principal. which governs. his admissions and declarations are competent. the extent to which they are bound by his admission cannot be measured or graduated by the quantity of his interest in the contract. 2. that is. Admission by conspirator Under the Revised Penal Code. the statements of one conspirator may not be accepted as evidence against any of the other conspirators. Section 30. How Conspiracies are Proved Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of indefinite acts. If it be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object. Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy. the termination of a conspiracy. The quantum of interest of the declarant does not affect the application of the rule. When the reference was not made to any particular person but in general. but not to judicial. for the reason that he makes such third person his accredited agent for the purpose of giving such answer. But when the admission or declaration is made at the time of the transaction. as through a mere instrument. when it pertains to the matter in hand. said admissions are still admissible as the partner is acting as an agent of his co-partners in said winding up. not the size of the fractional part. admissions. Hence. When a party to any proceeding expressly refers to any other person for an answer on a particular subject in dispute. the rule above-stated is not applicable. and not mancomunada. which is within the cope of his employment. such conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde – conspiracy must be established by prima facie proof in the judgment of the court.

and that the rights of the latter are those of the former. and there could have been no collusion among said co-accused in making such statements. Conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself.mutual succession of relationship to the same rights of property. while holding the title to the property. A person charged with conspiracy is presumed to be innocent. heirs. 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. it will be hearsay. Basis 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. The rule of evidence with regard to conspiracy is founded on the principle which apply to agencies and partnerships. made in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy Section 31. REQUISITES: 1.those who have mutual or successive relationship to the same right of property or subject matter. 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. This is because the statement was: 1. unless they were Page 266 of 289 . such as “personal representatives. legatees. made during the course of the conspiracy 3. it is necessary that the statements are made by several accused. 3. there must be a relation of privity between the party and the declarant 2. The principle on which such evidence is received is that the declarant was so situated that he probably knew the truth. as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the latter’s participation in the offense. and his interest were such that he would not have made the admissions to the prejudice of his title or possession. Where there is no independent evidence of the alleged conspiracy. 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. are 4.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 The conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused or from the confessions of the accused or by prima facie proof thereof. voluntary grantee or judgment creditors or purchasers from them without notices to the fact. and the burden is on the prosecution to establish his guilt. The privity in estate may have arisen by succession by acts mortis cause or by acts inter vivos. but it will fall within the co-conspirator exception to hearsay rule. made by a co-conspirator 2. devisees. assigns. as predecessor in interest. PRIVIES . In order that the extrajudicial statements of a coaccused may be taken into consideration in judging the testimony of a witness. the association should be bound by the acts of one of its members in carrying out the design. or confer and formulate their plans. the same are in all material respects identical. the declaration will be admissible only against the person who made it. The admission is in relation to said property. Admission by privies PRIVITY . as there would be a tacit admission under Section 32 2. The admission was made by the declarant. 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. as a circumstance to determine the credibility QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor of a witness needed to see this picture. 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. If this testimony is introduced to prove the truth of B’s statement. and a common purpose is inferable from concerted action converging to a definite objective and whether or not the parties meet. made in the presence of the latter who expressly or impliedly agreed therein. If made after the act designed is fully accomplished and after the object of the conspiracy has been either attained of finally defeated.

The rule applies to adverse statements in writing if the party was carrying on a mutual correspondence with the declarant. The regard which one so situated would have to his interest is considered sufficient security against falsehood. The same absence of relevancy occurs where an answer would be unseemly interruption of orderly proceedings then in progress. He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other person. When Applicable This rule applies in both criminal as well as in civil cases. TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor 6. otherwise his right to silence would be illusory. 2. are inadmissible EXCEPTIONS: 1. The facts are within his and a QuickTime™ knowledge. as where he was acting on advice of counsel. 3. for a reenactment to be given any evidentiary weight. However. 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. such as the delivery of a sermon. Voluntary participation in a reenactment of the crime conducted by the police is considered a tacit admission of complicity. he had no interest to object. or other person of his proper function in court proceedings. magistrate. it must have been made at a time when the title was in the declarant. Section 32. for example.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 true. and the possession of the thing after the sale or transfer. 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. 4. or was only indirectly affected. Where there has been a prima facie case of fraud established as where the thing granted has a corpus. GENERAL RULE: Declarations of the transferor. where the statement was not addressed to him or was in his favor. In order to render an admission of a former owner of property competent against his successor in title. 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. Admission by silence 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. The implication of guilt is not derived from mere silence but from appellant’s silent acquiescence in participating in the reenactment of the crime. or where as the matter was presented. A person under investigation for the commission of an offense has the right to remain silent and to be informed of that right. 2. as if the statement was not true. He must have had the opportunity to deny it 3. if there was no such mutual correspondence. the validity and efficacy of the confession must first be shown. such prompt response can generally not be expected if the party still has to resort to a written reply. or the party was not aware at the time that he had an interest. He must have understood the statement. He must have an interest to object. 5. Section 33. or believed that he had no interest. Where the evidence establishes a continuing conspiracy to defraud. The fact admittedsee this picture. counsel. inference to be are needed to or the drawn from his silence is material to the issue. the taking of the deposition or of testimony in open court or the discharge by a judge. which conspiracy exists between the vendor and the vendee. which leads us to resist an unfounded demand.categorical acknowledgement of guilt made by an accused in a criminal case. such that he would naturally have done so. REQUISITES: 1. without any exculpatory statement or explanation. No admission can be implied from silence where the failure to answer was caused by constraint. made subsequent to the transfer. However. If the Page 267 of 289 . remains with the seller or transferor. The rule DOES NOT apply if the statements adverse to the party were made in the course of an official investigation. Confession CONFESSION . 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.

and not a retrospective effective and this doctrine applies even if the confession was made while the accused was under arrest. as shown by his silent acquiescence thereto. 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 the accused in his handwriting or with his initials and which corrected facts are best known to the accused. the accused realizing the importance or legal significance of this act. The accused is sufficiently educated and aware of the consequences of his act. JUDICIAL CONFESSION . Page 268 of 289 . The confession must involve an express and categorical acknowledgment of guilt. Art. the confession must have been intelligently made. The following circumstancesand a QuickTime™ have been held to TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor be indicia of the voluntariness of a confession: are needed to see this picture. This section refers to extrajudicial confessions. especially where he thereafter failed to impugn the same by not taking the witness stand although assisted by counsel. The facts contained in the confession were confirmed by other subsequent facts After his confession. the accused was subjected to physical examination and there were no signs of maltreatment or the accused never complained thereof. can sustain a conviction even in capital offenses. by itself. The confession contains details which the police could not have supplied or invented. the same is merely an admission. Art. such extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence. REQUISITES: 1. Under the current rule. The contents of the confession were affirmed by the accused in his voluntary participation in the reenactment of the crime. Where. 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. before the statement containing the extrajudicial confession of guilt was taken. it need not be under oath. The facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense 3. 1973. 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. threat or promise of reward or leniency.one made in any other place or occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti. 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.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 accused admits having committed the act in question but alleges a justification therefore.one made before a court in which the case is pending and in the course of legal proceedings therein and. 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. There can also be a confession of judgment in a civil case where the party expressly admits his liability. 5. A confession may either be judicial or extrajudicial. the confession is inadmissible if there is a violation of the accused’s right to counsel and to silence. III of the 1987 Constitution. the accused was asked whether he was familiar with the provisions of then Section 20. The accused questioned the voluntariness of the confession only for the first time at the trial of the case. There must have been no violation of Section 12. EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION . 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. IV of the 1973 Constitution and he answered in the affirmative. intimidation. with improbabilities and inconsistencies in the attempt of the accused to repudiate his confession. Confession may either be oral or in writing and if in writing. The confession must have been given voluntarily 4. 2. 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.

especially where the accused is illiterate and it was not shown how his constitutional rights were explained by the investigator. The entire confession should be admitted in evidence but the court may. reject such portions as are incredible. Where the extrajudicial confession of the accused while under custodial investigation was merely prefaced by the investigator with a statement of his constitutional rights. If the accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical confessions without conclusion. if the latter impliedly acquiesced in or adopted said confession by not questioning its truthfulness. Where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation by the coconspirator. whether physical. Any form of coercion. the same is admissible not under the confession rule but as part of the res gestae. are not admissible against them. 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. his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible. renders the extrajudicial confession inadmissible. His short answer does not show that he knew the legal significance of what were asked of him. 4. 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. Where the accused was merely told of his constitutional rights and asked if he understood what he was told. with much more reason should the same be inadmissible against third accused who had no participation therein. but not if given by a person whom the accused could not have reasonably expected to be able to comply with such promise. 6. A promise of immunity or leniency vitiates a confession if given by the offended party or by the fiscal. are needed to see this 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. but it was spontaneously made by the accused immediately after the assault. mental or emotional. 3.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 Where the verbal extrajudicial confession was made without counsel. commonly known as interlocking confessions. and without contradiction but the co-accused who was present. aside from the consideration that no custodial investigation was involved. GENERAL RULE: The extrajudicial confession of an accused is binding only upon himself and is not admissible against his co-accused EXCEPTIONS: 1. The waiver of the right to counsel during custodial investigation must be made with the assistance of counsel. Where the extrajudicial confession was obtained by maltreatment. Where a confession was illegally obtained from two of the accused and. Counsel must be independent and competent. 8. consequently. Page 269 of 289 . in appreciating the same. such a as an investigator QuickTime™ and TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor who is not a prosecuting or picture. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after being apprised of such confession 5. such second confession is admissible only if it can be proved that he was already relieved of the fear generated by the previous maltreatment. 7. 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. which confessions are corroborated by other evidence. If the accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical confessions without conclusion. as where it was made in his presence and he did not remonstrate against his being implicated therein 2. where the co-conspirator’s extra judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence of record. the judgment based solely thereon is null and void and the accused may obtain his release on a writ of habeas corpus. but he was never asked whether he wanted to exercise or avail himself of such rights. to which he answered that he was going to tell the truth. commonly known as interlocking confessions which confessions are corroborated by other evidence and without contradiction by the co-accused who was present. where the confessant testified for his codefendant or 9.

the 1987 Constitution specifically provides that. 34 IS THE SECOND BRANCH OF THE RULE OF RES INTER ALIOS ACTA AND APPLIES TO BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES. 4. delivery of document – if not that agreed document. 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. a specific intent or knowledge. is admissible against the prisoner to show that he is awareaof the falsity of the QuickTime™ and TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor statements made by him in see this present case and that are needed to the picture. Section 35. Upon a valid unaccepted offer. 2. stablished customs. SEC. selling barium chlorate instead of potassium chlorate. the debtor must prove that there is no negligent on his part. hence they are admissible against the persons who violated the constitutional prohibition against obtaining illegal confessions or admissions. This section just like the first branch of the res inter alias acta rule provided for in Sec. It is an application of the principle that the evidence must be confined to the point in issue in the case on trial. that is. Rule 130. be followed by consignation of the amount in court in order to produce the effects of valid payment. However.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 This section. raises a variety of issue. creditor may refused acceptance. knowing them to be false. In other words. 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. is admissible to show knowledge or intent. Unaccepted offer This section complements the rule on tender of payment (Art. evidence of collateral offenses must not be received as substantive evidence of the offense on trial. 3. is strictly enforced in all cases where it is applicable. he made them with intent to deceive. 1256. a specific habit. payment of sum of money . Such tender of payment must. 5. Evidence of similar offenses involving the making of other false representations. Previous acts of negligence. 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. illegal confessions and admissions are inadmissible against the confessant or the admitter. the creditor has a reason not to accept the tender. the creditor shall absorb all the circumstantial damages to the property. confuses him in his defense. system or scheme. a plan. usages and the like Reason for the Rule To compel the defendant to meet charges of which the indictment gives him no information. however. Section 34. 3. Civil Code) by providing that said offer of payment must be made in writing. 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. 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. In order that the consignation of an amount or thing may Page 270 of 289 . declares as admissible the confession of the accused not only with respect to the offense charged but also any offense necessarily included therein. The rule covers: 1. 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. Or even if the legal tender is not that one to which the parties agreed 2. as now amended.if the amount is short of the amount of liability or not in the currency which is the legal tender here in the Philippines. 28. On the other hand. and thus diverts the attention of the court from the charge immediately before it. identity.

belief. b. Common Reputation 6. that is. TWO CLASSES OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS 1. Dying Declaration 2. Hearsay evidence not objected to may be admissible but whether objected to or not.The ante mortem statements made by a person after the mortal wound has been inflicted under the belief that the death is certain. his mental condition. Those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the fact in issue. intention. Act Or Declaration Against Pedigree 4. if for instance. e. Reason for its admission Page 271 of 289 DOCTRINE OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS The witness may testify to the statements made by a person. (People v. which will only be taken into account to resolve definitely whether the consignation made will be efficacious against his opposition. the latter always prevails. Those statement s which are the very fact in issue. without regard to the reason for his refusal. Entries In Official Records 9. . That the declaration refers to the cause and the surrounding circumstances of such death 3. motive. Section 36. REQUISITES: 1. 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. Statements which may identify the date. belief. GENERAL RULE: Hearsay Evidence is inadmissible Section 37. De Joya. the fact that such statements were made by the latter would indicate the latter’s mental state and physical condition. Dying declaration. That the statement must be complete in itself. Declaration Against Interest 3. Statement of a person showing his state of mind that is. stating the fact concerning the cause of and the circumstances surrounding the attack. Testimony Or Deposition At A Former Proceeding Reason for the Exceptions The exceptions are admissible for reasons of NECESSITY and TRUSTWORTHINESS. Statements of persons which shows his physical condition as illness and the like. hearsay excluded HEARSAY RULE Any evidence. c. they are relevant since they are the facts in issue or are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue. has no probative value. 2. Statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to the state of mind of another. Learned Treatises 11. Entries In The Ordinary Course of Business 8. and as opposed to direct primary evidence. EXCEPTIONS: 1.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 be made the refusal of the creditor of the tender of payment is enough. person in question. Reason for Exclusion of Hearsay Evidence It 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. knowledge. 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. knowledge. 203 SCRA 343). Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness DYING DECLARATION . When Applicable It applies to any case where the death of the declarant is the subject of the inquiry. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge. Commercial Lists 10. good/bad faith of the latter. It includes the following: a. That the declaration refers to the facts which the victim is competent to testify to 4. place. d. ill-will. Family Reputation Or Tradition Against Pedigree 5. Res Gestae 7. Independent of whether the facts stated are true or not. That the death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of such fact 2. and other emotions. QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

pecuniary interest The declarant must realize at the very time of making the declaration that his declaration is against his interest. Dying declarations favorable to the accused are admissible. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. Interest covered: 1. Selfinterest induces men to be cautious in saying anything against themselves. the declarant did not expect to survive the injury from which he actually died 3. penal interest 3. the declaration would not in reality be against interest. proprietary interest 2. a Section 39 Act or declaration against pedigree Witness need not be a member of the family Testimony is about what declarant. 1. birth. utterances 2. Reasons for such admission 1. Necessity – such declarations are the only mode of proof available 2. Trustworthiness – at the point of death. by his conduct. It is essential that at the time of the statement. who is dead or unable to testify. the dates when. 2. A dying declaration may be oral or written or made by signs which could be interpreted and testified to by a witness thereto. Determination of consciousness of impending death: 1. Necessity – because the declarant’s death renders impossible his taking the witness stand 2. Trustworthiness – persons do not make statements that are disadvantageous to themselves without substantial reason to believe that the statements are true. That the declarant is dead and unable to testify. hopeless expectation that death is at hand. Declaration against interest. That the declarant had no motive to falsify and he believed such actual declarant to be true. otherwise. Act or declaration about pedigree. There must be settled. the declarant’s interest affected thereby should be actual/real/apparent not merely contingent. 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. Section 40. That at the time he made the said declaration the declarant was aware that the same was contrary to his aforesaid interest. Dying declaration is NOT considered as confidential communication between the spouses. It is sufficient that he believed himself in imminent danger of death at the time of such declaration. Section 39.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 1. he said concerning the pedigree of the declarant’s family Section 40 Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree Witness is a member of the family Testimony is about family reputation or tradition covering matters of pedigree. 3. death. marriage. A dying declaration may be attacked on the 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. and QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor PEDIGREE – includes relationship. future or unconditional. The mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth. That it relates to facts against the interest of the declarant. Section 38. every motive for falsehood is silenced. REQUISITES: are needed to see this picture. Page 272 of 289 . Family reputation or tradition. actual character and seriousness of his wounds 4. that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true. circumstances – that at the time of the making of the declaration. In other words. family genealogy. we can safely trust a man when he speaks against his interest. and the placer where these facts occurred and the names of their relatives. 4.

He must have personally observed the fact. words. verbal acts must characterize or explain the equivocal act. Common reputation. 4. EQUIVOCAL ACT relating to that fact and MATERIAL TO THE in effect forming part ISSUE AND giving it a thereof. 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. in awareness of impending death. Verbal act must be contemporaneous with the equivocal act. What the law distrusts is not the “after speech” but the after thought. As a general rule. 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. and declarations incidental to the main facts or transaction necessary to illustrate its character and also includes acts. THE FOLLOWING MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY COMMON REPUTATION: 1. it includes circumstances. TWO TYPES OF RES GESTAE SPONTANEOUS VERBAL ACTS STATEMENTS spontaneous statements statements QuickTime™ and a in connection with a accompanied by AN TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor startling occurrenceare needed to see this picture. matters of general interest more than 30 years old. during the killing OR that of a 3rd person. or declarations which are closely connected therewith as to constitute part of the transaction. relate to the circumstances of the startling occurrence. It is essential that spontaneous statements should have been caused by something startling enough to produce nervous excitement. Distinctions between Res Gestae in connection with a homicidal act and dying declaration RES GESTAE IN DYING CONNECTION WITH DECLARATIONS A HOMICIDAL ACT May be made by the Can be made only by killer himself after or the victim. Grounds for admissibility 1. matters respecting marriage or moral character and related facts. characterized must be 2. the statement must equivocal. Individual moral character. The declarant must be a witness to the event to which the utterance relates. equivocal act must be relevant to the issue. 2. the act or occurrence startling occurrence. the reputation of a person should be that existing in the place of his residence. Section 42. The statement must be spontaneous. The facts speaking thru the party not the party talking about the facts. as distinguished from a partial or qualified one. matters of public interest more than 30 years old. committed. 2. 3. facts. It means the general or substantially undivided reputation. although it need not be unanimous. May precede or be Made only after the made after the homicidal attack has homicidal attack was been committed.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 Section 41. COMMON REPUTATION – is the definite opinion of the community in which the fact to be proved is known or exists. 3. and 4. Justification in the Trustworthiness based spontaneity of the upon in its being given statement. legal significance REQUISITES 1. Necessity – natural and spontaneous utterances are more convincing than the testimony of the same person on the stand. and 3. Distinctions between verbal acts spontaneous statements VERBAL ACTS SPONTANEOUS Page 273 of 289 and . there must be a 1. Part of res gestae RES GESTAE – literally means things done. Trustworthiness – the statement is made indistinctively. 2. it may also be that existing in the place where he is best known.

2. The public officer or the other person has sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated. their work will have no commercial and probative value. they do not constitute conclusive proof. No. 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. Section 46. The entrant must have been in a position to know the facts stated in the entries. 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 memory of the facts was unimpaired. . Verbal act must be contemporaneous with or accompany the equivocal act. Page 274 of 289 Section 43. Necessity – because of the unusual accessibility of the persons responsible for the compilation of matters contained in a list. Trustworthiness – there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.. or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. Entries in official records REQUISITES: 1.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 The res gestae is the equivocal act. Trustworthiness – they have no motive to deceive and they further realize that unless the list. register. or pamphlet on a subject of law. Hence. 4. that it was made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined by the law to do so. That the court can take judicial notice of it. STATEMENTS The res gestae is the startling occurrence Statements may be made prior. 2. history. that it was made any a public officer in the performance of his duty specially enjoined by law. Probative value: only prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. and 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. 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. periodical or other published compilation. 2. Cabrera Jr. register. Reasons for admission: 1. The entrant must be deceased or unable to testify. register. The law does not fix any precise moment when the entry should be made. How regularity of the entries proved It may be proved by the form in which they appear in the corresponding book. periodical. Learned Treatises In order that a published treatise. The statements must be contained in a list. Commercial list and the like REQUISITES: 1. The entries must have been made at or near the time of the transaction to which they relate. April 30. It is not essential for the officer making the official statement to have a personal knowledge of the facts stated by him. Section 44. People v. That the entrant made the entry in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty. A witness expert on the subject testifies that the writer of the statement in the treatise. and 3. him personally or through a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. periodical or other published compilation and tremendous inconvenience it would cause to the court if it would issue summons to these numerous individuals. G. 5. which must have been acquired by QuickTime™ and official information. 138266.R. 3. periodical. it is necessary either: 1. or art may be admissible. 2. or 2. periodical or other published compilation are prepared with care and accuracy. Reasons for admission 1. Section 45. and 4. Is generally relied upon by them. or immediately after the startling occurrence. The entry was made in the ordinary course of business or entry. 3. Entries in the course of business REQUISITES: 1. Statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation. science. The compilation was published for use by persons engaged in that occupation.

training and education 2.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 Reasons for admission 1. On a matter requiring SPECIAL knowledge. by first asking the expert if he has an opinion on a certain point assuming that these facts are true and secondly. 5. Section 50. The testimony was given in a former case or proceeding. however. CHARACTER AS EVIDENCE Page 275 of 289 OPINION RULE OPINION – an inference or conclusion drawn from facts observed. Necessity – even if such person is legally procurable. after he has answered affirmatively. are NOT necessarily bound by the expert’s findings. 5. to give his opinion on the point. 3. Conclude the question. Courts. the inquiry relates to and who possesses special knowledge on questions on which he proposes to express an opinion. 4. the expense is frequently disproportionate. asking him. 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. Begin the hypothetical question by asking him to assume certain facts as true. Opinion of expert witnesses EXPERT WITNESS – one who belongs to the profession or calling to which the subject matter of . Section 47. 2. 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. 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. After he has stated his opinion. Introduce and qualify the witness. Expert evidence is admissible only if: 1. if he has knowledge of the facts. judicial or administrative. The witness has been qualified as an expert. The testimony or depositions of a witness deceased or unable to testify. The witness’ impressions of the emotion. or appearance of a person (Section 50[d]) Section 49. formulates his opinion on the hypothesis. The mental sanity of a and a QuickTime™ person with whom he TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor is sufficiently needed to see this picture. 2. Hypothetical questions may be asked on an expert to elicit his opinion. 2. The identity of a person about whom he ahs adequate knowledge (Section 50[a]). Trustworthiness – learned writers have no motive to misrepresent. 4. 4. 2. first hand familiarity with the facts of the case 3. The adverse party having had an opportunity to cross-examine him. experience or training which he is shown to possess (Section 49). How to present an expert witness 1. presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based. skill. A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity (Section 50 [b]). Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding REQUISITES: 1. conclusions. Involving the same parties. 3. ask him to give his reasons. Section 48. behavior. are acquainted (Section 50[c]) 5. and 2. the matter to be testified requires expertise. It is sufficient that the following factors are present: 1. particular. 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. 3. Let him give his factual testimony. General Rule GENERAL RULE: Witnesses must give the facts and not their inference. condition. or opinions EXCEPTIONS: 1. Relating to the subject matter.

As to the offended party. unless such character has been impeached. Accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charge. Character evidence not generally admissible CHARACTER – the aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to and distinguish an individual person. the plaintiff is always compelled to allege affirmative assertions in his complaint. Burden of proof BURDEN OF PROOF/RISK OF NON-PERSUASION . and In prosecution for rape.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. burden of going forward – that of producing evidence 2. The burden of proof as to the guilt of the accused must be borne by the prosecution. Rule 132) but not of his good moral character. (Rape Shield. Exceptions to this exception: 1. (Section 14) QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor . 2. On the other hand. his good or bad moral character may be proved as long as it tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged. the bad moral character of a witness may always be proved by either party (Section 11. when the defendant in his answer sets up an affirmative defense. it is the defendant who would win the case since the plaintiff has not presented the quantum evidence required by law. 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. opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted unless. the plaintiff has the burden of proof to show the truth of his allegations if the defendant raises a negative defense. The defendant has the burden of proof if he raises an affirmative defense on the complaint of the plaintiff. he will be forced to allege that he has a right and that such right was violated by the other party. It is required that courts determine first if the evidence of the Page 276 of 289 2. proof of the bad character of the victim in a murder case is not admissible if the crime was committed through treachery and evident premeditation. if there is no evidence presented by both sides. and only to the extent that the court finds that such evidence is material and relevant to the case. When he alleges a cause of action. 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. PROOF– the establishment of a requisite degree of belief in the mind of the trier of fact as to the fact in issue. RA 8505 Section 6) evidence is not RULE 131 BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS Section 1. 2. When the defendant files his answer and sets up purely a negative defense and no evidence is presented by both sides. Thus he has the duty to prove the existence of this affirmative allegation. UPON WHOM BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS: A. evidence of complainant’s past sexual conduct. 3. GENERAL RULE: character admissible in evidence EXCEPTIONS: CRIMINAL CASES 1. Two separate burdens in burden of proof: 1. AS TO WITNESSES needed to see this picture. it is the defendant who will lose the case. NOTE: In a civil case. are Both criminal and civil. Burden of persuasion – the burden of persuading the trier of fact that the burdened party is entitled to prevail. Civil Cases 1. Criminal Cases The burden of proof is on the prosecution by reason of presumption of innocence.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 Section 51. B.

PRINCIPLE OF NEGATIVE AVERMENTS GENERAL RULE: Negative allegations need not be proved.e. the prosecution has the burden of proving the same. in CIVIL CASES. whether in a civil or criminal action. the burden of evidence lies on the party who and a QuickTime™ asserts an affirmative TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor allegation. 68 Phil. B. of the difficult office of proving a negative allegation. In view however. In both civil and criminal cases. the rule if the subject of a negative averment inheres in the offense as an essential ingredient thereof. DEGREE OF PROOF THAT SATISFIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF A. UPON WHOM BURDEN OF EVIDENCE RESTS A. substantial evidence BURDEN OF EVIDENCE . Issuance of warrant of arrest – Probable cause. HOWEVER. 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. the information shall be dismissed on the motion of the accused. In this case. need to do no more than make a prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 prosecution has at least shown a prima facie case before considering the evidence of the defense. are needed to see this picture. Generally determined by the pleadings filed by the party. Civil Cases: The plaintiff is to prove his affirmative allegations in his counter claim and his affirmative defenses. while the DEFENSE has to prove its affirmative allegations regarding the existence of justifying or exempting circumstances. clear and convincing evidence 3. Administrative Cases – Substantial evidence. 564) Page 277 of 289 . Civil Cases – Preponderance of evidence B. that there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused that committed an offense. even if the negative allegation is an essential part of the cause of action or defense. (People v. if the accused was NOT brought to trial within the time required. Republic Act 8493). Should the prosecution succeed in establishing a prima facie case against the accused. the burden is shifted upon the accused to prove otherwise. or by the provisions of substantive law or procedural rules which may relieve the party from presenting evidence on the facts alleged. Preliminary investigation – Engenders a well founded belief of the fact of the commission of a crime. proof beyond reasonable doubt 2. absolutory causes or mitigating circumstances. THE BURDEN OF PROOF of supporting such motion is with the accused (Section 13. In a CRIMINAL CASE. If the prosecution does not have a prima facie case. Criminal Cases To sustain conviction – Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Under the Speedy Trial Act. Generally determined by the developments of the trial. or are essential ingredients of the offense in a criminal case or defenses thereto. EXCEPTION: When such negative allegations are essential parts of the cause of action or defense in a civil case. preponderance of evidence 4. Distinctions Between Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF EVIDENCE Does not shift and Shifts from party to party remains throughout depending upon the the entire case exactly exigencies of the case in where the original the course of the trial pleadings placed it. i. C. HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCE 1. the prosecution. it is futile to waste time in considering the evidence presented by the defense. 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. Cabral.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. under such circumstance.

Courts operate not because one person has been defeated or overcome by another but because he has been defeated or overcome illegally. be permitted to falsify it. 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. PRESUMPTIONS OF FACT Discretion is vested in the tribunal as to drawing the inference. QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor . 2(a)) – whenever a party has. ESTOPPEL BY DEED (Rule 131. Sec. BASIS: founded on the principles of justice and is intended not to protect the guilty but to prevent the conviction of an innocent persons. There must be a violation of law.Applies to both civil and criminal cases This presumption accompanies the accused throughout the trial down to the moment of conviction. PRESUMPTION JURIS OR OF LAW – is a deduction which the law expressly directs to be made from particular facts. ESTOPPEL IN PAIS (Rule 131. This presumption disappears after conviction and the appellate court then will presume the accused guilty. When of age and sane. Section 2.is that which the law permits to be overcome or contradicted by proofs to the contrary. It imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to meet or rebut the presumption. he cannot. and another indicative of his guilt. act or omission. CLASSIFICATION OF PRESUMPTIONS 1. by his own declaration. Equipose Rule: Where the evidence gives rise to two probabilities. or omission. Disputable presumptions CLASSES OF DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS 1. Presumption of Innocence . 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. 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. 2. Page 278 of 289 PRESUMPTION JURIS may be divided into: 1. act. the presumption will not apply. and 2. 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. Sec. that which is favorable to the accused should be considered. Villa. Presumption that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns: (Vales v. Conslusive Presumptions are needed to see PRESUMPTIONS CLASSES OF CONCLUSIVEthis picture. By reason of this presumption. 35 PHIL 769) All men are presumed to be sane and normal and subject to be moved by substantially the same motives. 2. A presumption shifts the burden of going forward with the evidence. Derived wholly and directly from the circumstances of the particular case by means of the common experience of mankind. they must take care of themselves. Section 3.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 PRESUMPTION . If the title asserted is one that is alleged to have been acquired subsequent to the commencement of that relation. intentionally and deliberately lead another to believe a particular thing to be true and act upon such belief. an accused is not called upon to offer evidence on his behalf for his freedom is forfeited only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence. 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. 1. DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS (juris tantum) . one consistent with defendant’s innocence. otherwise the same remains satisfactory. in any litigation arising out of such declaration. Reduced to fixed rules and form a part of the system of jurisprudence.

and in good faith. 7. 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. whether in the Philippines or elsewhere. are ne This presumption of authority is not confined to official appointees. 9. an adverse assumption may arise when the official act in question appears to be irregular upon its face. innocence and not the wrongdoing is to be presumed 2. At the start of the criminal case. 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. an official oath will not be violated 3. 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. Presumption that an official duty has been regularly performed Reasons: 1. But once the prosecution is able to prove that a certain object has been unlawfully taken. 4.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 3. 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 be collaterally in issue. be it superior or inferior court. 5. irregularity will not be presumed. department. was acting in a lawful exercise jurisdiction. 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 new presumption of guilt takes place. that a court. a republican form of government cannot survive un less a limit is placed upon controversies and certain trust and confidence reposed in each government. 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. Jurisdiction is presumed in all cases. However. 8. 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. Presumption from possession of stolen goods: This is not in conflict with the presumption of innocence. The presumption of regularity and legality of official acts is applicable ato criminal as well QuickTime™ and TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor as civil cases. the court will apply the presumption of innocence. there is a presumption that all men act fairly honestly. 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. or judge acting as such. RULE 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE Page 279 of 289 . In the absence of proof to the contrary. The burden of proof is on the adverse party to show that he was not appointed or designated. eded to see this picture. Presumptions of regularity of judicial proceedings. or agent at least to the extent of such presumption. While ordinarily. and then the presumption of innocence disappears. 6. jurisdiction to render a judgement in a particular case or against a particular case.

2. not be indefinite or uncertain. Not to be detained loinger than the interest of justice require. not to be repetitions. 3. The rule covers only testimonial compulsion and production by him of incriminating documents and articles. 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. unless it be to the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact at issue would be presumed. 2. Two fold object in requiring a witness to be sworn: 1. One instance when the testimonies of witnesses may be given in affidavits is under the Rules of Summary Procedure. Rationale against testimonial compulsion The court may not extract from the defendant’s own lips and against his will an admission of his guilt. and appearance. not call for illegal answer. their intelligence. 5. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law. not be argumentative. and from harsh or insulting demeanor. 7. 12. not to tend reputation of witness. he will be deemed to have waived his objection. not call for opinion or hearsay evidence. 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. the testimonies of witnesses cannot be presented in affidavits. 10. 5. Therefore. 6. 4. Forced Reenactment comes within the ban since prohibition against testimonial compulsion extends to those communicative in nature. No person should be compelled to be a witness against himself. Section 2. he cannot be compelled to do so even by subpoena or other process or order of the court. Rights of a defendant He has the right to be exempt from being a witness against himself. Scope of the right against self-incrimination 1. Page 280 of 289 . 2. not call for self-incriminating testimony. He cannot be Section 3. When is an act testimonial? If it explicitly or implicitly relate a factual assertion or discloses information. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue. Purpose: to enable the court to judge the credibility of the witness by the witness’ manner of testifying. 4. 11. To be protected from irrelevant . How oral evidence is given It is usually given orally in open court. The rule may be invoked in any court or proceedings. GENERAL RULE: Testimony of witnesses shall be given under oath or affirmation. which his attorney had the right to protest and demand that the incident be made of record. When is there compulsion? It is present only when a witness has asserted a right to refuse to disclose self-incriminating information and this refusal has been overridden. But a witness must answeer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES Section 1. 3. generally. if he willfully falsifies that truth. if a party fails to object to the taking of the testimony of a witness without the administration of an oath. 3. be relevant. Examination to be done in open court. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation. or insulting questions. Questions propounded to a witness must: 1. Rights and obligations of a witness RIGHTS OF A WITNESS 1. improper. 8. 9. not be misleading. by affecting the conscience of the witness to compel him to speak the truth. 2. not call for a narration. Proceedings to be recorded QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. The right to have the witness sworn may be waived. that he may be punished by perjury. not be leading. not for conclusion of law.

subscribing witnesses to a will) People v. a witness of the prosecution. Macandog et. sensory derangement or defect e. testified that A was Page 281 of 289 . the counsel must lay the proper foundation of the bias by asking the witness facts constituting the bias. of adverse party iii. Use Immunity – Only prohibits the unse of witness’ compelled testimony and its fruits in any manner in connection with the criminial prosecution of the witness. Hostile witness ii. The exception under no. the law providing for the forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property. he would do “anything and everything” for the victim. or to state what is false. right against selfincrimination refers only to testimonial compulsion. A pointed out that W testified that as the victim’s fraternity brother.. NOTE: Right against self-incrimination is granted only in favor of individuals. It does not render a witness immune from prosecution. Evidence of prior inconsistent statement c. Issue: Whether A was able to properly impeach the witnesses on account of bias. 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. 4 refers to IMMUNITY STATUTES wherein the witness is granted immunity from criminal prosecution for offenses admitted in his testimony. Transactional Immunity – grants immunity to the witness from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimony relates. will not be evidence of the fact assumed by the improper question. Held: No. 2. E. CLASSIFICATION OF IMMUNITY STATUTES 1. interest. al. 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. Limitation if a witness is a party in a civil action Before the plaintiff can compel the defendant to be a witness. or even for himself. Evidence of bias. Adverse party or rep. 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. Unwilling or hostile witness e. Evidence of mental.g. under Sec.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 required wither for the prosecution. A attempted to impeach the credibility of 3 prosecution witnesses.g. 358 SCRA 462 (2001) Facts: A was accused of the murder of V. 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. GENERAL RULE: One who voluntarily offers a witness’ testimony is bound by such (i. R. Peralta 350 SCRA 198 (2001) Facts: A was found guilty of murder. 8. Difficulty in getting direct and intelligible QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor answers are needed to see this picture. Not voluntarily offered but required by law (e. e. especially witness W. In this case. 1379. People v. for co-accused. To impeach a biased witness. there was no proper impeachment by bias of the 3 prosecution witnesses. prejudice or incompetence d. Contradictory evidence from testimony in same case b. On preliminary matters c. in prosecutions for bribery and graft. cannot impeach or contradict). Evidence of conviction of an offense which affects credibility of witness People v. though not objected to.e. Right against self-incrimination extends to administrative proceedings with a criminal or penal aspect. d. EXCEPTIONS: i. Givera 349 SCRA 573 (2001) Facts: A was charged with murder. and under PD 749. Impeaching witness of adverse party a. Issue: Whether the said testimony is admissible. When leading questions allowed a. Held: No. director or a corporation or partnership which is an adverse party A misleading question. Adverse party or an officer. NOTE: For purposes of evidence. 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. the plaintiff must first prove that he has submitted written interrogatories of the defendant. On cross-examination b.A.

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. subscribing witnesses to a will) May be impeached in all respects as if called by other party. consequently. or immediately thereafter. hence it is prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated (Rule 132 § 23). 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. examination of witness (laying the predicate) Additional modes of authenticating a private writing: a. Estrada v. The POEA issued a certificate stating that A was an unlicensed illegal recruiter. When the fact see this picture. the burden of proof rests upon him who alleges the contrary. as she was the sister of the deceased. In People v. Held: No.g.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 among those present at the crime scene. At any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was correctly recorded REQUISITES OF RECOLLECTION: REVIVAL OF PAST a. The fact that E is the sister of deceased does not per se make her a biased witness. Banzales 336 SCRA 64 (2000) Facts: A was charged with illegal recruitment. A argued that E’s testimony should not have been given credence because she was biased. 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. Witnesses required by law (e. or ii. Issue: Whether E is a biased witness. Witness who is also an adverse party c. Memorandum has been written by him or under his direction. Written by him: QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to occurred i. People v. When a witness who is partly cross-examined dies. However. still. IMPEACHING OWN WITNESS GENERAL RULE: A party is not allowed to impeach his own witness EXCEPTIONS: a. Held: No. Señeris (99 SCRA 92). But he his able to swear that the record or writing correctly stated the transaction when made Revival of present memory v. a copy of which the proponent is offering as evidence. EXCEPT by evidence of bad moral character. It would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime to accuse anyone other than the real culprit. Doctrine of self-authentication Where the facts in the writing could only have been known by the writer b. his direct examination cannot be expunged. Issue: Whether authenticity of the certificate needs to be proved. and b. Unwilling or adverse witness so declared by the court b. REQUISITES OF REVIVAL OF PRESENT MEMORY: a.. Aniano Desierto 356 SCRA 108 (2001) Page 282 of 289 . b. Public documents are entitled to a presumption of regularity. Professor Bautista does not like this decision because although the cross was substantially complete. the direct testimony of a witness who dies before conclusion of the cross can be stricken only insofar as not covered by the cross. Revival of past recollection PRESENT PAST RECOLLECTION RECOLLECTION RECORDED REVIVED 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. Witness retains no recollection of the particular facts. Such relationship lends more credence to the testimony considering her natural interest to see the guilty punished. A POEA certification is a public document issued by a public officer in the performance of an official duty. the court ordered the direct examination to be stricken out.

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. proved or certified d. More than 30 years old ii. actionable documents. Issue: Does the use of the AD violate the rule on authentication of private writings and best evidence? Held: No. When a witness dies or becomes incapacitated to testify and the other party Page 283 of 289 . WHEN TO OBJECT Offer Offered orally Question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness Offer of evidence in writing Time to Object 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. stated that: “ Production of the original may be dispensed with.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 Facts: The Court.. in a previous decision. AUTHENTICATION NOT REQUIRED FOR: a. relied not upon the original but only a copy of the Angara Diary as published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. WHEN A MOTION TO STRIKE OUT ANSWER IS PROPER a. When the witness answered the question before the counsel has a chance to object a. Thus. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. the opposing party must OBJECT to its introduction. Authenticity and due execution has been expressly or impliedly admitted (e. The document must have been incorporated to the records of the case. Two requisites must concur (People v. b. 2. Napta) a. Witness actually saw person writing instrument b.g. 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. d. Where a witness has volunteered statements in such a way that the party has not been able to object thereto c. Comparison(Uncompressed) decompressor of QuickTime™ and a handwriting questioned TIFF are needed specimens admitted genuine to see this picture. Supplemental Memorandum and Second Supplemental Memorandum. Estrada had an opportunity to object to the admissibility of the AD when he filed his Memorandum. Familiar with handwriting and witness give opinion c. Where a witness testifies beyond the ruling of the court prescribing the limits within which he may answer e. He was not therefore denied due process. in the trial court’s discretion. Evidence offered is presumed to be admissible or competent until the contrary has been established. Public document or record c. Where a question which is not objectionable may be followed by an objectionable unresponsive answer 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. Produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine b. Where a witness testifies without a question being addressed to him d. citing Wigmore. Expert evidence OFFER AND OBJECTION GENERAL RULE: The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. EVIDENCE OF GENUINENESS HANDWRITING: a. The document must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded. Notarial document acknowledged. Contains no alterations or circumstances of suspicion iii. 1. Ancient document i. BUT he may withdraw an offer of an exhibit any time before the court has passed on its admissibility. OF the can and EXCEPTION: If there was repeated reference thereto in the course of the trial by adverse party’s counsel and of the court. The Supreme Court. but he did not object to its admissibility. indicating that the documents were part of the prosecution’s evidence.

(2000) Facts: A was convicted of robbery with homicide. Documentary – by attaching the document or making it part of the record b. The circumstances proved must be consistent with each other. the Schools Division Superintendent. If the party slept on his right to object. Held: No. Circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction: a. the court is simply saying that the prosecution was unable to prove the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. coherent and intrinsically believable. The circumstantial pieces of evidence in this case. as the culprit. In dismissing the case. Testimonial – by stating the personal circumstances of witness and the substance of proposed testimony to be sufficient for conviction. the evidence against the accused is basically circumstantial because of the nature of the crime. A’s culpability has been proven by Page 284 of 289 RULE 133 WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE 1. 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 QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor . A was acquitted. excluding possibility of error. The circumstances must create a solid chain of events. Pedigero 337 SCRA picture. Mollaneda v. WHEN A MOTION TO STRIKE OUT IS IMPROPER a. More than one circumstance b. also known as OFFER OF PROOF: a. A party cannot insist that competent and relevant evidence be stricken out for reasons going to his weight. He argued that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. One cannot move to strike it out because it proves unfavorable to him If court improperly excludes otherwise admissible evidence. 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. to the exclusion of others. that pinpoints the accused. taken in their entirety. Rayos 351 SCRA 336 (2001) Facts: A was charged and convicted of the rapeslay of a 9-year old mental retardate. or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind 2. to the exclusion of all others. A argued that the dismissal of the criminal case against him meant that the administrative case cannot prosper. There must be an objection first before a motion to strike. Issue: When is circumstantial evidence sufficient to convict? Held: When there are no eyewitnesses to a crime. 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. as being the perpetrator of the crime and thereby sufficiently overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. People v. was criminally charged before the court. 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.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 has not been given the opportunity to crossexamine the witness. unmistakably point to the guilt of A. In rape with homicide. he cannot later on avail a motion to strike to exclude the evidence. Combination of all circumstances such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt 3. 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. Facts from which inferences are derived are proven c. sufficiency or credibility b. remedy is to tender the excluded evidence. Issue: Whether A is correct. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE That amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. produces absolute certainty Moral certainty only is required. In administrative proceedings. and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilt. resort to circumstantial evidence becomes almost certainly unavoidable. Umacob 358 SCRA 537 (2001) Facts: A. consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty. the quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence. are needed to see this 274 People v. PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT Does not mean such degree of proof as.

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. electronic documents. validity or enforceability as any other document or legal writing. nothing in the Act or these Rules requires a person to use or accept information contained in electronic data messages. Maintains its integrity and reliability. It has remained complete and unaltered. or electronic signatures. Section 8. and b. Can be authenticated so as to be usable for subsequent reference. d. 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 QuickTime™ and a TIFF the information decompressor document if (Uncompressed) this picture. and b. or any change which arises in the normal course of communication. or obliges the parties to conform to a writing. or for any information or document to be communicated by a specified method unless and until a functional . is provided in the are needed to see same or substantially the same form. c. that requirement is met by an electronic document or electronic data message if – a. purporting to give rise to such legal effect. The dismissal of the criminal case cannot bind this Court in the disposition of the instant administrative case. and implemented. but a person's consent to do so may be inferred from the person's conduct.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 substantial evidence. In particular. subject to the provisions of the Act and these Rules: a. Section 11. Electronic data messages or electronic documents shall have the legal effect. 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. 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. in that: a. storage and display. There was justifiable ground for A’s dismissal from the service. or provides consequences in the event information is not presented or retained in its original form. b. It is reliable in the light of the purpose for which it was generated and in the light of all relevant circumstances. Section 10. Use Not Mandatory Without prejudice to the application of Section 27 of the Act and Section 37 of these Rules. equivalent shall have been installed. Pertinent Provisions of the Implementing Rules of the E-Commerce Act: CHAPTER II LEGAL RECOGNITION OF ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGES AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS Section 7. Section 9. and Page 285 of 289 developed. Writing Where the law requires a document to be in writing. Nothing limits the operation of any requirement under law for information to be posted or displayed in specified manner. apart from the addition of any endorsement and any authorized change. time or location. 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. evidence other than the electronic data message itself) or otherwise. Original Where the law requires that a document be presented or retained in its original form. A requirement under law that information is in writing is satisfied if the information is in the form of an electronic data message or electronic document. an electronic document or electronic data message will be sufficient if the latter: a.

MODES OF AUTHENTICATION Section 15. apart from the addition of any endorsement and any change which arises in the normal course of communication. including any relevant agreement. For the purposes of paragraph (a) above: i. . Method of Authenticating Electronic Documents. Section 12. and b. 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. shall be authenticated by demonstrating. Hence.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 b. and b. and Electronic Signatures Electronic documents. to have executed or provided the electronic signature. The parties may agree to adopt supplementary or alternative procedures provided that the requirements of paragraph (b) are complied with. iv. Is an electronic signature as defined in Section 6(g) of these Rules. For purposes of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (b). The electronic signature is the signature of the person to whom it correlates. or that a contract is proved in a certain way. 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. 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. storage and display. existed under TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor which: are needed to see this picture. Said method is reliable and appropriate for the purpose for which the electronic document or electronic data message was generated or communicated. the factors referred to in Annex “2” may be taken into account. not alterable by the parties interested in the electronic document or electronic dataQuickTime™ and a message. Is proved by showing that a prescribed procedure. v. c. It is necessary for the party sought to be bound. and. Legal Recognition of Electronic Signatures An electronic signature relating to an electronic document or electronic data message shall be equivalent to the signature of a person on a written document if the signature: a. Section 14. Presumption Relating to Electronic Signatures In any proceeding involving an electronic signature. when the law requires that a contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable. electronic data messages and electronic signatures. 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. the proof of the electronic signature shall give rise to the rebuttable presumption that: a. The criteria for assessing integrity shall be whether the information has remained complete and unaltered. substantiating and validating a Page 286 of 289 ii. and ii. that requirement is absolute and indispensable. in order to proceed further with the transaction. iii. The electronic document or electronic data message is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented. LEGAL RECOGNITION OF ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES Section 13. 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. i. 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. in the light of all circumstances. Electronic Data Messages.

Until the Supreme Court. the reliability of the manner in which it was generated. stored or communicated. or another entity in an information or communication system. In assessing the evidential weight of an electronic data message or electronic document. character. when applicable. 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. with the intention of authenticating or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. Section 16. shall have so provided. answers back or acknowledgement procedures. and other relevant factors shall be given due regard. The electronic signature shall be authenticated by proof that a letter. b. content or storage of an electronic document or electronic data message from a specific point. device. Admissibility and Evidential Weight of Electronic Data Messages and Electronic Documents For evidentiary purposes. or that the appropriate methodology or security procedures. which. encryptions. using algorithm or codes. or detecting error or alteration in the communication. ADMISSIBILITY AND EVIDENTIAL WEIGHT Section 18. electronic documents. nothing in the application of the rules on evidence shall deny the admissibility of an electronic data message or electronic document in evidence: a. were employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person. Method of Establishing the Integrity of an Electronic Document or Electronic Data Message In the absence of evidence to the contrary. by appropriate rules. or c. In any legal proceeding. among other methods a. shall be authenticated. or similar security devices. 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. 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. and there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the information and communication system. On the ground that it is not in the standard written form. in the following manner: a. among other ways. identifying words or numbers. electronic document. The electronic data message or electronic document shall be authenticated by proof that an appropriate security procedure. MODES FOR ESTABLISHING INTEGRITY QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. established in any legal proceeding. 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. the reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified. and Section 9 of the Act on the presumption of integrity of electronic signatures. when applicable was adopted and employed for the purpose of verifying the originator of an electronic data message or electronic document. The Act does not modify any statutory rule relating to the admissibility of electronic data messages or electronic documents. the integrity of the information and communication system in which an electronic data message or electronic document is recorded or stored may be . On the sole ground that it is in electronic form. Section 19. or b. an electronic document or electronic data message shall be the functional equivalent of a written document under existing laws. number or other symbol in electronic form representing the persons named in and attached to or logically associated with an electronic data message. b. may be presumed to have been Page 287 of 289 Section 17. Burden of Authenticating Electronic 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. electronic data messages and electronic signatures.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 claimed identity of a user.

Recantation People v. recantations made after the conviction of the accused deserve only scant consideration. the victim’s recantation could hardly suffice to overturn the finding of guilt by the TC which was based on her own clear and convincing testimony given during a full-blown trial. old V who was asleep at the time of the commission of the crime. Retention of Electronic Data Message and Electronic Document Notwithstanding any provision of law. iii. impose regulations to ensure the integrity. In the course of the trial. An affidavit of recantation. 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. 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. enables the identification of its originator and addressee. she admitted that what she said was false because Page 288 of 289 . sent or received. these were not subscribed and sworn to by the victim. but later on cross-examination. and sub-paragraph (c) of the Act. as well as the determination of the date and the time it was sent or received. being usually taken ex parte. Section 20. The requirement referred to in paragraph (a) is satisfied by using the services of a third party.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 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. may only prove that an accused was previously convicted of a crime. Is retained in the format in which it was generated. Remains accessible so as to be usable for subsequent reference. applicable laws are implementing relating to the retention of certain documents may. Nardo 353 SCRA 339 (2001) Facts: A was charged with rape by his 14-year old daughter. During the initial reception of evidence for the prosecution. V said she did not know A because it was her first time to see his face at the time the incident took place. A raised the defense that the victim desisted in pursuing the case against her father by showing two letters. while admissible in evidence. ii. However. It may not be used to prove that the accused is guilty of a crime charged in a subsequent case. He was convicted by the TC and sentenced to death. sent or received. A recantation of a testimony is exceedingly unreliable for there is always the probability that such recantation may later on be itself repudiated. RETENTION OF ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT AND Proof of Previous Conviction People v. Even if sworn to. Any party to the proceedings has the right to cross-examine a person referred to in Section 11. Buenaflor 359 SCRA 783 (2001) Facts: RTC found A guilty for raping 14-yr. rule or regulation to the contrary: a. by appropriate issuances. reliability of such documents and the proper implementation of Section 13 of the Act. c. Relevant government agencies tasked with QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor enforcing or needed to see this picture. paragraph 4. the prosecution attempted to bring out A’s former conviction of another crime. A previous decision or judgment. and. Courts look with disfavor upon retractions because they can easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for monetary consideration. provided that the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (i). or in a format which can be demonstrated to accurately represent the electronic data message or electronic document generated. A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration. Issue: Should the letters be admitted in order to acquit the accused? Held: No. Where applicable. Credibility People v. Ubongan 357SCRA 142 (2001) Facts: A was charged with kidnapping and serious illegal detention. (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (a) are met. would be considered inferior to the testimony given in open court. b. Especially. Issue: Can the proof of A’s past conviction be used to prove his guilt of the crime charged? Held: No.

(Uncompressed) decompressor TIFF are needed to Held: Yes. chemical analysis was conducted on the blood of the complainant immediately after the incident. bodily weakness. 360 SCRA 106 (2001) Facts: RTC found Abendan et. Alibi People v. While no see this picture. Page 289 of 289 . Held: No. the physical manifestations (dizziness. and not by credible persons. 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. A denied that V was drugged and pointed to the absence of any medical or chemical evidence to support her claim. Nubla 358 SCRA 735 (2001) Facts: A was convicted for the rape of V.Criminal Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 actually A is their neighbor. al. and narrations that are contrary to common experience. committed by means of force and intimidation. Abendan et. strong desire to sleep) were proved during the trial. Issue: Whether the fact that V was drugged was QuickTime™ and a sufficiently proven. Positive identification. Held: Yes. A argued that the trial court erred in ignoring his alibi. prevails over alibi and denial which. Issue: Whether the trial court was correct in not giving weight to A’s alibi. guilty of murder. where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter. if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. who was asleep when he was fatally shot. the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue. The TC thought that considering that the offended party is a very young girl of 15 years. Alibi becomes unworthy of credit when it is established mainly by the accused himself and his relative. In this case. Issue: Whether V is a credible witness. al. Medical/Chemical Evidence People v. the testimony of the complainant is not credible because it is replete with inconsistencies. The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that there was treachery and conspiracy in the killing of the victim. human nature and the natural course of things. In a prosecution for rape. by inducing V to drink iced tea laced with drugs causing the latter to lose consciousness. in particular.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->