You are on page 1of 42

Preliminary Considerations Evidence

Preliminary Considerations
Rule 128 General Provisions
Section 1 EVIDENCE DEFINED Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact Section 2 - SCOPE The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. Evidence - mode and manner of proving competent facts in judicial proceedings Proof - result or effect of evidence When the requisite quantum of evidence of a particular fact has been duly admitted and given weight Factum probandum ultimate fact or fact sought to be established proposition Factum probans evidentiary fact or the fact by which the factum probandum is to be established Materials which establishes the proposition Law on evidence procedural law Shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights (Sec 5 (5), Art VIII, Consti) New rules may be held applicable to cases pending at the time of the change in rules as parties have no vested right in the rules of evidence Except in criminal cases when the new rule would permit reception of lesser quantum of evidence to convict -> unconstitutional, ex post facto Principally found in ROC Special laws: RA 4200, Code of Commerce Art 448, Civil Code, RPC Art 217 Bill of Rights Sec 2 and 3 See notes under Sec 33, Rule 130 Right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked in situations covered by immunity statutes RA 1379 immunity to witnesses in proceedings for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property PD 749 immunity in bribery and graft cases Specifically applicable only in judicial proceedings Quasi-judicial: suppletory character whenever practicable and convenient, except when the governing law specifically adopts ROC Classification of evidence based on ROC: 1. Object that which is directly addressed to the senses of the court and consists of tangible things exhibited or demonstrated in open court, in an ocular inspection or at a place designated by the court for its view or observation of an exhibition, experiment or demonstration Autoptic proference presenting in open court the evidentiary articles for the observation or inspection of the tribunal 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 submitted to the court through the testimony or deposition of a witness Other classifications 1. Relevant, Material, and Competent Evidence a. Relevant evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove any matter provable in an action Test of relevancy logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact in issue, whether it tends to prove the probability or improbability of the fact in issue b. Material evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings 2.





Materiality of evidence is determined by WON the fact it tends to prove is in issue c. Competent one that is not excluded by the Rules, law or Consti Direct and Circumstantial Evidence a. Direct that which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption b. Circumstantial proof of the fact or facts from which, taken either singly or collectively, the existence of a particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence Cumulative and Corroborative Evidence a. Cumulative evidence of the same kind and to the same state of facts b. Corroborative additional evidence of a different character to the same point Prima facie and Conclusive Evidence a. Prima facie that which, standing alone, unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed b. Conclusive that class of evidence which the law does not allow to be contradicted Primary and Secondary Evidence a. Primary or best evidence, that which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question b. Secondary evidence substitutionary evidence, that which is inferior to the primary evidence and is permitted by law only when the best evidence is not available Positive and Negative Evidence a. Positive when a witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur Entitled to greater weight since witness represents of his personal knowledge b. Negative witness states that he did not see or know of the occurrence of a fact Total disclaimer of personal knowledge

Section 3 ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules Section 4 RELEVANCY; COLLATERAL MATTERS Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability of the facts in issue Two requisites for admissibility: 1. Relevance determinable by rules of logic and human experience None but facts having rational probative value are admissible (Wigmore) 2. Competence determined by prevailing exclusionary rules of evidence All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rule forbids their admission Therefore, admissibility is an affair of logic and law Admissibility determined at the time it is offered to the court Object evidence offered when presented for the courts view or evaluation Testimonial offered by the calling of the witness to the stand Documentary formally offered by the proponent immediately before he rests his case Objection to the admissibility made at the time such evidence is offered or as soon as the objection to the admissibility shall have become apparent Otherwise, waived Conditional admissibility where the evidence at the time it is offered appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may be received on condition that the other facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence will be stricken out Qualification: no bad faith on the part of the proponent

azereth page 1

Preliminary Considerations Evidence

Necessary to avoid unfair surprises to the other party Multiple admissibility where evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any and all the purposes for which it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for its admissibility Curative admissibility treats upon the right of a party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted the same kind of evidence of the adverse party Theories: 1. American rule admission of such incompetent evidence, without objection by the opponent does not justify such opponent in rebutting it by similar incompetent evidence 2. English rule if a party has presented inadmissible evidence. The adverse party may resort to similar incompetent evidence 3. Massachusetts rule 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 partys To determine application: 1. WON incompetent evidence was reasonably objected to, and 2. WON, regardless of the objection vel non, the admission will cause a plain and unfair prejudice to the party against whom it is admitted Conversely, where admissible evidence has been improperly excluded, the other party should not be permitted to introduce similar evidence (Martin) Former rule: illegally obtained evidence still admissible unless specifically forbidden Abandoned in Stonehill vs. Diokno -> documentary evidence, illegally obtained, is inadmissible on a timely motion or action to suppress Collateral matters matters other than the facts in issue and which are offered as a basis for inference as to the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue Irrelevant collateral matters inadmissible Circumstantial evidence evidence of relevant collateral facts Weight to evidence, once admitted, depends on judicial evaluation (Rule 133 and jurisprudence)

azereth page 2

What Need Not Be Proved Evidence

What Need Not Be Proved

Rule 129 What Need Not Be Proved
Section 1 JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN MANDATORY A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. Section 2 JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN DISCRETIONARY A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. Section 3 JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN HEARING NECESSARY During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon. After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. Judicial notice cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them Based on considerations of expediency and convenience May be taken by court on its own motion or when it is requested by either parties Court will allow the parties to be heard on the matter in question Must be exercised with caution and every reasonable doubt on the subject must be resolved in the negative Courts are required to take judicial notice of laws Different with ordinances: MTC required to take judicial notice of ordinances of the municipality or city wherein they sit RTC must take judicial notice only: 1. When required to do so by statute 2. In a case of appeal before them wherein the inferior court took judicial notice of an ordinance involved in said case Or when capable of unquestionable demonstration (also applies with administrative regulations) Courts are required to take judicial notice of the decisions of appellate courts but not of the decisions of coordinate courts Not even the decision or the facts involved in another case tried by the same court itself Unless the parties introduce the same in evidence or doing so is convenient Foreign laws question of fact May not be taken judicial notice and have to be proved Except: said laws are within the actual knowledge of the court To prove written foreign law: follow requirements in Sec 24-25, Rule 132 May be subject of judicial admission Processual presumption - no proof nor admission, foreign law presumed to be the same as that in the Philippines To prove unwritten foreign law Sec 46, Rule 130

An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Judicial admissions may be made in 1. Pleadings filed by the parties 2. The course of the trial, either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations 3. Other stages of the judicial proceeding Must be made in the same case in which it is offered If made in another case or in another court must be proved as in any other fact, but entitled greater weight Admissible unless: 1. Made only for purposes of the first case 2. Withdrawn with the permission of the court 3. Court deems it proper to relieve the party Admissions in a pleading which have been withdrawn or supersede by an amended pleading Considered as extrajudicial admissions However, the rule seems now to include superseded pleadings as judicial admissions

Lim vs. Jabalde (1989) Facts subject of a stipulation or agreement entered into by the parties at the pre-trial of a case constitute judicial admission by them which, under this section, do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake. PCIB vs. Escolin (1974) When the parties in a case agree on what the foreign law provides, these are admissions of fact which the other parties and the court are made to rely and act upon; hence they are in estoppel to subsequently take a contrary position


azereth page 3

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

Admissibility of Evidence
Rule 130 Rules of Admissibility
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE SECTION 1 - OBJECT AS EVIDENCE Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. Where object is relevant to a fact in issue, court may acquire knowledge by: 1. Actually viewing the object becomes object evidence 2. Receiving testimonial evidence thereon The fact that an ocular inspection has been held does not preclude a party from introducing other evidence on the same issue Ocular inspection lies within the discretion of the court Invalid if conducted by a judge without notice or presence of the parties Court may refuse introduction of object evidence and rely on testimonial evidence alone if: 1. Exhibition of such object is contrary to public policy, morals or decency But if view is necessary in the interest of justice, may still be exhibited but the court may exclude the public from such view Viewing may not be refused if the indecent or immoral object constitute the very basis for the criminal or civil action 2. To require its being viewed in court or in an ocular inspection would result in delays, inconvenience, and expenses out of proportion to the evidentiary value of such object 3. Such object evidence would be confusing or misleading 4. Testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the object in question as to render a view unnecessary Object evidence includes any article or object which may be known or perceived by the use of any of the senses sight (visual), hearing (auditory), touch (tactile), taste (gustatory), or smell (olfactory) Includes: 1. Examination of the anatomy of a person or of any substance taken therefrom 2. Conduct of tests, demonstrations, or experiments 3. Examination of representative portrayals of the object in question Observations of the court may be amplified by interpretations afforded by testimonial evidence, especially be experts Documents are considered object evidence if the purpose is to: 1. Prove their existence or condition or the nature of the handwritings thereon 2. Determine the age of the paper used or the blemishes or alterations thereon Otherwise, considered documentary evidence

a. b.



When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice; 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; and When the original is public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office

Section 4 ORIGINAL OF DOCUMENT a. The original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry. b. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals. c. When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. Document deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by which something is proved, evidenced, or set forth Best Evidence Rule rule of exclusion Secondary evidence cannot inceptively be introduced as the original writing itself must be produced in court Non-production of the original document, unless justified under Sec 3, gives rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence Applies only when the content of such document is the subject of inquiry In criminal cases where the issue is not only with respect to the contents of the document but also as to whether such document actually existed with the participation therein as imputed to the accused, the original itself must be presented. Libel published in a newspaper: copy of said newspaper Falsification of a document: original of the document Does not apply if transactions have been recorded in writing but the contents of such writing are not the subject of inquiry Affidavits and depositions strictly speaking, BER does not apply, but will not be admitted if affiants or deponents are available as witnesses

Mahilum vs. CA (1966) A signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document executed at the same time as the originals is known as a duplicate original and may be introduced in evidence without accounting for the non-production of the original. People vs. Tan (105 Phil 1242) With respect to documents prepared in several copies through the use of carbon sheets, SC has held that each carbon copy is considered an original provided that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature of the party sought to be charged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the same stroke of the pen which made the surface or exposed impression However, even if said signature on each copy was written through separate acts, all of carbon copies are regarded as originals if each copy was intended as a repository of the same legal act of the party thereto Imperfect carbon copies merely secondary evidence Telegrams and cables depends on the issue to be proved Original dispatch issue is the contents of the telegram as received by the addressee Message delivered for transition issue as to the telegram sent by the sender

B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Section 2 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Documents as evidence consists of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents 1. BEST EVIDENCE RULE Section 3 ORIGINAL DOCUMENT MUST BE PRODUCED; EXCEPTIONS When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:

azereth page 4

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

Both issue is the inaccuracy of the transmission Section 8 PARTY WHO CALLS FOR DOCUMENT NOT BOUND TO OFFER IT A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence

Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga vs. Reyes (55 Phil 905) On the issue as to the contents of the articles sent by the accused for publication, the manuscript was the best evidence; but on the issue as to what was actually published, a copy of the newspaper publication was the best evidence. 2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE Section 5 WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS UNAVAILABLE When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. Requisites: proof by satisfactory evidence of 1. Due execution of the original Proved through the testimony of either: a. Person/s who executed it; b. Person before whom its execution was acknowledged; or c. Any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered or who thereafter saw it and recognized the signatures, or one to whom the parties thereto had previously confessed the execution thereof 2. Loss, destruction or unavailability of all such originals, not due to bad faith Intentional destruction of the originals by a party who, however, had acted in good faith does not preclude his introduction of secondary evidence of the contents thereof May be proved by any person who: a. Knew of fact of loss or destruction b. Had made a sufficient examination of the places where the document or papers of similar character are usually kept by the person in whose custody the document was and has been unable to find it c. Has made any other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the document is indeed lost 3. Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search or attempt to produce the original All duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for before using copies thereof

De Vera vs. Aguilar (1993) Since all the duplicates or multiplicates are parts of the writing to be proved, no excuse for non-production of the document can be regarded as established until it appears that all of its parts are unavailable PNB vs. Olila (98 Phil 1002) When the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court, as when it is in a foreign country, secondary evidence is admissible Secondary evidence may consist of: 1. Copy of said document 2. Recital of its contents in an authentic document 3. Recollection of witnesses In this particular order Except when specifically required by law E.g. lost notarial will testimony of at least 2 credible witnesses Reconstitution governed by Act 3110 + jurisprudence

Section 6 WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS IN ADVERSE PARTYS CUSTODY OR CONTROL If the document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss

azereth page 5

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

No particular form of notice is required As long as it fairly appraises the other party as to what papers are desired Even oral demand in court is allowed Made on a reasonable time Notice must be given to the adverse party or his counsel even if papers is in the hands of a third person De Guzman vs. Calma (100 Phil 1008) Parol evidence is based upon the consideration that when the parties have reduced their agreement on a particular matter into writing, all their previous and contemporaneous agreements on the matter are merged therein

Phil. Ready-Mix Concrete Co. vs. Villacorta, et al (98 Phil 993) Where receipt of the original of a letter is acknowledged on a carbon copy thereof, there is no need for a notice to the other party to produce the original of the letter

Remember: the duplicate copy, if complete is itself an original copy Only issue: receipt of the original Justified refusal of the adverse party to produce the document presumption of suppression of evidence Only authorizes the introduction of secondary evidence Where such document is produced admissibility

Requisites for admissibility must be present Production of evidence under Rule 130 Production of evidence under Rule 27

Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd. vs. Buenaflor (36 OG 3290) Where the nature of the action is in itself a notice, as where it is for the recovery or annulment of documents wrongfully obtained or withheld by the other party, no notice to produce said documents is required Third exception to BER justified not only by the fact that the records are voluminous but also because the fatum probandum is just the general result of the whole For exception to apply 1. The voluminous character of the records must be established 2. Such records must be made available to the adverse party so that their correctness may be tested on cross-examination Originals have to be produced if:

Detailed contents of the records are challenged for being hearsay1 Issues are raised as to the authenticity or correctness of the detailed entries

Section 7 EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS A PUBLIC RECORD When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof

Complements the 4th exception to BER See Rule 132 Sections 24 and 27

3. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE Section 9 EVIDENCE OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTS When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading: a. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement; b. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto; c. The validity of the written agreement; or d. The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. The term "agreement" includes wills.

US vs. Razon (37 Phil 856)

azereth page 6

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

Parol evidence evidence aliunde (oral or written) Intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document As long as they have been put into issue, parol evidence did not bar evidence of a collateral agreement in instances where: Collateral agreement is not inconsistent with the terms of the contract Collateral agreement has not been integrated in and is independent of the written contract (suppletory to the original document) Collateral agreement is subsequent to the written contract Collateral agreement constitutes a condition precedent which determines whether the written contract may become effective Does not apply to a condition subsequent not stated in the agreement Parol evidence does not apply where at least one party to the suit is not a party or privy of a party to the written agreement in question Parol Evidence Presupposes that the original document is available in court Best Evidence Situation wherein the original writing is not available and/or there is a dispute as to whether said writing is original Prohibits the introduction of substitutionary evidence in lieu of the original document Applies to all kinds of writings Can be invoked by any party to the action Latent ambiguity when the writing on its face appears clear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters or circumstances which make the meaning uncertain

Or where the writing admits of two constructions both of which are in harmony with the language used6

Prohibits the varying of the terms of a written agreement Applies only documents that are contractual in nature Can be invoked only when the controversy is between the parties to the written agreement, their privies or any party directly affected thereby (cestui que trust)

To be admissible, mistake or imperfection of the document or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties, or the validity of the document must be put in issue by the pleadings Plaintiff failed to allege in his complaint cannot introduce parol evidence

But if defendant invoked such fact in his answer, parol evidence may be introduced2 However, even if not raised on the pleadings but parol evidence is not objected to, objection deemed waived Mistake or imperfection must be proved by clear and convincing evidence3

Mistake refers to mistake of fact which is mutual to the parties4 Or where the innocent party was imposed upon by unfair dealing of the other CC Art. 1363 When one party was mistaken and the other knew or believed that the instrument did not state their real agreement, but concealed that fact from the former, the instrument may be reformed.

Failure to express true intent

Purpose: enable the court to ascertain the true intent of the parties5 or the true nature of their agreement

2 3 4 5

PNR vs. CFI of Albay (1978) Tolentino vs. Gonzales Sy Chiam (50 Phil 558) BPI vs. Fidelity & Surety Co. (51 Phil 57) Tolentino vs. Gonzales Sy Chiam (50 Phil 558)

Ignacio vs. Rementeria (99 Phil 1054)

azereth page 7

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

Palanca vs. Fred Wilson & Co. (87 Phil 506) The phrase capacity of 6,000 liters used in connection with a distilling apparatus was held to be a latent ambiguity which had to be clarified by parol evidence to determine whether it meant receiving, treating, or the producing capacity of the machine Patent ambiguity extrinsic; such ambiguity which is apparent on the face of the writing itself and requires something to be added in order to ascertain the meaning of the words used Parol evidence is not admissible Court would not be construing a contract, but creating a contract for the parties Intermediate ambiguity the words of the writing, though seemingly clear and with a settled meaning, is actually equivocal and admits of two interpretations7 Example: dollars may refer to currency of US or HK or Australia Ton can be long ton, short ton, displacement ton, freight ton or timber ton Parol evidence is admissible to clarify the ambiguity Remember: falsa demonstration non nocet cum de corpore constat False description does not vitiate a document if the subject is sufficiently identified No express trust concerning an immovable or any interest therein may be proved by parol evidence Section 17 - OF TWO CONSTRUCTIONS, WHICH PREFERRED When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it, and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made. Section 18 - CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF NATURAL RIGHT When an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to be adopted. Section 19 - INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO USAGE An instrument may be construed according to usage, in order to determine its true character. Rules on interpretation For contracts: CC Articles 1370 to 1379 For wills: CC Articles 788 to 794




Section 10 - INTERPRETATION OF A WRITING ACCORDING TO ITS LEGAL MEANING The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution, unless the parties intended otherwise. Section 11 - INSTRUMENT CONSTRUED SO AS TO GIVE EFFECT TO ALL PROVISIONS In the construction of an instrument, where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all. Section 12 - INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO INTENTION; GENERAL AND PARTICULAR PROVISIONS In the construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. Section 13 - INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO CIRCUMSTANCES For the proper construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those whose language he is to interpret. Section 14 - PECULIAR SIGNIFICATION OF TERMS The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show that they have a local, technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used and understood in the particular instance, in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly. Section 15 - WRITTEN WORDS CONTROL PRINTED When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form, and the two are inconsistent, the former controls the latter. Section 16 - EXPERTS AND INTERPRETERS TO BE USED IN EXPLAINING CERTAIN WRITINGS When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not understood by the court, the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand the language, is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language.

Section 20 - WITNESSES; THEIR QUALIFICATIONS Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception to others, may be witnesses. Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification. Section 21 - DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MENTAL INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY The following persons cannot be witnesses: a. Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others; b. Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully. Qualifications/disqualifications of witnesses - determined as of the time the witnesses are produced for examination in court or at the taking of their depositions Children of tender years take into account their competence at the time of the occurrence to be testified Interest in the subject matter does not disqualify Affects only his credibility, not his competency Except: Dead Mans Statute Defendant declared in default not disqualified from testifying fro his non-defaulting co-defendant Conviction of a crime not ground for disqualification But must answer to the fact of a previous final conviction as it may affect credibility Except: conviction of falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony disqualified from being witnesses to a will, therefore cannot testify on probate Unsound mind any mental aberration whether organic or functional or induced by drugs or hypnosis At the time of the testimony If at the time of the fact to be testifies affects only his credibility

People vs. De Jesus (1984) As long as the witness can convey ideas by words or signs and give sufficiently intelligent answers to questions propounded, she is a competent witness even if she is feebleminded Or a mental retardate, or is a schizophrenic Requirements for deaf-mutes: 1. Can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath

Referred to in American jurisprudence

azereth page 8

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

2. 3. Can comprehend facts they are going to testify to Can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter Considerations for a child witness: 1. Capacity at the time the fact to be testified occurred such that he could receive correct impressions thereof 2. Capacity to comprehend the obligation of an oath 3. Capacity to relate those facts truly at the time he is offered a witness Necessary that defendant is being sued in his representative capacity and not in individual capacity If property involved has already been adjudicated to the heirs, still protected considered as representatives of the deceased Applies whether the deceased died before or after the suit was filed as long as he was dead at the time the testimony is to be presented 3. Case is upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased / insane person Does not apply where it is the administrator who brought the action to recover property for the estate 4. Testimony to be given is on a matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind Negative testimony testimony that the fact did not occur during the lifetime of the deceased not covered Testimony of the present possession by the witness of a written instrument signed by the deceased is also not covered Maam: misleading because the document contains acts of the deceased before he died Does not apply to land registration cases or cadastral cases Purpose: discourage perjury and protect the estate from fictitious claim Prohibition does not apply despite meeting all requirements if: 1. Testimony is offered to prove a claim less than what is established under a written document 2. Testimony is intended to prove a fraudulent transaction of the deceased, provided such fraud is first established by evidence aliunde Disqualification waived: 1. Defendant does not timely object to the admission of such evidence 2. Defendant testifies on the prohibited matters 3. Defendant cross-examines thereon

Section 22 DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MARRIAGE During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latters direct descendants and ascendants Called rule on marital disqualification or spousal immunity Requisites: 1. Marriage is valid and existing as of the time of the offer of testimony 2. The other spouse is a party to the action May be waived as in the case of other witnesses generally

Lezama vs. Rodriguez (1968) Where the wife is a co-defendant in a suit charging her and her husband with collusive fraud, she cannot be called as an adverse party witness under (Sec 10, Rule 132) as this will violate the marital disqualification rule. Section 23 DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF DEATH OR INSANITY OF ADVERSE PARTY Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or a person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind Dead man statute Dead Man Statute Partial disqualification Disqualified only to testify as matter of facts occurring before the death of deceased person or before deceased person became of unsound mind Applies only to civil case or special proceeding over the estate of deceased / insane person Marital Disqualification Rule Complete disqualification

Applies to civil or criminal case

Requisites: 1. Witness offered for examination is a party plaintiff, or the assignor of said party, or a person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted Plaintiff must be the real party in interest Not applicable to mere witnesses Assignor one who transferred his interests in a case Assignee not disqualified Does not apply where a counterclaim has been interposed by the defendant as the plaintiff would thereby be testifying in his defense Also if deceased contracted through an agent 2. Case is against the executor or administrator or representative of the deceased or insane person

Section 24 DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases: a. The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage, except in a civil case by one against the other or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latters direct descendants or ascendants; b. An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to professional employment, nor can the attorneys secretary, stenographer or clerk be examined without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity; c. A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient; d. A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs; e. A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to any communications made to him in official confidence,

azereth page 9

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. Objections can only be made by the persons protected and may be waived by the same persons expressly or impliedly Marital Privilege Requisites for marital privilege: 1. There was a valid marital relations 2. Privilege was invoked with respect to a confidential communication between the spouses during the said marriage 3. Spouse against whom the testimony is given did not give his/her consent Privilege cannot be claimed to confidential matters given before the marriage Privilege cannot be invoked if the communication was not intended to be confidential If third person heard the communication, such person is not covered by the prohibition But if person is the agent of one spouse, covered by the prohibition Marital Privilege Can be claimed WON the spouse is a party to the action Can be claimed even after the marriage has been dissolved Applies only to confidential communications between the spouses Marital Disqualification Can be invoked only if the spouse is a party to the action Can only apply if the marriage is existing at the time the testimony is offered Constitutes a total prohibition against any testimony for or against the spouse of the witness

Attorney Client Privilege Requisites: 1. There is an attorney-client relation 2. Privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential communication between them in the course of professional employment 3. Client has not given his consent to the disclosure of the communication Attorney must have been consulted in his professional capacity even if pro bono Preliminary communications made for the purpose of creating attorney-client relationship are within the privilege Communications include verbal statements, papers, document or even actions Does not apply to communication: 1. Intended to be made public 2. Intended to be communicated to others 3. Intended for an unlawful purpose 4. Received from third persons not acting as agent of the client 5. Made in the presence of third persons who are strangers to the attorney-client relationship Period to be considered is that date when the communication was made In determining whether past or future crime Communication having to do with a future crime is not covered by the privilege If attorney is a co-conspirator to the crime, privilege not applicable Physician Patient Privilege Requisites: 1. Physician is authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics 2. Information was acquired or the advice or treatment was given by him in his professional capacity for the purpose of treating or curing the patient 3. Information, advice or treatment, if revealed, would blacken the reputation of the patient 4. Privilege is invoked in a civil case, whether the patient is a party thereto or not Not necessary that the relationship was created by the voluntary act of the patient may have been acquired by another E.g. patient in extremis Privilege extends to all forms of communication, advice or treatment

azereth page 10

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

Includes information acquired by the physician through his observations and examinations of the patient Does not apply where: 1. Communication not given in confidence 2. Communication is irrelevant to the professional employment 3. Communication was made for an unlawful purpose 4. Information was intended to be made public 5. There was a waiver of the privilege either by provisions of contract or law Rule 28 PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS Section 4 WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so ordered or by taking the deposition of the examiner, the party examined waives any privilege he may have in that action or any other involving the same controversy, regarding the testimony of every other person who has examined or may thereafter examine him in respect of the same mental or physical examination Minister/Priest Penitent Privilege Requires that communication was made pursuant to a religious duty enjoined in the course of discipline of the sect or denomination Must be confidential in character E.g. under the seal of the confessional Privileged Communications as to Public Officials Requisites: 1. It was made to the public officer in official confidence 2. Public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the communication Others RA 53, as amended by RA 1477 Publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to revel the source of any news report which was related to him in confidence Unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State Article 233 of Labor Code All information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communications and shall not be used as evidence in the NLRC, and the conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding the matter taken up at the conciliation proceedings conducted by them Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (RA 9285) Sec 9 (a) Information obtained through mediation shall be privileged and confidential 2. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE Section 25 - PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. Disqualification by reason of relationship Filial privilege - not correctly a rule of disqualification, as the descendant was not incompetent to testify against his ascendants, but was actually a privilege not to testify Art. 215, FC No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his parents and grandparents, except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by one parent against the other. Both parental and filial privileges are granted to any person Can be invoked in any case against any of his parents, direct descendants, children or direct ascendants

azereth page 11

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence



Section 26 - ADMISSION OF A PARTY The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. Admission 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 Admissions Statement of fact which does not involve an acknowledgement of guilt or liability May be express or tacit May be made by third persons and, in certain cases, are admissible against a party Confessions Involves an acknowledgement of guilt or liability Must be express Can be made only by the party himself and, in certain cases, are admissible against his co-accused

Does not include his testimony as a witness in court Cannot be considered self-serving if it was not made in anticipation of a future litigation

People vs. Bocasas (1985) Flight from justice is an admission by conduct and circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt The act of repairing a machine, bridge or other facility after an injury has been sustained therein is not an implied admission of negligence by conduct Merely a measure of extreme caution

To be admissible, an admission must: 1. Involve matters of fact, not of law 2. Be categorical and definite 3. Be knowingly and voluntarily made 4. Be adverse to the admitters interest Otherwise would be self-serving and inadmissible Judicial admission one made in connection with a judicial proceeding in which it is offered Extrajudicial admission any other admission

Section 27 - OFFER OF COMPROMISE NOT ADMISSIBLE In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromised by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. Offer of compromise (civil case) not a tacit admission of liability and cannot be proved over the objection of the offeror Offer of compromise (criminal case) implied admission of guilt But accused is permitted to prove that offer was not made under consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid risks of criminal action against him Offer of compromise (violation of internal revenue law) not admissible in evidence

People vs. Aling (1980) Facts: Norija Mohamad was stabbed in the chest and diaphragm and she died two days later in the hospital. Girlie Aling and Norijas daughter Daria brought Norija to the hospital. They learned from the police that Norija was stabbed by her husband Airol Aling. Aling was investigated by the police and he declared in Chavacano dialect that he killed his wife because he was informed in prison by his relatives that his wife was fooling around with other men. Aling was charged with parricide and during arraignment, he pleaded guilty although he had no lawyer. A counsel de oficio was appointed for him. When he was again arraigned, he pleaded guilty with the assistance of counsel. Aling was placed on the witness stand and examined by his counsel and after being informed that the penalty for parricide is death or life imprisonment, Aling still admitted killing his wife. Issue: WON the marriage of Aling and Norija was proven Held: Yes Ratio: The testimony of Aling that he was married to Norija is an admission against his penal interest. It was a confirmation of the maxim simper praesumitur matrimonio and the presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves to be husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. Admissions Need not be made against the proprietary or pecuniary interest of the parties But if so made, it will greatly enhance its probative weight Made by the party himself, and, is a primary evidence and competent though he be present in court and ready to testify Can be made anytime Declarations Against Interest Must have been made against the proprietary or pecuniary interest of the parties

People vs. Amiscua (1971) In a rape case, an offer to compromise for a monetary consideration, and not to marry the victim, is an implied admission of guilt People vs. Manzano (1982) In a rape case, the attempt of the parents of the accused to settle the case with the complainant was considered an implied admission of guilt. People vs. Valdez (1987) An offer of marriage by the accused during the investigation of the rape case is also an admission of guilt Criminal cases involving criminal negligence or quasioffenses are allowed to be compromised, hence an offer of settlement is not an admission of guilt Offer to pay or the actual payment of medical bills by reason of victims injuries not admissible to prove civil or criminal liability

Section 28 - ADMISSION BY THIRD PARTY The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided. First branch of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet Exceptions: third person is a partner, agent, or has joint interest with the party, or is a co-conspirator or a privy of the party

Must have been made by the person who is either deceased or unable to testify

Made ante litem motam

Self-serving declaration one which has been made extrajudicially by a party to favor his interests Not admissible in evidence

People vs. Valero (1982) Facts: Michael and Annabel, children of Ceferino Velasco, died of poisoning after eating bread containing endrin, a commercial insecticide. Their sister Imelda would have also died if not for the timely medical assistance given to her. At about the same time, 3 puppies of Velasco under the balcony where the children ate the bread also died of poisoning. Earlier that morning, Velasco was seen throwing poisoned rats in the river near his house.

azereth page 12

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

The evidence of the prosecution shows that the poisoned bread was given to the children by Alfonso Valero alias Pipe, deaf-mute brother of accused Lucila Valero, and that it was Lucila who gave Alfonso the bread to be delivered to the children. Lucila denies the allegation. The evidence of the defense tends to show that the children might have eaten one of the sliced poisoned bread used by their father in poisoning the rats. 3/9 witnesses for the prosecution: 1. Rodolfo Quilang testified that he saw Lucila deliver something wrapped in a piece of paper to Alfonso and instructed him by sign language to deliver the same to the Velasco children. He never saw what was inside the piece of paper. His testimony as to WON he saw the parcel delivered to the children was a series of contradictions. He is what the defense counsel calls and eleventh-hour witness 2. Federico Jaime and Ceferino Velasco did not see Lucila deliver to Alfonso the alleged parcel, as well as the alleged instruction. Both claimed that they learned the information from Pipe after interviewing him by means of sign language. Testimony of Jaime was confusing. There is nothing in the testimony of Velasco indicating that Alfonso pointed to Lucila as the source of the poisoned bread. Issue: WON the testimonies of Jaime and Velasco may be admitted Held: No Ratio: The evidence is pure hearsay. It violates the principle of res inter alios acta. Alfonso, who was the source of the information, was never presented as a witness either for the defense or the prosecution. Testimony of Velasco cannot be considered as part of res gestae because when the information was allegedly obtained by Velasco from Alfonso, nobody was poisoned yet. With regard to the testimony of Jaime, there is no showing that the revelation was made by Alfonso under the influence of a startling occurrence. The failure of the defense counsel to object to the presentation of incompetent evidence does not give such evidence probative value. The lack of objection may make any incompetent evidence admissible. But admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative value Section 29 - ADMISSION BY CO-PARTNER OR AGENT The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party. Requisites: 1. That the partnership, agency or joint interest is established by evidence other than the act or declaration 2. That the act/declaration must have been within the scope of the partnership, etc. 3. Such act/declaration must have been made during the existence of the partnership, etc. Admissions made in connection with the winding up still admissible Admission by counsel admissible against client (agentprincipal) Limitation: 1. admission should not amount to a compromise 2. admission should not amount to a confession of judgment Because if it was, can become vague (same as with Section 30) It only appears in Section 31: admission by privies What predecessors didn't do is binding on you = this is the rationale in including the word omission in Section 31 GR: admission of some1 else shouldn't be taken against you But Section 29 is an exception: admission of another can be taken against you fair?

Section 30 - ADMISSION BY CONSPIRATOR The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration. People vs. Serrano 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. An admission by a conspirator is admissible against his co-conspirator if: 1. Such conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde 2. Admission was made during the existence of the conspiracy 3. Admission relates to the conspiracy itself These are not required in admissions during the trial as the co-accused can examine the declarant. Judicial admissions - admissions after the conspiracy has ended Existence of conspiracy may be inferred from 1. Acts of the accused 2. Confessions of the accused 3. By prima facie proof thereof

People vs. Alegre (1976) 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 Extrajudicial admission made by a conspirator after the conspiracy has ended and even before trial not admissible against co-conspirator Except: 1. If made in the presence of the coconspirator who expressly or impliedly (tacit admission, Rule 130.32) agreed therein 2. Where the facts stated in the said admissions are confirmed in the individual extrajudicial confessions made by the coconspirators after their apprehension 3. as a circumstance to determine the credibility of a witness 4. as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the co-conspirators participation in the offense

People vs. Ola (1987) In order that the extrajudicial statements of a coaccused may be taken into consideration in judging the testimony of a witness, it is necessary that the statements are made by several accused, the same are in all material respects identical, and there could have been no collusion among said co-accused in making such statements. Section 31 - ADMISSION BY PRIVIES Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former. Requisites: 1. There must be a relation of privity between the party and the declarant

Jaucian vs. Querol The phrase joint debtor does not refer to a mere community of interest but should be understood according to its meaning in the common law system from which the provision was taken, that is, in solidum, and not mancomunada

1st exception to Section 28 Word omission in Section 28 doesn't appear here

azereth page 13

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

2. The admission was made by the declarant, as predecessor in interest, while holding title to the property 3. The admission is in relation to said property Privity in estate may have arisen by succession, by acts mortis causa or by acts inter vivos Section 32 - ADMISSION BY SILENCE An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him. Requisites to be admissible against a party: 1. He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other person 2. He must have had the opportunity to deny it 3. He must understood the statement 4. He must have an interest to object, such that he would naturally have done so, if the statement was not true 5. The facts were within his knowledge 6. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is material to the issue Applies where a person is surprised or even if he is already in the custody of the police Voluntary participation in the reenactment of the crime conducted by police is considered tacit admission of complicity But to be given weight, the validity and efficacy of the confession must first be shown Section 12, Article III, 1987 Constitution Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices and their families. Section 17, Article III, 1987 Constitution No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself Rule does not apply: if the statements adverse to the party were made in the course of an official investigation Or where the party had a justifiable reason to remain silent (e.g. acting on advice of counsel) Keep in mind that a person under investigation for the commission of a crime has the right to remain silent and to be informed of that right Rule applies to adverse statements in writing if the party was carrying on a mutual correspondence with the declarant If no such mutual correspondence, rule is relaxed Theory: a prompt response can generally not be expected if the party still has to resort to a written reply, as opposed to a statement orally made



3. 4.

Section 33 CONFESSION The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him. Confession categorical acknowledgement of guilt made by an accused in a criminal case, without any exculpatory statement or explanation If there is an allegation of a justification for the act, merely an admission Confession of judgment made in a civil case where the party expressly admits his liability Confession can be made orally or in writing

azereth page 14

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

Ii in writhing need not be under oath Judicial confession one made before a court in which the case is pending and in the course of legal proceedings therein By itself, can sustain a conviction Extrajudicial confession one made in any other place or occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti Rule 133, Section 3 EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION, NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR CONVICTION An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. Requisites for admissibility 1. Confession must involve an express and categorical acknowledgement of guilt 2. Facts admitted must be constitutive of an offense 3. Confession must have been given voluntarily 4. Confession must have been intelligently made, the accused realizing the importance of his act 5. No violation of Sec 12, Art III of the Constitution

People vs. Garcia (101 Phil 615) Confessions are presumed to be voluntary and the onus is on the defense to prove that it was involuntary for having been obtained by violence, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or leniency. Indicia of voluntariness of confession 1. contains details which the police could not have supplied or invented 2. contains details which could have been known only to the accused 3. contains statements which are exculpatory in nature 4. contains corrections made by the accused in his handwriting or with his initials 5. accused sufficiently educated and aware of his the consequences of his acts 6. made in the presence of an impartial witness with the accused acting normally on that occasion 7. lack of motive on the part of the investigators to extract a confession 8. accused questioned the voluntariness of his confession only on trial 9. contents were affirmed by the accused in his voluntary participation in the reenactment of the crime 10. facts in confession were confirmed by other subsequent facts 11. after confession, accused subjected to physical examination and there were no signs of maltreatment or accused never complained thereof not applicable when accused failed to complain because of a reasonable apprehension of further maltreatment as he was still in the custody of his torturers Justifications for inadmissibility of involuntary confessions 1. unreliable 2. humanitarian considerations 3. legal considerations of their violative of the Constitution But there were cases stating that involuntary admissions are admissible if they contain the truth No longer applies because of the ruling in Stonehill vs. Diokno Section 20, Article IV, 1973 Constitution No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence If confession obtained before effectivity of 1973 Constitution (17 Jan 1973), admissible even without informing the accused of his right to remain silent

azereth page 15

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

Draculan vs. Donato (1978) Where, before the statement containing the extrajudicial confession of guilt was taken, the accused was asked whether he was familiar with the provisions of Sec 20, Art IV, 1973 Constitution and he answered in the affirmative, 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 against him in court, such extrajudicial confession is admissible People vs. Tampus (1980) Where the verbal extrajudicial confession was made without counsel, but it was spontaneously made by the accused immediately after the assault, the same is admissible, not under the confession rule, but as part of the res gestae People vs. Felipe (1981) Where the accused was merely told of his constitutional rights and asked if he understood what he was told, but he was never asked whether he wanted to exercise or avail himself of such rights, his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible People vs. Broqueza (1988) Where the extrajudicial confession of the accused while under custodial investigation was merely prefaced by the investigator with a statement of his constitutional rights, to which he answered that he was going to tell the truth, 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. His short answer does not show that he knew the legal significance of what were asked of him Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile (1983) The waiver of the right to counsel during custodial investigation must be made with the assistance of counsel Requirement is now embodied in the 1987 Constitution Accused admitted the facts stated in the confession after being apprised of such confession 4) Charged as co-conspirators and confession is used only as corroborating evidence 5) Confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation by the co-conspirator 6) Confessant testified fro his co-defendant 7) Co-conspirators extrajudicial confession is corroborated by other evidence of record Confession of the accused admissible not only with respect to the offense charged but also any offense necessarily included therein 1987 Constitution illegal confessions and admissions are inadmissible against confessant or admitter But admissible against the person who violated the constitutional provision against obtaining illegal confessions or admissions 3)

People vs. Jara (1986) Where a confession was illegally obtained from two of the accused and, consequently, are not admissible as against them, with much more reason should the same be inadmissible against a third accused who had no participation therein Promise of immunity or leniency vitiates a confession if given by the offended party or by the fiscal Not if given by a person whom the accused could not have reasonably expected to be able to comply with such promise (e.g. investigator who is not a prosecuting officer) or could not bind the offended party which was a corporation

People vs. Domantay (1999) Facts: The body of six year old Jennifer Domantay, bearing several stab wounds, was found sprawled amidst a bamboo grove. The investigation by the police pointed to Bernardino Domantay, cousin of the victims grandfather, as the lone suspect in the crime. Police officers (Montemayor, De la Cruz and De Guzman) picked up Domantay at the public market and took him to the police station. Upon questioning by SPO1 Espinoza, Domantay confessed to the killing of Jennifer. He also said that he had given the bayonet he used in the killing to Casingal spouses, his aunt and uncle. The next day, SPO1 Espinoza and another policeman took Domantay to the Casingal spouses where they recovered the bayonet. The prosecution presented 7 witnesses: 1. Edward Domantay testified that in the morning of the incident, he was drinking with Caballero, Macasaeb and Domantay. There, Domantay rolled up his shirt and said that he will massacre somebody in their place. Edward saw that tucked in the left side of Domantays waistline was a bayonet without a cover handle. Edward has seen that bayonet being carried by Domantay many times. 2. Jiezl Domantay (10 years old) testified that at about 2pm, she saw Domantay and Jennifer walking towards the bamboo grove where the body of Jennifer was later found. Domantay was about 2 meters ahead of Jennifer.



US vs. Mercado (6 Phil 332) Where the accused voluntarily made a second extrajudicial confession after he has been maltreated in order to extort the first confession, such second confession is admissible only if it can be proved that he was already relieved of the fear generated by the previous maltreatment Entire confession must be admitted in evidence But court may, in appreciating it, reject such portions as are incredible


Camasura vs. Provost Marshal (78 Phil 131) Where the extrajudicial confession was obtained by maltreatment, the judgment based solely thereon is null and void and the accused may obtain his release on a writ of habeas corpus The extrajudicial confession of an accused is binding only upon him and is not admissible against his co-accused Except if: 1) Co-accused impliedly adopted said confession by not questioning its truthfulness 2) Interlocking confessions accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical confessions without conclusion, which confessions are corroborated by other evidence and not contradicted by the co-accused who was present 6.

Lorenzo Domantay corroborated Jennifers testimony. He said that he saw Domantay standing at the spot in the bamboo grove where Jennifers body was later found. Domantay appears restless and worried as he kept looking around. Lorenzo was in a hurry and did not try to find out why Domantay was restless. Joselito Mejia a tricycle driver. He said that when he was about to take his lunch, Domantay approached him and implored him to take him (Domantay) to Malasiqui at once. Mejia said he will first take his lunch. Domantay pleaded with him and said that they will not be long so Mejia agreed. Domantay alighted near the Mormon church outside Malasiqui, instead of the town proper SPO1 Antonio Espinoza testified that he investigated the case. Before questioning Domantay, he appraised the latter of his constitutional right to remain silent and to have a competent and independent counsel, in English, which was later translated into Pangasinense. Domantay agreed to answer the questions even in the absence of counsel and admitted to the killing of Jennifer. Domantay also disclosed the location of the bayonet he used. (Cross-examination) Espinoza admitted that Domantay was not assisted by counsel during the course of the questioning. Neither was Domantays statement reduced into writing. This testimony was admitted over the objection of the defense. Celso Manuel radio reporter of DWPR. He interviewed Domantay who was then detained in the municipal jail. He introduced himself as a media reporter to Domantay. He said that Domantay was willing to state what happened. When he asked Domantay if he committed the crime, Domantay said yes. Domantay also said that he killed Jennifer in his revenge for a boundary dispute and that he is willing to accept his punishment. (Cross) Manuel explained that the interview was conducted in the jail, 2-3 meters away from the police station. An uncle of Jennifer was with him. The nearest policeman was 2-3

azereth page 16

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

meters away. There was no lawyer present and it was the first time that he was called to testify regarding an interview he conducted. This testimony was admitted over the objection of the defense 7. Dr. Ronald Bandonill conducted an autopsy of the victim. Defense presented Domantay as its lone witness. Domantay denied the allegations against him. He denied Edwards claim. He admitted that he passed the bamboo grove but said that he did not know that Jennifer was following him. He admitted hiring Mejia to get to Malasiqui to meet his brother, who did not come. He denied confessing to SPO1 Espinoza and he denied having a grudge against Jennifers parents because of a boundary dispute. He admitted being interviewed by Manuel but denied ever admitting anything to the reporter. Domantay was convicted by the trial court Issue: WON the extrajudicial confessions made by Domantay to SPO1 Espinoza and Manuel are admissible Held: No and Yes, respectively Ratio: Art III, Sec 12 of the 1987 Constitution applies to custodial investigation, when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect. RA 7438 extended the constitutional guarantee to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been invited for questioning. Requirements for admissibility of extrajudicial confessions: 1. It must be voluntary 2. It must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel 3. It must be express 4. It must be in writing When Domantay was brought to the police station he was already under custodial investigation and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution apply to him. Even though he waived the assistance of counsel, the waiver was not put into writing nor made in the presence of counsel. Therefore the waiver is invalid and the confession is inadmissible. The bayonet is also inadmissible in evidence as it was a fruit of a poisonous tree. Domantays confession to Manuel is admissible. The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relation between private individuals. The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the State and its agents. Domantay claims that the atmosphere during the interview was tense and intimidating. The Court does not agree. There is no indication that the presence of the police officers exerted any undue pressure or influence on Domantay and coerced him into giving his confession. There is also no evidence that Manuel was a police beat reporter and it has not been shown that his purpose in conducting the interview was to elicit incriminating information from Domantay. Domantays extrajudicial confession is corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti, as required by Rule 133, Sec 3. People vs. Mantung (1999) Facts: Maribel Mayola and Renjie Balderas were found dead inside the vault room of the Maywood branch of Cebuana Lhuiller where they were employed. The jewelries kept inside the safe were all gone and the cash drawer had been emptied of its contents. In the counter, a holster was placed on top of a letter addressed to Mary Ann Gordoncillo, district manager of Cebuana Lhuiller. The letter was written by Guiamad Mantung, the security guard assigned to the branch. Mantung wrote in Filipino that he killed Mayola and Balderas because they gave him pork which his Moslem religion prohibited him from eating. He also admitted taking the cash and jewelry inside the vault, claiming that he needed the money. He wrote another letter addressed to his wife, which was found in the office logbook. Mantung was later arrested in Sultan Kudarat, Cotabato and several pieces of jewelry believed to be part of the loot were recovered from him. After his arrest, he was immediate brought to Paramour where he was presented to the media at a press conference called by Mayor Joey Marquez. When Mayor Marquez then asked him if he is the one who killed the two employees, Mantung answered yes and said that he killed the victims because they induced him to eat pork. The news about Mantons admission to the killings appeared in the Inquirer and Manila Bulletin the following day. Clippings of these reports were presented as evidence by the prosecution during the trial. The defense presented the lone testimony of Mantung to substantiate his claims of innocence. He claimed that on the day of the incident, he was locking one of the doors of the shop when 3 men approached him from behind and one of them held him at gunpoint. Mayola and Balderas saw what was happening and shouted for help. Mantung was taken to the comfort room when he heard 2 gunshots and the shouts of Mayola and Balderas stopped. The men took him out, pushed him inside a red car and blindfolded him. Afterwards, he felt the car stop and he was left alone by his captors. He then seized the opportunity to escape. He saw that they stopped in the pier so he mingled with the people and boarded a ship to Cebu and from there went to Cotabato. He denied that pieces of jewelry were recovered from him. He refuted the reports saying he admitted to the killing of the victims in the press conference. According to him, he did not tell anyone what happened because he was confused and he did not know what to do. Issue1: WON Mantungs admission during the press conference is admissible Held1: Yes Ratio1: The clippings of the news articles reporting Mantungs confession is hearsay because their writers were not presented to affirm the veracity of the reports. However, Ricardo Diago, an employee of Cebuana Lhuiller present during the press conference, was presented as rebuttal witness to prove that Mantung indeed claimed responsibility for the killings. The constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby accused orally admitted having committed a crime. The rights under Sec 12 are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the State as would lead the accused to admit something false, not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth (People vs. Andan). There is nothing to show that Mantungs admission was coerced or made under duress. Ladiana vs. People (2002) Facts: Josue Ladiana, a police officer, was accused of killing Francisco San Juan, a Barangay Captain. The case was filed in the Sandiganbayan and Ladiana was found guilty of homicide. The prosecution presented 5 witnesses:


Caridad San Juan wife of the victim. She testified that San Juan was the Barangay Captain of Brgy. Salac, Lumban, Laguna. She said that she was in her house when an unidentified woman came and told her that her husband was killed by Ladiana. She also presented the death certificate of her husband. (Cross) She admitted that she did not witness the killing of her husband. 2. PO2 Leopoldo Cacalda Jr. He recounted that somebody whose name he could not recall reported to him about an existing trouble in the scene of the incident. He responded by going to the scene, accompanied by another person. There, he saw the dead body of San Juan. He gathered from the people milling around the body that it was Ladiana who killed San Juan. He immediately left to look for Ladiana. He later learned that Ladiana surrendered to the police. (Cross) He testified that he did not witness the incident. He also said that it was the people around the incident who told him that Ladiana already left. He also saw a stab wound on Ladianas right bicep but he did not ask him how he got it. 3. Dr. Rogelio Javan performed the necropsy 4. SPO2 Percival Gabinete his testimony was dispensed with upon the admission of the defense that he was part of the group that responded to the incident 5. Mario Cortez retired Assistant Prosecutor of Laguna. Prior to the conduct of examination-in-chief of Cortez, defense counsel admitted to the authorship, authenticity, and voluntariness of the execution of the counteraffidavit of Ladiana. In the counter-affidavit, Ladiana admitted shooting Francisco but he allegedly did so in self-defense as Francisco was then attacking Ladiana and had in fact already inflicted a stab wound on the arm of Ladiana. Cortez emphasized that he was not the one who conducted the PI. He also said that he would not be able to recognize the face of the affiant in the counteraffidavit but maintained that there was a person who appeared and identified himself as Josue Ladiana before him. Defense filed a Demurrer to Evidence

azereth page 17

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

Issue: WON the counter-affidavit executed by Ladiana during the preliminary investigation is admissible although no counsel was present when he executed it Held: Yes Ratio: The constitutional guarantee applies only during custodial investigations. Custodial investigation is the questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom of action in any significant way. The Court held that the right to counsel does not extend to PIs. A PI is an inquiry or a proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. A person undergoing PI before a public prosecutor cannot be considered as being under custodial investigation. However, the accused possesses rights that must be safeguarded: 1. Right to refuse to be made witness 2. Right not to have any prejudice whatsoever imputed to him by such refusal 3. Right to testify on his own behalf, subject to crossexamination by the prosecution 4. While testifying, the right to refuse to answer a specific question that tends to incriminate him for some crime other than that for which he is being prosecuted Ladianas counter-affidavit is not an extrajudicial confession, it is only an admission. In confession, there is an acknowledgement of guilt. In an admission, there is merely a statement of fact not directly involving an acknowledgement of guilt or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which one is charged. In the counter-affidavit, Ladiana admits shooting San Juan but denies having done it with criminal intent since he claimed that it was done in self-defense. There is no doubt as to the voluntariness of the counteraffidavit. The admissions of Ladiana made through his counsel during the trial are very clear. In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing their untruth or by showing that they were made by mistake. Ladiana never offered any rationalization why he made the admission. 4. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE Section 34 SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like. Second branch of res inter alios acta Applies to both criminal and civil cases Strictly enforced in all cases applicable Exceptions to the rule: evidence of similar acts may prove 1. Specific intent or knowledge 2. Identity 3. Plan, system or scheme 4. Specific habit 5. Established customs, usages and the like Evidence of another crime 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 he committed another crime wholly independent of that for which he is on trial Previous acts of negligence is admissible to show knowledge or intent 5. TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE Section 36 TESTIMONY GENERALLY CONFINED TO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE; HEARSAY EXCLUDED A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules. Hearsay evidence any evidence, whether oral or documentary, whose probative value is based not on personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand Excluded because the party against whom it is presented is deprived of the right to cross-examine the persons to whom the statements or writings are attributed If a party does not object admissible

Savory Luncheonette vs. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino (1975) The repeated failure of the party to cross-examine the witness is an implied waiver of such right and the testimony of the said witness who died thereafter should not be excluded from the record People vs. Cusi, Jr. (1965) Facts: Arcadio Puesca, Walter Apa, Jose Gustilo, Filomeno Macalinao, Ricardo Dario and Magno Montano were charged with robbery in band with homicide. During trial, while Sgt. Bano was testifying as prosecution witness regarding the extrajudicial confession made to him by Puesca, he said that Puesca admitted his participation in the offense and revealed the name of other persons who conspired with him. Counsel for Macalinao, Gustilo and Dario objected to the naming of the co-conspirators. Trial judge resolved the objection directing the witness to name the coconspirators other than the 3 objectors. Issue: WON the witness should be allowed to name all the conspirators as stated to him by Puesca Held: Yes Ratio: While the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person, if intended to establish the truth of the facts asserted in the statement, is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made or the tenor of such statement. For the limited purpose of establishing the fact that Puesca mentioned the names of his co-conspirators, the evidence should be admitted but with the understanding that the testimony shall not be taken as competent evidence to show that the persons named really and actually conspired with Puesca. But even if hearsay evidence not objected to is admissible, it has no probative value and as opposed to direct primary evidence, the latter always prevails Section 28, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness HEARSAY EXCEPTION IN CHILD ABUSE CASES A statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse not otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in evidence in any criminal or noncriminal proceeding subject to the following rules: a. Before such hearsay statement may be admitted, its proponent shall make known to the adverse party the intention to offer such statement and its particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to object. If the child is available, the court shall, upon the motion of the adverse party, require the child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-examination by the adverse party. When the child is unavailable, the fact of such circumstance must be proved by the proponent b. In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall consider the time content and circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia of reliability. It shall consider the following factors: 1. Whether there is motive to lie;

Section 35 UNACCEPTED OFFER An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money, instrument or property Merely evidentiary complement to the rule on payment Such tender of payment must be followed by consignation of the amount in court in order to produce the effects of valid payment

azereth page 18

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

2. The general character of the declarant child; 3. Whether more than one person heard the statement; 4. Whether the statement was spontaneous; 5. The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child and witness; 6. Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant child; 7. The possibility of faulty recollection of declarant child is remote; and 8. The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason to suppose the declarant child misinterpreted the involvement of the accused. c.The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following situations: 1. Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness, or will be exposed to severe psychological injury; or 2. Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means. d. When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other admissible evidence. Not covered by hearsay rule - where the statements or writings attributed to a person who is not on the witness stand are being offered not to prove the truth of the facts stated therein but to prove that those statements were made or writings executed Witness who testifies is competent these are matters derived from his own perception Doctrine of independently relevant statements independent of whether the facts stated are true or not, they are relevant because they are the facts in issue or are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue impending death and as long as no retraction was made by the declarant before his death

People vs. Arguel (1980) Newspaper clippings or facts published in the newspapers are hearsay and have no evidentiary value unless substantiated by persons with personal knowledge of said facts 6. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE Dying Declaration Section 37 DYING DECLARATION The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. Dying declaration antemortem statement or statement in articulo mortis Requisites: 1. That death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of that fact Considerations for the consciousness of imminent death: a. Words or statements of the declarant b. His conduct at the time the declaration was made c. Serious nature of his wounds as to engender a belief on his part that he would not survive 2. That the declaration refers to the cause and the surrounding circumstances of such death 3. That the declaration relates to facts which the victim is competent to testify to 4. That the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarants death is the subject of the inquiry Intervening time from the making of the declaration up to the actual death is immaterial as long as the declaration was made under the consciousness of

azereth page 19

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

People vs. Sabio (1981) It is the belief in the impending death at the time the statement was made, and not the rapid succession of death, that renders the dying declaration admissible. Interval of time may be taken into account where the declaration was ambiguous as to whether the declarant believed that his death was imminent when he made the declaration 4. That his declaration was offered in evidence in a criminal case for homicide, murder or parricide in which the declarant is the victim All these circumstances were present when Abelardo made his declaration People vs. Molo (1979) Facts: Not long after the couple Venacio Gapisa and Simeona Rapa-Gapisa had retired for the night, Simeona heard and indistinct sound of murmur and gnashing teeth. Venacio was asleep by then. Although seized by fear, Simeona managed to peep through the dilapidated buri wall and saw Dominador Molo attired only in short pants, alone. She tried to awaken Venacio but he did not respond. Molo had already climbed up the stairs and barged into the house. When he found Venacio asleep near the door, he immediately grabbed the latters left wrist and started hacking the old man. Venacio woke up and tried to fight back but he was unable to retaliate because Molo started hacking him again. Simeona rushed out of the house and called for help. Her son Alejandro and Roman Mangaring ran towards the house and there they found Venacio bleeding profusely. When Alejandro took his father in his arms, Venacio told him that he was boloed by Boslo, the name by which Molo was known in their locality. Roman also asked Venacio who his assailant was and the latter answered Boslo. Venacio was rushed to the hospital where he died a few minutes after arrival. Issue: WON the statements made by Venacio to Alejandro and Roman are admissible Held: Yes Ratio: The statements of Venacio identifying Molo as his assailant to Alejandro and Roman are dying declarations. Considering the nature of the wounds, 8 in all, Venacio must have the seriousness of his condition and that it can therefore be inferred that he made the incrimination under the consciousness of an impending death. Declaration Against Interest Section 38 DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST The declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made was so contrary to declarants own interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons. Made by a person who is neither a party nor in privity with a party to the suit Admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness Requisites: 1. Declarant is dead or unable to testify 2. It relates to the facts against the declarant 3. At the time he made the declaration, he is aware that the same was contrary to the aforesaid interest 4. Declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to be true

People vs. Antonio (1970) Where the declarant stated that he would not die if treated, such statement indicates an awareness of death and the nature of his wound and his death an hour later qualifies such statement into a dying declaration, or at least, as part of res gestae. People vs. Gueron (1983) Where, shortly after he was wounded, the victim was asked as to whether he believed he would die and to which he replied, I cannot ascertain, and he died the following day, his statement is admissible both as part of res gestae and as a dying declaration. People vs. Laquinon (1985) Where the victim, when asked as to whether he thought he would die, replied, I dont know, his declaration was not made under the consciousness of his imminent death and does not qualify as an antemortem statement, although the same may be admitted as part of the res gestae since it was made immediately after the incident The credibility and weight of the admitted dying declaration should be determined under the same rules used in other testimonial evidence A dying declaration is admissible only to insofar as it refers to facts regarding the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarants death A dying declaration is admissible in any case as long as the requisite concur A dying declaration may be oral or written or made by signs which could be testified to by a witness thereto

People vs. Odencio (1979) If the antemortem statement was made orally, the witness who heard it may testify thereto, without necessarily reproducing the exact words as long as he can give the substance thereof, and if the deceased had an unsigned dying declaration, the same may be used as a memorandum by the witness who took it down May be attacked on the absence of any of the requisites and may be impeached in the same manner as the testimony of any other witness on the stand American jurisprudence: dying declarations are on the same footing as testimony of a witness on a stand and whatever would disqualify the witness would also make such declaration incompetent evidence

People vs. Molas (1993) Facts: Bernardo Resonable went home after working in his farm. There he found his son Abelardo (8) bleeding at the doorway of their house. Bernardo carried Abelardo inside the house. Abelardo informed his father that Josue Molas was the person who not only inflicted his injuries but also stabbed his sister Dulcesima and mother Soledad. Molas and Dulcesima were sweethearts and engaged to be married. While Bernardo looked for the bodies of his wife and daughter, Abelardo was brought to the hospital by his brother Nicholas. Abelardo died the next day. Issue: WON the statement of Abelardo is admissible Held: Yes Ratio: Abelardos statement was given to his father while he lay at deaths door, bleeding from stab wounds, as a result of which he died the next day. It was indubitably a dying declaration. To be admissible, a dying declaration must: 1. Concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarants death 2. That the time it was made, the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death 3. That he was a competent witness

Act or Declaration About Pedigree Section 39 ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE The act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage, may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The word pedigree includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. Requisites: 1. The actor or declarant is dead and unable to testify 2. The act or declaration is made by the person related to the subject by birth or marriage 3. The relationship between the declarant or the actor and the subject is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration

azereth page 20

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

4. The act or declaration was made prior to the controversy Do not require any specific degree of relationship But may affects the weight of such act or declaration Res Gestae Section 42 PART OF THE RES GESTAE Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So also statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae Res gestae (things done) refers to: 1. Spontaneous statements in connection with a startling occurrence relating to that fact and in effect forming part thereof 2. Statements accompanying an equivocal act (verbal act) on the theory that they are the verbal parts of the act to be explained Requirements: 1. The principal act (res gestae) is a startling occurrence 2. The statements forming a part thereof were made before the declarant had the opportunity to contrive 3. Statements refer to the occurrence in question and its attending circumstances Only such statements as appear to have been involuntarily wrung from the witness by the impact of the occurrence are admissible Interval of time between the startling occurrence and the statement depends upon the circumstances But statement must have been made while the declarant was under the immediate influence of the startling occurrence If declarant rendered unconscious after the startling occurrence, his statement relative to thereto upon regaining consciousness still forms part of re gestae regardless of the time that intervened between

Family Reputation or Tradition Regarding Pedigree Section 40 FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING PEDIGREE The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree Requisites: 1. Witness testifying thereto must be a member, by consanguinity or affinity, of the same family as the subject 2. Such tradition or reputation must have existed in that family ante litem motam Persons statement of date of birth and age declaration of family tradition Prevails over mere opinion of the trial judge But cannot generally prevail over secondary statement of the father

Common Reputation Section 41 COMMON REPUTATION Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, respecting facts of public or general interest more than 30 years old, respecting marriage or moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation Common reputation general reputation; definite opinion of the community in which the fact to be proved is known or exists General or substantially undivided reputation and need not be unanimous Admissible to prove: Facts of public or general interest more than 30 years old Public interest national interest General interest affecting inhabitants of a particular region or community Must be more than 30 years old Established only by persons who have had knowledge of that fact for such length of time, or by monuments or documents existing for that length of time Marriage Moral character Not required to be more than 30 years old Must be ante litem motam Established by: 1. Testimonial evidence of competent witness 2. Monuments and inscription in public places 3. Documents containing statements of reputation Reputation opinion of him by others Character inherent qualities of a person Under this section, character may be established through common reputation As a rule, reputation of a person should be that existing in the place of his residence But, it may also be that existing in the place where he is best known

People vs. Berame (1976) If the statement was made under the influence of a startling event and the declarant did not have time to concoct or contrive a story, even if made 9 hours after the killing, the statement is admissible as part of res gestae Statements or outcries as part of res gestae had been admitted to establish the identity of assailant, prove the complicity of another person to the crime, establish admission of liability on part of the accused Requirements for verbal acts to be admissible: 1. Res gestae be characterized as equivocal 2. Such act must be material to the issue 3. Statements must accompany the equivocal act 4. Statements give a legal significance to the equivocal act Verbal act used to denote that such statements are the verbal parts of the equivocal act of which such statements are explanatory

Borromeo vs. CA (1976) Notes taken regarding a transaction by a person who is not a party thereto and who has not been requested to take down such notes are not part of the res gestae Res Gestae (re a homicidal act) Statement may also be made by the killer himself or by a third person Statement may precede, accompany, or be made after the homicidal act was committed Has its justification in the spontaneity of the statement Dying Declaration Declaration can only be made by the victim Declaration made only after the homicidal attack was committed Trustworthiness is based upon its being given under the awareness of impending death

US vs. Choa Chiok The character of a place as an opium joint may be proved by its common reputation in the community

azereth page 21

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

Statement may not be a dying declaration because it was not made under the consciousness of an impending death, but may be admissible as part of res gestae if made immediately after the incident Where the elements of both are present, may be admitted as both Entries in the Course of Business Section 43 ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS Entries made at, or near the time of the transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. Requisites: 1. The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify 2. The entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to which they refer 3. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries 4. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or religious 5. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty 2. The entrant had personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or such facts were acquired by him from reports made by persons under a legal duty to submit the same 3. Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner in the official records Motor vehicle accident report made at about the time of the accident by a police officer in the performance of his duties Admissible if based upon information given by the drivers who figured in the accident Prima facie evidence of facts therein stated Sheriffs return exception to hearsay Sheriff need not testify in court Entrant must have been competent

Remigio vs. Ortiga (33 Phil 614) While a priest who officiates at a baptism acts pursuant to a legal duty in recording the facts of such baptism in a register, such entries in the register are not admissible to prove the date of birth of the child or its relation to particular persons as the entrant priest is not competent to testify with respect to the truth of these latter facts Church registries no longer public writings pursuant to GO No. 58 and Act No. 190 But still admissible as evidence of the facts stated therein But necessary to be authenticated as private writings A copy of the certificate transmitted to the public officer as required by law becomes a public document Admissible without prior authentication Entries in official records may be proved and evidenced in the manner provided by Rule 132 Sections 24 and 25

Cang Yui vs. Gardner (34 Phil 376) If the entrant is available as a witness, the said entries will not be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, but they may nevertheless be availed of by said entrant as a memorandum to refresh his memory while testifying on the transactions reflected therein Rule 132, Section 16 WHEN WITNESS MAY REFER TO MEMORANDUM A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was correctly written or recorded; but in such case the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he chooses, crossexamine the witness upon it and may read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such a writing or record, though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such evidence must be received with caution. Yek Tong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Gutierrez, et al (CA, 59 OG 8122) In the presentation and admission as evidence of entries made in the regular course of business, there is no overriding necessity to bring into court all the clerks or employees who individually made the entries in a long account. It is sufficient that the person who supervises the work of the clerks or other employees making the entries testify that the account was prepared under his supervision and that the entries were regularly entered in the ordinary course of business Entries in Official Records Section 44 ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated Merely prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated Requisites: 1. Entries were made by a public officer in the performance of his duties or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law

Commercial Lists Section 45 - COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein. Examples: Carlisle or Wigglesworth Tables and accepted actuarial and annuity tables

Learned Treatises Section 46 - LEARNED TREATISES A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. Requisites: 1. The court takes judicial notice thereof 2. The same is testified to by a witness expert in the subject CA took judicial notice of the Ballantyne Scale of Values8 Legal treatises also included

Testimony or Deposition at a Former Proceeding Section 47 - TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER PROCEEDING The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to crossexamine him.

Estrada vs. Noble (CA, 49 OG 139)

azereth page 22

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

1. 2. Witness is dead or unable to testify His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same interests 3. The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although on different causes of action 4. The issues testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the present case 5. The adverse party had an opportunity to crossexamine the witness in the former case Subsequent failure or refusal to appear at the second trial, or hostility since testifying at the first trial inability to testify Inability should proceed from a grave cause almost amounting to death Section 50 - OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESSES The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding a. The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge; b. A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and c. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person. General rule: Section 48 Exceptions: Sections 49 and 50 Opinion of a witness is admissible in the following circumstances: 1. On a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he possesses, that is, when he is an expert thereon 2. Regarding the identity or the handwriting of a person, when he has knowledge of the person or handwriting, whether he is an ordinary or expert witness 3. On the mental sanity of a person, if the witness is sufficiently acquainted with the former or if the latter is an expert witness 4. On the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person which he has observed

Aldecoa vs. Jugo (61 Phil 374)9 Testimony given by a witness in a civil case is not admissible in a subsequent criminal case, even if said witness had died in the interim, because the former testimony referred to in sec 15 of GO No. 5810 as being admissible in the trial of the criminal case refers to testimony given in the preliminary investigation or prior trial of said criminal case and not to testimony taken in a prior civil case, the actions being essentially different Guevara vs. Almario (56 Phil 476) The testimony of the witness in a prior criminal action for libel as to the reputation of the offended party would be admissible in the civil case arising from the same criminal offense if said witness was no longer available Admissibility of prior judgment governed by different rules


Almeida Chantangco vs. Abaroa (40 Phil 1056) A judgment in a criminal proceeding or in an administrative proceeding cannot be read in evidence in a civil action against a person not a party thereto to establish any fact therein determined. The matter is res inter alios and cannot be invoked as res judicata

On ordinary matters known to all men of common perception as the value of ordinary household articles14 Expert witness one who belongs to the profession or calling to which the subject matter of the inquiry relates and who possesses special knowledge on questions on which he proposes to express an opinion No definite standard of determining degree of knowledge or skill Factors: 1. Training and education 2. Particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts of the case


Such judgment may only be admitted in evidence in a civil case by way of inducement, or to show a collateral fact relevant to the issue in the civil action11

Judgment can only prove that a certain defendant has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to the penalty therein imposed12

Presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based15 Expert evidence is admissible only when: 1. The matter to be testified to is one that requires expertise 2. The witness has been qualified as a witness Hypothetical questions may be asked of an expert Courts are not bound by the experts findings16 Generally not regarded as conclusive, but purely advisory in character17

Miranda vs. Malate Garage & Taxicab, Inc. (99 Phil 670) A judgment of conviction, in the absence of collusion between the accused and the offended party, is binding and conclusive upon the person subsidiarily liable not only with regard to his subsidiary liability but also with regard to the amount thereof

Said judgment is admissible in evidence in the civil action brought to enforce said subsidiary liability13

Wells vs. Leek (151 Pa. 431, 439, 25 Atl. 101) In weighing the testimony of an expert witness, courts must necessarily consider all the circumstances of the case, among them his qualifications, experience and degree of learning, the basis and logic of his conclusion, and the other evidence of record. The value of expert testimony depends largely on the extent of the experience or studies of the witness, because the greater his experience or knowledge, the greater is the value of his opinion resting upon the same US vs. Kosel (24 Phil 594) With respect to a handwriting expert, the value of his opinion depends not upon his mere statement whether the handwriting is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out the distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice or detection by an untrained observer Whether or not courts are bound by the testimony of an expert depends greatly upon the nature of the subject of inquiry

7. OPINION RULE Section 48 - GENERAL RULE The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as indicated in the following sections. Section 49 - OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he shown to posses, may be received in evidence.

Also in People vs. Villaluz (1983) Later 1964 ROC Rule 115 Sec 1(f) 11 Ed A. Keller & Co. (Ltd.) vs. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co. (Ltd.) (38 Phil 514); City of Manila vs. Manila Electric Co. (52 Phil 586) 12 Arambulo vs. Manila Electric Co. (55 Phil 75) 13 Pajarito vs. Seneris (1978)

14 15 16 17

Galian vs. State Assurance Co. Ltd. (29 Phil 413) People vs. Abriol (2001) People vs. Florendo (68 Phil 619) People vs. Deauna (2002)

azereth page 23

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

If the same is one that falls within the general knowledge of judges, courts are not bound by the conclusions of even a real expert along such line18

Only where the subject of inquiry is of such a technical nature that a layman can possibly have no knowledge thereof that the courts must depend and rely upon expert evidence19 Conflicting expert evidence have neutralizing effect Generates doubt

Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan (1985)20 Where the supposed experts testimony would constitute the sole ground for conviction and there is equally expert testimony to the contrary, the constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail Expert evidence on handwriting is at best, weak and unsatisfactory Proof of handwriting by comparison is in most cases unsafe, even when several documents are used as bases for comparison Contrary ruling: see Lopez vs. CA (1978) Opinions of handwriting experts are not necessarily binding upon the courts Authenticity of a questioned signature cannot be determined solely upon its general characteristics, similarities or dissimilarities with the genuine signature Dissimilarities are not decisive on the question of a signatures authenticity Common knowledge that that the writing of a person changes as time passes

Cirujano vs. PNB (CA, 59 OG 8404) Less weight should be given to inferences from comparison, than to direct and credible testimony of witnesses as to the matters within their personal observation Diphenaline or Paraffin Test proved to be extremely unreliable in use

People vs. Mendoza (1989) The Paraffin test is not conclusive as to the presence of gunpowder because fertilizers, cosmetics, cigarettes, urine, and other nitrogenous compounds with nitrites and nitrates will give a positive reaction People vs. Castillon III (2001) A finding that the paraffin test yielded negative results is not conclusive evidence that the accused had not fired a gun. It is possible for a person to have fired a gun and yet be negative for the presence of nitrates, as when he wore gloves or washed his hands afterwards Results of blood grouping tests on the filiation of a child, competently conducted by qualified persons, are admissible and conclusive on the non-paternity of a person over a child Admissibility of DNA evidence has been upheld by the SC In assessing the probative value, necessary to consider, inter alia, how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the determination of whether or not the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests and the qualification of the analyst who conducted those tests

Bryan vs. Eastern & Australian S.S. Co., Ltd. (28 Phil 310) The testimony of a witness skilled in the unwritten law of a foreign country is not necessarily binding on our courts 8. CHARACTER EVIDENCE Section 51 - CHARACTER EVIDENCE NOT GENERALLY ADMISSIBLE; EXCEPTIONS: a. In Criminal Cases: 1. The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. 2. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. b. In Civil Cases:
18 19

Paras vs. Narciso (35 Phil 244); Dolar vs. Diansin (55 Phil 479) Raymundo vs. Legaspi (47 OG 807), cited in NARIC vs. First National Security & Assurance Co., Inc. (CA, 64 OG 10607)


Siasat vs. IAC (1985)

azereth page 24

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. In the case provided for in Rule 132, Sec 14.


Summary of the rules on character evidence: With respect to the nature of the case Criminal cases Prosecution at the outset may not prove the bad moral character of the accused which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged Intended to avoid unfair prejudice to the accused If accused in his defense attempts to prove his good moral character, prosecution can introduce evidence of bad moral character in rebuttal Good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved by either party as long as such evidence is relevant Civil cases Moral character of either party cannot be proved unless pertinent to the issue of character involved With respect to the person Accused: character evidence must be pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged Offended party: sufficient that character evidence is relevant Witness: bad moral character may always be proved by either party (Rule 132 Sec 11) Not evidence of his good moral character unless it has been impeached (Rule 132 Sec 14)

azereth page 25

Burden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved Evidence

Burden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved

Rule 131 Burden of Proof and Presumptions
1. BURDEN OF PROOF Section 1 BURDEN OF PROOF Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law Burden of proof onus probandi; obligation imposed upon a party who alleges the existence of facts necessary for the prosecution of his action or defense to establish the same by the requisite quantum of evidence Civil cases preponderance of evidence Rule 183, Section 1 Criminal cases For issuance of warrant of arrest after PI evidence of probable cause Reasonable ground to believe that the accused committed the offense To warrant the filing of an information prima facie evidence To sustain a conviction evidence beyond reasonable doubt Charge of misconduct against judges clear and convincing evidence Removal beyond reasonable doubt Agrarian cases substantial evidence Only such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept, as sufficient to support a conclusion Also applies to cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies Burden of Evidence Both civil and criminal cases lies with party who asserts an affirmative allegation

the facts are more immediately within the knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi rests on him. It is not incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce positive evidence to support a negative averment the truth of which is fairly indicated by established circumstances and which, if untrue, could readily be disproved by documents or other evidence within the knowledge or control of the accused. People vs. Macalaba (2003) Thus where the charge is made that the accused carried on a business without a license, the fact that he has a license is a matter which is peculiarly within his knowledge and he must establish that fact or suffer conviction. 2. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED A. FACTS WHICH ARE PRESUMED Presumption inference of an existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted to draw from the proof of other facts Compared to judicial notice and judicial admission Presumption: proponent still has to introduce evidence of the basis of the presumption, evidence of the existence or non-existence of facts from which the court can draw the inference of the fact in issue Judicial notice and judicial admission: as a rule, proponent does not have to introduce evidence Presumptions of Law Praesumptiones juris Certain inference must be made whenever the facts appear which furnish the basis for the inference Reduced to fixed rules and form a part of the system of jurisprudence Presumptions of Fact Praesumptiones hominis Discretion is vested in tribunal as to drawing inference the the

Burden of Proof Civil cases - on the party who would be defeated if no evidence were given on either side Criminal cases always on the prosecution Does not shift as it remains throughout the trial with the party upon whom it is imposed Generally determined by the pleading filed by the party

Derived wholly and directly from the circumstances of the particular case by means of the common experience of mankind

Types: 1. Conclusive (juris et de jure) 2. Disputable (juris tantum or prima facie) 1) Conclusive Presumptions Section 2 CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS The following instances are conclusive presumptions: a. Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be permitted to falsify it; b. The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. Based upon doctrine of estoppel in pais

Shifts from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in the course of the trial Generally determined by the developments at the trial or by provisions of law

Negative allegations do not have to be proved Except where such are essential parts of the COA or defense in a civil case or essential ingredients of the offense E.g. breach of contract: prove the fact that the defendant did not comply with the obligation Illegal possession of firearms: absence of a license However, in civil cases, even if negative allegation is an essential part of the COA or defense, such does not have to be proven if it is only for the purpose of denying the existence of a document which would properly be in the custody of the adverse party The general rule is if the criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation or that a negative averment is an essential element of the crime, the prosecution has the burden of proving the charge. Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, or where

2) Disputable Presumptions Section 3 DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: a. That a person is innocent of crime or wrong; b. That an unlawful act was done with unlawful intent; c. That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act; d. That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;

azereth page 26

Burden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved Evidence

e. f. g. h. i. j. That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced; That the money paid by one to another was due to the latter; That the thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter; That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid; That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the latter ones is produced; That a person in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him; That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of money, or the delivery anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly; That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it; That official duty has been regularly performed; That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction; That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them; That private transactions have been fair and regular; That the ordinary course of business have been followed; That there was sufficient consideration for a contract; That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration; That an indorsement of a negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue and at the place where it was dated; That a writing is duly dated; That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail; That after an absence of 7 years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he shall be considered dead for all purposes except those of succession. The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of 10 years. If he disappeared after the age of 75, an absence of 5 years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes, including the division of the estate among the heirs: 1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft which is missing, who has not been heard of for 4 years since the lost of the vessel or aircraft; 2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities and has been missing for 4 years; 3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for 4 years; 4) If a married person has been absent for 4 consecutive years, the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead. In case of disappearance, where there is danger of death under the circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of only 2 years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any case, before marrying again, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of the reappearance of the absent spouse. x. y. z. aa. bb. That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact; That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life; That persons acting as co-partners have entered into a contract of partnership; That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage; That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts, work, or industry; That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquired property through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry, such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal; That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within 300 days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary: 1) A child born before 180 days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during the former marriage, provided it be born within 300 days after the termination of the former marriage. 2) A child born after 180 days following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born within 300 days after the termination of the former marriage. That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with the things of that nature; That the law has been obeyed; That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public authority, was so printed or published; That a printed or published book, purporting to contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is published, contains correct reports of such cases; That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey the real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his successor-in-interest; That except for purposes of succession, when 2 persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and age of the sexes, according to the following rules: 1) If both were under the age of 15, the older is deemed to have survived; 2) If both were above the age of 60, the younger is deemed to have survived; 3) If one is under 15 and the other is above 60, the former is deemed to have survived; 4) If both be over 15 and under 60, and the sex is different, the male is deemed to have survived; if the sex is the same, the older; 5) If one be under 15 or over 60, and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived That if there is doubt, as between 2 or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at the same time.



l. m. n. o.


p. q. r. s. t. u. v. w.

ee. ff. gg. hh.




azereth page 27

Burden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved Evidence

Par (a) Legislature may provide for prima facie evidence of guilt provided there be a rational connection between the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed RPC, Article 217

Requisites for par. (e) 1. The evidence is material 2. Party had the opportunity to produce the same 3. Said evidence is available only to said party Presumption does not apply if evidence is equally available to both parties, or is merely corroborative/cumulative or unnecessary

People vs. Realon (1980) Presumption does not arise from the failure of the prosecution to present the NBI agents and the results of the fingerprint and paraffin tests in view of the overwhelming evidence on the positive identification of the accused. Furthermore, the defense could have availed of said evidence which was equally available to it People vs. Navaja (1993) The adverse presumption of suppression of evidence does not arise when: 1. The suppression is not willful, 2. The evidence withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative, 3. The evidence is at the disposal of both parties, 4. The suppression is an exercise of a privilege Par. (i) is connected with the Civil Code principles Civil Code, Article 1176 The receipt of the principal by the creditor, without reservation with respect to the interest, shall give rise to the presumption that said interest has been paid. The receipt of a later installment of a debt without reservation as to prior installments, shall likewise raise the presumption that such installments have been paid.

Par (j) similar rationale:

People vs. Sendaydiego (1978) If a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it, taken advantage of it and profited thereby, the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. Par (v) it must be proved that the letter was properly addressed with postage pre-paid and that it was actually mailed If not returned to sender, it is presumed that it was received by the addressee

Barrameda vs. Castillo (1977) Under Rule 13, Sec 10, service by pleadings by mail is complete upon the expiration of 10 days after mailing, unless the court otherwise provides, while service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, but if he fails to claim his mail from the post office within 5 days from the date of first notice, the service is complete at the expiration of such time. There must, however, be conclusive proof that a first notice was sent to the addressee as the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed does not apply to this situation Ferraren vs. Santos (1982) If, however, the postmaster certifies that first notice was sent, the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed arises and overrides the contrary claim of the addressee. Par (w) taken from Civil Code Sub par 1&2 the absentee is presumed to have died at the end of the period (5/7/10 years) Sub par 3 (qualified absence) absentee is presumed to have died at the time he was exposed to the danger or peril At the start of the 4 year period Number (4) does not actually provide for a presumption corollary procedural rule

Victory Shipping Lines vs. WCC (106 Phil 1165) Where the fate of the vessel is known, and not where the vessel was merely lost or missing, the disputable

azereth page 28

Burden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved Evidence

presumption of death does not arise and the fact of death, must, instead, be established by preponderance of evidence Par (dd) taken from Art 259 of the Civil Code, in line with Art 168 of the Family Code Par (jj) requisites: 1. Deaths occurred in a calamity 2. There are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred that one died ahead of the other

azereth page 29

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

Presentation of Evidence


Rule 132 Presentation of Evidence

A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES Section 1 EXAMINATION TO BE DONE IN OPEN COURT The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of a witness shall be given orally Section 2 PROCEEDINGS TO BE RECORDED The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including the questions to be propounded to a witness and his answer thereto, the statements made by the judge or any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference to the case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable by the court. A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings. To be admissible, testimony of a witness may be given in open court May be supplanted by: 1. Civil cases depositions (Rules 23 24) 2. Criminal cases depositions or conditional examinations (Rule 119 Sections 12-15 and Rule 123 Sec 1) Mere presentation of affidavits of witnesses subject to cross-examination is not allowed by the rules But, under BP 129, summary procedures may be authorized by SC in special cases May provide that affidavits and counteraffidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral testimony Testimony of witness should be elicited by questions of counsel But Court itself may propound questions or may suggest questions to counsel

Refers to his previous final conviction or offense Under the right against self-incrimination Criminal cases Rule 115 Section 1(e): accused may refuse to take the stand altogether Accused: may be with reference to the offense involved in the same case wherein he is charged or to an offense for which he may be charged and tried in another case Witness: offense involved is one for which he may be tried in another case Right should be seasonably invoked and may be waived Other cases/proceedings a party may be compelled to take the stand but he may object to incriminating questions Beltran vs. Samson (53 Phil 570) Where in a prosecution for falsification, the accused took the stand and testified denying his authorship of the alleged falsified signature, on cross-examination he can be compelled to give a sample of his handwriting and it was not a denial of his right against self-incrimination Bermudez vs. Castillo (64 Phil 483) Where, in a disbarment case, the complainant on cross-examination denied authorship of certain handwritten letters, she could not be compelled to give samples of her handwriting as it would amount to a denial of her right against self-incrimination in a possible charge for perjury Conflict can be reconciled: Beltran: it was the accused himself who opened the issue on his direct examination He could have refused to testify altogether Therefore, he waived his right Bermudez: complainant could not refuse to testify without an unfavorable inference being drawn against her Also, issue was raised during crossexamination, hence she did not waive the right Unless otherwise provided by law refers to immunity statutes wherein the witness is granted immunity from criminal prosecution

People vs. Manalo (1987) The court should be given reasonable leeway to ascertain the truth, and the extent to which such examination may be conducted rests in its discretion and will not be controlled in the absence of abuse of discretion to the prejudice of either party Section 3 - RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS A witness must answer questions, although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him. However, it is the right of a witness: 1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor; 2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require; 3. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue; 4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law; or 5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it to be the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense. (3a, 19a) Witness cannot refuse to answer questions material to the inquiry even if it may tend to establish a claim against him But may refuse if: 1. Under the right against self-degradation unless: a. Such question is directed to the very fact in issue

Section 4 - ORDER IN THE EXAMINATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL WITNESS The order in which the individual witness may be examined is as follows; a. Direct examination by the proponent; b. Cross-examination by the opponent; c. Re-direct examination by the proponent; d. Re-cross-examination by the opponent. Section 5 - DIRECT EXAMINATION Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. Section 6 - CROSS-EXAMINATION; ITS PURPOSE AND EXTENT Upon the termination of the direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to many matters stated in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. Section 7 - RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION; ITS PURPOSE AND EXTENT After the cross-examination of the witness has been concluded, he may be re-examined by the party calling him, to explain or supplement his answers given during the cross-examination. On re-direct-examination, questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-

azereth page 30

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

examination, may be allowed by the court in its discretion. Section 8 - RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination, and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. A witness may be cross examined by the adverse party not only as to matters stated in the direct examination but also as to matters connected therewith, and this should be allowed to do with sufficient fullness and freedom to test the witness accuracy, truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, and also to elicit from him any important fact bearing upon the issue American rule cross-examination must be confined to the matters inquired about in the direct examination English rule witness may be cross-examined not only upon matters relevant to the issue This jurisdiction more on English rule Unwilling/hostile/adverse party witness cross examination shall only be on the subject of his examination-in-chief Same as accused testifying on his own behalf Question which assumes facts not on the record: If on cross examination objectionable for bring misleading If on direct examination objectionable for lack of basis

Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. vs. CIR (1978) When cross examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party who offered the witness, the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered incomplete and should be stricken from the record People vs. Seneris (1980) Where in a criminal case the prosecution witness was extensively cross examined on the essential elements of the crime and what remained for further cross-examination was the matter of the prize or reward which was treated therein as merely an aggravating circumstance, his failure to appear for further cross-examination thereon will not warrant the striking out of his direct examination, especially since further crossexamination could not be conducted due to the subsequent death of the said witness, a circumstance not attributable to the prosecution Section 9 - RECALLING WITNESS After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice may require. Recall based on discretion of the court But recall is a matter of right if the examination of the witness has not been concluded or the recall has been expressly reserved by a party with the approval of the court

Section 10 - LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a leading question. It is not allowed, except: a. On cross examination; b. On preliminary matters; c. When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute; d. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or e. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party. A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is not allowed. Section 11 - IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE PARTY'S WITNESS

azereth page 31

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present, testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense. Section 12 - PARTY MAY NOT IMPEACH HIS OWN WITNESS Except with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility. A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of his bad character. He may also be impeached and crossexamined by the adverse party, but such crossexamination must only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief. Section 13 - HOW WITNESS IMPEACHED BY EVIDENCE OF INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them. Leading question one which suggests to the witness the answer desired May cause the witness, by reacting to an inference in his mind, to testify in accordance with the suggestion by the question Answer may be rather an echo of the question than a genuine recollection Testimony on direct examination elicited through leading questions has little probative value in the same case, but not the testimony of another witness Evidence of prior inconsistent statements statements, oral or documentary, made by the witness sought to be impeached on occasions other than the trial in which he is testifying Laying the predicate a. By confronting him with such statements, with the circumstances under which they were made b. By asking him whether he made such statement c. By giving him a chance to explain the inconsistency Impeachment is incomplete if witness is not given the chance to explain the discrepancy But defect is waived if no objection on that ground is raised when the document involved is offered for admission No need to lay the predicate if the prior inconsistent statement appears in a deposition of the adverse party and not a mere witness Statements are in the nature of an admission Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc. vs. Hashim (50 Phil 132) Where previous statements of a witness are offered as evidence of an admission, and not merely to impeach him, the rule on laying the predicate does not apply 3. 4. Evidence of bad character Evidence of bias, interest, prejudice or incompetence Party can impeach his own witness only by: 1. Evidence contradictory to his testimony 2. Evidence of prior inconsistent statements In case of hostile/adverse party/involuntary witnesses can also be impeached by other modes of impeachment


Section 14 - EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER OF WITNESS Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached. Section 15 - EXCLUSION AND SEPARATION OF WITNESSES On any trial or hearing, the judge may exclude from the court any witness not at the time under examination, so that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses. The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented from conversing with one another until all shall have been examined. Power of exclusions apply only to witnesses and not to parties in the civil case Parties have a right to be present at the trial Either by themselves or by their counsels Since they have such right, they cannot be divested thereof by an exclusion order

People vs. Dela Cruz (2002) Leading questions may be permitted in the examination of a witness who is immature; aged and infirm; an bad physical condition; uneducated; ignorant of, or unaccustomed to, court proceedings; inexperienced; unsophisticated; feebleminded; confused and agitated; terrified, timid or embarrassed while on stand; lacking in comprehension of questions or slow to understand; deaf and dumb; or unable to speak or understand the English language or only imperfectly familiar therewith Misleading question one which assumes facts not in evidence or without sufficient basis or which assumes testimony or proof which has not been given

Fernandez vs. Tantoco (49 Phil 380) A party who voluntarily offers the testimony of a witness in the case is, as a rule, bound by the testimony of the said witness. The exceptions to the rule are: 1. In case of a hostile witness 2. Where the witness is the adverse party or the representative of a judicial person which is the adverse party 3. When the witness is not voluntarily offered but is required by law to be presented by the proponent, as in the case of a subscribing witness to a will Party can impeach adverse partys witness by: 1. Contradictory evidence other testimony of the same witness, or other evidence presented by him

Paez vs. Berenguer (8 Phil 457) A party to an action has a right to be present in court while his case is being tried, and the rule authorizing the exclusion of witnesses during trial cannot be understood to extend to him If witness violates the order of exclusion, court may bar him from testifying or give little weight to his testimony Aside from his liability for contempt

People vs. Lua Chu (56 Phil 44) It is within the power of the trial judge to refuse to order the exclusion of the principal witness of the government during the hearing of a criminal case and it may not, on that count alone, be considered as an abuse of his discretion Section 16 MEMORANDUM WHEN WITNESS MAY REFER TO

azereth page 32

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew that the same was correctly written or recorded; but in such case the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he chooses, cross examine the witness upon it, and may read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such writing or record, though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such evidence must be received with caution. American jurisprudence: First sentence revival of present memory Applies if witness remembers the facts regarding his entries and is entitled to greater weight Second sentence revival of past recollection Applies where the witness does not recall the facts involved and is entitled to lesser weight Applies only when it is shown beforehand that there is a need to refresh the memory of the witness Memorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness does not constitute evidence and may not be admitted as such Reason: the witness has just the memorandum to testify on the basis of refreshed memory Memorandum not admissible as corroborative evidence Classification in RPC is different Public documents Antillon vs. Barcelon (37 Phil 148) Public documents generally include notarial documents and are admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof as to authenticity and due execution

Borromeo vs. CA (1976) Where the witness has testified independently of or after his memory has been refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute, such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative evidence, since the witness may not be corroborated by any written statement prepared wholly by him. He cannot be more credible just because he supports his open-court declaration with written statements of the same facts even if he did prepare them during the occasion in dispute, unless the proper predicate of his failing memory is priorly laid down Section 17 - WHEN PART OF TRANSACTION, WRITING OR RECORD GIVEN IN EVIDENCE, THE REMAINDER, THE REMAINDER ADMISSIBLE When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. Similar rule in depositions Rule 32, Section 4 OATH OF COMMISSIONER Before entering upon his duties the commissioner shall be sworn to a faithful and honest performance thereof Section 18 - RIGHT TO RESPECT WRITING SHOWN TO WITNESS Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be inspected by the adverse party. B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS Section 19 - CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS For the purpose of their presentation evidence, documents are either public or private. Public documents are: a. The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; b. Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and c. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to the entered therein. All other writings are private.

azereth page 33

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

Except if law requires proof E.g. notarial wills law still requires witnesses for its probate Kinds: 1. Official documents Requisites for admissibility of copy of foreign official document: a. Must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or his deputy b. Must be accompanied by a Philippine diplomatic or consular representative to the foreign country certifying that such attesting officer has the custody of the document Requirement is not merely a technicality but is intended to justify the giving of full faith and credit to the genuineness of a document in a foreign country 2. Those acknowledged before persons authorized to administer oaths further governed by Section 30 3. Private documents required by law to entered in public records subject to provisions of Section 27 While public records of private writings are also public documents, the public writing is not the writing itself but the public record thereof Republic vs. Worldwide Insurance & Surety Co. (CA, 62 OG 8857) If a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public record, its record, its recordation, or its incorporation into the public record becomes a public document, but that does not make the private writing itself a public document so as to make the private writing it admissible without authentication Private documents documents commercial and private Rule of authentication by adverse party where the reply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the sending to him and his receipt thereof of the letter in question, a copy of which the proponent is offering as evidence Authentication of document not required if: 1. The writing is an ancient document (Sec 21) 2. The writing is a public document or record (Sec 19) 3. It is a notarial document acknowledged, proved or certified in accordance with Sec 30 4. The authenticity and due execution of the document has been expressly or impliedly admitted by a failure to deny the same under oath Actionable documents (Rule 8, Section 8) Authenticity and due execution of a private document is proved by, inter alia, evidence of genuineness of the handwriting of the maker Handwriting is proved by: 1. Witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument (Sec 20a) 2. Witness familiar with such handwriting (Sec 22) and who can give his opinion thereon, such opinion being exception to opinion rule (Rule 130, Sec 50b) 3. Comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and admitted genuine specimens thereof (Sec 22) 4. Expert evidence (Rule 130 Sec 49)

Lopez vs. CA (1978) Rule 132 Section 22 merely enumerates the methods of proving handwriting but does not give preference or priority to a particular method Section 24 - PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. Section 25 - WHAT ATTESTATION OF COPY MUST STATE Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. Section 26 - IRREMOVABILITY OF PUBLIC RECORD Any public record, an official copy of which is admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the office in which it is kept, except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case. Public record cannot be removed from the office in which it is kept without a court order such as subpoena duces tecum Even court cannot order its removal except when essential to the just determination of the pending case Refers only to a public record an official copy of which could be made available to the interested party and is admissible in evidence

Section 20 - PROOF OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: a. By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or b. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. Section 21 - WHEN EVIDENCE OF AUTHENTICITY OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT NOT NECESSARY Where a private document is more than thirty years old, is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity need be given. Section 22 - HOW GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING PROVED The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. Rules of authenticity In addition, American jurisprudence also gives: Doctrine of self-authentication - where the facts in the writing could only have been known by the writer

Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. vs. CA (2000) Absent the attestation of the officer having the legal custody of the records and the certificate to that effect by a Philippine foreign service officer, a mere copy of the foreign document is not admissible as evidence to prove the foreign law

azereth page 34

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

Section 27 - PUBLIC RECORD OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. Section 28 - PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. Section 29 HOW JUDICIAL RECORD IMPEACHED Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: a. Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, b. Collusion between the parties, or c. Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. Rule 39 Sec 1

Not sufficient to prove paternity21 or voluntary recognition of a child22

Section 30 - PROOF OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. Public documents may be proved by: 1. Original copy 2. Official publication thereof 3. Certified true copy thereof Requirements in Secs 24 and 25 Unless specifically exempted (FC, Art 12) Mahilum vs. CA (1966) It is presumed that the requisite stamps have been affixed to the original copy of a document where only the carbon copies thereof are available Lopez vs. CA (1987) Where the special power of attorney is executed and acknowledged before a notary public or other competent officer in a foreign country, it cannot be admitted in evidence in Philippine courts unless it is certified as such in accordance with Rule 132 Sec 24 by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consulgeneral, consul, vice-consul, consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service in the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept of said public document and authenticated by the seal of his office Even public documents do not have uniform probative value Probative value depends on the kind of document that is presented in evidence Baptismal certificates Held as analogous to the records of birth in CC Art 265, before the establishment of civil registry in 1917 Considered presumptive evidence of facts stated therein Issued by priests during Spanish regime considered as public documents Issued after the Spanish regime private document and cannot even be prima facie evidence of the fact that gave rise to its execution (the fact of the baptism and the date thereon) Hearsay and inadmissible Unless the priest who performed the baptismal rights and made the certificate is produced


Arde vs. Anocoche (1978) Berciles vs. GSIS (1984)

azereth page 35

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

Macadangdang vs. CA (1980) A baptismal certificate is proof only of the baptism administered by the priest who baptized the child but not the veracity of the declarations and statements in the certificates concerning the relationship of the person baptized Above doctrines modified by the SC in determining the minority of the victim in statutory rape or where that fact is an element of qualified rape offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing.

People vs. Llandelar (2001)23 While recognizing the primacy of a birth certificate as proof of the victims age, the SC held that, in the absence of such evidence, the victims minority may be proved by other documentary evidence such as her baptismal certificate or other authentic records Death certificate

Sison vs. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (CA, 47 OG 1954) A death certificate is not proof of the cause of death, its probative value being confined only to the fact of death, and the statement therein Garcia Fule vs. Malvar (1976) A death certificate is admissible to prove the residence of the deceased at the time of his death Section 31 - ALTERATION IN DOCUMENT, HOW TO EXPLAIN The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He may show that the alteration was made by another, without his concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or innocent made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. If he fails to do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence. Section 32 SEAL There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. Section 33 - DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN AN UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. Section 3, Article XIV, 1935 Constitution English and Spanish A official languages Section 3(3), Article XV, 1973 Constitution English and Pilipino PD 155 Spanish language shall continue to be recognized as an official language while important documents in government files are in the Spanish language and not translated into Pilipino or English Section 7, Article XIV, 1987 Constitution - the official languages are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English, with the regional languages as auxiliary official languages in the region

C. OFFER AND OBJECTION Section 34 - OFFER OF EVIDENCE The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. Section 35 - WHEN TO MAKE OFFER As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify. Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Such

Also in People vs. Jalosjos (2001) and People vs. Fruna (2002)

azereth page 36

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

Section 36 OBJECTION Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made. Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court. In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. Section 37 - WHEN REPETITION OF OBJECTION UNNECESSARY When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the question being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made, whether such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to such class of questions. Section 38 RULING The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made, unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented; but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling. The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. However, if the objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. Section 39 - STRIKING OUT ANSWER Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and such objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the record. On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper. Section 40 - TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. Parties who offer objections to questions on whatever ground are entitled to a ruling at the time the objection is made Unless they present a question with regard to which the court desires to inform itself before making a ruling Oliveros vs. Oliveros (106 Phil 369)24 The trial courts should permit all exhibits presented by the parties, although not admitted, to be attached to the records so that, in case of appeal, the appellate court may be able to examine the same and determine the propriety of their rejection Baez vs. CA (1974) Where documentary evidence was rejected by the trial court and the offeror did not move that the same be attached to the record, the same cannot be considered by the appellate court De Castro vs. CA (75 Phil 824) Documents forming no part of the of proofs before the appellate court cannot be considered in disposing of the case.

Otherwise, it would infringe on the constitutional right of the adverse party to due process of law25 The practice of excluding evidence on doubtful objections should be avoided

Prats & Co. vs. Phoenix Insurance Co. (52 Phil 807) In a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of first instance, in the early stages of the development of the proof, to know with any certainty whether testimony is relevant or not; and where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the attorney offering the evidence, the court may, as a rule, safely accept the testimony upon the statement of the attorney that the proof offered will be connected later People vs. Diano (CA, 66 OG 6405) Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be considered for any other purpose Sheraton-Palace hotel vs. Quijano (CA, 64 OG 9118) A document or writing which is admitted not as independent evidence but merely as part of the testimony of a witness does not constitute proof of the facts related therein

Identification of documentary evidence its formal offer Identification made in the course of the trial Evidence identified and marked as exhibits may be withdrawn before formal offer Formal offer when proponent rests his case Where objection may be made

Vda de Flores vs. WCC (1977)26 Documents which may have been marked as exhibits during the hearing but which were not formally offered in evidence cannot be considered as evidence nor can they be given evidentiary value People vs. Mate (1981) (Criminal case for kidnapping with murder) Even if there was no formal offer of the exhibits but the same have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and the exhibits have been incorporated in the records of the case, said exhibits are admissible against the accused People vs. Jose (1976)27 Considering the gravity of the offenses and in the interest of justice, the SC allowed the presentation and admitted the birth certificates of the accused to prove the mitigating circumstance of minority although said birth certificates were not presented or offered in the trial courts Section 37 party may just enter a general and continuing objection to the same class of evidence the ruling of the court shall be applicable to all such evidence of the same class Ed. A. Keller & Co. (Ltd.) vs. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co., (Ltd.) (38 Phil 514)

Lopez vs. Valdez (32 Phil 644) If no ruling is made during the course of the trial, counsel would have no means of knowing whether or not he would be compelled to meet any evidence at all, hence it would prejudice the substantial rights of his client People vs. Singh (45 Phil 645) The failure of the court to make such ruling should be brought to its attention, failing which the case cannot be reopened for a new trial on that ground People vs. Tavera (47 Phil 645) The reservation of a ruling made by the court on an objection to the admissibility of evidence, without subsequently excluding the same, amounts to a denial of said objection People vs. Abalos (CA, 58 OG 5446) The courts should consider the evidence only for the purpose for which it was offered

24 25 26

Also Lamagan vs. Dela Cruz (1971) Tinsay vs. Yusay (47 Phil 639) Also Republic vs. CA and People vs. CA (1982), cf. People vs. Pecardal and Soliman vs. Sandiganbayan (1986) 27 Also Co vs. Ca (1980)

azereth page 37

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

The court itself may motu proprio treat the objection as a continuing one People vs. Bande An erroneous rejection or admission of evidence by the trial court is not a ground for a new trial or reversal of the decision if there are other independent evidence to sustain the decision, or if the rejected evidence, if it had been admitted, would not have changed the decision

Otherwise, a new trial is warranted by reason of the erroneous ruling which goes into the merits of the case and would have affected the decision28

Tinsay vs. Yusay (47 Phil 639) If the trial court erroneously ruled out the evidence and discovered such error before the judgment had become final or before an appeal therefrom had been perfected, it may reopen the case Rulings of trial court on procedural questions and on admissibility of evidence during the course of the trial are interlocutory in nature and may not be the subject of separate appeals or review on certiorari


US vs. Villanueva (18 Phil 639)

azereth page 38

Index Evidence

Weight and Evidence



People vs. Quilino (CA, 50 OG 68) The failure of a party to present merely corroborative or cumulative evidence does not give rise to any adverse or unfavorable presumption

Rule 133 Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

Section 1 - PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, HOW DETERMINED In civil cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. Section 2 - PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Sections 1&2 give the rule on the requisite quantum of evidence in civil and criminal cases Last 2 sentences of Sec1: factors which the court may take into consideration in determining the weight to be given in testimonial evidence Evidence must be from a credible source and must be credible in itself It shall be natural, reasonable, and probable as to make it easy to believe To be believed, it should be in accord with common knowledge and experience of mankind General rule: findings of judge who tried the case and heard the witnesses are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless there are substantial facts and circumstances which have been overlooked and which, if properly considered, might affect the result of the case Issue: credibility of the witness - trial court is in the better position to decide the question, having heard and observed the demeanor of the witness Unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the outcome of the case Does not apply if one judge heard the witnesses and another judge penned the decision

People vs. Magallanes (1968) The matter of assigning values to declarations at the witness stand is best and most competently performed by a trial judge, who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the defendants behavior, demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial, and the conclusions of the trial courts command great weight and respect People vs. Enriquez (CA, 44 OG 3853) The trial court should not discredit a witness by the supposed expression of lack of sincerity in his face. Facial expressions are not necessarily indicative of ones feelings. The trial court should have made it appear in the record and allowed the witness the opportunity to explain why he was showing such an expression on his face Caluna vs. Vicente (1951) As a general rule, the number of witnesses should not in and by itself determine the weight of evidence, but in case of conflicting testimonies of witnesses, the numerical factor may be given certain weight

azereth page 39

Index Evidence
People vs. Rivera (CA, 58 OG 68) By credibility of a witness is meant his integrity, disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testimony he has given as distinguished from the credibility of his testimony Arroyo vs. El Beaterio del Santissimo Rosario de Molo (1968) To hold that a particular person is competent to testify upon a given matter does not mean that his testimony thereon must be believed by the court or must be deemed by it to be of sufficient probative value to establish the point which it was intended to prove. Competency of a witness is one thing, and it is another to be credible witness. Courts allow a person to testify as a witness upon a given matter because he is competent but may thereafter decide whether to believe or not to believe his testimony US vs. Macuti (26 Phil 170) It is a well-settled doctrine that the demeanor, the emphasis, gestures and inflection of the voice of a witness, while testifying, are potent aids in the proper evaluation of his credibility Mondragon vs. CA (1974) When a witness makes two sworn statements and these two statements incur in the gravest contradictions, the court cannot accept either statement as proof. The witness by his own act of giving false testimony impeaches his own testimony and the court should exclude it from all consideration People vs. Reyes (CA, 50 OG 665) It has been said that perhaps the most subtle and prolific of all fallacies of testimony arises out of unconscious partisanship. Upon the happening of an accident, the occasional passengers on board of a streetcar are very apt to side with the employees in charge of the car (citing Wellman, The Art of Cross-Examination) People vs. Juarez (CA, 57 OG 2518) The fact that a person has reached the twilight of his life is not always a guaranty that he would tell the truth. It is also quite common that advanced age makes a person mentally dull and completely hazy about things which have happened to him and, at times, it weakens the resistance to outside influence US vs. Laban (21 Phil 297) The record of a PI constitutes no part of the final proceedings in a cause, unless it is presented in evidence, and the facts adduced therein are evidence only for the purpose of testing the credibility of the witnesses Bias that which excites the disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are People vs. Watin (CA, 67 OG 5899) When the witnesses on both sides are equally interested or otherwise biased, especially if there is no numerical preponderance on either side, bias ceases to be a consideration in determining where the weight of evidence rests. Credit should be given to the one whose demeanor and manner of testifying convinces the court of his veracity Testimony of interested witness not necessarily biased or self-serving But may affect their credibility sufficient number to prove the commission of the crime Inconsistencies on mere details do not impair the credibility of the witness Actually indicate veracity rather than prevarication Perfect dovetailing of witnesses testimonies can generate suspicion prefabricated story Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus deals only with eight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law and the rule is not an inflexible one of universal application Modern trend testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part Depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case Does not apply where: 1. The challenged testimony is sufficiently corroborated on many grounds 2. The falsity consists of mistakes on points that are not material 3. Such mistakes do not arise from the apparent desire to pervert the truth but from innocent lapses and the desire of the witness to exculpate himself but not completely

People vs. Abonales (106 Phil 190) The non-production of a corroborative witness without any explanation given why he was not so produced, weakens the testimony of the witness who named the corroborating witness in his testimony Rape cases: corroborative statements not required But testimony should be exercised with greatest care

Garcia vs. Garcia (63 Phil 419) The testimony of persons accidentally present at the time of the execution of the will, but who have nothing to do with the transaction, is not as weighty as that of the subscribing witness Affirmative testimony stronger than negative testimony Greater weight must be given to the positive testimony of the witness than to the denial of the defendant Conflict in the testimony of 2 witnesses may be due to difference in observation or memory Does not necessarily imply falsehood Delay of the witness in revealing to the authorities what he knows of the crime does not render his testimony false Attributed to natural reticence and abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case Or inherent fear of reprisal Or intense grief Relationship of witness to the victim does not impair his clear and positive testimony nor give it lesser credit Unless there is a showing of improper motive

Tunala vs. Diola (CA, 62 OG 4946) Where a party resorts to falsehood to advance his suit, it is presumed that he knows perfectly well that his cause is groundless, and this presumption affects the whole mass of evidence presented by such party Affidavits generally subordinated in importance to open court declarations Often executed when the affiant is at a high pitch of excitement Not complete reproductions of what the declarant have in mind because they are generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiant simply signs after the same have been read to him Discrepancies between the affidavit and the open court statement Do not discredit the witness because ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete for want of suggestion and inquiries Does not apply where the self-contradiction or inconsistencies are on very material and substantial matters

People vs. Aquino (1974) While the testimony of a co-conspirator or an accomplice is admissible, such testimony comes from a polluted source and must be scrutinized with great caution as it is subject to grave suspicion Testimony of a single witness may support a conviction if trustworthy and reliable And clear and convincing Testimony of offended party not essential to convict accused if there are already other evidence to prove the guilt of the accused Prosecution not obliged to present each and every person who witnesses the occurrence but only a

azereth page 40

Index Evidence
Only prima facie evidence of weak probative force and should be received with caution Conspiracy need not establish that all parties agreed to every detail Enough that it may be reasonably deduced that they had a common plan to commit the felony But must be proven beyond reasonable doubt Need not be established by direct evidence May be proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions and circumstances Qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be proved in an evident and incontestable manner As conclusively as the crime itself Self-defense one who sets up must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution Quantum: clear and convincing evidence Alibi one of the weakest defenses May be considered only when established by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence Must be physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission Strong defense when there is no positive and proper identification of the accused as the author of the offense When set up, the court should not at once have a mental prejudice against him Res ipsa loquitur the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence or make out a plaintiffs prima facie case and present a question of fact for the defendant to meet with an explanation Doctrine is merely evidentiary or procedural in nature Does not dispense with the requirement of proof of negligence

Section 3 - EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION, NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR CONVICTION An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. Corpus delicti actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged Common fact made up of 2 things: Existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge Existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result Identity of the accused not a necessary element Literally means body of the crime Proved when the evidence on record shows that the crime prosecuted had been committed Theft: corpus delicti 1. Property was lost by the owner 2. It was lost by felonious taking Crime may be established without recovery of the property Illegal possession of firearms 1. Existence of the firearm 2. It has actually been held with animus possidendi by the accused without the corresponding license Murder: corpus delicti is the fact of death Where there is doubt as to the identity of the cadaver, in the absence of any other evidence, there is no corpus delicti A mere voluntary extrajudicial confession uncorroborated by independent proof of corpus delicti is not sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction Evidence may be circumstantial but it must substantiate the confession But corpus delicti is not synonymous with the whole charge Need not require that all the elements of the crime be established independently Were it required that, independent of the confession, evidence be adduced sufficient in itself to convict, the utility of a confession as a species of proof would be illusory

People vs. Aquiedo (108 Phil 186) Where one accused withdraws his appeal after realizing the futility of his defense, and the other escapes from confinement thereby causing the dismissal of his appeal, said acts are unmistakable signs of guilt Flight evidence of guilt and a guilty conscience The wicked flee even when no man pursueth, whereas the righteous are as brave as a lion Non-flight not an indication of innocence Payment of taxes Continuous payment evidence of great weight in favor of ownership, especially if accompanied by OCEAN possession But not conclusive evidence of ownership Non-payment indicative of the fact that claimant does not believe himself to be the owner of the property Motive of the accused in a criminal case immaterial But necessary in the following instances: 1. Where identity of the assailant is in question 2. To determine the voluntariness of the criminal act or the sanity of the accused 3. To determine from which side the unlawful aggression commenced (self-defense) 4. To determine the specific nature of the crime committed (murder or homicide) 5. To determine whether the shooting was intentional or accidental 6. Where the accused contended that he acted in the defense of a stranger 7. Where the evidence is circumstantial and inconclusive 8. Where malice is an element of the offense Mere proof of motive, no matter how strong, cannot sustain a conviction if there is no other evidence establishing the guilt of the accused Evidence is weak, without any motive reasonable doubt Totality of circumstance test used for the admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identification of suspects Factors: 1. Witness opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime 2. Witness degree of attention at the time 3. Accuracy of any prior description given by the witness 4. Level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification 5. Length of time between the crime and the identification 6. Suggestiveness of the identification procedure

People vs. Sasota (91 Phil 111) When the complex crime of robbery with homicide is charged and the extrajudicial confession of the accused of the entire charge is corroborated by corpus delicti of homicide alone, the entire confession is admissible although there is no independent evidence of the robbery Section 4 - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHEN SUFFICIENT Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: a. There is more than one circumstances; b. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. People vs. Tan-Choco; People vs. Jara (1986) In order to convict a person accused of a crime on the strength of circumstantial evidence alone, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to present such circumstantial evidence which will and must necessarily lead to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt, excluding all and each and every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction in capital offenses

azereth page 41

Index Evidence
Except when law specifies the quantum of evidence, such as in treason Falsification, bigamy and libel - circumstantial evidence not sufficient to sustain a conviction Documents involved must be presented Bigamy: direct evidence of first marriage is necessary Reputation or cohabitation merely corroborative Same as in adultery, parricide or other cases where issue of marriage is primarily involved Prior and coetaneous, as well as subsequent, acts of the accused are circumstantial evidence of guilt While motive of the accused is generally immaterial not being an element of the crime, such motive becomes important when the evidence of the crime is purely circumstantial

People vs. Turtoga (2002) The fact that the accused was in dire need of money and the victim scolded him for soliciting a loan from her, robbery as the motive explains the killing Section 5 - SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Biak-na-Bato Mining Co. vs. Tanco (1991) Substantial evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof as required in ordinary civil cases, but such kind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion Or evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs

Section 6 - POWER OF THE COURT TO STOP FURTHER EVIDENCE The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with caution. Guinea vs. Vda. De Ramonal (1975) The court has the power to stop the introduction of testimony which will merely be cumulative Section 7 - EVIDENCE ON MOTION When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. Sapida vs. De Villanueva (1972) While the court may hear and rule upon motions solely on the basis of affidavits or counter-affidavits, if the affidavits contradict each other on matters of fact, the court can have no basis to make its findings of fact and the prudent course is to subject the affiants to cross-examination so that the court can decide whom to believe

azereth page 42