This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
EVIDENCE RULE 130. RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY Q Define evidence. A Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (S1 R128). Evidence also refers to the medium used to prove the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue. Q Are the rules of evidence the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings? A Yes, except as otherwise provided by law or by the Rules of Court (S2 R128) or by Supreme Court issuances. For instance under the Rules on Summary Procedure, in criminal cases the direct testimonies of witnesses shall be in affidavit form subject to cross-examination. Q How is evidence classified according to its nature or form? A Evidence is classified according to its nature or form as follows: (DOT) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Writings or any material offered as proof of their contents. OBJECT (OR REAL) EVIDENCE. Evidence which is directly addressed to the court’s senses. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE. Consists of the statement of a witness offered to the court. Maybe oral/live or written (affidavit). Q How is evidence classified according to its relation to the fact in issue? A Evidence is classified according to its relation to the fact in issue as follows: DIRECT EVIDENCE. That which proves the fact in issue without the aid of any inference or presumption. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. That which proves the fact in issue by way of inference or presumption. Q Distinguish cumulative evidence from corroborative evidence. A Cumulative evidence is evidence of the same kind and to the same state of facts, while corroborative evidence is additional evidence of a different character to the same point. (2 REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW
COMPENDIUM 435 [6th rev. ed.]). More often however this fine distinction between cumulative and corroborative evidence is not observed in law and in practice and corroborative evidence is defined or taken to mean as additional evidence to the same point, whether of the same or different kind. For instance ―corroborative evidence‖ in Section 28 of the Rules on Examination of a Child Witness, which refers to the act or declaration of a child declarant as an exception to the hearsay rule, should be interpreted in the broad rather than in the strict sense. Q Distinguish prima facie evidence from conclusive evidence. A Prima facie evidence is that which by itself is sufficient to prove a fact but which may be rebutted by contrary evidence, while conclusive evidence is one which may not be rebutted or contradicted. Q Distinguish positive evidence from negative evidence. A Evidence is positive when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur, while negative evidence is when the witness states he did not see or know of the occurrence of a fact. (2 REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 436 [6th rev. ed.]). Q A witness testifies that the accused did not shoot the victim. Is this positive or negative testimony? A We have to distinguish. If the witness’ testimony is categorical, like he testifies that the accused did not shoot the victim for he was present all the time when the alleged shooting took place, the evidence is positive. But if he merely testifies that he did not see or know that the accused shot the victim but which testimony does not totally discount the possibility that the accused shot the victim, the testimony is negative. Q Distinguish direct from circumstantial or indirect evidence. A Direct evidence is that evidence which proves a fact directly without need of an inference, while circumstantial or indirect evidence is that which proves a fact indirectly through the use of an inference. An example of direct evidence is a murder case where a witness testifies that the accused shot the victim, while an example of circumstantial evidence is where a
witness saw the accused and his family hastily abandoning their home a day after the shooting. Q When is evidence admissible? A Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or by the Rules of Court. (S3 R128). Or to illustrate it by way of a formula: ADMISSIBILITY = RELEVANCY + COMPETENCY. Q When is evidence relevant? A Evidence is relevant when it has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence. (iben) In civil cases, a fact in issue is one which was raised in the pleadings of the parties. In criminal cases, a fact in issue is one which will establish whether or not the accused is liable or guilty for the offense as charged in the information. Even if a fact tends to prove a matter determinative of the case but the matter was not put in issue, evidence of such fact is not admissible since it is not relevant. In civil cases the proponent however may avail of S5 R10. Q Distinguish between relevant and material evidence. A In certain states in the U.S, a distinction is drawn between relevant and material evidence: evidence is relevant when it tends to prove or disprove a matter determinative of the case (although the matter may not have been put in issue) while evidence is material when it tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue. In Philippine evidentiary law, there is no such distinction because our rule definition of relevant evidence is the same as the American definition of material evidence. Q What are collateral matters? A Collateral matters are those which have no direct connection to the fact in issue. Thus in a suit on a promissory note by P against D, the fact that D did not pay A in a prior loan is a collateral matter. Q Is evidence on collateral matters allowed? A No except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (S4 R128) (trepif). In other words, the existence or non-existence of the fact in issue is inferred by induction from the collateral matter. Hence evidence that the
accused after the murder had bought a one-way ticket to Ecuador may be offered by the prosecution to show that the accused intended to flee. COMPETENCY Q Discuss the concept of competency of evidence. A Even if the evidence is relevant, but it is excluded by the law or by the Rules of Court, the evidence would be inadmissible. Otherwise put, evidence must not only be relevant but it must also be competent. Competency rules are based on public policy considerations which override the determinative character of the evidence. Q Where are exclusionary rules found? A Exclusionary rules are present in the Rules of Court, for example those relating to the various disqualification rules and privileges. They may also be found in the Constitution such as under Sections 2 and 3, Article III (right v. unreasonable search and seizure, right to privacy of communication and correspondence), Section 12, Article III (rights of person under custodial investigation), Section 17, Article III (right v. self-incrimination), in statutes, such as the bank secrecy law (R.A. No. 1405) and the Anti-Wiretapping Law (R.A. No. 4200). Anti-Wiretapping Law, cases Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA, 4 Aug 94: Tape recording of phone talk inadmissible. Ramirez v. CA, 28 Sep 95: Taping of private talk by one of the parties prohibited. Navarro v. CA, 26 Aug 99. Heated exchange of words between two persons in a police station not private and may be taped. Gaanan v. IAC, 145 SCRA 122. Overhearing a phone talk through an extension not a violation of R.A. 4200 as a telephone extension is not a wire-tapping device but for the convenience or economy of the users. Q Define documentary evidence. A Documentary evidence consists of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers, symbols (LWNS), or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. Q May a document be offered as object evidence?
A Yes. If the document is offered not as proof of its contents but of its existence or physical condition or features, then it is considered as object evidence. Hence marked money used in a buy bust operation and offered to prove the buy-bust is object evidence. Q When a rule of evidence refers to the term writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing, does such term include an electronic document? A Yes. An electronic document is a functional equivalent of a paper-based document. (S1 R3, Rules on Electronic Evidence). BEST EVIDENCE RULE (ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS RULE) S3-7 R130 Q What is the best evidence rule? A The best evidence rule provides that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, the best evidence thereof is the original document itself and other evidence is not admissible, subject to exceptions. (S3 R130). In the United States, the best evidence rule is known as the original documents rule. Presently we have two best evidence rules. One under S3 R130 and another one under Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. Q Why is the ―Best Evidence Rule‖ often described as a misnomer? (94 Bar Q4). A The ―Best Evidence Rule‖ is often described as a misnomer because as worded it appears to apply to all kinds of evidence when it actually applies only to documentary evidence. Best evidence rule under S3 R130 Q Mr. Carrascoso took an Air France flight from Manila to Lourdes, France. While on a stop-over in Bangkok, he was forcibly transferred from the first class to the tourist class in order to make way for ―a white man.‖ Mr. Carrascoso resisted his transfer and a commotion occurred on board the plane. The purser recorded the incident in his notebook. Mr. Carrascoso sued Air France. During the trial, Mr. Carrascoso testified that after his forcible transfer to the tourist class, the purser told him that he (the purser) had recorded the incident in his notebook and then read out
the entry to him: ―First-class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and the captain refused to intervene.‖ Air France’s counsel moved to strike out the statement on the ground that the best evidence would be the notebook. Should the court grant the motion to strike out? A No, the court should not grant the motion to strike out. The best evidence rule applies when the subject of inquiry is the contents of the document. Here the subject of inquiry is not the contents of the notebook, but the purser’s statement to Mr. Carrascoso. Otherwise put the best evidence rule applies only to documentary evidence but not to testimonial or oral evidence. (Air France v. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155). Q At the trial of Ace for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosecution offers in evidence a photocopy of the marked P100.00 bills used in the ―buy-bust‖ operation. Ace objects to the introduction of the photocopy on the ground that the Best Evidence Rule prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence in lieu of the original. 1) Is the photocopy real (object) evidence or documentary evidence? 2) Is the photocopy admissible in evidence? (94 Bar Q9). A 1) The photocopy is real (object) evidence because the same is being offered not to prove the contents of the marked money but to prove its existence and use in the ―buy-bust‖ operation. 2) The photocopy is admissible in evidence. The objection that the introduction thereof would violate the Best Evidence Rule does not lie since the best evidence rule does not apply to object or real evidence. (People v. Tandoy, 192 SCRA 28). Q Under the best evidence rule, what is regarded as the original? A Under the best evidence rule, the original simply means the document the contents of which are the subject of inquiry. (csi) (S4[a] R130). Aso regarded as originals are: 1. DUPLICATE/MULTIPLICATE ORIGINALS. 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. (S4[b] R130). REGULARLY REPEATED BUSINESS ENTRIES. 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. (S4[c] R130).
Q What are the exceptions to the best evidence rule? (CLAP) A The exceptions to the best evidence rule in which evidence other than the original document is admissible to prove the contents of the document are: (CLAP) C - Custody/Control. Original is in the custody or control of the adverse party and he fails to produce despite reasonable notice. If after such notice and satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. L - The original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court (LDP) without bad faith on the part of the offeror. Secondary evidence may be presented upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part. A - Accounts which are numerous and cannot be examined without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established is only the general result of the whole. (NTG grew). P - Original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. May be proved by a certified true copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (S3, 5, 6, and 7, R130). 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. (S27 R132). Trial court’s discretion to dispense with production of original Q At issue was whether or not President Joseph Estrada resigned from the presidency. Presented in support of the contention that Estrada resigned were the excerpts from the Angara Diary in which Estrada stated, ― Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na, masyado nang masakit . Pagod na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, sa intriga. I just want to
clear my name, then I will go.‖ Estrada objected to the introduction of the excerpts on the ground that the best evidence is the Angara Diary itself. Is the objection meritorious? A No. The SC adopted Wigmore’s comment that production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial court’s discretion, if the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring production. (DBU). Here Estrada did not bona fide dispute the contents of the excerpt even though he was in a position to do so. (Estrada v. Desierto, 356 SCRA 108 ). Q Petitioner Concepcion Chua and Respondent Suy Ben Chua are the children of the late Chua Chin. Upon the demise of Chua Chin, his spouse and his children executed a deed of partition wherein they waived their shares over the Hagonoy Lumber in favor of their co-heir Chua Sioc Han. Chua Sioc Han then sold the Hagonoy Lumber to Respondent. Later Respondent delivered a check for P200,000 to Petitioner which the latter encashed. Subsequently Respondent sued Petitioner to collect on the P200,000 which the Respondent alleges was a loan. In her answer with counterclaim, Petitioner alleged that the P200,000 was an advance on her share in Hagonoy Lumber and counterclaimed for accounting and delivery of her share. Respondent filed an answer to the counterclaim wherein he alleged that Petitioner no longer had any interest in Hagonoy Lumber because of the execution of the deed of partition and that he is now the owner of the Hagonoy Lumber by virtue of a deed of sale executed in his favor by Chua Sioc Han. Respondent annexed copies of the deed of partition and of sale to his Answer to the Counterclaim. Petitioner filed a reply and countered that the deed of partition and the deed of sale were not true and valid agreements and did not express the true intention of the parties, and that the deeds were only temporary paper arrangements executed upon advice of counsel until all the heirs could reach a final agreement. The trial court ruled in favor of Respondent. Petitioner contended that it was error for the trial court to admit mere copies of the deed of partition and the deed of sale in violation of the best evidence rule. Is the Petitioner’s contention correct? A No the Petitioner’s contention is not correct. The Supreme Court has held in Gaw v. Chua, G.R. No. 160855, 16 April 2008, that production of the original
may be dispensed with in the trial court’s discretion whenever the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the documents and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring production. Here there was no dispute as to the terms of either deed; hence the RTC correctly admitted the photocopies in evidence. Petitioner admitted signing the deed of partition. As for the deed of sale, Petitioner in effect admitted the genuineness and due execution of the deed of sale when she failed to specifically deny it pursuant to S8 R8. The Petitioner did not contest the contents of the deeds but simply alleged that there was a contemporaneous agreement that the transfer of Hagonoy Lumber to Chua Sioc Huan was only temporary. (Note: Although Petitioner was not a party to the deed of sale between Chua Sioc Huan and Respondent and therefore is not required to deny it under oath, she must still specifically deny its genuineness and due execution. This Petitioner failed to do and so she impliedly admitted the same pursuant to S8 R8). Loss, destruction, or inability to produce original Q What is secondary evidence under the best evidence rule? A Secondary evidence is that which may be used to prove the contents of a document where the original is lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced, or where the original is in the custody or control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and who fails to produce it after reasonable notice. Q A What does secondary evidence consist of? Secondary evidence consists of: (CRT) 1. A copy of the original, 2. A recital of its contents in an authentic document, or 3. The testimony of witnesses. (S5 R130). Q Is there an order of priority in the use of secondary evidence? A Yes. S5 R130 states that the offeror may prove the original document by a copy, a recital, or by testimony of witnesses ―in the order stated.‖ This means that before the offeror may resort to a recital, he must first show that a copy
is unavailable, and before he may resort to testimonial evidence, he must first show that a copy and a recital are unavailable. Q What is the proper foundation for the introduction of secondary evidence in the case of loss, destruction, or inability to produce the original? A The offeror must show: (EUR) Proof of the execution or existence of the document. 2. Proof of the cause of its unavailability, without bad faith on his part. (S5 R130). 3. Proof of reasonable diligence and good faith on the part of the offeror in the search for or attempt to produce the original. (Citibank v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 150905, 23 September 2003). Q The original document was lost because of the offeror’s negligence. May he use secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original document? A Yes. S3(a) R130 states that secondary evidence may be introduced by the offeror ―upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part .‖ (Italics supplied). This means that it is bad faith, not negligence, which would preclude the offeror from using secondary evidence. Q Ajax Power Corporation, a utility company, sued in the Regional Trial Court to enforce a supposed right of way over a property owned by Simplicio. At the ensuing trial, Ajax presented its retired field auditor who testified that he knew for a fact that a certain sum of money was periodically paid pursuant to a written contract. The original contract was not presented. Instead, a purported copy, identified by the retired field auditor as such, was formally offered as part of his testimony. Rejected by the trial court, it was finally made the subject of an offer of proof by Ajax. Can Ajax validly claim that it had sufficiently met its burden of proving the existence of the contract establishing its right of way? Explain. (92 Bar Q13). A No, Ajax cannot validly claim that it had sufficiently met its burden of proving the existence of the contract establishing its right of way. Under the Best Evidence Rule, before a party may introduce secondary evidence of an original document, he 1.
must first lay the foundation by proving the execution or existence of the original document. Here Ajax’s field auditor testified only as to the payment of a certain sum of money pursuant to a contract but did not positively state that there was an original contract of right of way in the first place. Hence the copy was inadmissible in evidence. (Manila Electric Company v. IAC, G.R. No. 71393, 28 June 1989). Q Defendant was a cardholder of Citibank Mastercard. When Defendant uses the credit card in purchasing from a merchant, triplicates were produced of the sales invoice, although the cardholder signed the sales invoice only once. One copy was for Citibank, another to the merchant, and another to the defendant cardholder. Citibank subsequently sued Defendant for unpaid credit card debts. During the trial, Citibank offered in evidence photocopies of the sales invoices or charge slips to prove the obligation of the defendant. Citibank’s assistant manager testified that he had requested the originals from Equitable Credit Card Network, Inc. but this request was not acted upon by Equitable. Defendant objected to the introduction of the photocopies for being violative of the best evidence rule. How should the court rule on the objection? Explain. A The court should sustain the objection. The Supreme Court has held that there should be reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to produce the original. Here the original sales invoices might have been found by Equitable. Hernandez testifying that he had requested the originals from Equitable, failed to show that he had subsequently followed up the request. Moreover when more than one original exists, it must appear that all of them have been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court before secondary evidence can be given of any one. A photocopy may not be used without accounting for the other originals. Each of the triplicates is considered an original in accordance with S4(b) R130. Citibank failed to show that all three originals were unavailable, and that due diligence had been exercised in the search for them. (Citibank v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 150905, 23 September 2003). Q What is the proper foundation for the introduction of secondary evidence in the case where the original is in the
custody or control of the party against whom the evidence is sought to be offered? A The offeror must show: 1. Proof of reasonable notice to produce to the adverse party and failure to produce. 2. Proof of the existence of the document. Q P filed against D an action for the recovery of a stock certificate wrongfully obtained and withheld by D. P offered in evidence a photocopy of the stock certificate. D objected on the ground of the best evidence rule and stated that no notice to produce the original was given to him. P counters that a notice to produce is not necessary where the nature of the action is in itself a notice and where the document has been wrongfully obtained or withheld by the adverse party. How should the court rule on D’s objection? Explain. A The court should sustain D’s objection. The provision in the former S5 R130 which states that the notice to produce is not necessary where the writing is itself a notice, or where it has been wrongfully obtained or withheld by the adverse party has been deleted in the present S6 R130. Nor was D in a position to bona fide dispute the contents of the stock certificate since he was not a party or privy thereto. Public record or recorded in a public office Q Respondent offered in evidence, Exhibit H, a photocopy of a deed of sale. On the photocopy is a stamped notation signed by an assessment officer in the local assessor’s office which states that the photocopy is a ―certified true xerox copy.‖ The petitioner objected to the offer on the ground that it violates the best evidence rule but the trial court overruled the objection and admitted the photocopy. Was the admission of the photocopy in evidence proper? A No, on two grounds. First the attestation made by the assessment officer is defective for it did not state ―that the copy is a correct copy of the original.‖ (See S25 R132). Second the assessor’s office is not the official repository of original notarized deeds of sale and could not have been the legal custodian contemplated in the rules. It is the notary public or the proper court that has custody of his notarial register that could have produced the original or
a certified true copy thereof. (Heirs of Gabatan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150206, 13 March 2009). BEST EVIDENCE RULE UNDER THE REE Q What are the Rules on Electronic Evidence? A The Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE) are those rules applicable whenever an electronic document is offered or used in evidence. Q A When did the REE take effect? The REE took effect on 1 August 2001.
A An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence. (S2 R3 REE). Q What is the original of an electronic document? A An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately. (S1 R4 REE). The image of an electronic document shown in the monitor is an original as well as the printout thereof. Q Is a copy or duplicate considered an equivalent of the original under the REE? A Yes under the REE, copies or duplicates are considered as equivalent of the originals. (S2 R4, REE). This is where the best evidence rule under the REE differs from the best evidence rule under the Rules of Court. Under the Rules of Court, copies or duplicates are considered as secondary evidence. (S5 R130). Q What is a copy or a duplicate? A The following are considered as copies or duplicates: 1. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents, or 2. COUNTERPART. When a document is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original. A photocopy is a counterpart and hence equivalent to the original. Q When is a copy or duplicate not admissible to the same extent as the original? A A copy or a duplicate shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original if: (AU) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the original. (S2 R4, REE).
Q What are the cases covered by the REE? A The REE shall apply to all civil actions and proceedings, quasi-judicial and administrative cases, and also to criminal actions and proceedings. (S2 R1 REE). Q What is an electronic document? A An electronic document is defined in the REE as information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which fact may be proved, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved, or produced (3RP TSP) electronically. (S1((h) R2, REE). It includes digitally signed documents and print-outs. (Id.). Q What is an electronic data message? A An electronic data message refers to information generated, sent, received or stored (gsrs) by electronic, optical or similar means. (S1(g), R2, REE). For purposes of the REE, the term ―electronic document‖ may be used interchangeably with ―electronic data message.‖ (S1(h) R2, REE). Q Give examples of electronic documents. A Examples of electronic documents are emails, recorded or saved text messages, and computergenerated documents. A document which is scanned is also an electronic document. Q State the rule on documents. (03 Bar Q19a) admissibility of electronic
Q Is the Best Evidence Rule under the Rules on Electronic Evidence applicable to non-electronic documents? A A perusal of S2 R4 REE would indicate that it applies to electronic and non-electronic documents as the term ―electronic document‖ is not used therein. Indeed FRE 1001(4) and 1003, from which S2 R4 REE was substantially copied, applies to all kinds of documents without distinction. Prof. Jesus M. Disini Jr. writes that ―Section 2 [R4] is a substantial amendment to the Best Evidence Rule that affects even paper-based documents.‖ (JESUS M. DISINI, JR., THE RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE 20 [1st ed., 2001]). However in MCC Industrial Corporation v. Ssangyong Corp., G.R. No. 170633, 17 October 2007, the Supreme Court held that the best evidence rule under the REE does not apply to non-electronic documents. Hence non-electronic documents (paper-based documents) are covered by the best evidence rule under S3 R130. Q MCC, a Philippine corporation, imports steel products from Ssangyong Corporation, a Korean corporation. The usual practice was for Ssangyong to fax its pro-forma invoice containing the details of the steel products to MCC which affixes its signature thereto and faxes back the signed invoice to Ssangyong. Ssangyong sued MCC for breach of contract for the latter’s alleged failure to fully pay steel products it had ordered. Ssangyong presented in evidence the photocopies of the faxed invoices without accounting for the non-production of the original faxed invoices. MCC contends that the presentation of the photocopies violates the best evidence rule since it should be the original faxed invoices which should have been presented in evidence. The trial court ruled that the faxed invoices are electronic documents under S1(h) R2, REE and hence a photocopy thereof is equivalent to the original pursuant to S2 R4, REE. Did the trial court rule correctly in admitting the photocopies of the faxed invoices? A No. The UNCITRAL Model Law defines electronic data message as ―information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means, including, but not limited to, electronic data interchange, electronic mail,
A will is considered a written agreement for purposes of the parol evidence rule. Note: In effect the decision holds that if not all the contents of a document are generated or recorded electronically. Hence he is not bound by the parol evidence rule. the purpose is to bar parol evidence to modify. telex or telecopy. 4 April 2007). No. A perusal of the information contained in the photocopies will reveal that not all of the contents therein. v. Once saved or recorded however they become electronic documents and are subject to the best evidence rule. (Inciong v. Wallem objected to the offer on the ground that it violates the best evidence rule. then a photocopy of such document will not be considered as an equivalent of the original. transmitted. Miriam Defensor Santiago during the deliberations on the E-Commerce Act that the term electronic data message does not include telexes or faxes (except computer-generated faxes). The parol evidence rule covers all written agreements while the Statute of Frauds covers only the agreements mentioned in Article 1403 of the Civil Code. and written computations were electronic documents and hence copies thereof were the equivalent of the original. a more liberal treatment would be to hold the same inadmissible but without excluding the entire document. (S9 R130). Note: The ruling is arguable. and written computations contained written signatures and some handwritten notations on the date of receipt. The letters. explain or add to the terms of the written agreement. although the deed actually described Lot B. AS TO NATURE OF EVIDENCE BARRED. while in the Statute of Frauds. Leoncia thumbmarked a document which Victoria told Leoncia was a deed of sale of Lot A. (National Power Corporation v. there is an enforceable agreement. At the trial of a case filed by Victoria to recover Lot B from its present possessor. who was illiterate. protest forms. the local ship agent. CA. protest forms. such as the signatures and the handwritten notations.R. and written computations were produced and printed using a software program. Napocor sued Wallem. protest forms. In the parol evidence rule. 170633. No. and written computations to prove damages without accounting for the non-production of the originals. retrieved or produced. A AS TO SCOPE. Q Leoncia. there is no written agreement. The contract need not be signed by both parties nor need it be bilateral. such as if the document contains a manual signature and handwritten notations. but not limited to. whether oral or written. The parol evidence rule applies only to the parties to the contract and their successors-in-interest. In the parol evidence rule. This seems arguable. what is barred is oral but not written evidence. which is offered to modify.. In the parol evidence rule. between the parties and their succesors in interest. telegram. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE (S9 R130) Q What is the parol evidence rule? A It is the rule which provides that once the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing. what is barred may either be oral or written evidence. As for the handwritten notations. AS TO PRESENCE OF WRITTEN AGREEMENT. and written computations are not electronic documents. During the trial. Q What is parol evidence? A Parol evidence is any evidence. 170491. the purpose is to bar a party from proving an agreement by oral evidence. while in the statute of frauds. 143 SCRA 355). By no stretch of the imagination can a person’s signature affixed manually be considered as information electronically received. the defendant called Leoncia to testify for him that what she really intended to sell and understood as having sold to Victoria was Lot A. (MCC Industrial Corp. 17 October 2007). The deleted phrase was not an essential part of the definition but merely added by way of illustration or to give examples. CA. outside of the written agreement. Q Does the parol evidence rule apply to all kinds of written documents? A No. or add to the terms of the written agreement. electronic data interchange. Ssangyong Corp. Text messages are ephemeral electronic communications. 257 SCRA 578).‖ The E-Commerce Act definition of electronic data message however deleted the phrase ―including. In the parol evidence rule. It is hard to argue for example that the deletion also means that emails should not be considered as electronic documents. while in the statute of frauds. recorded. Q Distinguish the parol evidence rule from the statute of frauds under Article 1403 of the Civil Code. AS TO PURPOSE. AS TO ENFORCEABILITY OF CONTRACT. protest forms. it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be. G. sold a parcel of land to her cousin Victoria. no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. telex or telecopy. may be recorded or produced electronically. explain. (Lechugas v.6 telegram. electronic mail.‖ Congress has by such deletion adopted the statement of Sen. Thus a receipt which is merely proof of payment is not covered by the rule. G. Q Are there exceptions to the parol evidence rule? . the photocopies of the letters. stored. unlike the UNCITRAL Model Law. Victoria objected to the testimony on the ground that it would violate the parol evidence rule. The manual signature in fact serves to authenticate the electronic document. The letters. Here the one offering the parol evidence (the defendant in the action for recovery filed by Victoria) was a stranger to the deed of sale. Napocor offered in evidence photocopies of letters. Napocor argued that the letters. there is a written agreement. protest forms. The parol evidence rule applies only to written contracts. Q Does the parol evidence rule apply to both private and public documents? Does it apply to written agreements which are signed by only one party or to unilateral agreements? A The parol evidence rule applies to written contracts be they private or public documents.R. processed. Should the photocopies be admitted in evidence without the offeror accounting for the non-production of the original? A No. while in the statute of frauds there is no enforceable contract. Hence it deletion took nothing away from the substance of the definition. Q A power barge of the Napocor was bumped by a foreign vessel damaging the power barge. Codilla. Should Victoria’s objection be sustained? A No.
A A contract of sale refers to the subject matter as ―a parcel of land in BF Resort. Q What is meant by extrinsic or patent ambiguity? A Extrinsic or patent ambiguity is synonymous with vagueness. Q Explain the meaning of mistake as an exception to the parol evidence rule. A This exception is based on the reason that if the written agreement failed to express the parties’ true intent and agreement. The reason for the exception is evident: a written agreement does not preclude the parties from entering into any subsequent agreement modifying or altering the first written agreement. Q Explain and discuss the exception regarding the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties. Rudlin averred that the construction agreement did not reflect the true contract price agreed upon. refers to an ambiguity wherein a word or phrase is susceptible of two or more meanings. 2. A The phrase ―capacity of 6. (Palanca v. Parol evidence may be received to clarify the currency intended by the parties. Disputes arose between the parties as to the date of completion and the amounts payable under the construction agreement. FBC filed an action for collection against Rudlin. for example. and that. An intrinsic ambiguity. which is P6 million. Las Piñas City. In its answer. In such a case. Villarama. 4 October 2010. i. Hence if it is alleged that a deed of donation is void for being a donation mortis causa which did not comply with the formalities of a testamentary disposition. Rudlin invoked the exception to the parol evidence rule under S9(a) R130 wherein the written agreement failed to express the true intent of the parties. Q Rudlin Corporation entered into a contract with Financial Building Corporation (FBC) for the construction of a school building. REGALADO. where the devisee is named as ―Juan Dela Cruz‖ but the testator has two friends by the name of ―Juan Dela Cruz. the court should be empowed to ascertain the true intent and agreement. there is no written agreement which would be subject of the parol evidence rule.000 liters‖ used in connection with a contract for the sale of a distilling apparatus. 3.‖ An implicit averment is not sufficient.e.9 million. Q Explain and discuss the exception where the validity of the written agreement has been put in issue... or 4. and refers to the situation where a word or phrase has no definite meaning at all or is not susceptible of any definite meaning. it would be anomalous to bar parol evidence showing the parties’ true intent and agreement. May Rudlin invoke S9(a) R130? A No. 306). The validity of the written agreement. was indicated in the agreement solely for the purpose of enabling FBC to obtain a higher amount of loan from BPI. explain. that the execution of said document was made with the understanding between FBC and Rudlin that the contract price stated therein would be decreased to a mutually acceptable contract price. In a will. should state that the contract ―failed to express the true agreement of the parties‖ not merely that ―the sale was subject to four conditions. Parol evidence may be received on the matter. ―Dollars‖ in a contract could mean the currency of the United States or Hong Kong or Australia. v. parol evidence is not admissible to cure the lack of meaning for the court in such a case would not merely be construing the contract but making a new contract for the parties.7 A Yes. or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading: (VISA) 1. 1989]). the parties forgot to sign an agreement fixing the true contract price.‖ Parol evidence is not admissible to determine who the friend is. due to inadvertence. that the amount of P6.. the Supreme Court stated that the existence of an exception to the PER must be ―squarely presented as an issue‖ or otherwise expressly averred. parol evidence may be adduced to show the mortis causa nature of the donation. S9(a)(b) R130 is available only where the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure that the parties’ contractual intention cannot be understood from a mere reading of the instrument. (Financial Building Corp. Q Explain and discuss the exception regarding intrinsic ambiguity.‖ Parol evidence may be adduced to prove the Juan Dela Cruz adverted to in the will. There was an ambiguity on whether the capacity referred to is receiving capacity or producing capacity. Q How are the exceptions to the parol evidence rule put in issue? A In Ortañez v. Parol evidence would then be admissible to determine the parties’ intention for the court in such a case would simply be construing or interpreting the contract. The pleading. In such a case. also known as latent ambiguity. Rudlin International Corp. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto. A party may present parol evidence to modify.. mistake. which is FBC’s bid price. REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 455 [6th rev. (2 FLORENZ D. ed. The exception is not inconsistent with the principle that the written agreement contains all the terms agreed upon since here what is alleged is that the written agreement at the outset failed to express the parties’ true intent and agreement. 266 SCRA 561. A Intrinsic ambiguity. the vendor in the deed may allege that the true intent and agreement of the parties is not to transfer ownership over the land but to constitute a mortgage over the same in favor of the vendee. Q Give examples of intrinsic or latent ambiguity. To hold otherwise would be to in effect say that a written agreement cannot be amended or modified thereafter. A This exception is based on the fact that if the written agreement is void. . Wilson & Co. Court of Appeals. or imperfection (AIM) in the written agreement.‖ Parol evidence is not admissible to prove the parcel of land being referred to. not changing it or making a new contract for the parties. For instance in a deed of sale with right of repurchase over a parcel of land.) Q Explain and discuss the exception regarding subsequent agreement. J. The existence of a subsequent agreement. terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. however. A deed of donation to ―my friend. A Parol evidence may be introduced to prove the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors-in-interest after the execution of the written agreement. 37 Phil. Q Give examples of extrinsic or patent ambiguity.
and F before the RTC..000. Q Who is a child witness? . E. if 99. SPECIAL KINDS OF EVIDENCE EPHEMERAL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION. (Cavili v. Claimants against the estate of a deceased person or against an insane person. E. the results of the DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence. except ident ical twins. supra. and other forms of electronic communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained. Q Is religious or political belief or interest in the outcome of a case a ground for disqualification of a witness? A No. ed. Q A DIP) Who are disqualified to be witnesses? The following persons cannot be witnesses: (MIM 1. DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID/DNA. Electronic documents as functional equivalent of paperbased document. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness [RECW]). is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others. DNA testing is conclusive proof of non-paternity. 1989]). May E and F testify in behalf of D? A Yes. A ―Imperfection‖ refers to an inaccurate statement. (S6. Conviction of a crime may however be used to impeach the witness. Court of Appeals. P filed a complaint for collection of the P900. perjury. Those who are disqualified by reason of privileged communication. The court may conduct a competency examination if substantial doubts exists as to the child’s competency to testify. A defaulted party is not disqualified from testifying in court in behalf of a non-defaulted party. provided that he is capable of intelligently making known his perception to others. Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. Those who are mentally incapacitated and immature children. The exception is Article 821 of the Civil Code which provides that those who have been convicted of falsification of a document. Whenever a rule of evidence refers to a writing. REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 454 [6th rev. photo or video means. For instance if one part of the lease agreement states that the contract is subject to automatic renewal if not terminated while another part states that the contract will expire on a fixed date. text msgs. 154 SCRA 610). A text message which is saved becomes an electronic document. REGALADO. REE). The Supreme Court recently admitted text messages as evidence against a CA personnel who was accepting bribes from a litigant. (MIF) Otherwise the court cannot admit parol evidence to prove a mistake. photo or video evidence. Q Is conviction of a crime a ground for disqualification of a witness? A No. Refers to phone talks. the Supreme Court clarified that parol evidence of conditions precedent may be admitted only when the document mentions such condition or refers to an agreement containing such condition. any person who can perceive and make known his perception to others is qualified to be a witness. becomes audio. or incompleteness in the writing. record. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES Q Who is qualified to be a witness? A Subject to specifically provided disqualification. it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be no evidence of such terms other than the written agreement. at the time of their production for examination. (Id. chatroom sessions. 2. Exception: A child whose mental capacity is such as to render him incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully is disqualified to be a witness. becomes such. (S20 R130). Spouses under the marital disqualification rule. hence E and F were declared in default upon P’s motion. The chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of the body. D filed an answer within the reglementary period but E and F did not. Under the parol evidence rule. His insanity of course would affect the weight of his testimony. (Rule on DNA Evidence). (2 FLORENZ D. there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity.9% or higher.). (S21[a] R130). or false testimony (PFF) are disqualified from being witnesses to a will. Q D.000 against D. (S21[b] R130). (S23 R130).8 A Mistake refers to an error in the drafting or wording of the written agreement which changes the intended meaning thereof. such a term is deemed to include an electronic document. In Ortanez v. Q May an insane person qualify as a witness? A Yes. or the presence of inconsistent provisions in the agreement. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99. (Id. Ephemeral Electronic Communication. (S22 R130).9%. once an agreement has been reduced to writing. Florendo. (S11 R132). 3.. Q Explain the meaning of imperfection as an exception to the parol evidence rule. and F are solidarily indebted to P in the amount of P900. This is because the courts cannot as a rule step in and refuse to enforce a contract on the mere ground that a party made a mistake in entering into the contract. etc. A witness does not need to be qualified beforehand as there is a presumption that the witness is qualified to be such. The totality of an individual’s DNA is unique for the individual. Q Is a child qualified to be a witness? A As a rule yes. document. parol evidence is admissible to prove what the parties really intended regarding the lease period. (S24 R130). The mistake must be mutual to both parties or must have been occasioned by the fraudulent or inequitable conduct of one of the parties. Q May a vendee introduce parol evidence that a deed of absolute sale of land was subject to the suspensive condition that the vendor would first obtain a right of way to the land? A No. Q Who are disqualified by reason of mental incapacity? A Those whose mental condition.) Interest in the outcome of a case may affect the weight of the witness’ testimony but is not a ground for his disqualification. (S2(k) R2. 4. If recorded by audio. If recorded as an electronic document. streaming audio and video (PTC SS).
I would still argue that the marital disqualification rule is not applicable since an exception to the rule is in a criminal case for a crime committed by one spouse against the latter’s direct descendant. would your answer be different? (1995 Bar Q) ceases and a spouse may testify against the other. knowing fully well that Susan and Esperanza were there. During the trial. neglect. L-568.R. had the effect of directly impairing the conjugal relation. For unknown reasons. Narita was called to the witness stand to testify as a witness against Allan who objected thereto on the ground of marital disqualification. The prosecution called as its first witness Esperanza for the purpose of proving that Maximo had poured gasoline on the house of Susan knowing fully well that Susan and Esperanza were in the house and that Maximo ignited the gasoline resulting in a fire which destroyed parts of the house. As public prosecutor. Pasig City. one of the reasons given by law writers and courts for the rule is that where a want of domestic tranquility exists. Later he was charged with arson in an Information filed with the Regional Trial Court. filed 10 cases of rape against Allan purportedly committed in 1991. A Suppose Narita’s testi mony was offered while the decision nullifying her marriage to Allan was pending appeal. No. Was the trial court’s ruling proper? Explain. a child includes one who is 18 and above but is unable to fully take care of himself or protect himself from cruelty. (Alvarez v. In child abuse cases. G. One day before Clara was scheduled to testify for the prosecution. the defense counsel filed a motion to disqualify Esperanza from testifying against Maximo on the basis of the marital disqualification rule. No. the house of Leticia’s sister was burned. there is a danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of the other. Ramirez. Narita obtained a judicial decree of nullity of her marriage with Allan on the latter’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital obligations. my answer would not be the different. even if the marriage occurred after the fact sought to be testified to. 1. 2. Q Leticia was estranged from her husband Paul for more than a year due to his suspicion that she was having an affair with Manuel. Q Jose was charged with murder. how would you meet the objection? 2. May the defense counsel object to the presentation of Clara as a prosecution witness? A Yes. Narita told Allan in confidence that the 10year-old Liza whom she claimed to be her niece was actually her daughter by a certain Basilio. The trial court granted the motion and expunged from records the direct testimony of Esperanza. 14 October 2005). Q Allan and Narita were married on 1 August 1989. the reason for the marital disqualification rule . in effect waiving such objection. Francisco. and tranquility of the marital relation. she and Jose got married in a civil ceremony. A criminal case for a crime committed by one spouse against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. or tranquility in the marital relation.) (Note: It is submitted that the ruling in Alvarez is an exceptional one and should not be extended beyond the peculiar facts of the case.9 A One who at the time of giving testimony is below 18. Prior to the filing of the criminal case. 143439. Where there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility to be disturbed. (See Alvarez v. abuse. The records also show that Maximo and Esperanza were separated de facto for six months. a spouse may not testify for or against the other spouse without the latter’s consent. During the trial. The purpose of the marital disqualification rule is to preserve the harmony. She saw her husband in the vicinity during the incident. assisted by Narita. Esperanza and Maximo were separated de facto for six months. The act of Maximo in setting fire to the house of Susan. When the decree became final. Hence this case is excepted from the marital disqualification rule. In 1992. which in effect was an allegation that Maximo had committed an offense against his wife. No. an exception to the marital disqualification rule is in case of a criminal offense committed by one spouse against the other. their neighbor. G. [People v. A civil case by one against the other. A The trial court’s ruling was not proper. Here Paul’s act of burning the house of Leticia’s sister at a time when Leticia was there was for all intents and purposes a criminal offense by Paul against Leticia. Alvarez should not be taken as a carte blanche for holding that the marital disqualification rule does not apply where there is no harmony. Ramirez. or 2. I would argue that the marital disqualification rule is not applicable since the marriage between Allan and Narita was declared null and void. Liza. In fact. Leticia survived. 143439.R. After 2 months. exploitation or discrimination (CANED) because of a physical or mental disability or condition. a married man. the prosecutor called Leticia to the witness stand and offered her testimony to prove that her husband committed the arson. In the course of her testimony Esperanza testified that she saw Maximo pour gasoline on the house and then ignite the gasoline. peace. Can Leticia testify over the objection of her husband on the ground of marital privilege? (06 Bar Q15). Her direct examination was suspended after she broke down and cried. Under the Rules of Evidence. Afterwards. Marital Disqualification Rule Q What is the marital disqualification rule? A The rule which provides that during their marriage. The lack or absence of marital harmony or peace is not an exception provided for in S22 R130.R. to wit: (1) the defense counsel failed to timely raise the objection of marital disqualification. killing the latter. She was temporarily living with her sister in Pasig City. and (2) there was an allegation in the information that at the time Maximo set fire to Susan’s house he knew fully well that Esperanza was inside the house. (S4[a] RECW). The defense counsel did not object to the offer of Esperanza’s testimony. G. 16 July 1947]). It is enough that the marriage was already existing at the time of the offer of the testimony. peace. Q Susan is the private complainant in a criminal case for arson against accused Maximo. Q What are the exceptions to the marital disqualification rule? A A spouse may testify against the other in: 1. 14 October 2005. Esperanza. the husband of Susan’s sister. The lone evidence of the prosecution is the eyewitness testimony of Clara. No. A Yes Leticia can testify over the objection of her husband. (SAD). 1.
The Dead Man’s Rule bars only testimonial evidence but does not apply to documentary and object evidence. how would you rule on the objection? Explain. c) Yes.000 from C evidenced by a promissory note. or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. Ramirez. (2009): in killed Bob. the prosecutor calls W1 to testify as a witness against the Husband. May the husband object to the presentation of his wife as an adverse party witness? A Yes on the ground of the marital disqualification rule. 473 SCRA 72 . Hence W can testify on the ante-mortem facts. without the latter’s consent. It underscored the fact that the marital and domestic relations between her and the accused-husband have become so strained that there is no more harmony. (Lezama v. [Ref: 82 Bar Q15] Q Plaintiff filed a complaint against a husband and wife wherein he alleged that the two colluded to defraud him. Husband then contracts a second marriage with W2. During the trial. xxx. The act of Paul in setting fire to the house of his sister-in-law. Suggested answer of the U. or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted (PAB). I would sustain the objection. Rodriguez. C assigned the note to P. Husband objects on the ground of the marital disqualification rule. 23 SCRA 1166). Suggested Answer of Dean Willard Riano EVIDENCE (THE BAR LECTURE SERIES) 273-74. The Plaintiff called the wife as an adverse party witness. Q Husband is married to W1. peace or tranquility to be preserved. against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person. Law Center: Yes. Daquigan. The fact that Vito was estranged and separated from his wife is not an exception under the rule. because of the latter’s affair with Bob. W2 files a criminal complaint for bigamy against husband. (S23 R130). Q Vito was estranged and separated from his wife Connie. Should the objection be sustained? A Yes. 62 SCRA 270 ). upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person. I would appreciate this fact however not as an assault upon the harmony of the conjugal relation (a consideration extraneous to S22 R130) but rather as an offense committed by Paul against Leticia. Dead Man’s Rule Q State the rule on disqualification by reason of the death of the adverse party. S23 R130 disqualifies not only the parties but also the ―assignors of parties to a case. Defense counsel moved to disqualify the wife only after she had testified. Disqualification by reason of adverse party’s death or insanity Q State the rule on disqualification by reason of the insanity of the adverse party.‖ Here C is the assignor of the note to P. To allow the wife to testify would in effect mean that she would be testifying for or against her husband. Here W is neither a party nor an assignor of a party to the case. not against W1. a) May P testify on ante-mortem facts regarding the loan? b) May P present C as a witness to testify on antemortem facts regarding the loan? c) May P present W as a witness to testify on antemortem facts regarding the loan? d) May P present the promissory note as evidence in his money claim against the estate of D? A a) No. The prosecution calls as its witness Connie. During the trial. Q D borrowed P500. (Alvarez v. d) Yes. W witnessed the loan transaction. shot and . Hence it is not covered by the disqualification under the Dead Man’s Rule. Under the marital disqualification rule. against an insane person. the material fact being that they were still spouses under the law. Q Maximo filed an action against Pedro. (Dean Riano mentions that an answer that Leticia can testify based on Alvarez should also be considered). (S23 R130). Section 22 of Rule 130 bars her testimony without the consent of the husband during the marriage. cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person. Like Alvarez I would consider relevant the fact that Paul burned down the house when Leticia was there. The Dead Man’s Rule disqualifies only the party or the assignor of a party to the case against the estate of the deceased person. Hence C is barred from testifying on ante-mortem facts regarding the loan. is an act totally alien to the harmony and confidences of marital relation which the disqualification primarily seeks to protect. an Irishman. If you were the judge. Maximo presented witness Mariano who testified Leticia cannot testify. The defense counsel objected on the ground of the marital disqualification rule. Parties in a case upon a claim or demand against the estate of a deceased person cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of the decedent. A Parties or assignors of parties to a case. While Connie and Bob were having dinner in a restaurant. Ordoño v. (S23 R130). Vito was prosecuted for murder. for the recovery of a car which is part of the latter’s estate. The promissory note is a documentary evidence. Note: I agree with Dean Riano that the problem should be analyzed based on the tenor of S22 R130 alone and like him would discount the fact of separation and absence of harmony. also known as the Dead Man’s Rule or the Dead Man’s Statute. knowing fully well that his wife was there. A Parties or assignors of parties to a case. The criminal act complained of had the effect of directly and vitally impairing the conjugal relation. b) No. (Note: This is an answer based on the tenor of the Rules of Court). The separation of the spouses has not operated to terminate their marriage. D died. Vito appeared and before Connie’s shocked eyes. a spouse cannot testify against the other spouse. The exception to the marital disqualification rule does not apply here since the bigamy is a crime committed by the husband against W2. upon a claim against such insane person. P brought a money claim against the estate of D. the administrator of the estate of the deceased Juan.P. cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before such person became insane. A If I were the judge. Leticia can testify over the objection of her husband.10 It should be noted that in Alvarez the defense counsel failed to timely object to the presentation of the accused’s wife on the witness stand.
b) No. The fraud should however be established by evidence other than the survivor’s testimony. The administrator filed a counterclaim against P for money loaned by D during his lifetime to P. The marital disqualification rule is effective only during the existence of the marriage. REE). Here the loan officer is not a party to the case since a corporation has a personality distinct and separate from that of its employee or officer. D died and High Five brought a money claim against the estate of D. Under the Dead Man’s Rule. AS TO SCOPE. A If I were the judge. Priest-Penitent Privilege Public Interest Privilege. Q P brought a money claim against the estate of D for the unpaid price of a car sold to D. the marital communication privilege does not apply unless the aggrieved spouse shows that there was a collusion between his spouse and the third person.11 that he was present when Maximo and Juan agreed that the latter would pay a rental of P20. Where the privileged communication comes into the hands of a third person. journalists and their sources. Q Distinguish the marital disqualification rule from the marital communication privilege. Under the Rules of Evidence. . shall not be authorized over communications between attorneys and clients. while the marital communication rule subsists even after the termination of the marriage.000. The confidential character of a privileged communication is not lost solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document. a police or law enforcement official may apply for a written order from the Court of Appeals authorizing the surveillance or interception or recording of communications by terrorists or suspected terrorists. while the marital communication privilege may be invoked whether or not a spouse is a party to the action. P here would be testifying only by way of defense. 626). MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE A blanket disqualification of a spouse from testifying for or against the other Effective only during the existence of the marriage Can be invoked only if one of the spouses is a party to the action MARITAL COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGE The privilege applies only to confidential communications Effective during and after the marriage May be invoked whether or not a spouse is a party to the action Q If a confidential communication by one spouse to the other comes into the hands of a third person. The fact that the administrator had filed a counterclaim against P does not constitute a waiver by the estate of the Dead Man’s Rule. Pedro objected to the admission of Mariano’s testimony. Under Section 7 of the Human Security Act. physicians and patients. a) May P testify that D had condoned his loan to P? b) May P testify that D had said that he had paid only the downpayment but that the balance would be paid in a month’s time? A a) Yes. (Ong Chua v. Q D borrowed P1. AS TO A SPOUSE BEING A PARTY TO THE ACTION. May the loan officer of High Five testify on ante-mortem facts regarding the loan to D? A Yes. MARITAL COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGE (S24(a) R130) Q What is the marital communication privilege? A It is the privilege which provides that the husband or wife cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any confidential communication received 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 latter’s ascendants or descendants. the Dead Man’s statute disqualifies from testifying only the party or the assignor of a party to the case against the estate of the deceased person. Carlos. Q May the survivor testify against the estate of the deceased if the decedent was guilty of fraud? A Yes. Q Allan and Narita were married on 1 August 1989. Carr. may the third person testify thereon? A Yes. I would overrule Pedro’s objection. 47 Phil. The marital disqualification rule can be invoked only if one of the spouses is a party to the action. (S3 R3. interception. Q May a police or law enforcement official undertake surveillance. If you were the judge.000 for the use of Maximo’s car for one month after which Juan should immediately return the car to Maximo. The survivor may testify against the deceased’s estate where the deceased was guilty of fraud. the witness being offered must be a party to the case or an assignor of a party or a person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted.000 from High Five Lending Corporation. while the marital communication privilege applies only to confidential communications between the spouses. After 2 months. Narita told Allan in confidence that the 10year-old Liza whom she claimed to be her niece was actually her daughter by a certain Basilio. or recording of communications by terrorists or suspected terrorists? A Yes. (PBA J) Q Is the confidential character of a privileged communication lost if it is in the form of an electronic document? A No. and confidential business correspondence. a married man. (74 Bar Q6) A The marital disqualification rule is distinguished from the marital communication privilege as follows: AS TO PERIOD OF EFFECTIVITY. Here W is neither a party nor an assignor of a party to the case. would you sustain Pedro’s objection? Why? (01 Bar Q). 53 Phil. not by way of a claim against D’s estate. The marital disqualification rule is a total prohibition against any testimony by one spouse for or against the other. Such surveillance etc. Hence W can testify on the antemortem facts. 975). (People v. Hence the Dead Man’s Rule is inapplicable. PRIVILEGES Q What are the privileges under the Rules on Evidence? A The following are the privileges under the Rules on Evidence: (MAP PP) Marital Communication Privilege Attorney-Client Privilege Physician-Patient Privilege.
I cannot validly object on the ground of hearsay since Narita’s statement i s a declaration against interest and hence excepted from the hearsay rule. b) If you were the judge. The wife was asked regarding the contents of a letter written by her husband to him. the Prosecution asks W if he saw H leave the crime scene minutes after the killing of P. The husband objected to the question on the ground of the marital communication privilege. how would you rule on the objection? Explain. I would sustain the objection. 449 U. Nor may I object on the ground that Narita’s statement is covered by the marital communication privilege. 383 ). The privilege extends to the attorney’s secretary. v. The attorney-client privilege extends to communications made by a person to a lawyer ―with a view to professional employment. The Plaintiff argued that the husband had waived the privilege when he did not object to his wife taking the witness stand. he did not thereby waive the objection based on the marital communication privilege. Q Prosecution of H for the murder of P. objection to a question propounded in the course of the witness’s oral examination shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent. objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made. At the trial Allan was called by Basilio’s wife to testify that Narita confided to him (Allan) during their marriage that Liza was her love child by Basilio. No. Subsequently the prosecution asks W whether. As counsel for Basilio. Hence the objection was timely made. United States. The ground for the objection based on marital communication privilege became apparent only at the time the objectionable question was asked of the wife. and soon after. stenographer. Liza. Q Is there an exception to the attorney-client privilege? A Yes. xxx 2. assisted by Narita. Here the defense did not immediately object at the time W’s testimony was offered in evidence although the ground for the objection (that W was H’s wife) was already apparent at that point. During the trial. However the two could not reach agreement as to the amount of the retainer so Pedro walked away without hiring Attorney Juan. Hence the defense waived the ground for the objection. .12 In 1992. Q Pedro went to the office of Attorney Juan.S. (S36 R132). professional employment. the party to the marriage. or with a view to. Finally. xxx 2. The defense objects on the ground of the marital communication privilege. The purpose of the privilege is to encourage clients to make full disclosure to their attorneys. ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Q What is the attorney-client privilege? A The privilege which provides that an attorney cannot. Code of Professional Responsibility). acting for a legal clinic. who cannot be examined without the consent of the client and their employer. any communication made to the lawyer with a view to engaging the lawyer is privileged. A a) If I were the judge. After preliminary questions. as counsel for Basilio I cannot validly object on the ground of the marital disqualification rule since the marriage had already been terminated by Narita’s death. the legal wife of Basilio sued for legal separation on sexual infidelity in view of Basilio’s love affair with Narita. Here the ground for the objection. (S36 R132). the paramour of H’s wife W. (1995 Bar Q ed) A 1. The privilege recognizes that sound legal advice or advocacy serves public ends and that such advice or advocacy depends upon the lawyer’s being fully informed by the client. Is the communication by Pedro to Attorney Juan that he had committed murder privileged? A Yes. be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or his advice given thereon in the course of. Should the objection be sustained? A Yes. Suppose the decision nullifying the marriage was appealed and Narita died during the pendency of the appeal. (Upjohn Co. filed 10 cases of rape against Allan purportedly committed in 1991. The one who may invoke the privilege is Allan. I would overrule the objection. Under the Rules of Evidence. xxx 3. or employees. While the husband waived the marital disqualification rule by not raising the objection when the wife’s testimony was offered in evidence at the time she took the witness stand. The rules safeguarding privileged communication between attorney and client shall apply to similar communications made to or received by the law student. xxx 3. Narita was called to the witness stand to testify as a witness against Allan who objected thereto on the ground of marital disqualification. Pedro told the latter that he had committed murder and wanted to engage Attorney Juan as defense counsel. she had admitted to H that P was her lover. his associates. days before the kiling while resting in their bedroom.01[c]. When the decree became final.‖ Hence even if the professional employment of the lawyer did not push through. The defense objects on the ground of the marital disqualification rule. without the client’s consent. can you validly object to the presentation of Allan as witness for the plaintiff? Explain. (Section 3 Rule 138-A (Law Student Practice Rule). or clerk. Q What is the purpose of the attorney-client privilege? A The purpose of the privilege is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice. a) If you were the judge. The husband did not object to the wife taking the witness stand against her. Q Suit by Plaintiff against husband. 1. The prosecution calls W to the witness stand and offers her testimony in order to prove the circumstances surrounding P’s killing. that the communication was made in confidence during the marriage. b) If I were the judge. A lawyer may reveal secrets when necessary to collect fees or to defend himself. Narita obtained a judicial decree of nullity of her marriage with Allan on the latter’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital obligations. (Rule 21. became reasonably apparent only at the time the question was propounded. Under the Rules of Evidence. and not Basilio. how would you rule on the objection? Explain.
Is John Doe’s communication to his lawyer about his crimes privileged? A Yes. they had acted as nomineestockholders in these corporations. hence it is but proper that the client be identified before the privilege may be invoked. Included as defendants were ACCRA lawyers Teodoro Regala. Subsequently. Q Paredes was haled before the Tanodbayan for preliminary investigation of a graft charge under Section 3(a) of R. for recovery of ill-gotten wealth. (People v. Moreover disclosure of the client’s identity would provide the necessary link for the prosecution to build its case where none had existed before. The lawyer and any law-abiding citizen for that matter has a duty to prevent crimes when he is in a position to do so. Sansaet argued that the filing of the anti-graft case would amount to double jeopardy. Sansaet.. Is this information privileged? A No. then there would be no attorney-client privilege. Sansaet executed an affidavit in which he stated that Paredes contrived to make it appear that the MCTC had dismissed the case against him after arraignment. The ACCRA lawyers should be excluded from the complaint for it is clear that the only purpose for their inclusion was to compel them to disclose their clients. Q John Doe walks into a lawyer’s office with a view to engaging the lawyer as his defense counsel. what if John Doe tells the lawyer that he intends to kill 32 more people as he has a goal of one murder victim for each square on the chessboard. Sandiganbayan. Q The Republic. Here for the ACCRA lawyers to identify their clients would implicate them in the very activity for which legal advice had been sought. . and others. 275 SCRA 505 ). The general rule is however subject to the following exceptions: 1. Where the client’s identity is relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which the client sought legal assistance. hence it is but proper that the client be identified before the privilege may be invoked. No. there can be no attorney-client privilege. i. The Tanodbayan issued a resolution recommending the criminal prosecution of Paredes. by revealing the client’s name. Where the government’s lawyers have no case against an attorney’s client unless. and Sansaet on the ground that they conspired in submitting falsified certificate of arraignment and dismissal order as attachments to the motion for reconsideration of the Tanodbayan resolution. the alleged accumulation of illgotten wealth in the sequestered corporations. The SB stated that Sansaet’s testimony would relate to a past crime and hence barred by the privilege. the falsification of public documents had already been done. In order to determine whether a communication by a client to an attorney relates to a past or future crime. the determinative point of time is when the communication was made. The ACCRA lawyers moved before the Sandiganbayan that they be excluded from the complaint but the SB denied their motion on the ground that the attorney-client privilege does not apply to the client’s identity. The general rule is that the client’s identity is not privileged because without a client. Information regarding crimes intended to be committed or future crimes is not privileged. 4. Moreover the privilege cannot be used as a shield to protect and abet wrong-doing.A. not when the witness will testify.e. The ACCRA lawyers admitted that they had assisted in the organization and formation of the corporations involved in the sequestration proceedings and that in keeping with office practice.). The reason is obvious. Atty. as counsel of Paredes. by revealing the client’s name. The attorney-client privilege covers only communications or information regarding past crimes. 262 SCRA 124 Q Is the client’s identity covered by the attorney -client privilege? A Yes. the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime. The general rule is that the client’s identity is not privileged because without a client. there can be no attorney-client privilege. the client’s identity is confidential since revelation would result in disclosure of the entire transaction. 5. Where a strong probability exists that revealing the client’s name would implicate hi m in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice. the falsification was still to be committed. Paredes. 3. Where disclosure would expose the client to civil liability. (Id. Was the identit y of the ACCRA lawyer’s clients privileged? A Yes. through the PCGG. a criminal case for falsification of public documents was filed in the Sandiganbayan against Honrada (the clerk of court of the MCTC). but the lawyers refused to do so. Hence the communication made to Sansaet of the plan to submit falsified documents was in relation to a future crime and outside the pale of the attorney-client privilege. (Regala v. The general rule is however subject to exceptions. such as (1) where a strong probability exists that revelation of the client’s identity would implicate him in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice. The attorney-client privilege is allencompassing and covers communication regarding past crimes. Although at the time Sansaet would testify. 2. the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime. brought a suit against principal defendant Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. Sandiganbayan. Where the nature of the attorney-client relationship has been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be confidential. 3019. Edgardo Angara. Dropped by the PCGG as defendant was Raul Roco upon his promise that he would disclose his client. He confesses that he is a serial killer and has killed 32 people. filed a motion for reconsideration of the Tanodbayan resolution attaching thereto a certificate of arraignment and dismissal order by the MCTC of a case involving the same facts as those in the preliminary investigation. ). and (2) where t he government’s lawyers have no case against an attorney’s client unless. Atty. The prosecution moved to discharge Sansaet as a state witness but this was denied by the SB on the ground that Sansaet’s testimony would be blocked by an invocation of the attorney-client privilege. Q In the previous problem. Was the reasoning of the Sandiganbayan correct? A No.13 Q Is the identity of the client covered by the attorneyclient privilege? A The general rule is that the identity of the client is not covered by the privilege because if there is no client. PCGG told the ACCRA lawyers that they would be dropped from the complaint if they disclosed their clients. at the time his services were engaged and the communication made to him.
‖ if the employee making the communication. Louisville & Nashville R. v. heretofore inviolate. the same would be covered by the work-product rule. of whatever rank he may be. he is (or personifies) the corporation when he makes his disclosure to the attorney and the privilege would apply. Upjohn’s general counsel undertook an internal investigation of the questionable payments and sent questionnaires to the foreign managers involved. conclusions. that would not hold true in respect of the second tier which are absolutely protected from disclosure. learned that payments were made by a foreign subsidiary to foreign government officials in order to secure business. 329 U. paralegal. Here the notes and memorandums reveal the general counsel’s mental processes in evaluating the interview responses and as such tend to fall in the second tier. (Upjohn Co. Kirkpatrick. The first tier consists of trial preparation materials which do not constitute the mental impressions. much of what is now put down in writing would remain unwritten. an American multinational pharmaceutical corporation. The Court of Appeals held that under the ―control group test‖ the privilege did not apply to the extent that the communications were made by officers and agents not responsible for directing Upjohn’s actions in response to legal advice for the reason that they do not personify the corporation-client. the officers or agents of the corporation responsible for directing the corporation’s actions in response to the legal advice? A No. an American multinational pharmaceutical corporation. An attorney’s thoughts. 318 [1915). unfairness and sharp practices would inevitably develop in the giving of legal advice and in the preparation of cases for trial. memorandums. Supreme Court rejected the control test applied by the Court of Appeals. opinions. The responses were sent directly to the general counsel. 236 U. Where they go beyond the mere recordation of the responses. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) began an investigation to determine the tax consequences of the payments. that is. and legal theories of the lawyer. should the privilege be held to apply only to the control group. (United States v. The control group test overlooks the fact that the attorney-client privilege exists to protect not only the giving of professional advice to those who can act on it but also the giving of information to the lawyer to enable him to give sound and informed advice.S. the questionnaires. The U. The problem is in determining who the client exactly is since a corporation is an artificial creature and an inanimate entity. The IRS issued a summons to Upjohn demanding production of the files relative to its investigation. The second consists of those which do. the same are protected under the attorney-client privilege. and cannot. such as records. investigator. in the corporate context it will frequently be employees beyond the control group who will possess the information needed by the corporation’s lawyers. The effect on the legal profession would be demoralizing. Upjohn voluntarily submitted a report to the SEC disclosing the payments. Upjohn voluntarily submitted a report to the SEC disclosing the payments.2d 742 [CA]). Are the notes and memorandums protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product rule? A Insofar as the notes and memorandums of the interviews record responses to the questionnaires. The general counsel also made notes and memorandums regarding the responses to the interview questions. 383). While a showing of ―substantial need‖ and ―undue hardship‖ would override the protection accorded under the first tier. 495 ). is in a position to control or even to take a substantial part in a decision about any action which the corporation may take upon the advice of the attorney. In the case where the client is a corporation. etc. (General Electric Co. conclusions. If the lawyer’s trial preparation materials could be obtained by discovery. and tangible things. Q Upjohn Company. and the general counsel’s notes and memorandums of the interviews. The responses were sent directly to the general counsel. the responses thereto. would not be his own. Upjohn declined to produce the notes and memorandums of the interviews on the ground that these were protected by the attorney-client privilege and these were attorney work-product prepared in anticipation of litigation. (Hickman v.. then.g. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) began an investigation to determine the tax consequences of the payments. 312 F.S. Upjohn’s general counsel undertook an internal investigation of the questionable payments and sent questionnaires to the foreign managers involved. Under the ―control group test. obtain their substantial equivalent by other means. Middle-level and indeed lower-level employees can by actions within the scope of their employment embroil the corporation in serious legal difficulties. The general counsel also made notes and memorandums regarding the responses to the interview questions. notes. (See Rule 26(b)(3). Supreme Court remanded the case to the . Q What is the reason for the attorney work-product rule? A The rule protects the attorney’s right to work with a certain degree of privacy in giving legal advice and in preparing for trial. It should be noted that the work-product rule has two tiers. the questionnaires. the responses thereto. 449 U. The Court of Appeals held that the notes and memorandums constituted attorney work-product but these may be obtained by discovery since the government showed that it had a substantial need for the materials and it could not otherwise obtain the same without undue hardship. While in the case of the individual client the provider of information and the person who acts on the lawyer’s advice are one and the same. v.S.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). opinions.) are privileged from discovery unless the other party shows that it has a substantial need for the materials to prepare its case. Q Upjohn Company. the court must protect against disclosure of the mental impressions. Co.14 Q Does the attorney-client privilege apply if the client is a corporation? A Yes. Upjohn declined to produce the questionnaires and the responses thereto on the ground that they were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. learned that payments were made by a foreign subsidiary to foreign government officials in order to secure business. Inefficiency. In this case the U. Taylor. without undue hardship. United States. and legal theories of the lawyer or his representative. Trial preparation materials include written documents. If discovery will be allowed. Q What is the attorney work-product rule? A The rule that the trial preparation materials of a lawyer or his representative (e. and the general counsel’s notes and memorandums of the interviews.S. and it is only natural that these employees would have the relevant information needed by corporate counsel if he is adequately to advise the client with respect to such actual or potential difficulties. The IRS issued a summons to Upjohn demanding production of the files relative to its investigation. And the interests of the clients and the cause of justice would be poorly served. in effect..
Hence the same is hearsay and inadmissible in evidence. United States. criminal or administrative. without the consent of the client/patient. excluding and disregarding any personal knowledge of the patient acquired through the physician-patient relationship. and finally she testified that she saw and treated Mrs. Mediko. The communication must be made with intent to obtain penance and not merely for religious and spiritual counseling. or other staff (SCS) of the licensed psychologist or psychometrician. I would have raised the objection that the psychiatric report was hearsay. .A. (Lim v. be examined on any communication or information disclosed and/or acquired in the course (cidac) of giving psychological services to such client. The protection accorded herein shall extend to all pertinent records and shall be available to the secretary. the result of the examination. X was examined by a psychiatrist and diagnosed to be suffering from schizophrenia. In a subsequent marriage nullity suit. Mediko’s testimony is admissible. since there is no patient or treatment involved. (S30 R. X filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage to Mrs. the autopsy having been conducted on a dead person. No. A A person authorized to practice medicine. 214 SCRA 273 ). clerk. 10029). (Id. The Supreme Court has held that a written statement offered to prove the truth of its contents is hearsay if the one who wrote or executed the statement was not presented in court. 30 of R. It would be different if what was treated was for instance a sexually-transmitted disease or a mental aberration. A a) If I were the judge. Here the psychiatrist who prepared the report was not presented in court. surgery. Mediko. Q A priest was giving spiritual counseling to a married couple with problems. the physician-patient privilege applies only to civil cases. An attending physician may testify as an expert witness provided his opinion is based strictly upon the hypothetical facts stated. (Upjohn Co. (86 Bar Q10c). Under the Rules of Evidence. which information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity. 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. PSYCHOLOGIST/PSYCHOMETRICIAN-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (S30 RA 10029) Q Discuss the psychologist/psychometrician-client privilege. No. Q Are autopsies conducted by medico-legal officers or coroners covered by the privilege? A No. or obstetrics cannot in a civil case. the psychiatrist was called as an expert witness. a) Rina’s lawyer objects on the ground that such testimony would violate the physician-patient privilege. A A minister or priest cannot. and the medicines prescribed. she was asked to render an opinion as to what illness stelazine is prescribed for. 449 U. Peter was called to the stand by his lawyer to testify on the contents of the psychiatric report. Q Wife Tinakwil filed charges of concubinage against her husband Panibugho and his paramour Kalunya. May the court allow or give weight to the following evidence presented by the prosecution over the vigorous objections of the defense? Explain. Information regarding the plaintiff’s broken leg would not blacken his reputation. The communication to the priest was made by the wife not with intent to obtain penance. Did the psychiatrist’s testimony violate the physician-patient privilege? A No. Later Mr.). the court may allow the testimony of Dr. b) If you were Rina’s lawyer.A. Q Mrs. civil. b) If I were Rina’s lawyer. PRIEST-CONFESSANT PRIVILEGE Q Discuss the priest-confessant privilege. She was asked questions to qualify her as a witness. would you have raised a different objection? Explain. 383 ). 233 SCRA 146). The requirement in the physician-patient privilege that the information ―would blacken the patient’s reputation‖ is not found in Sec. PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE Q Discuss the physician-patient privilege. If you were the judge. Hence it is not covered by the priest-confessant privilege.15 Court of Appeals to determine in what tier the communications fall within. 10029). Note that the privilege applies in any proceeding. the obstetrician who conducted a dilation and curettage (D & C) operation on Kalunya for vaginal bleeding and to whom confidential information essential for treatment was given by Kalunya regarding her affair with Panibugho. Any evidence obtained in violation of this provision shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (Krohn v CA. without the patient’s consent. Hence Dr. xxx (c) Testimony of Dr. The Supreme Court has held that the physicianpatient privilege bars only the physician not other persons from testifying on the contents of the psychiatric report. she was asked to render an opinion on hypothetical facts respecting the behavior of a fictitious person. Q A petition for declaration of nullity of marriage was filed by Peter against his wife Rina on the ground of psychological incapacity. be examined as to any confession made to or advice given by him in his professional character in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs. and which would blacken the patient’s reputation. Peter was able to obtain a copy of a confidential psychiatric report executed by Rina’s psychiatrist wherein it is stated that Rina was schizophrenic and delusional. During the trial. Q In a torts case filed by plaintiff against the defendant. over the plaintiff’s objection. v. X. may the priest testify over the wife’s objection about her affair? A Yes. I would overrule the objection. without the confessant’s consent. Here what is involved is a criminal prosecution for concubinage. A Yes. be called by the defense to testify regarding the extent of the plaintiff’s broken leg which the doctor treated? A Yes. Court of Appeals. A A psychologist or psychometrician cannot. the wife confessed that she was having an affair. During the course of the counseling. X but without revealing her illness. how would you rule on the objection? Explain. may the plaintiff’s doctor.S.
Disclosure may be compelled if the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by State security. Tranca. In other words a person can be compelled to produce evidence. G. Gallardo.R. A A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards. (R. This is clear from the tenor of the Constitutional provision which provides that ―[n]o person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. (Art. 133025. 35 SCRA 455). or reporter.R. G. Is the MB’s opposition meritorious? A No. 180643. (Neri v. G. 180643. a member of President Arroyo’s cabinet. v. (S24(e) R130).‖ (Italics supplied). Hence it cannot be invoked to bar documentary or object evidence. Privilege against self-incrimination Q What is the privilege against self-incrimination? A It is a constitutional privilege which provides that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 28 SCRA 345) or where a person’s property may be forfeited pursuant to proceedings under the Anti-Graft Law (Cabal v. Nixon. Neri’s invocation of executive privilege (more specifically the presidential communications privilege) stating that disclosure might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with China. May Mr. when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. Q The Senate sought to question Mr. Q Is the privilege subject to an exception? A Yes.S. 6 SCRA 1064). (Banco Filipino v. G. No. as to communications made to him in official confidence. Q What is the nature of the evidence which is excluded by the privilege? A The privilege excludes evidence which is testimonial in nature. Q May a person resist a subpoena for the production of private books and papers to be used against him on the ground that it would violate the privilege against selfincrimination? . whether she directed him to prioritize it. No. Yatar. Neri invoked executive privilege stating that his conversations with the President dealt with delicate and sensitive national security and diplomatic matters relating to the impact of the scandal on high government officials and the possible loss of confidence by foreign investors and lenders.). Board of Medical Examiners. Newsman’s or Editorial Privilege Q What is the newsman’s or the editorial privilege? A It is a privilege which provides that the publisher. or to submit to a physical examination (People v. Q May a court compel a person to provide blood and other bodily samples for purposes of DNA or forensic testing over the person’s objection that it will violate his right against self-incrimination? A Yes. Under Section 51 of the Human Security Act.A. on whether President Arroyo followed up the National Broadband Network project (financed by Chinese loans). Neri’s invocation of executive privilege be upheld? A Yes. The privilege may be invoked not only by the President but also by his close advisors under the ―operational proximity‖ test. any disclosure of the tapes and transcripts would pose no danger or peril to the economy. magazine. The SC distinguished this from U. where there was an on-going criminal investigation into the Watergate break-in. 27 February 2000). columnist. Q In what proceedings may the privilege be invoked? A The privilege may be invoked not only in criminal cases. Hence it is not applicable to the case where a person is directed to produce blood and other bodily samples. 25 March 2008) Q Is the name and identity of an informant on a suspect in the crime of terrorism confidential? A Yes. (People v. Constitution). informants would be reluctant to communicate information for fear of reprisal or harassment. editor. The MB opposed said motion on the ground that these tapes and transcripts are privileged pursuant to the public interest privilege under the Rules of Evidence. but in civil. 25 March 2008). the name and identity of an informant on a suspect in the crime of terrorism shall be considered confidential and shall not be unnecessarily revealed until after the proceedings against the suspect shall have been terminated. Romulo Neri. No. or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher. Q What is the purpose of the privilege? A The privilege serves to advance the public’s right to information by encouraging informants to disclose information to newsmen. 19 May 2004). Under Section 24(e) of Rule 130. editor. (Id. Mr. Without the privilege. Section 17. 142 SCRA 523 ).16 PUBLIC INTEREST PRIVILEGE Q Discuss the public interest privilege.R. the public interest privilege would arise if the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. (Neri v. administrative. The privilege against self-incrimination applies only to testimonial compulsion. except that he may not be compelled to testify against himself.R. and legislative proceedings wherein the person may be exposed to a liability penal in nature. The MB has not established that public interest would suffer by the disclosure. or to undergo ultra-violet examination to detect fluorescent powder dusted on the buy-bust money (People v. for use against him. Monetary Board. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations. not privileged. or duly accredited reporter of a newspaper. III. 150224. 93). Q Banco Filipino filed a motion under Rule 27 of the Rules of Court for the production of the tapes and the transcripts of the Monetary Board deliberations on the closure of Banco Filipino. Hence the privilege may be invoked in an administrative proceeding where a doctor’s license may be cancelled (Pascual v. Executive Privilege Q What is executive privilege? A It is the privilege which protects the confidentiality of conversations that take place in the President’s performance of his official duties. Kapunan. The Supreme Court upheld Mr. No. No. Considering that BF had already been closed by the Central Bank. and whether she directed him to approve it. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations.
xxx (b) Testimony of Matanda. May the court allow or give weight to the following evidence presented by the prosecution over the vigorous objections of the defense? Explain. which attaches to the documents or papers. It is submitted that S25 R130 has superseded Article 215 of the FC. 425 U. Hence an accused cannot be compelled to testify. Pennswell objected. Q When may a person invoke the privilege? A In the case of an accused. (S25 R130). who is angry at her son for his immoral behavior. Pennswell sued APC for unpaid purchases. its business competitors could easily imitate and market the same types of products. such objects or things must not be privileged. 13 December 2007). she cannot be barred from testifying if she wants to.‖ Trade secrets are privileged matter whose disclosure is proscribed and penalized under the Securities Regulation Code and under the Revised Penal Code. Note that the privilege is invoked not by the person against whom a witness will testify but by the witness himself. United States. Q Distinguish the filial privilege under S25 R130 from the filial privilege under Article 215 of the Family Code. During trial. A A person may not be compelled to testify against his ascendants or descendants. Q Wife Tinakwil filed charges of concubinage against her husband Panibugho and his paramour Kalunya. APC wanted to prove fraud by showing the court the chemical composition of Pennswell’s lubricants. While Matanda cannot be compelled to testify against her son. Q The prosecution presents as witness the accused’s son. While under Rule 27. but known only to certain individuals using it in compounding some article of trade having a commercial value. In other words. 116 U. either by the prosecution or during his turn to present evidence. Pennswell Inc. The privilege against self-incrimination applies only to testimonial compulsion. under this privilege a witness may not be compelled to tesfify against another. The chemical ingredients and composition of the aviation lubricants of Pennswell clearly fall within the definition of trade secrets and are thus privileged. It argued that its products are specialized lubricants. Panibugho’s mother. Filial privilege Q Discuss the filial privilege. since S25 R130 (effective 1 July 1989) was enacted latter than Article 215 of the Family Code (effective 3 August 1988). S25 R130 Article 215 Family Code A person may not be A descendant may not be compelled to testify against compelled to testify against his ascendants or his parents and descendants. Writing is more than moving the body. The privilege is a protection against compelled self-incrimination not against the disclosure of private information. The privilege belongs to the witness himself not to the party in a case.S. even if the child’s testimony is indispensable? A No. may the prosecution compel their common child to testify against the husband. EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS Q What is an admission by a party-opponent? . G. Applies to civil and criminal Applies to criminal cases cases. (Air Philippines Corp. A trade secret is ―a secret formula or process not patented.. 616 (1886) which held that compulsory production of private books and papers of the owner violates the Fifth Amendment. 172835. May the accused object to the presentation of the son on the basis of the filial privilege? A No. Q May a person be compelled to write on paper in order to produce a handwriting sample for use in evidence against him? A No. United States. a company that manufactures and sells aviation lubricants. While both the Supreme Court and Congress have the power to pass rules on testimonial or evidentiary privileges. May Pennswell be compelled under Rule 27 to disclose the chemical ingredients and composition of its lubricants? A No. v. not to the party in a case. he may invoke the privilege at the outset and refuse to take the witness stand altogether. A person’s right to privacy in his private documents and papers is not protected unless there is a showing of an evidentiary privilege.S. Here the chemical composition and ingredients of the lubricants are trade secrets. claiming that the list constitutes trade secrets which it could not be forced to divulge. but that the second batch of lubricants delivered turned out to be of the same type as the first batch. Q If the husband physically assaulted the wife. it is not a purely mechanical act but requires the application of the intelligence and attention. it is S25 R130 which will prevail on the basis of the canon that a latter law prevails over an earlier law. (Fisher v. it filed a motion under Rule 27 to compel Pennswell to give a detailed list of the chemical ingredients and composition of their lubricants. Beltran went so far as to state that a person may not be compelled to produce previously handwritten documents to be used in evidence against him but this part of the ruling is highly arguable. No. the filial privilege belongs to the witness. 50 Phil. This is an exception to the general rule that a witness may be compelled to testify against another.R. Exception: When the testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by one parent against the other. and if their components were revealed. (86 Bar Q10b). A witness however may not refuse to take the witness stand and he can invoke the privilege only when an incriminatory question is asked of him. Trade & Industrial Secrets Privilege Q Air Philippines Corporation (APC) purchased chemical lubricants from Pennswell. Under the Rules of Evidence. grandparents. Fisher expressly overturned Boyd v. In effect a person is compelled to make evidence against himself and this violates his right against self-incrimination.17 A No. 570 ). A The court may allow the testimony of Matanda. Samson. APC alleged that Pennswell had undertaken to deliver lubricants of the type belonging to a new line. 391 ). The child may opt not to testify against his father but the option is with him not the father. (Beltran v. In its answer. a party may move for an order requiring the production or inspection of objects or tangible things. such as the attorney-client privilege or the prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures. No exception. only.
Made by a non-party. BASIC EVIDENCE 187 [2004 ed.]). 268 SCRA 35). (People v. 3 April 2001). (S4 R129) compromise in criminal cases involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by law to be compromised. A 1. Q Distinguish an extrajudicial admission from a judicial admission. Need not be against the Must be against the admitter’s interest.. Q What is the difference between a confession and an admission? A A confession is one wherein a person acknowledges the guilt of a crime. declaration. which can be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt under S27 R130. It is just a broader form of an admission. declaration. (Estrada v. No requirement that the The declarant must be dead admitter is dead or unable or unable to testify. Insular Lumber. Q D’s truck smashed into P’s car and destroyed it. Before the case could be tried. Upon meeting his sister-in-law. exception to the hearsay rule. Q The wife of the accused offered P15. G. declaration. (Q11 89Bar) Q Distinguish a party admission from a declaration against interest. 2. such as the fair estimate of the value of the property subject of the settlement proposal. or omission must be ―harmful‖ or against the party’s interest. (People v. or omission of a party as to a relevant fact and which may be given in evidence against him. 146710-15. In civil cases. Changing one’s appearance or name. (ANTONIO R. Q What is the reason for the rule that a party’s admission may be given in evidence against him? A The admissibility of a party admission does not rest upon the fact that it is against the interest of the party but upon the adversary theory of litigation. May P introduce the offer to prove the value of the car? A Yes. Q Is the accused’s offer to marry the rape victim an implied admission of guilt? A Yes. It may be argued that the offer of compromise should not be so received since it it res inter alios acta. a declaration or statement. it may be offered to prove something else. or omission is being offered against the party who made it would already constitute this as a party admission. It is also called a party admission or admission by party-opponent. 46 Phil. The use of the word ―admission‖ is somewhat misleading. The accused’s act of pleading for his sister -inlaw’s forgivness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise. the declarant. Q May an offer of compromise be considered as an admission of liability by the offeror? A It depends. a party admission must be distinguished from a declaration against interest which requires that the same is against the declarant’s interest. . 4. May be contradicted by the admitter.” (ANTONIO R. However in criminal cases. since it is an attempt to compromise.R. May not be contradicted by the admitter except by showing that the admission was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. already form part of the records. May this be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt? A Yes. persons. or an omission. No. A party can hardly object that he had no opportunity to cross-examine himself or that he is unworthy of credence save when speaking under the sanction of an oath. D offered to compromise by paying P450. an offer of compromise is not an admission of liability and it not admissible in evidence against the offeror. The mere fact that the act. Q Give examples of acts as admissions. When the heirs asked how much he was willing to pay. (S27 R130).18 A It is an act. This is not altogether correct. This is not the case however.000 which the heirs accepted. Pedro agreed to a settlement. Pedro offered P30. declaration. Q Pedro was charged with homicide for having hacked Ramon to death. Yparriguiere. A EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION JUDICIAL ADMISSION Made out of court. Is the agreement to settle as well as the offer to pay P30. are they admissible in evidence? A No since they would be self-serving and hearsay. the heirs of Ramon sought out Pedro and discussed with him the possibility of settling the case. BAUTISTA. Voluntary participation in the police reenactment of a crime. No. or omission is being offered against a party would make them “against interest. an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.000 to the rape victim’s mother to dissuade her from filing a case. 3. In this aspect. P sued D for damages. Desierto. 13 February 2009). Flight from the scene of a crime.e. Q The accused was the suspect in the murder of his wife. Made in court. the accused pleaded for her forgiveness. Must be offered in evidence Need not be offered in in order to be considered by evidence since they 1 the court. (Varadero de Manila v.1 Q If the act. 123542. Español. 176). Q What are the forms which an admission may take? A An admission may be in the form of an act. although it may be said that the fact that the act. May this offer be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt? A Yes. or omission is being offered in favor of a party. BAUTISTA. i.000 to P.R. to testify. Excepted from this rule are offers of Many authors state that party admissions must be against the party’s interest. Transfer of property. (FRE 801[d]). declaration. A PARTY ADMISSION DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST Made by a party. Not hearsay and thus Hearsay but admissible as an admissible. (People v. BASIC EVIDENCE 187). Admissible only against the Admissible against third admitter. implying that the act. While the offer is not admissible to prove D’s admission of liability. 26 June 2001).000 by Pedro admissible in evidence against him as an implied admission of guilt? Explain. Bulos. declarant’s interest. G.
(Id. not of others. may be given in evidence against such party. Evidence of post-accident repairs or subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to prove negligence or wrong-doing since there is a public policy concern of encouraging safety precautions or remedial measures.. Q Pogi was brought to the police station for investigation on the alleged rape of Ganda. The defense objects on the ground that the bystander’s statement is hearsay. Failure to respond to a demand letter is not an implied admission of liability. ―He’s the one who raped me. 149576. 18 June 1990).R. (Taer v. or omission of another. or other person jointly interested with the party. Q Prosecution of X for carnapping. by his words or conduct. He can no more impose a duty to answer a charge than he can impose a duty to pay by sending goods. (S30 R130). 3rd reprint 1988]). (People v. (Id. (S31 R130).). Agent. (S27 R130). Q Panchito sued Dolphy for damages for injuries that Panchito incurred when a badly rotted limb fell from a curbside tree in front of Dolphy’s home and hit Panchito. (RICHARD LEMPERT & STEPHEN SALTZBURG. While in the police station. The rule’s meaning has also been extended to cover the similar acts rule in S34 R130. G. The evidence is barred on grounds of social policy. A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a guilty plea to a lesser offense. Is the testimony admissible to show an implied admission of negligence on the part of Dolphy? A No. Q What is the rule on admission by silence? A Any act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing: (AP) (1) when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true. is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. declaration. A Accused’s silence when his wife’s nephew asked him why he killed his wife is an admission by silence under S32 R130. A MODERN APPROACH TO EVIDENCE 365-66 [1982. By barring adverse evidentiary use. (CHRISTOPHER MUELLER & LAIRD KIRKPATRICK. or joint interest is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. Wallem Phils. (Id. Dolphy had cut the tree down with a chainsaw. joint debtor. First Ins. 13 February 2009). (Republic v. These are the admissions by: 1.) 3. 4. (Phil. A The act or declaration of a joint owner. B offered to pay for C’s medical and hospitalization expenses which C declined. the rule encourages citizens to act on their humane impulses. Q Discuss the rule on admission by joint owner. (SEE). 2. 26 March 2009). Here the b ystander’s declaration was offered to show that the accused did not reply thereto and thus to show an admission by silence. and (2) when proper and possible for him to do so. 85204. Q Discuss the rule on admission by co-partner or agent. Privies. joint debtor. The rule on res inter alios acta is found in S28 R130 which provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act. Joint owner. hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.‖ Pogi remained silent. EVIDENCE: PRACTICE UNDER THE RULES 352 [2nd ed. 8 August 2006). although such usage is not altogether precise since the similar acts rule involves the acts of a party himself. At trial. Kenrick Dev’t Corp. A person does not make a letter evidence by sending it to a party against whom he wishes to prove the facts stated therein. This provision is also known as the ―good Samaritan‖ rule. joint debt. Q Is the failure to respond to a demand letter an implied admission of liability? A No. (S32 R130).). or omission of a third party. May such offer to pay be admitted in evidence against B as proof of criminal liability for the injury? A No. No. May Pogi’s silence be offered in evidence as an implied admission of guilt? A No. or other person jointly interested with the party may be given in evidence against such party after the joint ownership. 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. as a result of which C was hospitalized. Evidence of the statement would then be admissible against the party. as in plea bargaining. declaration. Under S27 R130 an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. Q What is or are the exceptions to the res inter alios acta rule? A The exceptions are the so-called vicarious admissions under Sections 29 to 31 of Rule 130. or other person jointly interested with the party. v. 5. . may be given in evidence against him. Ganda pointed to Pogi and said. Co-conspirator. Panchito offered testimony that. An offer to pay or the payment of medical. a week after the accident. Co-partner. (FRE 407). Admission by silence is not covered by the hearsay rule. No. (S27 R130). may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. It does not matter who initiated the compromise talks just so long as the accused may an offer. People. (S29 R130).. A 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. Q Is a withdrawn or unaccepted guilty plea admissible in evidence against the accused? A No.‖ Under the law on evidence it means the act. Police investigator testifies that a bystander said in the accused’s presence and hearing that the accused was the culprit to which the accused did not make any reply. Is the objection meritorious? A No. voluntarily adopts or ratifies another’s statement.R. The rule on admission by silence does not apply since Pogi had a right to remain silent while under custodial investigation. joint debtor. Q What is the res inter alios acta rule? A Res inter alios acta literally means ―things done among others. Q Give an example of admission by silence. and when proper and possible for him to do so. Q A fight broke out between B and C. G.19 A Yes.]). Q What is the doctrine of adoptive admission? A Adoptive admission is where a party. Co. Español.
declaration. After the robbery.‖ AAVA argued that it is not bound by these statements of ALI under the res inter alios acta rule in S28 R130. is evidence against the former. (Article III. So S29 should be read to refer to ―coowner. (S31 R130).000. the latter was not bound by them. The Deed of Restrictions indicated that the property shall be used exclusively for the establishment and maintenance thereon of a preparatory (nursery and kindergarten) school ALI turned over the right and power to enforce the restrictions on the properties in the Ayala Alabang Village. Under S30 R130. Margal’s statement is not admissible against Carreon as an exception to the res inter alios acta rule. During the trial. TLC introduced in evidence statements of ALI that it had agreed to the reclassification of the subject property as ―institutional‖ and that the school was a ―worthy undertaking.‖ and ―person solidarily interested. Where one derives title to property from another. In 1991.) Q A sold an alleged Amorsolo painting to B.‖ ―solidary debtor.20 Q D and E are jointly indebted to P in the amount of P600.000. the School of the Holy Cross. 149166 issued to the spouses Alfonso. Shots were fired. v. the Ayala Alabang Village Association (AAVA). may W’s testimony of what E told him be admitted in evidence over objection that it is res inter alios acta? A No. TLC was expanded to include a grade school program. Buboy. Q D and E conspired to rob the house of X. the spouses Yuson sold the same to the spouses Felipe and Mary Anne Alfonso. while holding the title. his co-conspirator in the crime. Constitution). The statement does not qualify as a vicarious admission since it was made at a time the conspiracy had already ended. May P introduce this declaration in a suit by P against D? A No. b) No. including the above restrictions on TCT No. (The Learning Child Inc. The statement of E is res inter alios acta and does not bind D. A The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence. 1992. When they were fleeing after the robbery. The statement being a party admission is not hearsay and hence admissible. Under the Constitution.000. (FRE 801(d)(2). 146710-15. The statement binds B since it was made by a privy of B. This is because the deed of restrictions provide that the same may be enforced by ALI and/or AAVA. Mario Margal was informed of his constitutional right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. Q Sometime in 1984. AAVA seems to imply that since the statements were not ―damaging‖ to AAVA. Hence Margal’s statement is inadmissible against him. Hence ALI is a person jointly interested with AAVA within the purview of S29 R130. AAVA filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City an action for injunction against TLC and the spouses Alfonso. the spouses Alfonso opened on the same lot The Learning Child Center Pre-school (TLC). in order that the statement of a conspirator may be given in evidence against a coconspirator. (ALI) sold a parcel of land to the spouses Yuson. subdivision developer Ayala Land. Here there is no showing that the waiver is in writing and was made in the presence of counsel. This is not altogether correct since a party admission need not be against interest. Here the conspiracy had ended when Margal’s statement was made. his act or declaration is not binding upon D. which provided additional grade levels as the pupils who initially enrolled advanced. Q State the rule on admission by a co-conspirator. Is AAVA’s argument tenable? A No. In the same statement.‖ the term ―joint‖ is used in the sense of ―joint and several‖ under American common law or ―solidary‖ in the Spanish continental law. a) Is Margal’s statement admissible in evidence against him? b) Is it admissible against Carreon as an exception to the res inter alios acta rule? (91 Bar Q13). In 1989. (Note: Nonetheless the SC held that the statements were not ―damaging‖ to AAVA and ruled in its favor. 149166. robbed a house in a barrio. to the association of homeowners therein. Andy admitted his . While S29 R130 speaks of ―joint debtor‖ and ―jointly interested. (S30 R130). may C present witness W who will testify that he heard A say while he was the owner that the painting was not a genuine Amorsolo over objection that A’s statement does not bind B and that the same is hearsay? A Yes C may present witness W to testify on what he heard A say. Estrada v. they were intercepted by the police. On October 13. and Cito.R. the act. A a) Margal’s statement is not admissible against him. a preparatory school which initially consisted of nursery and kindergarten classes. A Deed of Restrictions was annotated in TCT No. particularly of the Deed of Restrictions. [2008 Bar Question on extrajudicial confession] A group of 3 persons. G. The ruling in TLCI v. Desierto. Section 12. or omission of the latter. Nos. Any confession obtained in violation of this provision shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. During the trial. 3 April 2001). such statement must have been made during the existence of the conspiracy. The more proper basis is that an extrajudicial admission may be contradicted or explained by the admitter. alleging breach of contract by the defendant spouses. Before he passed away. and Andy was mortally wounded. Q During custodial investigation at the Western Police District. In 1987. E bragged to W that he and D conspired to rob X’s house and got P5. Ayala Alabang Village Association. (REE). but conscious of his impending death. the contents of which likewise appear in the Deed of Absolute Sale. as had been required by ALI. E told P that the debt is not yet paid. Hence the same is inadmissible against Carreon. Inc. B then sold the painting to C. Acts and declarations of the developer ALI would be binding upon AAVA in an action to enforce the deed of restrictions on subdivision lots in Ayala Alabang Village. may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. C sues B alleging that the painting is not a genuine Amorsolo. During the trial of D for robbery. E’s statement is res inter alios acta. in relation to the property. he implicated Antonio Carreon. the right of a person under investigation for the commission of an offense to remain silent and to counsel cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. Andy.‖ Since E is a joint debtor rather than a solidary debtor. 7 July 2010). He decided to waive his right to counsel and proceeded to make a statement admitting commission of a robbery.
he was shot and killed by someone whose identity could not be established by an eye-witness. Q The Defendants argued that Xavierville Estate Inc. unless it is corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. Manalo. Buboy. G. Q Alejo was stabbed in the abdomen. identity. Here the Defendants did not introduce any evidence that XEI and all the lot buyers in the subdivision had executed contracts of sale containing uniform terms and conditions. since the portion implicating Buboy and Cito is not contrary to Andy’s interest. Q May an extrajudicial confession be given in evidence against a person other than the confessant? A No on the ground that a person may not be bound by the act or declaration of another. During the trial of D for robbery. (IICC) Q May an extrajudicial confession made by an accused be sufficient ground for conviction? A No. may the prosecution present over objection the testimony of E that he and D conspired to rob X’s house? A Yes. a) Was the statement of Andy admissible as a dying declaration? Explain. The confession referred to in S33 R130 is an extrajudicial confession. He immediately called for help and a policeman promptly approached him. habit or custom. Q What is a confession? How is it distinguished from an admission? A A confession is a declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged. In determining whether the examples are numerous enough and sufficiently regular. Under the Rules on Evidence. Molleda. Under S34 R130. 158149. He was brought to a hospital for treatment where. system. but it may be received to prove a plan. (S3 R133). (XEI) had allowed them to pay the balance of the purchase price of a subdivision lot in 120 monthly installments. knowledge. Hence the same is not binding upon Buboy and Cito. 9 February 2006). Q What are interlocking confessions? A Interlocking confessions are extrajudicial confessions independently made without collusion which are identical with each other in their essential details and are corroborated by other evidence on record are admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated to show the probability of the latter’s actual participation in the commission of the crime. the statement of Andy was not admissible as a dying declaration. [S30 R130] Here the conspiracy was no longer existing when Andy made the statement. and named Buboy and Cito as his companions and co-conspirators. usage. E was arrested. an extrajudicial statement of a co-conspirator in order to be binding upon the other co-conspirators must have been made during the existence of the conspiracy. After the robbery. No. and the like. The exception would be when the confession is used as corroborative or circumstantial evidence as in the case of interlocking confessions. Q What is the similar acts rule? A The similar acts rule provides that 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. habit. but it may be received to prove usage. Eventually. the offering party must establish the degree of specificity and frequency of uniform response that ensures more than a mere tendency to act in a given manner but rather conduct that is semi-automatic in nature. May these three contracts to sell prove a habit or custom on the part of XEI to grant 120month terms of payments to its buyers? A No.21 participation in the robbery. An accused’s confession may be given in evidence against him. c) May Andy’s statement be presented against Buboy and Cito on the ground that it is an exception to the hearsay rule being a declaration against interest? ANSWERS: (a) No. (b) No. 86 SCRA 667). Q D and E conspired to rob the house of X. Under the Rules on Evidence. habit. intent. or pattern of conduct. the statement of Andy was not admissible against Buboy and Cito as the statement of a coconspirator. The Defendants introduced three contracts to sell in which XEI granted two lot buyers a 120-month term of payment and a third one a 180-month term. The prosecution had to build its case on circumstantial evidence. the prosecution presented as its first witness Dodong who testified that Andy. Hence the statement was not admissible as a dying declaration. on the same day. (People v.R. Danilo was charged in court for the death of Alejo. b) Was Andy’s statement admissible against Buboy and Cito as the statement of a co-conspirator? Explain. (c) No. During the trial of Buboy and Cito for robbery. a dying declaration must relate to the circumstances surrounding his death. evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time. [S37 R130] Here the declaration did not relate to the circumstances surrounding Andy’s death but to his and Buboy’s and Cito’s participation in the robbery. (S33 R130). The rule on res inter alios acta does not apply to judicial admissions. He told the policeman that he felt he would die from the serious wound inflicted on him by Danilo who has a grudge against him. the key criteria are adequacy of sampling and uniformity of response. Moreover even in the 3 contracts adduced by the Defendants there was no uniformity as two referred to 120-month terms while the third mentioned a 180-month term. (Boston Bank v. or of any offense necessarily included therein. Courts must contend with the caveat that before they admit evidence of usage. Here the admission was made by E in court and D would have the chance to cross-examine E. At the ensuing . custom. and Cito had planned to rob the house. (PIKICHUS). This should be distinguished from a guilty plea which is covered by S3 & 4 R116.
(FRE 801[a]). Q May hearsay be non-verbal? A Yes. (RICHARD LEMPERT & STEPHEN SALTZBURG. Note that technically what is hearsay is Sam’s statement. The statement would have been admissible as part of the res gestae since it was made immediately after a startling occurrence. or of his/her reputation inadmissible unless court finds that such evidence is relevant to the case. Q In a police lineup. The hearsay rule provides that hearsay is not admissible in evidence. the policeman was presented to testify on the declaration made to him by Alejo. (FRE 801[a]). Q Section 36 of Rule 130 provides as follows: .. A Under the sexual abuse shield rule in criminal cases involving child abuse. A statement. No. The defense argument that no facts relating to the stabbing can be relevant to the shooting was in substance an objection based on the similar acts rule. A party intending to offer such evidence must file a pretrial motion at least 15 days before the trial stating that he intends to offer such evidence in order to prevent unfair surprise upon the other party. The defendant ship company presents a witness who will testify that he saw the captain taking his wife and children aboard the ship. either of which. The statement of Alejo is not admissible as a dying declaration because it did not relate to the cause and circumstances surrounding his fatal shooting. (Sec. It’s as if the victim was saying. (See S36 R130). An ―out-of-court statement‖ includes not only oral or written assertions but also non-verbal conduct intended as an assertion. A MODERN APPROACH TO EVIDENCE 357 [2d ed. Q May hearsay be in written form? Q Give the rape shield rule in rape cases. the police officer conducting the lineup is asked who the victim pointed to as the culprit. (S34 R130). Is the contention of the prosecution with respect to the relevancy and competency of evidence correct? Discuss fully. the guilt of Danilo for the death of Alejo. A Yes. Meeting the objection. Clearly it is offered to prove the truth that Dencio’s car entered the intersection when the light was red. 8505 [Rape Victim Protection & Assistance Act). The defense objected. The defense countered by arguing that no facts relevant to the stabbing can be relevant to the shooting. Hearsay is evidence of a fact which the witness does not know of his personal knowledge. Hence if a party will present a letter to prove the truth of the contents thereof without presenting the letter-writer. A Pedro sues Dencio for damages when the latter’s car bumped into Pedro’s car at an intersection causing injuries to Pedro. (S30 Rule on Examination of a Child Witness). During the trial.22 trial. injury. victim from behind a one-way mirror points to the accused as the one who assaulted him. when deemed competent evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. would demonstrably be relevant to the ultimate fact in issue. The victim’s act of pointing out a person in the lineup is a nonverbal assertion. Q What is the exception to the sexual abuse shield rule? A Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of the semen. (S30 RECW). not Winnie’s testimony reporting Sam’s statement. that is. Pedro offers the testimony of Winnie who will testify that she heard bystander Sam say that Dencio’s car entered the intersection when the stoplight was red against Dencio. Winnie is also testifying as to a fact (Dencio’s car entering the intersection when the light was red) which was not derived from her own perception but from Sam’s perception. the prosecution argued for the admissibility of the evidence as a dying declaration (ante mortem statement) or as part of the res gestae. RA. his stabbing. The plaintiffs contend that the ship company was negligent for allowing an unworthy ship to set sail. (92 Bar Q2). HEARSAY RULE AND ITS EXCEPTIONS Q Define hearsay and the hearsay rule. A The rape shield rule provides that evidence of the past sexual conduct. (FRE 801[a]). 6. 1982. Dencio’s lawyer may object to Winnie’s proposed testimony on the ground that Winnie will be testifying as to hearsay.. The statement of Sam that Dencio’s car entered the intersection when the light was stoplight was red is hearsay. or other physical evidence (sip) shall be admissible. May the defense object and if so on what ground? A Yes the defense may object on the ground of hearsay. Q Give an example of hearsay. Hearsay may consist of non-verbal conduct if the same is intended by a person as an assertion. (FRE 801[c]). Q Give the sexual abuse shield rule in criminal cases involving child abuse. the letter would be hearsay.e. Evidence that Danilo stabbed Alejo is not admissible to prove that Danilo was the one who shot Alejo. The non-verbal conduct of the captain is not intended as an assertion. other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing. We often think of hearsay in its oral form but hearsay may also be in writing. (2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim. A Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. something not derived from his own perception. 3d reprint 1988]). ―He’s the one who assaulted me!‖ Q Suit by the heirs of passengers against the ship company for damages arising from the sinking of the ship and the consequent loss of life of all the passengers and the crew. Should the objection be sustained? A No. The victim dies before trial. Hence the same is not hearsay. However it should not be received in evidence for it would violate the similar acts rule. opinion thereof. i. A The argument of the prosecution with respect to the relevancy and competency of the evidence is not correct. the following are not admissible: (1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior. The testimony is admissible to prove that the captain believed the ship to be seaworthy. offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Objection on the ground that the testimony is about hearsay. In court practice and in jurisprudence however the hearsay definition is often extended to the witness’s testimony reporting the out-of-court statement.
. They seized from his person a handgun.R. Because if not. i. [The offer in evidence of the newspaper clipping] was objected to by the defense. e. legal effect. Regardless of the truth or falsity of the statement. 36. has relevance. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge. [FRE 801(d)(2)]). Comment: In the robbery case. (Gotesco Investment Corporation v. The statement that X admitted robbing the victim is relevant only if offered to prove its truth. 3 April 2001). Q What is an independently relevant statement? A An out-of-court statement which is relevant not for the truth of a matter asserted therein but for something else. hearsay is inadmissible in evidence unless it falls within any of the exceptions. belief. (b) The statement or declaration is not made under oath. The Supreme Court has held that a statement is not hearsay if it is offered not to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein. an independently relevant evidence is admissible. that is.23 SEC. Not being hearsay. not the presence of Martians. Othewise put.e. Otherwise it has no independent probative value. The prosecution presented in evidence a newspaper clipping of the report by the reporter who was present during the press conference stating that X admitted the robbery. It does not however address the issue of whether the declaration or statement of which the witness is testifying about is being offered to prove the truth of a matter asserted therein. Suggested answers which hold the newspaper clipping admissible as an admission against interest overlooked the other declarant. U. The robbery and illegal possession of firearm cases were tried jointly. for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such fact. that of the reporter is hearsay not falling within any exception. A (a) The newspaper clipping is not admissible in evidence against X. is the testimony of A offered to prove the fact of utterance. admissible in evidence? (99 Bar Q17c). but the mere fact of utterance. What is wrong with this definition? A The definition is misleading since it seeks to equate hearsay with matters which a witness knows first-hand. This definition purports to define hearsay as that which a witness does not know of his personal knowledge or are not derived from his own perception. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary. It is an independently relevant statement and hence admissible. A The testimony of A is admissible in evidence. 96-4597.S. xxx. 251 SCRA 111 . 15 February 2000) even though the statements reported therein are party-admissions. even if the statement is untrue. Muro. Chatto. or the mere fact of utterance. On the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by the court. Newspaper articles are hearsay (State Prosecutors v. Court of Appeals. 146710-15. the person who made the statement. This should be distinguished from a situation where the fact that a statement was made. Q In a petition for the allowance of the will of deceased Bent. the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown where the fact that it is made is relevant. regardless of its truth or falsity. that B called X a thief.R. Under the Rules of Evidence.A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge that is. Desierto. Q What are the reasons for excluding hearsay? A The reasons for excluding hearsay are the following: (COD) (a) The lack of opportunity on the part of the party against which it is offered to cross-examine the declarant. Nos.P. G. The rationale for this is that the party against whom the statement is offered cannot claim that he has a right to cross-examine himself). (Estrada v. Another approach is to say that X has personal knowledge of Bent’s declaration although he has no personal knowledge of the fact that there were Martians in Bent’s backyard. the reporter. i. Q A overheard B call X a thief. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania. 122954. Here the newspaper clipping of the report is hearsay since the reporter who wrote the news account was not presented in court and hence could not be crossexamined by the accused as to the accuracy or veracity of his report.00. While the accused’s statement is admissible as an admission against interest.) Suggested answer of the U. an oppositor presents the testimony of X to the effect that he had heard Bent declare that there were Martians in his backyard. The statement is offered to prove not that Martians exist but that Bent was not of sound and disposing mind... G. It is an independently relevant statement. In an action for defamation filed by X against B. (Wright v. (Note: Another approach is to treat B’s statement as non-hearsay since it is an admission by a party-opponent. But what is sought to be proved is the declaration itself. that of the accused admitting the robbery and that of the reporter reporting the accused’s admission. X was arrested by police operatives. Is Bent’s declaration hearsay? A No. Montgomery County. An example of suc a statement or declaration is an independently relevant statement. (Note: There are two out-of-court statements [or declarants] involved here. the statement is relevant for something else other than its truth. as for instance in a libel case where the defendant’s statement calling the plaintiff a swindler is relevant to the issue of whether the defendant libeled the plaintiff. then the statement or declaration is not hearsay even if the witness is testifying not from his personal knowledge or from matters not derived from his own perception. except as otherwise provided in these rules. Here the statement of B that X is a thief is not relevant for its truth but for the fact that it was uttered and that X was defamed. which are derived from his own perception. the newspaper clipping is admissible in evidence against X. 210 SCRA 18 ). In a press conference called by the police.. X admitted that he had robbed the victim of jewelry valued at P500. Feria v. Memorandum and Order dated 20 May 2002).e. A charge for illegal possession of firearms was also filed against him. Q X was charged with robbery. hearsay excluded. the fact in issue is whether X had robbed the victim.000. (a) Is the newspaper clipping admissible in evidence against X? (b) xxx (03 Bar Q18). Civil Action No. Law Center Yes. .g. No. state of mind. (c) The court does not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the declarant..
(See Estrada v. G. Another approach (requiring less detailed analysis) with respect to Erap’s declarations. ill will. Pip’s girlfriend. The defense objects that W will be testifying as to hearsay. Otherwise put the statement is relevant not for its truth but to show that D’s father believed in good faith that he was the owner although he actually was not. 285 (1892) wherein a person’s out -of-court statements were used to prove not only his intention but the intention of another person as well. ―Pagod na pagod na ako. Were they? A No. (See Estrada v. Applying the 2 Estrada doctrine. Mutual Life Insurance Co. X will testify that he heard D’s father say to a government surveyor while in possession of the land that he was its owner. then I will go. belief. v. that is.‖ Angara himself did not testify in court. The shooting occurred in Y’s house. Q P sues D for recovery of title and possession of land and for the demolition of the improvements constructed therein. who will testify that hours before the death of Pip. masyado nang masakit. are that the same are admissions of a party-opponent and hence not hearsay pursuant to FRE 801(d)(2). his mental condition. he (Pip) had called her and said that he was going to the initiation rites of Dura Lex Pyrex. The second class includes statements of a person showing his state of mind (i. intention. 3 April 2001. Such statements are independently relevant and are excluded from the hearsay rule. The Prosecution presented witness W who will testify that he overheard a conversation between Rolando and the wife that they would fetch a man in Bulacan who knew how to place a bomb in a vehicle. Angara being the executive secretary of Erap and thus his agent. intent.R. a) D offers the testimony of X to prove that his father owned the land. the same are also not hearsay since they are vicarious admissions imputable to Erap. 146710-15. The prosecution offers the testimony of Estella. X and Y contend that Z had barged into Y’s house uninvited and had tried to shoot Y. Is X’s testimony admissible over relevant objection? b) Will your answer be the same if the testimony of X is offered to prove that D’s father was a possessor -in-good faith? A a) X’s testimony is not admissible over an objection that it was hearsay. and (2) those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue. The statements are independently relevant. How should the court rule on the objection? A The court should overrule the objection. 3 April 2001. G. Pagod na ako sa red tape. the lover of X’s mother Y.24 Hence the statement is not independently relevant and should be excluded as hearsay not falling within any exception. Submitted to prove Estrada’s intent to resign was the Angara Diary in which Executive Secretary Edgardo Angara recorded Estrada’s statements in which he said. 24 April 2009). Supreme Court in Mutual Life Insurance Co. 145 U. and characterization of a transaction are not hearsay). Hence the same is hearsay and inadmissible. that D’s father was the owner of the land. knowledge. relevant independently of whether they are true or not. In respect of Angara’s statements in the diary. The prosecution will present W. Malibiran. 145 U. 3 April 2001. at issue was whether President Estrada resigned from his position. Desierto. Would the testimony on the conversation be admissible over an objection that it is hearsay? A No. the statement is admissible.S. It however contains statements of the declarant Angara which are independently relevant. Mutual Life Insurance Co. intriga. The Supreme Court’s use of this exception (statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to the state of mind of another) in effect adopts the controversial doctrine laid down by the U. 145 U.. bureaucracy.2 The Angara Diary contains statements of Erap which reflect his state of mind and are circumstantial evidence of his intent to resign. specifically the intent. 146710-15. The declaration of D’s father is an independently relevant statement since it was not offered to prove that D’s father was the owner of the land but that he believed that he was the owner of the land and thus a possessor in good faith. 285 ).R. Hillmon. Hillmon. Desierto.S. his father was a possessor in good faith and thus D has a right of retention. The statement of Z that he was going to Y’s house as he was summoned by Y is independently relevant for it shows Z’s intent to go to Y’s house and is thus circumstantial evidence that Z did go to Y’s house upon the latter’s summons.e.S. the statement is independently relevant since they show the state of mind. Note: The diary itself was hearsay. members of Dura Lex Pyrex Fraternity. since the diarist Angara was not presented in court. Thus statements of the declarant’s belief. Independently relevant statements are of two classes: (1) those statements which are the very facts in issue. forcing X to shoot Z in defense of his mother. Hillmon. . Should the objection be sustained? A No. Q Prosecution for murder of X for shooting to death Z. and other emotions) and statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to the state of mind of another. The statement of Pip that he was going to the initiation rites shows Pip’s state of mind or intent and is independently relevant as circumstantial evidence that Pip did go to the initiation rites. 146710-15. Magwitch and Compeyson deny that they and Dura Lex Pyrex had anything to do with Pip’s demise. b) My answer would not be the same. G. It also contains statements of Secretary Angara from which one can reasonably infer Erap’s intent to resign. for the death due to hazing of Pip.R. I just want to clear my name. Q Prosecution of Magwitch and Compeyson. v. Q In Estrada v. The statement thus disproves X and Y’s contention that Z barged into Y’s house uninvited. Z’s son. if only to establish the fact that such statement was made and the tenor thereof. to testify that he heard his father say that he was going to Y’s house as he was summoned by Y. D in his answer alleged that his father from whom he inherited the property is the owner of the land and assuming that his father did not own the land. Desierto. Q Wife prosecuted for parricide for allegedly hiring a bomb-maker who planted a bomb in her husband’s car.S. X’s testimony is about the out-of-court declaration of D’s father and is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein. Estrada’s lawyers argued that these statements were hearsay. (MRR: A rule of thumb is that hearsay refers to an event or something perceived by the declarant using his senses and which may thus be tested by cross-examination. The defense objects on the ground of hearsay. v. Ayoko na. (People v. of Rolando and the wife to fetch a man who knew how to plant bombs in vehicles. 285 ).
while the victim was being brought to the hospital in a jeep. (orbd) (S43 R130). The deceased had consciousness of his impending death as he stated that he did not know if he was going to survive because of the many painful stab wounds he suffered and from which stab wounds he died two days later. 4. 276 SCRA 582). but since he was in a critical condition. A The requirements for a dying declaration are the following: (DICC) a) The declarant is dead. 4. (Tison v. c) The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated therein. 6. Q Explain the meaning of the business entries exception. Sarabia. For instance the logbook of a security guard. the deceased’s identification of his assailant is admissible in evidence as an ante-mortem statement and an exception to the hearsay rule. Official records. Is the statement admissible as a dying declaration? (99 Bar Q17d). The word ―business‖ therein is not used in the ordinary sense of the word but extends to all cases were the entries were made in a professional capacity or in the performance of a duty. Here the victim suffered several stab wounds and thus it may be inferred that he had consciousness of his impending death. Is the identification by the deceased of his assailant admissible in evidence as an ante-mortem statement as an exception to the hearsay rule? (87 Bar Q8) A Yes. Court of Appeals. Of course the weight to be assigned to the admitted hearsay is within the court’s sound discretion. 3. 6. Court of Appeals. Even a housewife’s budget journal is a business record. Common reputation. although as a rule hearsay has low probative value unless it falls within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. c) The declaration was made under the consciousness of an impending death. d) The entrant must have made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty. 2. Q Jose was shot and mortally wounded. The exceptions to the hearsay rule are still hearsay. The victim suffered several stab wounds. A The requirements for the business entries exception to the hearsay rule are the following: (TDK PO) a) The entries must be made at. It appears that eleven hours after the crime. A The use of the term business entries exception is somewhat misleading. The fact that the statement was not signed is immaterial as there is no requirement that a dying declaration be put down in writing and if so that it be signed by the declarant. Electronic business record. Learned treatises. Act of declaration about pedigree. Exceptions where there is a DU requirement: (D BF PDC) 1. Before he expired. 2. Declaration by child about act or attempted act of child abuse. Mere refusal to testify is not equivalent to unavailability as declarant can be subpoenaed. his brother and the policeman signed the statement. or near the time of the transactions to which they refer. b) The entrant must be dead or unable to testify. The business or enterprise maybe legal or illegal. the victim was asked certain questions which he answered. the victim added that he did not know if the was going to survive because the many stab wounds he sustained were very painful. with his brother and a policeman as companions. they are considered admissible in evidence. (People v. A The statement is admissible as a dying declaration. it was held that the entrant should have personal knowledge of the information he is entering. When asked by the police. 7. a declaration of a dying person.25 Q Is hearsay admissible if not objected to? A Yes. Former testimony or deposition. Q What are the exceptions to the hearsay rule? A Exceptions may be grouped into two: those where there is a requirement that the declarant is dead or unable/unavailable to testify (DU requirement) and those where there is no such requirement. Q The accused was charged with robbery and homicide. Hearsay if not objected to may be admitted and considered as sufficient to prove the facts therein asserted. 127 SCRA 100). 5. 3. Unavailability of the declarant means that the declarant cannot be produced in court by a party despite diligent efforts. 305 SCRA 579. made under consciousness of an impending death is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Entries in the course of business or duty Q State the requirements for the business entries exception to the hearsay rule. Q Are the exceptions to the hearsay rule admissible because they are not hearsay? A No. Dying declaration Q Give the requirements for a dying declaration to be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. In Canque v. Here the declaration of Jose is clearly hearsay. 5. pointing to the accused as his assailant. Declaration against interest. b) His death is the subject of inquiry in the case. The Supreme Court has held that the declarant’s consciousness of his impending death may be shown by the nature and gravity of his wounds. Thus the diary of a jueteng bookie where he kept records of bets and winnings is a business . Nonetheless by reasons of trustworthiness and necessity. Commercial lists. Business entries. Q Two days before the victim of a stabbing incident died. His answers were put down in writing. unless declarant is invoking a constitutional privilege. as when he could no longer be located. Under the Rules of Evidence. he declared thus: ―Juan said it was Pedro who shot me. Family reputation. d) The declaration is about the cause and surrounding circumstances of his death. Dying declaration. Exceptions where there is no DU requirement: (RFC COLE) 1.‖ Would such declaration be admissible as a dying declaration? A No since the declarant must be otherwise competent. (pc pd) e) The entries must have been made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. Res gestae. he made a statement to the police identifying the person who had stabbed him.
Q May a medical certificate qualify under the business entries exception? A No. ―Business records‖ are defined as including records of any business. medical charts by nurses. (S1 R8 REE). report. (S1 R8 REE) Q How are the foregoing requirements shown? A By the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness. bills of lading. profession. log-book of a security guard. A BUSINESS ENTRIES ELECTRONIC BUSINESS EXCEPTION RECORDS EXCEPTION (S43 R130 Rules of (R8 REE) Court) Applies to nonelectronic business entries Entrant must be dead or unavailable to testify Entrant must be in a position to know the facts stated in the entry Applies to electronic business records Testimony of custodian or recordkeeper to be made orally in open court Prima facie evidence of facts stated therein the record is made by. A The rule on former testimony or deposition in civil cases (S47 R130) is substantially similar to that in criminal cases (S1[f] R116) with the notable distinction that a deposition is not mentioned in S1(f) R116. that is. or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment are excepted from the hearsay rule. or from transmission or supply of information by. subject to cross (R9 REE) Not prima facie evidence of facts stated therein Former testimony or deposition Q What are the requirements in order for a testimony or deposition at a former proceeding (judicial or administrative) to be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule? A The requirements are: (PDSC) (a) The witness or deponent is dead or unable to testify. Medical certificates which are issued upon the request of a patient and which certify that the patient is suffering from an ailment or injury are hearsay unless the doctor who issued the certificate is also presented in court. a person with knowledge of the transaction. or from transmission or supply of information by. it is submitted that statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history. conditions. (R8 REE). occupation. (c) The electronic business record is kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity. interns or resident physicians in a hospital. statements of account. However. (S1 R9 REE). Q What is an electronic business record? A An electronic business record is a memorandum. record. or sensations. these statements are admissible even if the declarant is available as a witness. (FRE 803). or opinions (acedo) made by electronic. it being sufficient that . It cannot be said that the certificate was issued in the doctor’s professional capacity or in the performance of a duty. Q Are business entries prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein? A Yes. or other similar means. or past or present symptoms. Availability or unavailability of the entrant immaterial Entrant need not have knowledge of the information recorded. Electronic business records exception Q Are electronic business records excepted from the hearsay rule? A Electronic business records are excepted from the hearsay rule.26 record and admissible to prove the contents thereof is the bookie is dead or unable to testify. (d) It is the regular practice to keep electronic business records. (S1 R8 REE). and calling of every kind. It is opined that the difference should be interpreted in favor of the accused. (b) The electronic business record is made by. Q Give examples of business entries. (S2[b] R2 REE). a person with knowledge thereof Foundational testimony of custodian or other qualified witness may be made in affidavit form. a deposition in another case or proceeding is inadmissible against the accused for being hearsay. or data compilation (mr rd) of acts. pain. events. (Manliclic v. (S43 R130). Q Are the documents which are part of the former testimony or deposition admissible under this exception? A Yes. invoices. Q What are the requirements for the electronic business record exception under the Rules on Electronic Evidence? A The requirements are: (TRKK) (a) The electronic business record is made at or near the time of the transaction. Under FRE 803(4). (b) The former case or proceeding involves the same parties and subject matter. diagnoses. Calaunan. The requirements may also be proved by the affidavit of the custodian or other qualified witness stating facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records. A Entries in the following: Books of account. (S1 R8 REE). optical. Q Distinguish between the business entries exception under the Rules of Court (S43 R130) and the electronic business records exception under the Rules on Electronic Evidence. Q Compare the rule on former testimony or deposition in civil cases to that in criminal cases. (c) The adverse party had the opportunity to crossexamine the witness or deponent in the former case or proceeding. 25 January 2007). whether or not conducted for profit or for legitimate purposes.
P filed Case 2 against A. that Pedro had a son named Ruben. In the preliminary investigation of Case 2. It bears stressing that Francisco was not a party (accused) in Case 1. 146584. The law requires that the person whose pedigree is the subject of the declaration must be related to the declarant by birth or marriage and that such relationship is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. (S38 R130). During the trial. to allow the deposition to be used (S4[c] R23). A in Case 1 with the deposition of X being taken therein. (Francisco v. May P introduce in Case 2 the deposition of X even if X is not dead or unable to testify? A No. The decision in Case 1 became final and executory. There must be preliminary evidence other than the declaration that Pedro is Jose’s brother. 25 January 2007). P is able to show that such exceptional circumstances exists as to make it desirable. A judgment of conviction of the employee is however conclusive upon the employer in a motion or action to enforce the employer’s subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code and said judgment is admissible in evidence in the proceedings brought to enforce the employer’s subsidiary liability. Hence Jose’s declaration that Pedro is his brother is not competent proof of their relationship. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. b) The act or declaration is about pedigree of another person related to the declarant by birth or marriage. W will testify that he heard Jose say that his brother Pedro had a son named Ruben. that is. Pacita testified and executed an affidavit wherein she stated that she had sold the jewelry to Francisco. 12 July 2004). d) The act or declaration occurred before the controversy (ante litem motam). Pacita was convicted in Case 1. (S3(e) R112). People. Q P was hit by the bus of X company. Ruben who claims to be the son of Pedro will present witness W. A In the settlement of the estate of deceased Pedro. Q Give an example of act or declaration about pedigree as a hearsay exception. family genealogy. Pacita was prosecuted for qualified theft for stealing Jovita’s jewelry (Case 1). death. b) No. it is S4(c) R23 and not S47 R130 which governs. This is because the employer is not a party in the criminal case and thus had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The preliminary proof will lay the foundation for the introduction of the main evidence. is the judgment of conviction admissible against X company in a proceeding brought to enforce X company’s subsidiary liability? A a) No. Q What does pedigree in S38 R130 mean? A The word ―pedigree‖ includes relationship. Here Jose’s declaration about the pedigree of his relative (brother) Pedro. Jose is already dead at the time of W’s testimony. However where the employer failed to object to the TSNs when they were offered in evidence. and the names of the relatives. the prosecution no longer presented Jovita and Pacita as witnesses. that Pedro has a son named Ruben. a) Is Jovita’s testimony in Case 1 admissible against Francisco? b) Are Pacita’s testimony and affidavit in the preliminary investigation of Case 2 admissible against Francisco? A a) No. Take note that since the deposition was taken in the same case. Is evidence other than Pedro’s declaration . Jovita testified in Case 1 that Pacita had confessed to her that she had sold the jewelry to Francisco. the dates when and the places were these facts occurred. marriage. Thus there was no opportunity to cross-examine Pacita. G. Jovita’s testimony in Case 1 is hearsay. in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of X in open court. Subsequently a prosecution for qualified theft (Case 2) was brought against Francisco. Q P vs. Q In the preceding example.27 Q Are statements made during preliminary investigation covered by the former testimony or deposition exception? A No since there is no right to cross-examine during preliminary investigation. During the trial may P introduce in evidence against A the deposition of X even if X is not dead or unable to testify? A Yes provided that P is able to show that any of the circumstances in S4(c) R23 is present.R. (S38 R130). Act or declaration about pedigree Q What are the requirements in order for an act or declaration about pedigree to be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule? A The requirements are: (DRAPE) a) The declarant is dead or unable to testify. The driver’s acquittal is of no moment since the tort case is an independent civil action. a) May P introduce in evidence against X company the testimony of a witness in the criminal case over objection that it is hearsay? b) Assuming that Y was convicted. birth. Ruben who claims to be the son of Pedro will present witness W. P filed a tort case against X company. A criminal case for reckless imprudence was filed against the bus driver Y upon complaint of P. c) The relationship between the relative and the declarant is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. Q P vs. No. Calaunan. Q Jovita hired Pacita as her househelp. the same are admissible. Y was acquitted on ground of reasonable doubt. (Manliclic v. A in a civil case with the deposition of X being taken therein before trial. Pacita’s testimony and affidavit in the preliminary investigation of Case 2 are hearsay against Francisco since there is no opportunity to cross-examine in preliminary investigation. Case 2 involves the same subject matter. For instance where upon application and notice. must the relationship between Pedro and Jose be shown by evidence other than Jose’s declaration? A Yes. A requirement in former testimony or deposition exception is that the witness or deponent must be dead or unable to testify. W will testify that he heard Pedro say that he has a son named Ruben. Q In the settlement of the estate of deceased Pedro. that is. Jovita did not reiterate her testimony in Case 2 nor was Pacita presented as a witness therein to testify on the admission she purportedly made to Jovita. The testimony of a witness in a prior criminal case for reckless imprudence against the employee (bus driver) cannot be introduced in a subsequent civil case for tort filed by the offended party against the employer (bus company) to enforce the latter’s vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. b) Yes.
While O’s declaration is not admissible as a dying declaration since it was not about the circumstances of O’s demise but of another person’s. a) If you were the judge. Comments on the Rules of Court. Admissible only against the admitter. The basis for the exception then is logic. 1980 ed. Soon after.) Declaration against interest Q What are the requirements in order that a declaration against interest will be considered as an exception to the hearsay rule? A The requirements are: a) The declarant must be dead or unable to testify. The decision nullifying the marriage was appealed and Narita died during the pendency of the appeal. may be admitted in evidence in any criminal or non-criminal proceeding subject to the rules laid down in Section 28 of the RECW.28 needed in order to prove the relationship between Pedro and Ruben? A No. Q What are the requirements for the admission of a child’s statement describing any act or attempted act of child abuse? (CC DuCK) A 1. see also Hartman’s Estate. proof of the very fact which the declaration is offered to establish. Should such evidence have been disallowed and denied admission? Why? (81 Bar Q8). W will testify that Pedro’s son Ruben (who predeceased Pedro) had said that he has a son named Simon. or penal) of the declarant.). as a foundation for the admission of the declaration.R. admissible. her statement would not qualify as a declaration against interest and would thus be hearsay. 121027. In other words the exception does not apply where the claimant does not seek to claim from the estate of the declarant himself and but merely to establish a right through his declarations to the property of some other member of the family. . Q Distinguish a declaration against interest from a party admission. that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true. that is to prevent a failure of justice since the declarant. 5. Q State the hearsay exception in child abuse cases. told him in the presence of their friends that the 10-year-old Liza whom she claimed to be her niece was actually her daughter by a certain Basilio. The declarant must be dead or No requirement that the unable to testify. Simon. the latter is however not claiming from Ruben’s estate but from the estate of Pedro by virtue of the right of representation. Vol. the Made by a party. b) My answer would be different. The preliminary proof would render the main evidence unnecessary. Q N had a disagreement with O and P over a parcel of land. 31 July 1997. Court of Appeals. (People v. Hence the consideration of necessity which was the basis for the Tison ruling is not present since it is not Ruben’s estate which is in controversy. Q Allan and Narita were married on 1 August 1989.e. a married man. 322). G.. (Tison v. 107 P 105 cited in Moran. Counsel for Basilio objected on the ground that Allan’s testimony would be hearsay. is dead. O’s declaration was against his penal or pecuniary interest. whose estate is in controversy. not otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule. ―Unavailable‖ means that the child declarant a) is dead. Court of Appeals. A No the evidence should have been admitted. id. The trial court nullified the marriage. it seems absurd to require. The other basis for the exception is necessity. Before O died he made a written statement before the Municipal Judge of the town that it was he who killed N and that he alone was involved against N in the duel. The child is unavailable to testify. 3. Narita filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Allan. lack of memory. Hearsay but admissible as an Not hearsay and thus exception to the hearsay rule. (Tison v. 51 Phil 825). in order to spite Allan. id. which the trial court ruled to be inadmissible as being contrary to the hearsay rule. or mental illness. (Tison v. The exchange of words led to a bolo duel between N and O in which N was killed and O was fatally wounded. The statement must be made by a child. 2. The statement describes any act or attempted act of child abuse. Since there is no showing that Narita is unable to testify. After 2 months Narita. P offered as part of his defense the written statement of O. admitter’s interest. admitter is dead or unable to testify. the legal wife of Basilio sued for legal separation based on sexual infidelity in view of Basilio’s love affair with Narita. Toledo. Court of Appeals. A DECLARATION AGAINST PARTY ADMISSION INTEREST Made by a non-party. Is evidence other than Ruben’s declaration needed in order to prove the relationship between Ruben and Simon? A Yes. declarant. While the declaration is about the declarant Ruben’s own relationship to Simon. c) The fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant’s own interest. b) suffers from physical infirmity. i. Must be against the declarant’s Need not be against the interest. No. At the trial Allan was called by Basilio’s wife to testify that Narita told him (Allan) during their marriage that Liza was her love child by Basilio. it should have been admitted as a declaration against interest. who claims to be the grandson of Pedro will present witness W. b) The declaration must be against the interest (pecuniary. Q Settlement of the estate of deceased Pedro. moral. A A statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse. how would you rule on the objection? b) Would your answer be different if Narita had not died? A a) I would overrule the objection. Where the pedigree of a person subject of the declaration is that person’s own relationship to that declarant. c) will be exposed to severe psychological injury. In 1992.. Admissible against third persons. A case for homicide was presented against P on the theory that he participated in the fight since he was also involved in the exchange of words and was at the scene of the crime. The statement of Narita that she had a love child by Basilio is a declaration against interest which is an exception to the hearsay rule.
Q Gerry is being tried for rape. France. hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein. Liza testified in court as to what June revealed to her. would such testimony of the policeman be hearsay? Explain. xxx (05 Bar Q16a) A The testimony of the policeman would be hearsay but would be admissible under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule. Candida also related to the police officer that despite her pleas. Berame. (People v. Under the law of evidence. A 1) The testimony of Liza is hearsay. (Air France v. (6) Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the child declarant. he went to the pantry where the purser told him that he (the purser) had recorded the incident in his notebook. While on a stop-over in Bangkok. The Supreme Court has held that a statement made 9 hours after the killing but while the declarant was still under the influence of the startling event was admissible as part of the res gestae. the court should not grant the motion to strike out. then the purser read out the entry to him: ―First class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will. the excitement not having died down as yet. he was forcibly transferred from the first class to the tourist class in order to make way for ―a white man. Candida can no longer be located. (5) The timing of the statement and the relationship between the child declarant and witness. it was admissible under the res gestae exception since it was made while Candida was still under the influence of the startling occurrence. tied her to a chair and robbed her of assorted pieces of jewelry and money. (2) The general character of the child declarant. The purser recorded the incident in his notebook. The policeman noticed that Candida was hysterical and on the verge of collapse. Carrascoso testified that after his forcible transfer to the tourist class. A Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto regarding the circumstances thereof. Carrascoso resisted his transfer and a commotion occurred on board the plane. and it was only in the early morning of the following day that she narrated her ordeal to her daughter Liza. Dencio was charged with robbery with rape. The hearsay statement is corroborated by other admissible evidence. statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof. (8) The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason to suppose the child declarant misrepresented the involvement of the accused. to a bedroom where he raped her.29 d) is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means. 5. 30 July 1976). and it related to the circumstances regarding the ouster incident. Gerry went to complainant June’s house to invite her to watch the festivities going on at the town plaza. (DAP MMS) 4. Marcela’s maid. Dencio then brought Candida. which was just a stone’s throw away form June’s house. Q Mr. and (2) verbal acts. 18 SCRA 155). that Gerry had raped June. a) If the prosecution presents Police Officer Roberto Maawa to testify on what Candida had told him. tied the latter to a chair and robbed her of her jewelry and money. (7) The possibility of faulty recollection of the child declarant is remote. Candida then untied Marcela and rushed to the police station about a kilometer away and told Police Officer Roberto Maawa that Dencio had barged into the house of Marcela. Mr.M. Dencio had raped her. of 20 January 1994. Q What are the factors that the court shall consider in ruling on the admissibility of the child’s statement? A In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement. statements made while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof are excepted from the hearsay rule. June accepted the invitation. . (4) Whether the statement was spontaneous. Part of the res gestae Q State the res gestae exception. and that the captain refused to intervene. During the trial. Marcela could hear Candida crying and pleading: ―Huwag! Maawa ka sa akin!” After raping Candida. may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. Here Liza was testifying on June’s out-of-court statement and it was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein. she being hysterical and on the verge of collapse. Carrascoso sued Air France. 1) Is the testimony of Liza hearsay? 2) Is it admissible in evidence against the objection of the defense? (94 Bar Q17). Here the statement of the purser was made while the startling occurrence was still fresh and continued to be felt. Dencio fled from the house with the loot. June did not immediately go home thereafter. Carrascoso. Under the Rules of Evidence.‖ Assume that Air France’s counsel moved to strike out the statement regarding what the purser said on the ground that it is hearsay. Under the Rules of Evidence. Gerry forcibly dragged June towards the banana grove behind the market where he was able to have carnal knowledge with June for about an hour. During the trial. content and circumstances (tcc) thereof which provide sufficient indicia of reliability. (3) Whether more than one person heard the statement. Mr. Carrascoso took an Air France flight from Manila to Lourdes. Q Dencio barged into the house of Marcela.‖ Mr. A The res gestae exception covers statements which are admissible in evidence as part of the res gestae. Q Define the term ―excited utterances‖ as a hearsay exception. Should the court grant the motion to strike out? A No. may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. that is. The 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. It shall consider the following factors: (LCM SFC MT) (1) Whether there is a motive to lie. It actually consists of two exceptions: (1) excited utterances. Upon reaching the public market. The prosecuton’s evidence sought to establish that at about 9:00 P. the court shall consider the time. Although the statement was made after Candida had run for a kilometer.
The defense objected. The statement of Alejo is not admissible as a dying declaration because it did not relate to the cause and circumstances surrounding his fatal shooting. (b) No. it may not be admitted as an independently relevant statement.45 caliber pistol. Q Alejo was stabbed in the abdomen. The prosecution contended that both are exceptions to the hearsay rule as they are part of the res gestae. however. his Division Commander. Lt. his stabbing. Yap is not admissible for being hearsay. Eventually.000 to F.. was shot with a . visited him at the Cebu Doctor’s Hospital in Cebu City where he was immediately brought for treatment of the gunshot wound.‖ as he handed the P5. Q Explain the verbal acts exception to the hearsay rule. A B was seen handing P5. At the trial. testify that Lt. the statement must be made while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or after it.30 2) No. Family reputation Q May reputation be introduced in evidence in order to prove a matter subject of the reputation? A Generally no. Yap. testified that. Yap told him that it was Jose Comen who shot him. The estate can present witness W who will testify that he heard B say. Under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule. B later dies. who is a law graduate. took the initiative of taking down in long hand the statement of Lt. B’s act of handing P5. would demonstrably be relevant to the ultimate fact in issue. Q Explain family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree as an exception to the hearsay rule. the guilt of Danilo for the death of Alejo. At the ensuing trial. He immediately called for help and a policeman promptly approached him. Lt. he was shot and killed by someone whose identity could not be established by an eye-witness. (c) No. (a) Is the prosecution correct? (b) If the statement cannot be admitted as part of the res gestae. A.000 to F. either of which. at the Mactan Air Base in Lapulapu City. nevertheless. ―this is a loan. Evidence that Danilo stabbed Alejo is not admissible to prove that Danilo was the one who shot Alejo. when deemed competent evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. may it be considered as a dying declaration? (c) If the statement of A as to the revelation of Lt. Forthwith. The exceptions are in the case of family reputation and common reputation. The persons or people who are the source of the reputation cannot be cross-examined by the adverse party. An information for murder was filed against Jose Comen. donation. The degree or severity of the gunshot wound was not shown and it took 10 days after the shooting for Lt. (S34 R130). Yap was under the consciousness of his impending death at the time he made the statement. the prosecution argued for the admissibility of the evidence as a dying declaration (ante mortem statement) or as part of the res gestae. Here June’s statement was made the day after the rape and there is no indication that June was still under the influence of the rape incident when she narrated the same to Liza.000. PAF. However it is not admissible for it would violate the similar acts rule. A The argument of the prosecution with respect to the relevancy and competency of the evidence is not correct. Yap to perish. or payment of a pre-existing debt. There was no showing that Lt. X on the ground that they are hearsay. B’s estate sues F to recover the P5. Is the contention of the prosecution with respect to the relevancy and competency of evidence correct? Discuss fully. Ten days later. Danilo was charged in court for the death of Alejo. the statement must be made while the startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto. the above statement of Lt. Yap died as a consequence of the gunshot wound. Yap signed the statement in the presence of A and the attending nurse. The reason is that reputation evidence is hearsay evidence as the witness is not testifying to a matter of his personal knowledge but rather as to the reputation.000 to F is an equivocal act for it could be indicative of a loan. Q Two hours after Lt. A The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy. i. the prosecution is not correct. that is. Yap told A that it was Jose Comen who shot him. The statement was being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein.e. The defense objected to the testimony of A and to the admission of Exh. F contends that B donated the money to him. He was brought to a hospital for treatment where. Hence it is hearsay and inadmissible in evidence. B’s statement gives legal significance to B’s act of handing the money by characterizing it as a loan rather than a gift. as above stated. Lt. the statement may not be considered as a dying declaration. Meeting the objection. Gen. Yap read it or that it was read to him before he (Yap) signed it. Brig. The latter narrated the events surrounding the incident and categorically stated that it was Jose Comen who shot him. that it was Jose Comen who shot Lt. Lt. It had no relevance for the prosecution other than to prove that Jose Comen shot Lt. Here the statement was made two hours after the shooting and there is no showing that Lt. The defense countered by arguing that no facts relevant to the stabbing can be relevant to the shooting. A (a) No. A. Yap of the 2nd Air Division. The prosecution had to build its case on circumstantial evidence. the policeman was presented to testify on the declaration made to him by Alejo. (92 Bar Q2). may it be admitted as an independently relevant statement? (91 Bar Q16). Under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule. A Statements accompanying an accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue and giving it a legal significance (MEL) may be received in evidence as part of the res gestae. Yap. He told the policeman that he felt he would die from the serious wound inflicted on him by Danilo who has a grudge against him. may be received in evidence if the . Yap. The statement would have been admissible as part of the res gestae since it was made immediately after a startling occurrence. The defense argument that no facts relating to the stabbing can be relevant to the shooting was in substance an objection based on the similar acts rule. on the same day. Q Give an example of a verbal act. the testimony of Liza is not admissible against the objection of the defense that it is hearsay. regarding the pedigree of any one of its members. A. Yap marked as Exhibit X was presented and identified by A who did not. Yap was still under the influence of the shooting incident at the time he made the statement.
While the testimony may come in under the common reputation exception. or other published compilation containing statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation. As to reputation regarding moral character. 297 SCRA 402). may be received in evidence without calling to testify the one who made te entries or engravings. registers. REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 494. or other published compilations. The letters were out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the valuations made therein. Commercial publication Q What is the commercial publication exception to the hearsay rule? A A commercial publication is a list. the objection must be overruled. actuarial and annuity tables. 4. Note that the witness must be a member of the family whose reputation or tradition he is testifying about and that the reputation or tradition must be about the pedigree of any one of its members. . Such published compilation contains statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation. (PIO PR) Q Give examples of commercial publications as exception to the hearsay rule. Common reputation Q Is a statement regarding common reputation admissible as a hearsay exception? A Yes. (ANTONIO R. either by consanguinity or affinity. foreign exchange tables. Panibugho’s brother. b) No. or about marriage or moral character. Existed previous to the controversy or is ante litem motam. they would not fall under the commercial lists exception since the letters are not in the nature of lists. the petitioner presented a family book where he is indicated as a member of the family. 6th rev. Nor can it come under common reputation since it was only present in W’s family. (FRE 803). the reputation was that their brother X was a child genius. Q Give an example of a statement regarding family reputation. The reputation cannot come in as family reputation since it is not about the pedigree of X. Q In a filiation case. May the court allow or give weight to the following evidence presented by the prosecution over the vigorous objections of the defense? Explain. (2 FLORENZ REGALADO. Q What are the requirements of the commercial list hearsay exception? A The requirements are: 1. 3. it is objectionable on the ground that the prosecution cannot introduce evidence of the accused’s bad moral character except in rebuttal. periodical. Private Respondent sued PNOC for recovery of the value of the ship and damages. Is about facts of public or general interest more than 30 years old. provided that the common reputation: 1. xxx (a) Testimony of kuya. (S51 R130). A Witness W can testify that in their family. it is submitted that the reputation may be not only among the community but also among his associates. periodicals. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts. There is a a list. individuals are more anonymous. Q Wife Tinakwil filed charges of concubinage against her husband Panibugho and his paramour Kalunya. (S45 R130). periodical. the reputation was that Maria was an adopted child of his parents. Hence they may be used to prove a foreign case or foreign law. family portraits and the like. May this be offered in evidence over objection that it is hearsay? A No. (PNOC Shipping Corp. 2. CA. The respondent objected on the ground that the family book is hearsay since the person who made the entry was not presented in court and thus not subject to crossexamination. v. 2. engravings on rings. (S40 R130).31 witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family. who testified that no man in their family for at least three generations has been content with only one woman and that this reputation and tradition is established in their community. Q Is preliminary and independent evidence of the witness’s family membership required? A No. BASIC EVIDENCE 139 [2004 ed. or other published compilation. The witness can rely on his own testimony of family membership. which are published for use and relied upon by the persons engaged in the enterprise or business. Compilations of American cases or laws contained in books published by West Publishing Company are also examples. (pgmm) Q What is the nature of the reputation evidence under S41 R130? A S41 R130 speaks of common reputation which is generally understood as the reputation existing in the community in which the fact to be proved is known or exists. fishing gear and equipment similar to those lost by Private Respondent. (86 Bar Q10d).). In order to prove damages. A (d) The testimony of the brother is not admissible. The reason is that in modern urban communities. BAUTISTA. private respondent offered in evidence quotation letters from a ship builder and equipment dealers quoting the price of a fishing ship. register. The persons who wrote the quotation letters were however not presented by Private Respondent in court. Q Witness W will testify that in their family. and is generally used and relied upon by them. register. A Examples of such commercial publications are stock market reports. would they fall under the commercial lists exception? A a) Yes the price quotations are hearsay. Should the objection be sustained? A No. mortality tables. The compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation. The testimony of kuya will not qualify under the family reputation exception since the reputation is one existing in the community rather than the family. a) Are the price quotations hearsay? b) If so. Q A PNOC ship collided with private respondent’s fishing ship resulting in the latter ship sinking.]). ed. published for use by persons engaged in that occupation. The compilation is generally used and relied upon by the persons engaged in that occupation.
Hence the return is excepted from the hearsay rule even if the sheriff was not presented in court. is the same excepted from the hearsay rule? A While the text of S44 R130 would appear to indicate that such entry is not excepted from the hearsay rule. Pedro argued that Pam should have presented the sheriff so that he could have been cross-examined by Pedro. A Examples of private person specially enjoined by law to make entries: (1) Log book entry required under the Code of Commerce to be kept by a ship captain. (S44 R130). Price offers in classified ads are clearly hearsay. X admitted that he had robbed the victim of jewelry valued at P500. Q If the entry is made by a public officer of a foreign country in the performace of his duty. whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country. On the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by the court. Pedro contends that the judgment was null and void because the sheriff did not exert diligent efforts to effect personal service before resorting to substituted service. There is no requirement that the entrant is dead or unavailable to testify. they are also considered as prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (Id. (2) Stamp of dishonor and its reason required from the drawee of a check under B. Q What are the requirements of the official entries exception? A The requirements are: (K POP) 1) The entries must have been made in official records. 2) The entry must have been made by a public officer of the Philippines in the performance of his duty or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law (sel). ―[d]ocuments consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Q X was charged with robbery. Like business entries. Pam however did not present the sheriff who made the return nor did she explain why she failed to present the sheriff. (a) xxx (b) Is the certification of the PNP Firearm and Explosives Office without the certifying officer testifying on it admissible in evidence against X? (03 Bar Q18). 22. Both pieces of evidence were objected to by the defense. (Art. Q Pedro filed a petition for relief from the judgment of the RTC in Pam’s favor. Blg. Q Give examples of private persons specially enjoined by law to make official entries. Here the sheriff is a public officer and he made the entries in the return in the performance of duty.00. whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country. Under S23 R132. It likewise presented a certification of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office attesting that the accused had no license to carry any firearm. Pedro objected to the offer of the sheriff’s return on the ground that it was hearsay.‖ provides that documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. In a press conference called by the police. Under the Rules on Evidence. and (3) Parties to a marriage ceremony and the solemnizing officer are required to sign and attest the marriage certificate and the solemnizing officer is required to keep a copy. Under the Rules on Evidence. The prosecution presented in evidence a newspaper clipping of the report by the reporter who was present during the press conference stating that X admitted the robbery. A charge for illegal possession of firearms was also filed against him. How should the court rule on the objection? A The court should overrule the objection. The PNP certification is an official record which is excepted from the hearsay rule and thus admissible in evidence even without accounting for the non-presentation of the entrant. (S44 R130). Official records Q What is the official records exception to the hearsay rule? A Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines. S19(a) R132 classifies as public documents. Pam presented in evidence the sheriff’s return wherein it was stated that the sheriff exerted diligent efforts to effect personal service before resorting to substituted service. excepted from the hearsay rule are entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer. 23. Family Code). They cannot be considered as commercial lists since they are essentially separate and distinct offers to buy or sell and not a published compilation containing commercial information. however. not only are the official entries excepted from the hearsay rule.P. Q Is a return of service of summons executed by a foreign sheriff admissible to prove the fact of service even without presenting in court the foreign sheriff? A It is submitted that the return of service is admissible to prove the fact of service even without presenting the foreign sheriff. Although S44 R130 refers to ―[e]ntries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines‖ (italics supplied). . entries in official records made by a public officer in the performance of a duty are excepted from the hearsay rule and there is no requirement that the entrant be dead or unable to testify. was not presented as a witness. 3) The entrant must have 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. this provision should be read in conjunction with S19(a) R132 and S23 R132. FRE 803(8) also treats public records as an exception to the hearsay rule. They seized from his person a handgun.000. captioned ―[p]ublic documents as evidence.32 Q Are classified advertisements in the buy-and-sell section of a newspaper admissible over objection that these are hearsay? A No. The certifying officer. A (b) Yes the PNP certification is admissible in evidence against X.‖ Hence the return of service may be presented as prima facie evidence of the fact of service even without presenting the foreign sheriff.). S19(a) classifies as public documents the written official acts or records of the acts of public officers. S23. the written official acts of public officers. it is submitted that it is so excepted taking into account S19(a) and S23 of R130. or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law are excepted from the hearsay rule. The robbery and illegal possession of firearm cases were tried jointly. X was arrested by police operatives. The requirements of proof of official record under S24 R132 must of course be followed.
a police investigator went to the premises. The Petitioner raised the defense of prescription. 122954. (Africa v. The first level is justified by the official records exception while the second level is justified by the dying declarations exception.33 Q Is a certified true copy of the Monthly Report dated January 1985 of then Judge Rosalio A. The records custodian also testified that she was the one who made the entries in the record book. D1 wrote what D2 said in his log book. In the prosecution of X for murder. No. Q D2 was mortally injured. This frequently happens where a party seeks to introduce a written report by a declarant (first level) of another declarant’s out-ofcourt statement (second level). Each level of hearsay conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule. It was not stated in the TSN how and from whom she obtained the pertinent information. He wrote down in his report that many people passed by the gasoline station. However she did not attest that she was the one who personally prepared and mailed the assessment notice nor did she attest that the information in the entries were supplied by persons having a specific legal duty to do so. Here the BIR records custodian who made the entries thereon did not have personal knowledge thereof since she did not attest that she was the one who personally prepared and mailed the assessment notice nor did she attest that the information in the entries were supplied by persons having a specific legal duty to do so. assures quality and authoritativeness of the treatise. periodical. Hence S44 R130 is inapplicable. Such publication. 16 SCRA 448. Q D2 was found mortally injured by a security officer in a lobby of a hotel. and the date of mailing. Q Is an article on the web by an expert covered by this exception? A It is submitted that it is not so covered. He also wrote that he interviewed a bystander who told him that he (the bystander) saw a person throw a lighted cigarette near the gasoline tanks and that this started the fire. Such recognition may be proved by an expert witness or taken judicial notice of by the court. or pamphlet and guards against inferior or mediocre material. Comm. Opinion Rule Q Is the opinion of a witness admissible in evidence? A The opinion of a witness is not admissible in evidence subject to certain exceptions. may the prosecution present the log book to prove that X stabbed D2? A Yes. Multiple (double) hearsay Q What is double or multiple hearsay? A Double or multiple hearsay occurs when a hearsay declaration is embedded in another with the result that there are two or more levels of hearsay. . Court of Appeals. may the prosecution present the police investigation to prove that X stabbed D2 without presenting D1? A Yes. hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each level of hearsay conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule. the tax assessed. the writing would be inadmissible as the first level is not supported by a hearsay exception. After the fire. the police investigation report was hearsay. De Leon. Conscious of his impending death. (Feria v. of Internal Revenue. Such Monthly Report constitutes an entry in official records under Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. Were the entries in the BIR record book an exception to the hearsay rule? A No. Learned treatises Q Give the requisites of the learned treatise exception to the hearsay rule. 157064. Conscious of his impending death. Q The BIR issued a warrant of distraint and levy against the petitioner for deficiency income tax. art. D2 was interviewed by a police officer D1. science. arguing that the BIR’s right to assess had prescribed. D2 was interviewed by the security police officer D1 and D2 told D1 that X stabbed him several times. (TPP) 2) It is on the subject of law. As evidence. However as to the fact that the fire was started by someone throwing a lighted cigarette. 7 August 2006). In the prosecution of X for murder. which was offered to prove that the Petitioner had received the assessment notice. G. Under FRE 805. with the safeguards of editorial and peer review. D2 told D1 that X stabbed him several times. 1985. ―Published‖ here refers to one done by publishing houses and intended for sale or distribution to the public. or history. which is prima facie evidence of facts therein stated. The flames leapt over Caltex’ fence and engulfed several neighboring homes. D1 wrote what D2 said in his police investigation report. Caltex. The first level is justified by the business entries exception while the second level is justified by the dying declarations exception. the BIR offered in evidence before the CTA a BIR record book containing the taxpayer’s name. Roxas Securities Inc. 15 February 2000). Is the police investigation report admissible to prove the facts stated therein without presenting the police investigator? A As to the fact that many people passed by the gasoline station. A The requisites of the learned treatise exception are: (PLR) 1) There is a published treatise. D1 later died in an accident. 16 SCRA 448). periodical or pamphlet. it has been held that under S44 R130 the entrant must have 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. In Africa v. attesting to the fact that petitioner was convicted of the crime of Robbery with Homicide on January 11. Such safeguards are not present in the internet where almost anybody can post an article and represent himself to be an expert.R. (Barcelon.R. Caltex. The BIR contended that it had sent a formal assessment notice to the Petitioner. the registry receipt number. (LASH) 3) The writer of the statement in the TPP is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. If the one who wrote down what D2 said was a private person who later became unavailable to testify. G. an exception to the hearsay rule? A Yes. the police investigation report is admissible to prove this since the police investigation report is an official entry. v. Q A fire gutted a Caltex gasoline station. Each level of hearsay conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule. This is because the police investigator did not personally perceive this fact.
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. skill. The may be outlined thus: PARTIES CRIMINAL CASES. This is also known as short-hand opinions or impressions. A The exceptions are: (1) expert opinion. before he is allowed to testify. the party presenting the witness may rehabilitate his witness by presenting evidence of his good moral character. experience or training. and (3) shorthand opinions. he should be shown to possess the special knowledge. The witness may also testify on his impressions of the condition. Thus a clinical psychologist can testify regarding the psychological capacity of a person even if she was not able to personally interview the witness. there is no moral trait involved. The prosecution cannot adduce evidence of the accused’s bad moral character unless the defense opens the door for rebuttal by - WITNESSES The adverse party may introduce evidence that a witness’s general reputation for honesty.34 Q What are the exceptions to the rule that the opinion of a witness is not admissible in evidence. G. violence. fraud. Character Evidence Q Define character and distinguish it from reputation. length. However in a charge for failing to register securities before offering them for sale. In a charge for estafa. evidence of the victim’s promiscuous character may be adduced by the accused to show consent. Thus: Evidence of the violent character of the victim is relevant to prove self-defense by the accused. the expert witness may testify based on hypothetical or assumed facts. may be received in evidence regarding: (HIS) (a) The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge. and immorality are involved. (SHE) Q What is expert opinion? A The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge. or emotion of a person (CABE). The SC said that proof of the bad moral character of the victim is irrelevant to establish the probability or improbability of his killing since the accused did not allege that the victim was the aggressor or that the killing was made in self-defense. Evidence of his non-violent character can be adduced by the prosecution to show the accused’s guilt. Persons of good moral character do not usually deceive. 139070. and (2) lay opinion on handwriting.. 29 May 2002). A Character is what you are. Evidence of moral character of a party is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in a case. introducing evidence of the accused’s good moral character. The lack of qualification should be timely raised by the adverse party before the witness is presented to testify. CIVIL CASES. speed. Lee. (S40 & 41 R130). Q When is the opinion of an ordinary witness admissible in evidence? A The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given. or truth (HIT) is bad for purposes of impeaching the witness. or commit immoral acts. what is important is that he has special knowledge. A case should be decided based on the facts and the law. (S14 R132). (b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity. Note that family reputation and common reputation are excepted from the hearsay rule. Q Is it necessary that the expert witness have formal training or instruction on his field of expertise? A No. (Pp v. the expert witness should be qualified. . integrity. Unlike the ordinary witness. experience or training (special TEKS) which he is shown to possess. reputation is what the community knows you are. skill. Q Distinguish between character and reputation.R. a person’s moral character is relevant where issues of good or bad faith. and sanity. otherwise the objection is deemed waived. weight). behavior. appearance. Q What are the exceptions to the general rule that character evidence is not admissible? A As a rule of thumb. that is. physically hurt. the accused may prove his good moral character. Witnesses can also give opinions or estimates regarding physical dimensions (e. skill. The accused in a murder case raised the defense that victim was a drug addict and thief to try to show that he could have been killed by any one of those from whom he had stolen. In rape cases. (S50 R130).g. The expert opinion may be received in evidence. and lighting conditions. identity. Q What step should be taken before an expert witness is allowed to testify? A Unlike an ordinary witness. Q Is character evidence admissible? A The general rule is that character evidence is not admissible. (S11 R132). (picic) OFFENDED PARTY IN CRIMINAL CASE Evidence of the good or bad moral character of the offended party is admissible if it tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged (tepioc). The accused may prove his good moral character if pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged (pmtioc). Reputation may be used to prove character. S51 R130 provides for the instances where character evidence is admissible. No. experience or training. If impeached. (S51 R130). height. Q May an expert witness testify based on hypothetical or assumed facts? A Yes. not on the character of the parties.
Take note however that the burden of proof on the issue of negligence is always with the plaintiff. or (3) the witness’ opinion. (S1 R131). who testified that no man in their family for at least three generations has been content with only one woman and that this reputation and tradition is established in their community. (STEVEN H. Hence in a torts case where the parties ’ evidence on whether or not the defendant was negligent is evenly balanced.]). The modern view is that reputation among a person’s associates is also admissible to prove his character. Hence the same is inadmissible. GIFIS. Most presumptions are based on logical inferences. May the court allow or give weight to the following evidence presented by the prosecution over the vigorous objection of the accused? Give reasons. The basis for this view is that in urban societies. (ANTONIO R. D may introduce evidence of specific violent acts by V to show a custom or habit of violence on V’s part and hence to show that V was the aggressor while D acted in self-defense. Under S41 R130 common reputation is admissible to prove moral character. Burden of evidence on the other hand is the duty of a party to go forward with the evidence and may shift from party to party depending upon the developments in the case. where such character amounts to or is similar to a custom or habit. the burden of evidence to disprove the plaintiff’s claim that defendant is negligent shifts to the defendant. In a criminal case where the burden of proof of showing the accused’s guilt is with the prosecution. Q D was prosecuted for homicide for allegedly beating up V to death with an iron pipe. Witness’ opinion It appears under the Rules of Evidence that opinion is inadmissible to prove character as it is not among those excepted from the opinion rule. (S34 R130). and the like. BASIC EVIDENCE 139 [2004 ed. (S34 R130). testimony in the form of an opinion is admissible to prove character. (Note: An objection based on hearsay would have been overruled since common reputation is an exception to the hearsay rule. individuals tend to be more anonymous. RULE 131. if the plaintiff has presented evidence on defendant’s negligence sufficient to establish his claim. ed.]). Q How is character proved? A Character is proved by: (1) Reputation evidence. integrity. Thus in a torts case. Traditionally common reputation has been construed as that existing in the community in which a person lives or is well-known. Under the similar acts rule. Under FRE 405(a) however. evidence as to the bad character of the accused cannot be proved by the prosecution unless in rebuttal. 115625. A 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. since there is a logical connection between the fact in existence and the fact proved. xxx (d) Testimony of Kuya. (2) specific instances of conduct. Q What is a presumption? Explain briefly the nature of presumptions. Evidence of the good or bad moral character of the offended party is admissible if it tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged. Here the evidence would tend to establish the probability of homicide by showing that D was the aggressor and countering any claim of self-defense by D. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS Q Distinguish burden of proof from burden of evidence. the plaintiff will lose out since he has not proven the defendant’s negligence by preponderant evidence. the result is that the party with the burden of proof will lose out on that particular issue. Under the Rules of Evidence. then the prosecution will lose out on the issue of the accused’s guilt. A A presumption is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such fact to be assumed from another fact or set of facts. [S51(2) R130] Here the reputation evidence tends to prove the bad moral character of the accused by showing that he is a philanderer. LAW DICTIONARY 160 ). if the defense has presented countervailing (not necessarily equalizing) evidence which will cast reasonable doubt. G. (See FRE 803). Specific instances of conduct Specific instances of conduct may be used to prove character. integrity. Panibugho’s brother. Note however that a witness’ general reputation for honesty. 23 January 1998). (b) Yes. REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 494 [6th rev. The proper objection is that under S51 R130). A The court should not allow or give weight to the testimony of Kuya.35 Q Wife Tinakwil filed charges of concubinage against her husband Panibugho and his paramour Kalunya. (a) May the prosecution introduce evidence that V had a good reputation for peacefulness and non-violence? (b) May D introduce evidence of specific violent acts by V? (02 Bar Q14) A (a) Yes the prosecution may introduce evidence that V had a good reputation for peacefulness and nonviolence. CA. Essentially a presumption is based on a . The specific instances must be numerous enough to justify a finding that such past conduct amounts to a custom or habit. (2 FLORENZ D. The burden of proof rests upon a party asserting the affirmative of an issue. or truth may be impeached by reputation evidence. REGALADO. The key query is who is the party asserting the affirmative of an issue. (Rivera v. except that the witness may be examined as to the fact of a final conviction. (S51 R130). or truth may not be impeached by specific past acts of lying. (86 Bar Q10d). evidence that one did a certain thing may be received in order to show custom. An underlying fact gives a reasonable inference to prove that another fact (the presumption) exists. Under S11 R132 a witness’s general reputation for honesty. Q What is the equipoise doctrine? A The equipoise doctrine states that where the evidence on an particular issue is in equipoise or level or where the party not having the burden of proof has produced countervailing evidence. BAUTISTA. The Defendant in a suit for enforcement of written contract who raises the defense of forgery has the burden of proof of proving forgery. Thus Plaintiff who alleges defendant’s negligence has the burden of proof.R. Reputation evidence Evidence of common reputation is the method of proving character. This is often with the Plaintiff but it need not necessarily be so. habit.
LAW DICTIONARY 112 ). (S3[e] R131). or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. their political history. it is not a true presumption but is actually a statement of a rule of substantive law. (S3[a] R131). in any litigation arising out of such declaration. 7) That a printed or published book. contains correct reports of such cases. 7 August 2006). like the attorney-client privilege. act. (S3[s] R131). Judicial notice may be mandatory or discretionary. without the introduction of evidence. 29 March 1974). Roxas Securities v. (S3[d] R131). (S78 Insurance Code). (S3(v) R131). so far as to make the policy binding. RULE 129. 2) INTERNATIONAL LAW. 4) LAWS OF NATURE. Q President Estrada assails the Supreme Court’s decision for adverting to newspaper accounts of events to . since the defense could have obtained the said evidence which was equally available to it. A A conclusive presumption (also known as a nonrebuttable presumption) is one which no evidence. Other presumptions are based on the generally known results of wide human experience. GIFIS. (S2 R129). The parties may however stipulate on what the foreign law is in which case the same are judicial admissions binding upon them and they cannot take a contrary stance. by his own declaration. 157064. (S2[b] R131). Evidence 804 [2d ed. The presumption does not apply from the prosecution’s failure to present the NBI agents and the fingerprint and paraffin tests. 3) PHILIPPINES. since a presumption always properly refers to a rebuttable assumption of a fact. Q When is judicial notice mandatory? A A court shall take judicial notice. or omission. intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing is true. forms of government and symbols of nationality. Q Can a court take judicial notice of foreign laws? A Courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. On the other hand a disputable or rebuttable presumption is one which is satisfactory if uncontradicted. G. the presumption does not apply.R. The law of nations. was so printed or published. if the suppression is in exercise of a privilege. executive. In Travel-On v. (S3[hh]). (S3[r] R131). no argument. or are capable of unquestionable demonstration. (S3[gg]). A Judicial notice is a process whereby the court takes note of certain facts which are capable of being known to a veritable certainty by consulting sources of indisputable accuracy. A The following are instances of conclusive presumptions: (a) Whenever a party has. act. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED Q What matters need not be proved in court? A Matters of which the court has taken judicial notice and judicial admissions do not require proof. Negotiable Instruments Law). that is. purporting to be printed or published by a public authority. 2) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. Escolin. if an underlying fact exists it is highly probable that the presumed fact also exists. or consideration will be permitted to overcome. 210 SCRA 351. (S3[i] R131). The political constitution and history of the Philippines. CIR. of: 1) STATES. the official acts of the legislative. 6) That a printed or published book. but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. (PCIB v. however strong. 27936. CA. (S3[aa] R131). An example is the presumption that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. Q Give examples of disputable presumptions. That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract. (c) Presumption that a incomplete but delivered negotiable instrument has been filled up properly and presumption that a complete but undelivered negotiable instrument has been delivered validly if such instruments are in the hands of a holder in due course. (STEVEN H. Q Define judicial notice. In the strict sense. A 1) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong. 5) MEASURES OF TIME. thereby relieving one party of the burden of producing evidence to prove these facts. Hence one need not present the return card. The existence and territorial extent of states. be permitted to falsify it. Also. the SC held that a check is by itself sufficient evidence of the debt and that the check holder does not need to present the covering documents or invoices. 3) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration. An example of this kind of presumption is that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act. and to act upon such belief. when the term presumption is used in the conclusive sense. 6) GEOGRAPHICAL DIVISIONS. 5) That a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. (S3 R131). Q Give instances of conclusive presumptions. and judicial departments of the Philippines. notwithstanding any stipulation therein that it shall not be binding until the premium is actually paid. (See McCormick. purporting to contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of a foreign country where the book is published. G. the SC requires actual proof that the accused received notice of dishonor. 4) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of mail. and (2) the letter was mailed. (Barcelon. a presumption may be rebutted. The facts to be proved in order to raise this presumption are: (1) the letter was properly addressed with postage prepaid. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals. (d) An acknowledgment in a policy or contract of insurance of the receipt of premium is conclusive evidence of its payment. Thus you do not need to get a certified true copy of the case. (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.36 probability (albeit a high one). he cannot. or omission. Q Distinguish a conclusive presumption from a disputable presumption. Note however that in BP 22 cases. Since it is based on a probability. Q When is judicial notice discretionary? A A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge. (S14 & 16. (S2[a] R132). 1972]). Hence they need not present a marriage certificate.R.
37 reach the conclusion that he has resigned. AFTER THE TRIAL. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE Q How is the examination of a witness presented in a trial or a hearing done? A The examination of witness presented in a trial or a hearing shall be done in open court and under oath or affirmation. and before judgment or on appeal. There was no need to cite their news accounts. Q Give exceptions to the rule that the witness’s examination shall be done in open court A The following are exceptions to the rule of opencourt examination of a witness: a) In civil cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. the former owners thereof. (Diego v. on its own initiative or on request of a party. 339 SCRA 592). G. the court. 03-1-09-SC. Nos. These are facts within judicial notice by the Supreme Court. During the trial. redirect or recross examination. (3) the impeachment trial of the petitioner. DURING THE TRIAL. Q Give examples of judicial admissions. Subsequently. RULE 132. c) In a request for admission under R26. the abovementioned admission no longer appears. a hearing is required before the court may take judicial notice of a matter. filed an answer therein admittring the averment in the complaint that the land was acquired by the plaintiff through inheritance from his parents. (5) Estrada’s agreement to hold a snap election and the opening of the controversial second envelope. Estrada has not singled out any of these facts as false. Q What is a judicial admission? A A judicial admission is an admission. d) Stipulation of facts. at his discretion. effective 16 August 2004).M. A a) The genuineness and due execution of an actionable document copied in or attached to a pleading is deemed admitted by the adverse party if he does not specifically deny it under oath and set forth what he claims to be the facts. e) Admissions in the pleadings. The witness’s examination should be done in question-and-answer form. 146710-15. (4) the testimonies of Clarissa Ocampo and former secretary Edgardo Espiritu. Rules on Electronic Evidence). (S9 Rule on Summary Procedure). (S8 R8). the defendant. the party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the requesting party a sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters. After the trial. No. Desierto. amended the answer. The news accounts only buttressed these facts as facts. d) Matters regarding the admissibility and evidentiary weight of electronic documents may be proved by affidavits subject to cross by adverse party. (S11 R8). the contention of plaintiff is not correct. Whether under S1 or S2 of R129. on its own initiative or on request of a party. an amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. In the amended answer. (S3 R26). c) In civil cases. (S2 R26). The reason is that if a witness . (S4 R129). the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision upholding the defendant’s ownership of the land. Guingona. (S3 R129). the judge may. with leave of court. Q Is a hearing required before a court may take judicial notice of a matter? A Yes. Q May a witness testify in narrative form? A No. the plaintiff conteded that the defendant is bound by the admission containted in his original answer. b) In criminal cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. Under S2 R129. Is President Estrada’s protestation valid? A No. b) Material averment in the complaint. On appeal. instead. other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages. may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon. Q May a judicial admission be contradicted? A No. (S15 Rule on Summary Procedure).R. etc. Q In an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land filed in the Regional Trial Court. (2) ―I accuse speech‖ of Sen. (S1 R9. the alleged ownership of the land by the plaintiff was denied coupled with the allegation that the defendant is the owner of the land for the reason that he bought the same from the plaintiff’s parents during their lifetime. through his lawyer. This is to allow the parties to be heard on the matter. Hence the admissions in the superseded pleading cease to be judicial admissions and may not be considered by the court unless offered in evidence. It does not require proof. Sandiganbayan. Is the contention of plaintiff correct? Why? (93 Bar Q4) A No. (A. oral or written. subject to cross-examination. a court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge. 3 April 2001). There is no oral examination of a witness. except by showing that it was made through palpable mistake. each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless within the period designated in the request which shall not be less than 15 days after service thereof. the affidavits submitted by the parties shall constitute the direct testimonies of the witnesses who executed the same. (S4 R129). Under S8 R10. order the parties to use the affidavits of witnesses as direct testimonies subject to the right to object to inadmissible portions thereof and to the right of cross-examination by the other party. Take note however that any admission made by a party pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the pending action only and shall not constitute an admission by him for any other purpose nor may the same be used against him in any other proceeding. shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. These are: (1) Governor Chavit’s expose. After trial. made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case. the testimony of a witness shall be by way of affidavit. The events mentioned are facts which are wellestablished and cannot be refuted. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak or the question calls for a different mode of answer. the defendant changed his lawyer and. the proper court. the answers of the witness shall be given orally. (Estrada v. For all his loud protestations. 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.
Adverse-party witness. to explain or supplement his answers given during the cross-examination. Q What is re-cross-examination? A Re-cross-examination is the examination of the witness by the opponent. The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion. Q What are the two rules regarding the scope of cross-examination? A The two rules regarding the scope of crossexamination are the English Rule and the American Rule. improper. (S6 R132). after the witness’s re -direct examination. Q Is a witness obligated to answer questions? A Yes. (S7 R132). Q Is a leading question allowed? A As a rule a leading question is not allowed. Child Witness (S20 RECW). officer. with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him. 2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require. Q When are leading questions allowed? A Leading questions are allowed in the following instances: (PICHUCA) On cross-examinaition. child of tender years. or managing agent (DOM) of a corporation. or insulting questions. c) Re-direct examination by the proponent. (S5 R132). Ignorant witness. 5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation. Q What is a leading question? A One which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires. Q What is cross-examination? A It is the examination of a witness by the adverse party upon the termination of the direct examination. a witness must answer questions. Q A What are the rights of a witness? It is the right of a witness: 1) To be protected from irrelevant. Q On re-direct examination. unless it be to the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. (DFIC) Unwilling or hostile witness. (S7 R132). a witness may be crossexamined only on matters covered in his direct examination. The reason for prohibiting leading questions is that it is virtually the lawyer testifying rather than the witness. An exception is under S19 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness which provides that the court may allow a child witness to testify in narrative form. as the interests of justice may require. Under the English Rule. However in two instances. and from harsh or insulting demeanor. we follow the American Rule: o S12 R132: Cross-examination of a witness who has been called as an adverse-party witness by the other side or who has been declared as a hostile or unwilling witness upon the initiative of the other side. Q After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded. after the witness had been crossexamined. may questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination be allowed? A Yes in the discretion of the court. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense. SC Guidelines on Pre-trial and Discovery exhort courts to adhere strictly to the ―One-Day Examination of Witness‖ Rule subject to justifiable exceptions. Q What is re-direct examination? Give its purpose and extent.38 testifies in narrative form. 3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue. (S8 R132). d) Re-cross examination by the opponent. Q What is the order in the examination of an individual witness? A The order in which an individual witness may be examined is as follows: a) Direct examination by the proponent. The witness may be examined by the party calling him. (S3 R132). may the witness be recalled? A Yes but with leave of court. or association which is an adverse party. Q What is the purpose and extent of crossexamination? A The witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matter stated in the direct examination or connected therewith. partnership. On preliminary (background) matters. Q May the witness be re-cross-examined on matters not stated in his re-direct examination? A Yes in the discretion of the court. the witness may be cross-examined on all relevant aspects of the case even if not covered in his direct. Cross-examination of the accused in a criminal case. o S1(d) R115. (S8 R132). b) Cross-examination by the opponent. . or a director. (S9 R132). Q What rule do we follow in the Philippines? A We follow the English Rule. Q What is direct examination? A Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. Court has discretion to allow leading questions if the same will further the interests of justice. feeble-minded or deaf-mute witness. (S6 R132). (S1 R71). This may be gleaned from the wordings of S6 R132 which provides that the witness may be cross-examined with sufficient fullness and freedom to elicit all important facts bearing upon 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. Refusal to answer as a witness constitutes direct contempt. A Re-direct examination is the examination of the witness by the proponent. the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to object to the questions. (S3 R132). Under the American Rule.
Q Is evidence of the good character of a witness admissible? A No. A’s counsel marked for identification and offered in evidence certified copies of a Request for Admission and the Reply thereto in a previous case between the opposing party in the instant case. CONVICTION (FINAL). cf. A The court should not admit the document for the purpose of proving the certain fact nor for impeaching B’s testimony. CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE. it must first be shown to the witness before any question is asked of him. 375 SCRA 95). Evidence that the witness’ testimony is wrong or untrue. FRE 609[e]). (Pp v. Should the court admit the documents in evidence? Explain. The purpose i s not just to show an inconsistency but to prove outright that the witness is mistaken or lying. the more precise objection is that the question lacks basis.39 Q What is a misleading question? Is it allowed? A A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness. Q Plaintiff’s witness was asked on cross-examination whether he had failed a lie-detector test. In such a case. as for instance. . (Cf. Q What are the methods of impeachment of the adverse party’s witness? A The methods of impeachment of the adverse party’s witness are: (CRIC) 1. 4. B had made a judicial admission of a certain fact material to the present case. with the circumstances of the time and place and the persons present. the predicate must first be laid. (S14 R132). the party presenting the witness can rehabilitate the witness by introducing evidence of his good character. Q In the preceding question. on the ground that a witness may be not be impeached by evidence of particular facts or acts. Is the question objectionable? A Yes. may the Plaintiff introduce evidence of his witness’ good character? A No. (See S3 R132. Thus if the witness testified that defendant’s car entered the intersection when the stoplight was green in his favor but a video recording showed otherwise. If asked on direct. Q What is meant by impeachment of a witness? A Impeachment of a witness means to destroy or put in doubt the credibility of the witness or his testimony. Q At the close of the trial. Evidence of a witness’ good character is admissible only if such witness’ character has been impeached. (84 Bar Q11). It refers to a statement made outside of the case where the witness is testifying. the two-fold purpose thereof being to impeach B’s testimony in the present case and to establish that certain fact. and W denied having lied in any court case. Predicate need not be laid. in which case they may be used to impeach the witness without laying the predicate. Thus a statement to the police investigator. and a third party. C. the predicate should be laid. that he has been convicted of an offense. If so. what would be the result? A If the predicate is not laid. Q How is a witness impeached by evidence of an inconsistent statement? A Before a witness is impeached by evidence of an inconsistent statement. 3. In his turn to present evidence. The purpose of the question is to show that the witness was lying and hence it is not proper impeachment of the witness. He must be asked whether he made such statement. or integrity is bad. Q What is meant by an inconsistent statement which may be used to impeach a witness as provided for in S11 R132? A An inconsistent statement is a statement made by the witness which unexplained is different from and cannot be reconciled with the witness’ present testimony. the impeachment is not complete and the witness has not been impeached effectively. Q On cross-examination. may D present witness Y to testify that W lied in a court case? A No. He offered the documents as evidence that in the previous case. INCONSISTENT STATEMENT. (S3 R132). Evidence that the witness has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony. May this question be objected to? A Yes. not just for perjury or false testimony. B. (S14 R132). lying. It may be shown by the examination of the witness. If the deposition is however taken in another case. he must be asked to explain the inconsistency. It is never allowed. REPUTATION EVIDENCE. It is not limited to showing that the witness is lying but also to show that witness may be mistaken in her observation or narration. (S10 R132). The conviction must be final. Plaintiff’s witness was impeached by his prior inconsistent statement. FRE 608[b]). Note that a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense. (S11 R132). Q If the predicate is not laid. D may not impeach W by evidence of particular facts or acts. or the record of the judgment. (S11 R132). On re-direct. or contrary to that which he has previously stated. o If the statement is in writing. honesty. Q How is the predicate laid? A The laying of the predicate is done as follows: (WARE) (Asked 96 Bar Q14). The conviction may be for any offense. until such character has been impeached. Here the witness’s character was not impeached as what was used to impeach him was not reputation evidence but an inconsistent statement. D’s lawyer asked W if it is true that W had lied in another court case. Cortezano. Whether on cross or on his turn to present evidence. on the ground that a witness may not be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts. o o o The statement must be related to him. 2. assume that the question was allowed by the trial court. Evidence that the witness’ general reputation for truth. It does not refer to statements which are made in the same case. the video recording is contradictory evidence. On crossexamination. Q Plaintiff P presents witness W to testify that Defendant D punched P without provocation. Thus a witness may be impeached by an inconsistent statement made in his answer or deposition taken in the same case without requiring the witness to explain the inconsistency (See S4[a] R23).
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon an adequate showing of his adverse interest. However the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party.R. who may cross-examine the witness upon it and may read it in evidence. Q X states on direct examination that he once knew the facts being asked but he cannot recall them now. Thus it is clear that the same was not written by him or under his direction. authentication . Q Plaintiff called the Defendant as an adverse-party witness. (ARM). 2. as in the case of a business record. (UHA). If the witness is an adverse party or a director. 16 April 2008). The writing or the record however must be received with caution. G. Here X testified that he has never seen the writing before. because of the rule that a party who calls to the stand an adverse party witness is not bound by the latter’s testimony. even as against the calling party. May he testify from the writing or record mentioned in the first sentence of S16 R132? A Yes. Chua. When handed a written record of the facts he testifies that the facts are correctly stated. that it is genuine. is for the purpose of the pending action only and shall not constitute an admission by him for any other purpose nor may the same be used against him in any other proceeding. in other words. Is this contention correct? A No. (Gaw v. Under the Rules of Evidence. The rule is that a party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach the witness’ credibility. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS. The writing or record used to refresh a witness’ memory has no independent evidential value and cannot be offered in evidence. The Defendant was then cross-examined by his own counsel. The trial court rendered a decision against the Defendant in which it took into consideration the testimony of the Plaintiff as an adverse party witness both on direct and on cross by his own counsel. (S16 R132). Note: The fact that the record was not written by X would also make the same hearsay. Is the writing admissible as past recollection recorded? Explain. officer. Q May the writing or record used to refresh the witness’ memory be offered in evidence? A No. the prior admission cannot be used against B for S3 R26 states that ―the same [may not] be used against him in any other proceeding. Authentication in general Q What is authentication? A Authentication is the process of establishing that evidence is what it purports to be. The Defendant contends that it was error for the trial court to do so. (96 Bar Q14). UNWILLING OR HOSTILE WITNESS. especially with regard to the Plaintiff’s testimony on cross by hi s own counsel.‖ (PMR). or managing agent (DOM) of a corporation. 160855. A No. then the proponent may introduce it as documentary evidence. (RFK) (S16 R132).‖ (PRR).‖ Q May a party impeach his own witness? A No. provided he is able to swear that the writing or the record correctly stated the transaction when made. Q What if the witness retains no recollection of the particular facts. the Defendant called the Plaintiff as an adverse-party witness. whether express or implied. partnership. May the Defendant object to W’s testimony? A Yes. Hence the writing is not admissible. 305 SCRA 579 ). CA. If the witness has been declared by the court as an unwilling or hostile witness.40 Any admission under R26. The writing or record may be examined by the adverse party who can use it to cross-examine the witness and read it in evidence. The basis for the rule is that a party vouches for his witness’ credibility. (Canque v. unjustified reluctance to testify. except by evidence of his bad character. ADVERSE-PARTY WITNESS. The writing or record is also known as ―past recollection recorded. a witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact by a writing or record which is written or recorded by the witness or under his direction at a time when the facts were fresh in his memory and he knew that the fact was correctly written or recorded (kfc). On the other hand the record or writing recording past recollection should comply with the best evidence rule since it is being offered as proof of its contents. During the trial. the Plaintiff calls as his next witness W who will testify that Defendant has a reputation in their community of being a liar. (S12 R132). Q When may a party impeach his own witness? (UHA) A 1. or association (CPA) which is an adverse party. and of his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. the writing is not admissible as past recollection recorded. Hence even if A would lay the predicate for impeachment using an inconsistent statement. The witness has momentarily forgotten the fact but he can remember it if his memory is refreshed or jogged by the writing or record. A party who calls his adversary as a witness is not bound by the latter’s testimony only in the sense that he may impeach the witness’s testimony as if he were called by the adverse party. but that he has never seen the writing before. The unwilling or hostile witness or the adverseparty witness may be impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party. Q Must the writing or record used to refresh the witness’ memory comply with the best evidence rule? How about the writing or record which records past recollection? A The writing or record which is used to refresh a witness’s memory need not comply with the best evidence rule since it does not have any independent evidential value. If the writing or record however qualifies as an independent documentary evidence itself and not something used merely to refresh the witness’s memory. This procedure of refreshing the witness’ memory is known as ―present memory refreshed. the writing or record must be written or recorded by or under the direction of the witness testifying therefrom. It does not mean however that such testimony may not be given its proper weight. Q Plaintiff filed a case for collection of money against the Defendant. Q May a witness be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact? A Yes. After the examination of the Defendant had been concluded. In the case of private documents. (S12 R132).
is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine. 2. c) Acknowledged documents (notarial documents). b. that is. 3.]). or c. (S20 R132). etc. Q May a private document be authenticated by circumstantial evidence? A Yes. Q Are affidavits and sworn certifications public documents? A Affidavits and sworn certifications are not public documents because they are not acknowledged but merely sworn to before a notary public. A comparison. 2. official bodies and tribunals. Reply-letter rule. Although S44 R130 refers to ―[e]ntries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines. such as dates. whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country. If what the witness saw is the execution or writing of the document. (S20 R132) Q How is the genuineness of a person’s handwriting proved? A The genuineness of a person’s handwriting may be proved by: (WC) 1. Desierto. Written official acts or records of official acts of the sovereign authority. (S20 R132). Other evidence showing its reliability and integrity to the satisfaction of the judge. Q Former President Joseph Estrada argued that the Supreme Court relied upon the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s excerpts from the Angara Diary which documentary evidence however was not authenticated. Nos. except wills. (S22 R132). (S19 R132). d) Public records of private documents required by law to be entered therein. a copy of which the proponent is offering in evidence.‖ (italics supplied). known only to the participants in the events. and is unblemished by any alteration or circumstance of suspicion. amounts. What is written here is a document other than the one sought to be authenticated. Evidence that it had been digitally signed.‖ Estrada did not object to the admissibility of the Angara Diary despite opportunity to do so. (Estrada v. (SG). The presumption may be overthrown. Q A What are public documents? Public Documents consist of: (APO) b) OFFICIAL RECORDS. It does not need to be authenticated. its due execution and authenticity should be proved by (a) anyone who saw the document executed or written (sew) or (b) evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker (EGSHaM). a signed instruction for a person to make payment to a particular agent and the statement of account thereafter shows that the payment was credited. 3. Or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged. A witness who has seen the person write.. REE). Q How is a private electronic document authenticated? A Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence. Where the facts in the writing could only have been known by the writer. (S19 R132). the same is authenticated under S20(a) R132. Where a reply to a letter indicates that the one writing the reply knew the tenor of the letter. (S21 R132). S19(a) R132 classifies as public documents. Q What is a private document? A A private document is a document other than a public document. May the Supreme Court rely upon the excerpts even if these were not authenticated? A Yes. the reply is deemed authenticated. and public officers (SOP). Public documents however may be received in evidence without the need for authentication. Q Should a document be authenticated before it may be received in evidence? A We have to distinguish. 15 April 2001). 146710-15. this provision should be read in conjunction with S19(a) R132 and S23 R132. Examples: 1. the written official acts or records of the official acts of public officers. E. with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the adverse party or proved (atp) to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. Authentication is not required of public documents because they are presumed authentic by virtue of their nature.R. Under . Q How is a private document authenticated? A Before a private document offered as authentic is received in evidence it should first be authenticated.41 means proving the due execution and authenticity of a document which is offered as authentic. The Supreme Court said that ―a party who does not deny the genuineness of a proferred instrument may not object that it was not properly identified before it was received in evidence. Reply-authenticated documents. the document may still be authenticated using circumstantial evidence. (ANTONIO R. Q Is a return of service of summons executed by a foreign sheriff admissible to prove the fact of service even without presenting in court the foreign sheriff? A It is submitted that the return of service is admissible to prove the fact of service even without presenting the foreign sheriff. Private documents as a rule must be authenticated before they may be received in evidence. whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country. (S2 R5. or by other revealing contents. and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person (acak). Appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by law or rules have been applied to the document. Where the reply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the sending to him and his receipt of the letter in question. Where there is no eyewitness to the execution or writing of a private document or no evidence concerning the genuineness of the maker’s signature or handwriting can be obtained. G.g. Q What is an ancient document? Does it need to be authenticated? A An ancient document is a private document which is more than 30 years old. Self-authenticated documents. made by the witness or the court. BAUTISTA. For instance the use of code terms likely to be known only by the participants in the underlying events. its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means: a. BASIC EVIDENCE 149 [2004 ed.
with a certificate that such officer has the custody. except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case. in substance. Q Respondent offered in evidence. may be presented in evidence without further proof. Q May a judicial record be impeached? If so. First the attestation made by the assessment officer is defective for it did not state ―that the copy is a correct copy of the original. provided there has been compliance with the requirements of Public Act No. Q How is an official record proved? A An official record (the public document referred to in S19[a] R132) may be evidenced by: 1. On the photocopy is a stamped notation signed by an assessment officer in the local assessor’s office which states that the photocopy is a ―certified true xerox copy. vice consul. No. 30 July 2010). (S23 R132). if the record is not kept in the Philippines. Original record. Papa admitted that he did not see the seller sign the deed and that he did not appear before the notary public to acknowledge the deed. 30 January 2009). Hence the evidentiary standard to prove forgery is merely preponderance of evidence. (S25 R132). An improperly notarized deed of sale is not a public document which carries the presumption of due execution and authenticity. 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. Copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record and accompanied. (S28 R132). 13 March 2009). or a specific part thereof. Was the admission of the photocopy in evidence proper? A No. ―[d]ocuments consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Here Papa did not appear before the notary to acknowledge the deed of sale. no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office. Q What is the evidential nature of public documents? A Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. consul general. not clear and convincing evidence.42 S23 R132. (S27 R132). of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. or 2.‖ The petitioner objected to the offer on the ground that it violates the best evidence rule but the trial court overruled the objection and admitted the photocopy.‖ (See S25 R132). (S24 R132). The certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation. Q How is a public record of a private document proved? A An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by: 1. All other public documents are evidence. 142309. G. consul. or 2. G. his certificate must be authenticated by the Philippine embassy or consul. the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of their execution. even against a third person. (b) collusion between the parties. Dela Rama filed an action for annulment of title against the registered owner Papa. Papa. or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal. (Heirs of Gabatan v. then the evidence needed to prove forgery was clear and convincing evidence. (Dela Rama v. The requirements of proof of official record under S24 R132 must of course be followed. 2103. Q Alleging that his signature as seller in a deed of sale of land was forged. Was the CA’s reasoning correct? A No. accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody of official records. No. which Dela Rama failed to muster. (See Dycoco v. (S30 R132). Q May a public record be removed from the office in which it is kept? A No. as the case may be. The CA held that since the document was a public document.R. if there be any. in respect of the proceedings. which basically provides that the acknowledgment must be made before the Philippine embassy or consul or before a notary public or officer duly authorized by the law of the foreign country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents. (S26 R132). a photocopy of a deed of sale. Dela Rama’s testimony that his signature was forged taken with the testimony of Papa that he did not see Dela Rama sign and that he (Papa) did not acknowledge the document before the notary public was sufficient to prove forgery even without presenting a handwriting expert. Q How are acknowledged (notarial) documents proved? A Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law. Orina. It is the notary public or the proper court that has custody of his notarial register that could have produced the original or a certified true copy thereof.‖ Hence the return of service may be presented as prima facie evidence of the fact of service even without presenting the foreign sheriff. under the seal of such court. or (c) fraud in the party offering the record. Second the assessor’s office is not the official repository of original notarized deeds of sale and could not have been the legal custodian contemplated in S27 R132. Q What must the attestation of a copy state? A Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence. that the copy is a correct copy of the original. If the acknowledgment is made before a notary public or authorized officer. the attestation must state. . on two grounds. Q Is an instrument or document acknowledged and authenticated in a foreign country considered authentic in the Philippines? A Yes. No.R. 18483. how? A Yes a judicial record may be impeached by evidence of (JCF): (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer.R. The RTC ruled in favor of Dela Rama but on appeal the CA reversed. Q How is the lack of an official record proved? A The lack of an official record is proved by a written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or his deputy that after diligent search. Court of Appeals. Exhibit H. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer. 150206. Official publication thereof. G. (S30 R132). with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. Copy attested by the legal custodian of the record.
The reason is to enable the other party to object and to enable the court to make an intelligent ruling. He may show that the alteration was made by another. 30 July 2010). Q Is it required that the purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified? A Yes. Orina. the document shall not be admissible in evidence. Q When should an objection to evidence be made? A TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE: At two points. Tonaquin. and second. ed. S36 R132 requires that the ground for the objection must be specified. No. Q May evidence offered for one purpose be considered for another? A No. Q When will an alteration affect the admissibility of a document? A An alteration will affect the admissibility of a document if: (GEM) (1) The document is being offered as genuine. unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. G. Is the accused’s contention correct? A No. (2) The alteration was made after the execution of the document.43 Q The acknowledgment portion of a real estate mortgage did not indicate the person who appeared before the notary public as the blank for the name of the person was not filled in. Multiwood International Inc. REGALADO. the objector must follow up with a specific objection. (Heirs of Cruz-Zamora v. If S33 R132 were to be strictly observed. Q After an objectionable question had been asked by plaintiff’s counsel. REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 550 [6th rev. Q What is a specific objection and what is a general objection? A A specific objection is one which employs a specific ground therefor. Q Certain documents were marked and identified by a party. 19 January 2009). It is submitted that they are not prohibited where the evidence is orally offered. Mere identification of documents and the marking thereof as exhibits does not confer any evidentiary weight on the documents unless these are formally offered. May the court consider these in rendering its decision? A No. No. without his consent. If he does not do so. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Diano [CA] 66 O.] citing People v. (People v. So objecting when the document is merely being marked and identified is premature. unless it cannot be submitted to the court in which case at the time it is presented to the court’s senses. your Honor!‖ Should the judge sustain the objection? A No. (S31 R132). When the evidence is offered in writing. Q The trial court took into consideration accused’s extrajudicial confession in Cebuano in convicting him.G. (2 FLORENZ D. Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the ground therefor shall become reasonably apparent. evidence may be offered for two or more purposes and this necessarily requires that the purposes be specified. Appellant’s extrajudicial confession in Cebuano should have been translated by the official interpreter of the court or a translation agreed upon by the parties and both the original and the translation filed. OBJECT EVIDENCE. or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. At the time the witness is called to testify. unless a different period is allowed by the court. Thus a comment/objection to a written offer of a document on the ground that it is . Where evidence has been offered in writing. the extrajudicial confession should not have been admitted by the trial court as evidence for the prosecution. when an objectionable question is asked of the witness. If he fails to do that. After the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence and before he rests his case. like ―hearsay‖ while a general objection uses broad or sweeping grounds such as ―irrelevant and incompetent.. Q When and how is evidence offered: A TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE. Furthermore. Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence. then he cannot assign any error to the court’s ruling. objection must be made within 3 days from notice. 18483. On appeal. (S36 R132). defendant’s counsel immediately said. (S34 R132). or was otherwise properly or innocently made. ―Objection. (3) The alteration is in a part material to the question in dispute. Q May an alteration affecting the admissibility of a document be explained by the proponent? A Yes. The offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. a general objection is improper. G.R. (Dycoco v.‖ Q Is a general objection allowed? A There is no provision in the Rules of Evidence expressly prohibiting general objections. First when the offer is made. Since the real estate mortgage was improperly notarized. The offer is made orally. Objection must be made immediately after the offer is made. objection must be made immediately after the offer. 133188. 6405). 23 July 2004). Same as documentary evidence. Nevertheless considering Appellant did not interpose any objection thereto and the parties and the judicial personnel appear to be familiar with Cebuano. (CAMPI). (S34 R132). When the document is offered in evidence. DOCUMENTARY AND OBJECT EVIDENCE. In such a case if the objection is overruled. the extrajudicial confession was properly considered by the trial court. May the real estate mortgage be considered a public document? A No. or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it. When the evidence is offered orally. OFFER AND OBJECTION Q Why is an offer of evidence important? A An offer of evidence is important because the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. the accused contends for the first time that his confession should not have been received in evidence pursuant to S33 R132. it is not a public document but a private document which has to be authenticated under S20 R132. Q Is a document written in Waray admissible in evidence? A No.R.
Q When may a continuing objection be made? A When a party has previously objected to a question. may file such action. Q When may a witness’s answer be stricken off the record? A 1. Q What is the remedy of the offeror if the evidence offered is excluded? A The remedy of the offeror is to avail of the remedy known as tender of excluded evidence or offer of proof. 2. and succeeding questions are of the same class as those previously objected to. G. Where a witness answered the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection. except when the objection is based on 2 or more grounds in which case a ruling sustaining the objection must specify the ground/s relied upon. NO. Under S40 R132 before tender of excluded evidence may be made the evidence must be formally offered to the court and denied admission by it. the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. 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 court need not state the reason for sustaining or overruling an objection. irrelevant. (S38 R132). 11-2000 issued by the Insurance Commission.M. it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection. (nps) (S40 R132). If the offeror fails to tender excluded evidence. (pcr) (S37 R132). including minors or generations yet unborn. then the ruling of the trial court excluding the evidence may no longer be reviewed by the appellate court.R. RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES (A. or otherwise improper. Q May a court issue a TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction against lawful actions of government agencies that enforce environmental laws or prevent violations thereof? A No. 09-6-8-SC) Q Give the scope and applicability of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC). (S38 R132). to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws. 30 July 2010). the court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the record. No. (Yu v. G. If the evidence excluded is oral. whether sustained or overruled.44 ―immaterial. A These Rules shall govern the procedure in civil. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that under Circular Letter No.). Q When must the court give its ruling upon the objection? A The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made. except for the Supreme Court. including the government and juridical entities authorized by law. (Dycoco v. This presupposes that the ground for the objection was not reasonably apparent when the question was asked but only became so after the witness had answered. unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented. irrelevant. She filed a petition for certiorari under R65 with the Court of Appeals. the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. (Id. b) No the contents of an insurance policy and application are not privileged and confidential. and such objection is found to be meritorious. Q What pleadings are allowed under the RPEC? . Where the answer is incompetent. Orina. Metropolitan Trial Courts. 11-2000 was not designed to obstruct lawful court orders. Here the insurance policy and application were not formally offered to the trial court. 18483. and impertinent‖ was held to be a virtual admission of the authenticity of the document. insurance companies/agents are prohibited from divulging confidential and privileged information pertaining to insurance policies. 154115. a) Was the R65 petition of Viveca rendered moot and academic when she made a tender of excluded evidence before the trial court? b) Are the contents of an insurance policy and application confidential and privileged? A a) No the R65 petition of Viveca was not rendered moot and academic when she made a tender of excluded evidence before the trial court. criminal and special civil actions before the Regional Trial Courts. Q What is the purpose of making a tender of excluded evidence? What is the consequence if the offeror fails to make a tender of excluded evidence? A The purpose of making a tender of excluded evidence is to allow the appellate court to assess whether the trial court’s exclusion of the evidence is proper. 29 Nov 05). During trial Viveca moved for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum to Insular Life officers to compel production of the insurance application and policy of a person suspected to be Philip’s illegitimate child.R. (S39 R132). Municipal Trial Courts in Cities. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts involving enforcement or violations of environmental and other related laws. If documentary or object evidence are excluded by the court. Q Viveca brought against her husband Philip Yu (Petitioner) an action for legal separation and dissolution of conjugal partnership on the grounds of marital infidelity and physical abuse. The Petitioner argues that Viveca’s tender of excluded evidence mooted her R65 petition. A citizen suit may also be filed by any Filipino citizen in representation of others. she filed her formal offer of rebuttal exhibits with tender of excluded evidence on the insurance policy and application. Q Should the court state the reason for sustaining or overruling the objection? A No. In the trial court. Q Who may file a civil action involving the enforcement or violation of any environmental law? A Any real party in interest. The Insurance Commission itself has issued an opinion that Circular Letter No. rules and regulations. CA. Viveca filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial but this was denied. it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to such class of questions. Hence the tender of excluded evidence was not an adequate remedy which precluded or mooted the petition for certiorari.
(S14) Q Within what time should counterclaims and crossclaims be answered? A The answer to counterclaims or cross-claims shall be filed and served within ten (10) days from service of the answer in which they are pleaded. A The judge shall put the parties and their counsels under oath. the branch clerk of court shall issue a notice of the pre-trial to be held not later than one (1) month from the filing of the last pleading. the court shall declare defendant in default and upon motion of the plaintiff. the branch clerk of court shall also require the parties to submit the depositions taken under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court. (e) Reply and rejoinder. The mediation report must be submitted within ten (10) days from the expiration of the 30-day period. Q When may a preliminary conference be conducted? What are the purposes of the pre-trial conference? A If mediation fails. except lack of jurisdiction. Q What is a consent decree? . if authorized by their clients. (d) Motion to declare the defendant in default. and (i) To attach the minutes together with the marked exhibits before the pre-trial proper. otherwise. (h) To mark the affidavits of witnesses which shall be in question and answer form and shall constitute the direct examination of the witnesses. the court shall inquire from the parties if they have settled the dispute. (S14) Q What is the effect if the defendant fails to answer the complaint within the period provided? A Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period provided. the court may refer the case to the branch clerk of court for a preliminary conference for the following purposes: (a) To assist the parties in reaching a settlement. and (f) Third party complaint. and they shall remain under oath in all pre-trial conferences. studies of experts and all evidence in support of the defense. and the answers to request for admissions by the adverse party under Rule 26. The judge may issue a consent decree approving the agreement between the parties in accordance with law. Mediation must be conducted within a nonextendible period of thirty (30) days from receipt of notice of referral to mediation. (f) To consider such other matters as may aid in its prompt disposition. addresses and contact numbers of the affiants. if any. If not available. (d) To require the parties to submit the depositions taken under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court. (c) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings. Q Within what time should the defendant answer the complaint? A Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of summons.45 A The pleadings and motions that may be filed are complaint. answer which may include compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim. the court shall immediately refer the parties or their counsel. (cadri) Motion for postponement. (b) Motion for a bill of particulars. Before the scheduled date of continuance. The court shall schedule the pre-trial and set as many pre-trial conferences as may be necessary within a period of two (2) months counted from the date of the first pre-trial conference. Q When shall the court issue the notice of pre-trial? When shall the pre-trial be held? A Within two (2) days from the filing of the answer to the counterclaim or cross-claim. Affirmative and special defenses not pleaded shall be deemed waived. the court shall refer the case to the clerk of court or legal researcher for mediation. During the preliminary conference. the answers to written interrogatories under Rule 25 and the answers to request for admissions by the adverse party under Rule 26. (e) To require the production of documents or things requested by a party under Rule 27 and the results of the physical and mental examination of persons under Rule 28. (S14) Q What is the effect if cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims are not asserted in the answer? A Cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims not asserted shall be considered barred. Q Shall the case be referred to mediation? A Yes. public order and public policy to protect the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. the extension not to exceed fifteen (15) days. (S14) Q Are affirmative and special defenses not pleaded in the answer deemed waived? A Yes. motion for intervention. (c) To ascertain from the parties the undisputed facts and admissions on the genuineness and due execution of the documents marked as exhibits. (S15). shall receive evidence ex parte and render judgment based thereon and the reliefs prayed for. Q Describe in brief the duty of the judge during the pre-trial conference. morals. the answers to written interrogatories under Rule 25. to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) unit for purposes of mediation. motion for discovery and motion for reconsideration of the judgment. The parties or their counsel must submit to the branch clerk of court the names. the court will schedule the continuance of the pre-trial. The judge shall exert best efforts to persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement of the dispute. (b) To mark the documents or exhibits to be presented by the parties and copies thereof to be attached to the records after comparison with the originals. except to file answer. Q What are the prohibited pleadings and motions? A The following pleadings or motions shall not be allowed: 4M (d bed) RRT (a) Motion to dismiss the complaint. the defendant shall file a verified answer to the complaint and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff. The branch clerk of court may also require the production of documents or things requested by a party under Rule 27 and the results of the physical and mental examination of persons under Rule 28. (g) To record the proceedings in the ―Minutes of Preliminary Conference‖ to be signed by both parties or their counsels. motion for new trial and petition for relief from judgment shall be allowed in highly meritorious cases or to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. The defendant shall attach affidavits of witnesses. At the start of the pre-trial conference. reports.
within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from receipt of notice that an answer has been filed. The court where the case is assigned. submit its comments or observations on the execution of the judgment. If the court rejects the defense of a SLAPP. Q What steps may be taken to monitor the execution of the judgment? A The court may. by way of counterclaim. The party filing the action assailed as a SLAPP shall prove by preponderance of evidence that the action is not a SLAPP and is a valid claim. Q Is a bond required for the issuance of a TEPO? A No. the court may award damages. preservation and rehabilitation of the environment. affidavits. costs of suit and other litigation expenses. the evidence adduced during the summary hearing shall be treated as evidence of the parties on the merits of the case. Q Is a judgment directing the performance of acts for the protection.46 A Consent decree refers to a judicially-approved settlement between concerned parties based on public interest and public policy to protect and preserve the environment. Q When may a temporary environmental protection order (TEPO) be issued? A If it appears from the verified complaint with a prayer for the issuance of an Environmental Protection Order (EPO) that the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury. The other party may. the court where the case is assigned. the defendant may file an answer interposing as a defense that the case is a SLAPP and shall be supported by documents. shall periodically monitor the existence of acts that are the subject matter of the TEPO even if issued by the executive judge. the court may grant to the plaintiff proper reliefs which shall include the protection. or to contribute to a special trust fund for that purpose subject to the control of the court. Q What is the effect if evidence is not presented during the pre-trial? A Evidence not presented during the pre-trial. or assertion of environmental rights. the costs of which shall be borne by the violator. The action shall proceed in accordance with the Rules of Court. preservation or rehabilitation of the environment executory pending appeal? A Yes. The parties must submit all available evidence in support of their respective positions. institution or the government has taken or may take in the enforcement of environmental laws. shall be deemed waived. Within said period. preserve or rehabilitate the environment. except newly-discovered evidence. attorney’s fees and costs of suit under a counterclaim if such has been filed. may issue ex parte a TEPO effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from date of the receipt of the TEPO by the party or person enjoined. Q May the defense that the case is a SLAPP be interposed by the defendant? If so. A A legal action filed to harass. Q How shall the court resolve the SLAPP defense? A The affirmative defense of a SLAPP shall be resolved within thirty (30) days after the summary hearing. papers and other evidence. Q What is the nature of the hearing on the SLAPP defense? What is the quantum of evidence in the SLAPP hearing? A The hearing on the defense of a SLAPP shall be summary in nature. what shall the court do? A The court shall direct the plaintiff or adverse party to file an opposition showing the suit is not a SLAPP. detailing the progress of the execution and satisfaction of the judgment. by itself or through the appropriate government agency. and. and may lift the same at any time as circumstances may warrant. monitor the execution of the judgment and require the party concerned to submit written reports on a quarterly basis or sooner as may be necessary. vex. The dismissal shall be with prejudice. the court may convert the TEPO to a permanent EPO or issue a writ of continuing mandamus directing the performance of acts which shall be effective until the judgment is fully satisfied. Special Civil Action for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan Q What is a Writ of Kalikasan? What is its nature? . Q If a SLAPP defense is alleged in the answer. shall conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the TEPO may be extended until the termination of the case. attorney’s fees and costs of suit. Q Define a strategic lawsuit against public participation or SLAPP. protection of the environment. at its option. protection of the environment or assertion of environmental rights. the applicant shall be exempted from the posting of a bond for the issuance of a TEPO. If the court dismisses the action. Q What are the reliefs that may be granted in a citizen suit? A If warranted. exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse that any person. Q When may a permanent EPO or a writ of continuing mandamus be issued? A In the judgment. preservation or rehabilitation of the environment and the payment of attorney’s fees. It may also require the violator to submit a program of rehabilitation or restoration of the environment. Q What is an environmental protection order? A Environmental protection order (EPO) refers to an order issued by the court directing or enjoining any person or government agency to perform or desist from performing an act in order to protect. unless restrained by the appellate court. the executive judge of the multiplesala court before raffle or the presiding judge of a single-sala court as the case may be. The party seeking the dismissal of the case must prove by substantial evidence that his acts for the enforcement of environmental law is a legitimate action for the protection. attaching evidence in support thereof. pray for damages. how should the defense be alleged? A In a SLAPP filed against a person involved in the enforcement of environmental laws. The defense of a SLAPP shall be set for hearing by the court after issuance of the order to file an opposition within fifteen (15) days from filing of the comment or the lapse of the period.
health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. scientific or other expert studies. Writ of Continuing Mandamus Q When may a petition for a writ of continuing mandamus be availed of? A When any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office. It shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. a complete statement of its present status. The return shall include affidavits of witnesses. Q What is the effect if a defense is not raised in the return? A All defenses not raised in the return shall be deemed waived. custody or control of any designated documents. ORDER — The motion must show that an ocular inspection order is necessary to establish the magnitude of the violation or the threat as to prejudice the life. or private individual or entity. After hearing. the court may order any person in possession or control of a designated land or other property to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting or photographing the property or any relevant object or operation thereon. in support of the defense of the respondent. (c) The environmental law. (3) if petitioner should learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending. rule or regulation or commit any act resulting to environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life. trust or station in connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law . and if possible. health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life. photographs. (d) All relevant and material evidence consisting of the affidavits of witnesses. and (f) The reliefs prayed for which may include a prayer for the issuance of a TEPO. (e) Counterclaim or cross-claim. It shall be supported by affidavits of witnesses having personal knowledge of the violation or threatened violation of environmental law. or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency. objects or tangible things. place and manner of making the inspection and may prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all parties. health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. ORDER – The motion must show that a production order is necessary to establish the magnitude of the violation or the threat as to prejudice the life. or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee. letters. health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. time. and no such other action or claim is pending therein. (d) Motion for a bill of particulars. Q What is the responsive pleading of the respondent? Within what period should it be filed and what should it contain? A The responsive pleading of the respondent is the verified return. copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant. scientific or other expert studies. papers. and the environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life. (e) The certification of petitioner under oath that: (1) petitioner has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court. (g) Reply. the respondent may be described by an assumed appellation. tribunal or quasi-judicial agency. The order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the inspection and the date. Q What are the discovery measures or interim reliefs that may be availed of by a party? A A party may file a verified motion for the following reliefs: (a) OCULAR INSPECTION. (c) Motion for postponement. accounts. or objects in digitized or electronic form. the respondent shall file a verified return which shall contain all defenses to show that respondent did not violate or threaten to violate. the act or omission complained of. on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated. Q Where shall the petition be filed? subject to the payment of docket fes? Is the petition A The petition shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the Court of Appeals. place and manner of making the inspection or production and may prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all parties. entity authorized by law.47 A The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person. The production order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the production and the date. After hearing. to produce and permit their inspection. or allow the violation of any environmental law. (f) Third-party complaint. books. Q What is the effect of a general denial in the return? A A general denial of allegations in the petition shall be considered as an admission thereof. (2) if there is such other pending action or claim. documentary evidence. object evidence. Within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days after service of the writ. petitioner shall report to the court that fact within five (5) days therefrom. and if possible. which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the return. Q Should the petition be verified? What are the contents of the petition? A The petition should be verified. The verified petition shall contain the following: (a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner. and (h) Motion to declare respondent in default. time. non-governmental organization. object evidence. (b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent or if the name and personal circumstances are unknown and uncertain. rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated. (b) PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS. Q What are the prohibited pleadings and motions? A The following pleadings and motions are prohibited: (5M [bed dp] RTCC) (a) Motion to dismiss. documentary evidence. the court may order any person in possession. health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. (b) Motion for extension of time to file return. The petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of docket fees. people’s organization.
shall accrue to the funds of the agency charged with the implementation of the environmental law violated. and to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the malicious neglect to perform the duties of the respondent. (Note: This provision seems to have confounded the complaint which is filed directly in court under S3 R110 with the complaint for preliminary investigation/examination under S3[a] R112). Q Describe the proceedings after the filing of the comment. the reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made during arraignment. or (b) When an offense has just been committed. Q To whom will the damages awarded accrue in case there is no private offended party? A The damages awarded in cases where there is no private offended party. and the court may. and the fees shall constitute a first lien on the judgment award. reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied. the satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in the court docket. Q When should the reservation of the right to institute the civil action be made? A Unless the civil action has been instituted prior to the criminal action. Rule 131 of the Rules of Court when effecting arrests for violations of environmental laws. Q When shall the writ issue? A If the petition is sufficient in form and substance. attaching thereto supporting evidence. A An information. the court shall grant the privilege of the writ of continuing mandamus requiring respondent to perform an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied and to grant such other reliefs as may be warranted resulting from the wrongful or illegal acts of the respondent. without a warrant. a final return of the writ shall be made to the court by the respondent. under the law. A After the comment is filed or the time for the filing thereof has expired. (S2 R9 RPEC). specifying that the petition concerns an environmental law. (Note: Compare with S5 R113 which allows a private person to make a warrantless arrest. . Upon full satisfaction of the judgment. Such order shall be served on the respondents in such manner as the court may direct. If the court finds that the judgment has been fully implemented. the filing and other legal fees shall be imposed on said award in accordance with Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. The court shall require the respondent to submit periodic reports detailing the progress and execution of the judgment. shall be filed with the court. The periodic reports submitted by the respondent detailing compliance with the judgment shall be contained in partial returns of the writ. the court shall issue the writ and require the respondent to comment on the petition within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy thereof. together with a copy of the petition and any annexes thereto. Q When may a warrantless arrest be lawfully made? A A peace officer or an individual deputized by the proper government agency may. Criminal Procedure Q Who may file a criminal complaint for violation of environmental laws? A Any offended party. Q State the reliefs and the measures the court may provide in its judgment granting the privilege of the writ of continuing mandamus. Q Where may the petition be filed? Is the same subject to the payment of docket fees? A The petition shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred or with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Q Is the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense charged deemed instituted with the criminal action? A Yes. The petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of docket fees. less the filing fees. rules or regulations. The petitioner may submit its comments or observations on the execution of the judgment. A If warranted. the person to be arrested has committed. Q Are docket fees required to be paid in case the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal action? A No. by itself or through a commissioner or the appropriate government agency. is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense. shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the complainant waives the civil action. or unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such right and there is no other plain. in his presence. the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court. peace officer or any public officer charged with the enforcement of an environmental law may file a complaint before the proper officer in accordance with the Rules of Court. Q State the provision on the filing of an information.48 rule or regulation or a right therein. Individuals deputized by the proper government agency who are enforcing environmental laws shall enjoy the presumption of regularity under Section 3(m). the court may hear the case which shall be summary in nature or require the parties to submit memoranda. when a criminal action is instituted. evaluate and monitor compliance. However in case civil liability is imposed or damages are awarded. and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The award shall be used for the restoration and rehabilitation of the environment adversely affected. alleging the facts with certainty.). rule or regulation. arrest a person: (a) When. the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged. charging a person with a violation of an environmental law and subscribed by the prosecutor. The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. The petition shall be resolved without delay within sixty (60) days from the date of the submission of the petition for resolution.
The sheriff shall conduct the auction. the court shall: a) Issue an order which contains the pleabargaining arrived at. including the civil liability for damages. e) To consider such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the case. the court may issue a holddeparture order in appropriate cases. bail may also be filed with any Regional Trial Court of said place. Q When shall the court set the arraignment? and offended party or concerned government agency agree to the plea offered by the accused? A On the scheduled date of arraignment. g) To mark the affidavits of witnesses which shall be in question and answer form and shall constitute the direct examination of the witnesses. the court shall consider plea-bargaining arrangements. equipment. b) To mark the documents to be presented as exhibits. as follows: a) To appear before the court that issued the warrant of arrest for arraignment purposes on the date scheduled. tools or instruments of the crime were seized. tools or instruments of the crime. The court shall. the judge must read the information in a language known to and understood by the accused and require the accused to sign a written undertaking. It may refer the case to the branch clerk of court. b) Thereafter. 5 th ed. or the owner thereof and the concerned government agency. Where the prosecution and offended party or concerned government agency agree to the plea offered by the accused. photograph the same in the presence of the person from whom such items were seized. paraphernalia. If the court grants bail. the person from whom the items were seized. the court shall set the pre-trial conference within thirty (30) days. the apprehending officer shall submit to the issuing court the return of the search warrant within five (5) days from date of seizure or in case of warrantless arrest. 1979). d) The auction sale shall be with notice to the accused. fix the minimum bid price based on the recommendation of the concerned government agency. Q What are the duties of the court before granting the application for bail? A Before granting the application for bail. the court may direct the auction sale of seized items. compliance report. and c) To waive the right of the accused to be present at the trial. (Black’s Law Dictionary. city or municipality other than where the case is pending. c) Upon motion by any interested party. Q What is plea-bargaining? A The process whereby the accused and the prosecutor in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. metropolitan trial judge. with any metropolitan trial judge. if any. Q When shall the court consider plea-bargaining arrangements? What shall the court do if the prosecution . after hearing. with any regional trial judge. b) To appear whenever required by the court where the case is pending. paraphernalia. municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge therein. If the accused is arrested in a province. and if the accused fails to appear without justification on the date of arraignment. Q When shall the court set the pre-trial conference? A After the arraignment. submit within five (5) days from date of seizure. equipment. or if no judge thereof is available. A The court shall set the arraignment of the accused within fifteen (15) days from the time it acquires jurisdiction over the accused. Q What are the purposes of the preliminary conference? A The preliminary conference shall be for the following purposes: a) To assist the parties in reaching a settlement of the civil aspect of the case.49 Q What is the procedure in the custody and disposition of seized items? A The custody and disposition of seized items shall be in accordance with the applicable laws or rules promulgated by the concerned government agency. f) The proceeds shall be held in trust and deposited with the government depository bank for disposition according to the judgment. city or municipality. photographs. and c) Render and promulgate judgment of conviction.representative samples and other pertinent documents to the public prosecutor for appropriate action. In the absence of such applicable laws or rules. the trial may proceed in absentia. equipment. the following procedure shall be observed: a) The apprehending officer having initial custody and control of the seized items. with notice to the public prosecutor and offended party or concerned government agency that it will entertain plea-bargaining on the date of the arraignment. and upon failure of the accused to appear without justification and despite due notice. paraphernalia. municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge in the province. conveyances and instruments shall physically inventory and whenever practicable. accused waives the reading of the information and authorizes the court to enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of the accused and to set the case for trial. or in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof. c) To attach copies thereof to the records after comparison with the originals. the inventory report. f) To record the proceedings during the preliminary conference in the Minutes of Preliminary Conference to be signed by the parties and counsel. for a preliminary conference to be set at least three (3) days prior to the pretrial. Q Where is bail filed? A Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is pending. if warranted. e) The notice of auction shall be posted in three conspicuous places in the city or municipality where the items. It usually involves the defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge. b) Proceed to receive evidence on the civil aspect of the case.. and h) To attach the Minutes and marked exhibits to the case record before the pre-trial proper. d) To ascertain from the parties the undisputed facts and admissions on the genuineness and due execution of documents marked as exhibits.
b) Adopt the minutes of the preliminary conference as part of the pre-trial proceedings. the following factors. otherwise. forest products or mineral resources subject of a case shall be admissible when authenticated by the person who took the same. wildlife by-products or derivatives. transmittal and storage punishable under law. or by any other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof. the court shall: a) Place the parties and their counsels under oath. Riguera. transactions of wildlife. and similar evidence authenticated? A Photographs. Q A What is the duty of the court during the pre-trial? During the pre-trial. may be considered: (1) threats to human life or health. or (3) prejudice to the environment without legal consideration of the environmental rights of those affected. Overall. c) Scrutinize the information and the statements in the affidavits and other documents which form part of the record of the preliminary investigation together with other documents identified and marked as exhibits to determine further admissions of facts as to: i. The court’s territorial jurisdiction relative to the offense(s) charged. enforce such subsidiary liability against a person or corporation subsidiarily liable under Article 102 and Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. they cannot be used against the accused. and g) Consider modification of order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense. Q Are entries in official records prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated? A Yes. Q How are photographic. oOoAll rights reserved 2013 by Manuel R. Q What are the standards for the application of the precautionary principle? A In applying the precautionary principle. confirm markings of exhibits or substituted photocopies and admissions on the genuineness and due execution of documents. Rule 118 of the Rules of Court shall be approved by the court. Unauthorized copying.50 The parties or their counsel must submit to the branch clerk of court the names. the court may. reproduction. Q In what form shall the agreements and admissions made or entered during the pre-trial be? A All agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel. who will now have to demonstrate that their actions are not/will not cause harm to the environment. f) Require the parties to submit to the branch clerk of court the names. among others. The agreements covering the matters referred to in Section 1. how will such subsidiary liability be enforced? A In case of conviction of the accused and subsidiary liability is allowed by law. Q In case of conviction and subsidiary liability is allowed under the law. (2) inequity to present or future generations. the court shall take actions to avoid or diminish that threat notwithstanding that there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity and environmental effect. The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology shall be given the benefit of the doubt. videos and similar evidence of events. addresses and contact numbers of witnesses that need to be summoned by subpoena. Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines. Qualification of expert witnesses. The principle addresses the fact that complexities associated with environmental cases will present difficulties under the regular rules of procedure. the precautionary principle would essentially aid plaintiffs in establishing cases that would be. ii. . acts. under most circumstances. Evidence Q What is the precautionary principle? A It is the principle which states that when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment (side) that is scientifically plausible but uncertain (spu). Amount of damages. difficult if not impossible to prove. by motion of the person entitled to recover under judgment. d) Define factual and legal issues. e) Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates and adhere to the flow chart determined by the court which shall contain the time frames for the different stages of the proceeding up to promulgation of decision. or by a person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. The burden of proof is shifted from the regulator to the person or persons responsible for the potentially harmful activity. addresses and contact numbers of the affiants. and iii. by some other person present when said evidence was taken. video. are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. and list object and testimonial evidence.