You are on page 1of 32

Preliminary Considerations

c. 2. Competent – one that is not excluded by the Rules, law or Consti Direct and Circumstantial Evidence a. Direct – that which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption b. Circumstantial – proof of the fact or facts from which, taken either singly or collectively, the existence of a particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence Cumulative and Corroborative Evidence a. Cumulative – evidence of the same kind and to the same state of facts b. Corroborative – additional evidence of a different character to the same point Prima facie and Conclusive Evidence a. Prima facie – that which, standing alone, unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed b. Conclusive – that class of evidence which the law does not allow to be contradicted Primary and Secondary Evidence a. Primary – or best evidence, that which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question b. Secondary evidence – substitutionary evidence, that which is inferior to the primary evidence and is permitted by law only when the best evidence is not available Positive and Negative Evidence a. Positive – when a witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur • Entitled to greater weight since witness represents of his personal knowledge b. Negative – witness states that he did not see or know of the occurrence of a fact • Total disclaimer of personal knowledge

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


• • •



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


page 1

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


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

Section 4 – JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only


page 2

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


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

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

• •

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


page 3

• • Document – deed. including the signature of the party sought to be charged thereby. Had made a sufficient examination of the places where the document or papers of similar character are usually kept by the person in whose custody the document was and has been unable to find it c. SC has held that each carbon copy is considered an original provided that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence. secondary evidence is admissible • Secondary evidence may consist of: 1. the offeror. or cannot be produced in court. Person/s who executed it. however. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered. ! Libel published in a newspaper: copy of said newspaper ! Falsification of a document: original of the document » Does not apply if transactions have been recorded in writing but the contents of such writing are not the subject of inquiry ! Affidavits and depositions – strictly speaking. the original itself must be presented. Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search or attempt to produce the original » All duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for before using copies thereof c. and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice. without bad faith on the part of the offeror. Copy of said document 2. Person before whom its execution was acknowledged. destruction or unavailability of all such originals. as when it is in a foreign country. Any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered or who thereafter saw it and recognized the signatures. BER does not apply. unless justified under Sec 3. or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. Aguilar (1993) Since all the duplicates or multiplicates are parts of the writing to be proved. The original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry. When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business. Reyes (55 Phil 905) On the issue as to the contents of the articles sent by the accused for publication. or c. Due execution of the original ! Proved through the testimony of either: a. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time. CA (1966) A signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document executed at the same time as the originals is known as a duplicate original and may be introduced in evidence without accounting for the non-production of the original. not due to bad faith ! Intentional destruction of the originals by a party who. When the original has been lost or destroyed. or set forth Best Evidence Rule – rule of exclusion » Secondary evidence cannot inceptively be introduced as the original writing itself must be produced in court » Non-production of the original document. Recollection of witnesses » In this particular order ! Except when specifically required by law • E. the manuscript was the best evidence. secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss Section 8 – PARTY WHO CALLS FOR DOCUMENT NOT BOUND TO OFFER IT A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence azereth page 4 . instrument or other duly authorized paper by which something is proved. Olila (98 Phil 1002) When the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court. or one to whom the parties thereto had previously confessed the execution thereof 2. Tan (105 Phil 1242) With respect to documents prepared in several copies through the use of carbon sheets. such signature being thus reproduced by the same stroke of the pen which made the surface or exposed impression • However. evidenced.Admissibility of Evidence a. all of carbon copies are regarded as originals if each copy was intended as a repository of the same legal act of the party thereto Imperfect carbon copies – merely secondary evidence Telegrams and cables – depends on the issue to be proved » Original dispatch – issue is the contents of the telegram as received by the addressee » Message delivered for transition – issue as to the telegram sent by the sender » Both – issue is the inaccuracy of the transmission • • • Section 6 – WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS IN ADVERSE PARTY’S CUSTODY OR CONTROL If the document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party. lost notarial will – testimony of at least 2 credible witnesses Reconstitution – governed by Act 3110 + jurisprudence Mahilum vs.g. one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction. b. no excuse for non-production of the document can be regarded as established until it appears that all of its parts are unavailable PNB vs. he fails to produce the document. gives rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence » Applies only when the content of such document is the subject of inquiry » In criminal cases where the issue is not only with respect to the contents of the document but also as to whether such document actually existed with the participation therein as imputed to the accused. Section 4 – ORIGINAL OF DOCUMENT a. Recital of its contents in an authentic document 3. a copy of the newspaper publication was the best evidence. • Requisites: proof by satisfactory evidence of 1. SECONDARY EVIDENCE Section 5 – WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS UNAVAILABLE When the original document has been lost or destroyed. all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. d. c. had acted in good faith does not preclude his introduction of secondary evidence of the contents thereof ! May be proved by any person who: a. Loss. People vs. may prove its contents by a copy. or cannot be produced in court. but will not be admitted if affiants or deponents are available as witnesses De Vera vs. Has made any other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the document is indeed lost 3. or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document. 2. but on the issue as to what was actually published. b. b. with identical contents. upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part. all such copies are equally regarded as originals. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole. even if said signature on each copy was written through separate acts. Knew of fact of loss or destruction b. produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath. and When the original is public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office Evidence Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga vs. he must have reasonable notice to produce it.

c. between the parties and their successors in interest. 1363 When one party was mistaken and the other knew or believed that the instrument did not state their real agreement. their privies or any party directly affected thereby (cestui que trust) • Section 7 – EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS A PUBLIC RECORD When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. Ready-Mix Concrete Co. The term "agreement" includes wills. or the validity of the document must be put in issue by the pleadings » Plaintiff failed to allege in his complaint – cannot introduce parol evidence ! But if defendant invoked such fact in his answer. Buenaflor (36 OG 3290) Where the nature of the action is in itself a notice. its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof • Complements the 4th exception to BER » See Rule 132 Sections 24 and 27 3. De Guzman vs.Admissibility of Evidence • • • No particular form of notice is required » As long as it fairly appraises the other party as to what papers are desired Even oral demand in court is allowed » Made on a reasonable time Notice must be given to the adverse party or his counsel even if papers is in the hands of a third person • Evidence Parol evidence – evidence aliunde (oral or written) » Intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document As long as they have been put into issue. or d. a party may present evidence to modify. Gonzales Sy Chiam (50 Phil 558) azereth page 5 . all their previous and contemporaneous agreements on the matter are merged therein 1 • To be admissible. if complete is itself an original copy » Only issue: receipt of the original Justified refusal of the adverse party to produce the document " presumption of suppression of evidence » Only authorizes the introduction of secondary evidence Where such document is produced " admissibility » Requisites for admissibility must be present Production of evidence under Rule 130 " Production of evidence under Rule 27 • • • Warner. CFI of Albay (1978) Tolentino vs. The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. but concealed that fact from the former. parol evidence did not bar evidence of a collateral agreement in instances where: » Collateral agreement is not inconsistent with the terms of the contract » Collateral agreement has not been integrated in and is independent of the written contract (suppletory to the original document) » Collateral agreement is subsequent to the written contract » Collateral agreement constitutes a condition precedent which determines whether the written contract may become effective ! Does not apply to a condition subsequent not stated in the agreement Parol evidence does not apply where at least one party to the suit is not a party or privy of a party to the written agreement in question Parol Evidence Presupposes that the original document is available in court Best Evidence Situation wherein the original writing is not available and/or there is a dispute as to whether said writing is original Prohibits the introduction of substitutionary evidence in lieu of the original document Applies to all kinds of writings Can be invoked by any party to the action • Phil. no notice to produce said documents is required • Third exception to BER – justified not only by the fact that the records are voluminous but also because the fatum probandum is just the general result of the whole » For exception to apply 1. Villacorta. vs. et al (98 Phil 993) Where receipt of the original of a letter is acknowledged on a carbon copy thereof. Razon (37 Phil 856) 5 PNR vs. • • Failure to express true intent » Purpose: enable the court to ascertain the true intent of the parties5 or the true nature of their agreement Latent ambiguity – when the writing on its face appears clear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters or circumstances which make the meaning uncertain » Or where the writing admits of two constructions both of which are in harmony with the language used6 2 3 4 US vs. The validity of the written agreement. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE Section 9 – EVIDENCE OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTS When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing. mistake or imperfection in the written agreement. the instrument may be reformed. The voluminous character of the records must be established 2. b. However. no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. as where it is for the recovery or annulment of documents wrongfully obtained or withheld by the other party. (51 Phil 57) Tolentino vs. mistake or imperfection of the document or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties. vs. An intrinsic ambiguity. it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be. Gonzales Sy Chiam (50 Phil 558) BPI vs. Ltd. objection deemed waived » Mistake or imperfection must be proved by clear and convincing evidence3 Mistake – refers to mistake of fact which is mutual to the parties4 » Or where the innocent party was imposed upon by unfair dealing of the other CC Art. parol evidence may be introduced2 » However. Fidelity & Surety Co.. Barnes & Co. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto. even if not raised on the pleadings but parol evidence is not objected to. Calma (100 Phil 1008) Parol evidence is based upon the consideration that when the parties have reduced their agreement on a particular matter into writing. there is no need for a notice to the other party to produce the original of the letter • • Remember: the duplicate copy. Such records must be made available to the adverse party so that their correctness may be tested on cross-examination » Originals have to be produced if: ! Detailed contents of the records are challenged for being hearsay1 ! Issues are raised as to the authenticity or correctness of the detailed entries Prohibits the varying of the terms of a written agreement Applies only documents that are contractual in nature Can be invoked only when the controversy is between the parties to the written agreement. explain or add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading: a.

000 liters” used in connection with a distilling apparatus was held to be a latent ambiguity which had to be clarified by parol evidence to determine whether it meant receiving. can make their known perception to others. that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made.WITNESSES. Those whose mental condition. is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language. in order to determine its true character. Section 12 . De Jesus (1984) As long as the witness can convey ideas by words or signs and give sufficiently intelligent answers to questions propounded. but creating a contract for the parties Intermediate ambiguity – the words of the writing. Section 15 .DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MENTAL INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY The following persons cannot be witnesses: a. is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others. in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly. that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it.determined as of the time the witnesses are produced for examination in court or at the taking of their depositions » Children of tender years – take into account their competence at the time of the occurrence to be testified Interest in the subject matter – does not disqualify » Affects only his credibility. such ambiguity which is apparent on the face of the writing itself and requires something to be added in order to ascertain the meaning of the words used » Parol evidence is not admissible ! Court would not be construing a contract. but evidence is admissible to show that they have a local.INSTRUMENT CONSTRUED SO AS TO GIVE EFFECT TO ALL PROVISIONS In the construction of an instrument. Section 11 .WRITTEN WORDS CONTROL PRINTED When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form. or otherwise peculiar signification. • • • • People vs. perjury or false testimony – disqualified from being witnesses to a will. so that the judge may be placed in the position of those whose language he is to interpret. the former is to be adopted. the former controls the latter. Section 18 . at the time of their production for examination. the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters.PECULIAR SIGNIFICATION OF TERMS The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation. Can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath 2. (87 Phil 506) The phrase “capacity of 6. WHICH PREFERRED When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it. or the language is not understood by the court. unless the parties intended otherwise. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES Section 20 . Section 21 . • Rules on interpretation » For contracts: CC Articles 1370 to 1379 » For wills: CC Articles 788 to 794 • • C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE 1.INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO INTENTION. treating. • Qualifications/disqualifications of witnesses . Can comprehend facts they are going to testify to 6 7 Ignacio vs. short ton. Section 19 . or who understand the language. freight ton or timber ton » Parol evidence is admissible to clarify the ambiguity Remember: falsa demonstration non nocet cum de corpore constat » False description does not vitiate a document if the subject is sufficiently identified No express trust concerning an immovable or any interest therein may be proved by parol evidence Evidence Section 17 .INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO CIRCUMSTANCES For the proper construction of an instrument. Rementeria (99 Phil 1054) Referred to in American jurisprudence azereth page 6 . the latter is paramount to the former. all persons who can perceive. Section 13 .OF TWO CONSTRUCTIONS. and when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent. Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully. technical. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. she is a competent witness even if she is feebleminded • • Or a mental retardate. and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper. including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it. and the two are inconsistent. and were so used and understood in the particular instance. Section 14 . if possible. and perceiving. not his competency » Except: Dead Man’s Statute Defendant declared in default – not disqualified from testifying fro his non-defaulting co-defendant Conviction of a crime – not ground for disqualification » But must answer to the fact of a previous final conviction as it may affect credibility » Except: conviction of falsification of a document. the intention of the parties is to be pursued. the circumstances under which it was made. therefore cannot testify on probate “Unsound mind” – any mental aberration whether organic or functional or induced by drugs or hypnosis » At the time of the testimony » If at the time of the fact to be testifies – affects only his credibility • Section 10 . may be witnesses. one in favor of natural right and the other against it. Religious or political belief. interest in the outcome of the case. may be shown. Fred Wilson & Co.CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF NATURAL RIGHT When an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations. or the producing capacity of the machine • Patent ambiguity – extrinsic. such a construction is. is actually equivocal and admits of two interpretations7 » Example: “dollars” – may refer to currency of US or HK or Australia “Ton” – can be long ton. to be adopted as will give effect to all. THEIR QUALIFICATIONS Except as provided in the next succeeding section. Section 16 . where there are several provisions or particulars. GENERAL AND PARTICULAR PROVISIONS In the construction of an instrument. displacement ton.INTERPRETATION OF A WRITING ACCORDING TO ITS LEGAL MEANING The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution. or is a schizophrenic Requirements for deaf-mutes: 1.EXPERTS AND INTERPRETERS TO BE USED IN EXPLAINING CERTAIN WRITINGS When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered. b.INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO USAGE An instrument may be construed according to usage. shall not be ground for disqualification. or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law. though seemingly clear and with a settled meaning.Admissibility of Evidence Palanca vs.

Defendant testifies on the prohibited matters 3. provided such fraud is first established by evidence aliunde Disqualification waived: 1. • Can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter Considerations for a child witness: 1. when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. e. still protected – considered as representatives of the deceased ! Applies whether the deceased died before or after the suit was filed as long as he was dead at the time the testimony is to be presented 3. A minister or priest cannot. and which would blacken the reputation of the patient. Defendant does not timely object to the admission of such evidence 2. Case is upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased / insane person ! Does not apply where it is the administrator who brought the action to recover property for the estate 4. against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person. during or after the marriage. A person authorized to practice medicine. cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind • Dead man statute Marital Disqualification Rule Complete disqualification • Dead Man Statute Partial disqualification • Disqualified only to testify as matter of facts occurring before the death of deceased person or before deceased person became of unsound mind Applies only to civil case or special proceeding over the estate of deceased / insane person • Applies to civil or criminal case Requisites: 1. surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case. Capacity at the time the fact to be testified occurred such that he could receive correct impressions thereof 2. or in criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants and ascendants • • Called rule on marital disqualification or spousal immunity Requisites: 1. Witness offered for examination is a party plaintiff. d. 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. Rodriguez (1968) Where the wife is a co-defendant in a suit charging her and her husband with collusive fraud. except in a civil case by one against the other. nor can the attorney’s secretary. A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards. Defendant cross-examines thereon Section 22 – DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MARRIAGE During their marriage. b. Testimony is intended to prove a fraudulent transaction of the deceased. or his advice given thereon in the course of. stenographer or clerk be examined without the consent of the client and his employer. An attorney cannot. without the consent of the patient. or a person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted ! Plaintiff must be the real party in interest ! Not applicable to mere witnesses ! Assignor – one who transferred his interests in a case • Assignee – not disqualified ! Does not apply where a counterclaim has been interposed by the defendant as the plaintiff would thereby be testifying in his defense ! Also if deceased contracted through an agent 2. which information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity. neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse. or against a person of unsound mind. be examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs. 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 direct descendants or ascendants. c. Testimony to be given is on a matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind ! Negative testimony – testimony that the fact did not occur during the lifetime of the deceased – not covered ! Testimony of the present possession by the witness of a written instrument signed by the deceased is also not covered • Ma’am: misleading because the document contains acts of the deceased before he died Does not apply to land registration cases or cadastral cases Purpose: discourage perjury and protect the estate from fictitious claim Prohibition does not apply despite meeting all requirements if: 1. • Objections can only be made by the persons protected and may be waived by the same persons expressly or impliedly azereth page 7 . cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage. or the assignor of said party. concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity. Section 23 – DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF DEATH OR INSANITY OF ADVERSE PARTY Parties or assignors of parties to a case. Capacity to comprehend the obligation of an oath 3. as to any communications made to him in official confidence. Case is against the executor or administrator or representative of the deceased or insane person ! Necessary that defendant is being sued in his representative capacity and not in individual capacity Section 24 – DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases: a. or with a view to professional employment. without the consent of his client. upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or a person of unsound mind. The husband or the wife. Capacity to relate those facts truly at the time he is offered a witness ! Evidence If property involved has already been adjudicated to the heirs. or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted.Admissibility of Evidence 3. Testimony is offered to prove a claim less than what is established under a written document 2. Rule 132) as this will violate the marital disqualification rule. without the consent of the person making the confession. she cannot be called as an adverse party witness under (Sec 10. Marriage is valid and existing as of the time of the offer of testimony 2. The other spouse is a party to the action May be waived as in the case of other witnesses generally • • • • Lezama vs. be examined as to any communication made by the client to him.

regarding the testimony of every other person who has examined or may thereafter examine him in respect of the same mental or physical examination Minister/Priest – Penitent Privilege • Requires that communication was made pursuant to a religious duty enjoined in the course of discipline of the sect or denomination • Must be confidential in character » E. Evidence Communication not given in confidence Communication is irrelevant to the professional employment Communication was made for an unlawful purpose Information was intended to be made public There was a waiver of the privilege either by provisions of contract or law Rule 28 PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS Section 4 – WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so ordered or by taking the deposition of the examiner. Information. papers. Made in the presence of third persons who are strangers to the attorney-client relationship • Period to be considered is that date when the communication was made » In determining whether past or future crime » Communication having to do with a future crime is not covered by the privilege • If attorney is a co-conspirator to the crime. would blacken the reputation of the patient 4. 2. except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by one parent against the other. children or other direct descendants. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE Section 25 . Information was acquired or the advice or treatment was given by him in his professional capacity for the purpose of treating or curing the patient 3. surgery or obstetrics 2. Public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the communication Others • RA 53. • • Disqualification by reason of relationship Filial privilege . as the descendant was not incompetent to testify against his ascendants. patient in extremis • Privilege extends to all forms of communication. under the seal of the confessional Privileged Communications as to Public Officials • Requisites: 1. if revealed. 4. advice or treatment » Includes information acquired by the physician through his observations and examinations of the patient • Does not apply where: azereth page 8 . Spouse against whom the testimony is given did not give his/her consent • Privilege cannot be claimed to confidential matters given before the marriage • Privilege cannot be invoked if the communication was not intended to be confidential • If third person heard the communication. 3. Privilege is invoked in a civil case. covered by the prohibition Marital Privilege Can be claimed WON the spouse is a party to the action Can be claimed even after the marriage has been dissolved Applies only to confidential communications between the spouses Marital Disqualification Can be invoked only if the spouse is a party to the action Can only apply if the marriage is existing at the time the testimony is offered Constitutes a total prohibition against any testimony for or against the spouse of the witness 1. other direct ascendants. Intended to be made public 2. document or even actions • Does not apply to communication: 1. as amended by RA 1477 » Publisher. Received from third persons not acting as agent of the client 5. but was actually a privilege not to testify Art. in a criminal case. Privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential communication between them in the course of professional employment 3.Admissibility of Evidence Marital Privilege • Requisites for marital privilege: 1. Intended to be communicated to others 3. Client has not given his consent to the disclosure of the communication • Attorney must have been consulted in his professional capacity even if pro bono • Preliminary communications made for the purpose of creating attorney-client relationship are within the privilege • Communications include verbal statements.not correctly a rule of disqualification. children or direct ascendants Attorney – Client Privilege • Requisites: 1. • Both parental and filial privileges are granted to any person » Can be invoked in any case against any of his parents. whether the patient is a party thereto or not • Not necessary that the relationship was created by the voluntary act of the patient – may have been acquired by another » E. FC No descendant shall be compelled. and the conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding the matter taken up at the conciliation proceedings conducted by them • Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (RA 9285) » Sec 9 (a) – Information obtained through mediation shall be privileged and confidential 2. editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper. to testify against his parents and grandparents. Intended for an unlawful purpose 4. privilege not applicable Physician – Patient Privilege • Requisites: 1. There is an attorney-client relation 2. 215.g.PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE No person may be compelled to testify against his parents. magazine or periodical of general circulation – cannot be compelled to revel the source of any news report which was related to him in confidence » Unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State • Article 233 of Labor Code » All information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communications and shall not be used as evidence in the NLRC.g. It was made to the public officer in official confidence 2. direct descendants. advice or treatment. such person is not covered by the prohibition » But if person is the agent of one spouse. There was a valid marital relations 2. Physician is authorized to practice medicine. Privilege was invoked with respect to a confidential communication between the spouses during the said marriage 3. the party examined waives any privilege he may have in that action or any other involving the same controversy. 5.

except as hereinafter provided. Be knowingly and voluntarily made 4. Aling (1980) Facts: Norija Mohamad was stabbed in the chest and diaphragm and she died two days later in the hospital. Manzano (1982) In a rape case. It was a confirmation of the maxim simper praesumitur matrimonio and the presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves to be husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. • • First branch of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet Exceptions: third person is a partner. in certain cases. deaf-mute brother of accused Lucila Valero. declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. he pleaded guilty with the assistance of counsel.OFFER OF COMPROMISE NOT ADMISSIBLE In civil cases. in certain cases. Aling was investigated by the police and he declared in Chavacano dialect that he killed his wife because he was informed in prison by his relatives that his wife was fooling around with other men. and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. Amiscua (1971) In a rape case. he pleaded guilty although he had no lawyer. it will greatly enhance its probative weight Made by the party himself. They learned from the police that Norija was stabbed by her husband Airol Aling.ADMISSION OF A PARTY The act. At about the same time. declaration. People vs. Girlie Aling and Norija’s daughter Daria brought Norija to the hospital. • • Offer of compromise (civil case) – not a tacit admission of liability and cannot be proved over the objection of the offeror Offer of compromise (criminal case) – implied admission of guilt » But accused is permitted to prove that offer was not made under consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid risks of criminal action against him Offer of compromise (violation of internal revenue law) – not admissible in evidence People vs. the attempt of the parents of the accused to settle the case with the complainant was considered an implied admission of guilt. is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. and not to marry the victim. • Admission – any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him Admissions Statement of fact which does not involve an acknowledgement of guilt or liability May be express or tacit May be made by third persons and. a commercial insecticide. An offer to pay or the payment of medical. died of poisoning after eating bread containing endrin. are admissible against his co-accused » Evidence Cannot be considered self-serving if it was not made in anticipation of a future litigation People vs. an admission must: 1. Issue: WON the marriage of Aling and Norija was proven Held: Yes Ratio: The testimony of Aling that he was married to Norija is an admission against his penal interest. Aling was charged with parricide and during arraignment. bridge or other facility after an injury has been sustained therein is not an implied admission of negligence by conduct » Merely a measure of extreme caution • • To be admissible. Be categorical and definite 3. hence an offer of settlement is not an admission of guilt Offer to pay or the actual payment of medical bills by reason of victim’s injuries – not admissible to prove civil or criminal liability Section 28 . Velasco was seen throwing poisoned rats in the river near his house. Their sister Imelda would have also died if not for the timely medical assistance given to her. Valdez (1987) An offer of marriage by the accused during the investigation of the rape case is also an admission of guilt • • Criminal cases involving criminal negligence or quasioffenses are allowed to be compromised. When he was again arraigned. and. A counsel de oficio was appointed for him. In criminal cases. 3 puppies of Velasco under the balcony where the children ate the bread also died of poisoning. children of Ceferino Velasco. an offer of compromised by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. Earlier that morning. or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense. or omission of another. Aling still admitted killing his wife.Admissibility of Evidence 3. Involve matters of fact. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS Section 26 . Aling was placed on the witness stand and examined by his counsel and after being informed that the penalty for parricide is death or life imprisonment. or has joint interest with the party. Be adverse to the admitter’s interest ! Otherwise would be self-serving and inadmissible Judicial admission – one made in connection with a judicial proceeding in which it is offered Extrajudicial admission – any other admission Section 27 . an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability. Bocasas (1985) Flight from justice is an admission by conduct and circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt • The act of repairing a machine. except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised. and that it was Lucila who gave Alfonso the bread to be delivered to the azereth page 9 . The evidence of the prosecution shows that the poisoned bread was given to the children by Alfonso Valero alias Pipe. Admissions Need not be made against the proprietary or pecuniary interest of the parties But if so made. an offer to compromise for a monetary consideration. agent. or is a co-conspirator or a privy of the party Made ante litem motam Self-serving declaration – one which has been made extrajudicially by a party to favor his interests » Not admissible in evidence » Does not include his testimony as a witness in court People vs. A plea of guilty later withdrawn. Valero (1982) Facts: Michael and Annabel. not of law 2. is a primary evidence and competent though he be present in court and ready to testify Can be made anytime • Declarations Against Interest Must have been made against the proprietary or pecuniary interest of the parties Must have been made by the person who is either deceased or unable to testify • People vs. is an implied admission of guilt People vs. hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.ADMISSION BY THIRD PARTY The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act. are admissible against a party • Confessions Involves an acknowledgement of guilt or liability Must be express Can be made only by the party himself and.

and there could have been no collusion among said co-accused in making such statements. it is necessary that the statements are made by several accused. Rodolfo Quilang – testified that he saw Lucila deliver something wrapped in a piece of paper to Alfonso and instructed him by sign language to deliver the same to the Velasco children. the act. Confessions of the accused 3. admission should not amount to a compromise 2. 3/9 witnesses for the prosecution: 1.32) agreed therein 2. can become vague (same as with Section 30) » It only appears in Section 31: admission by privies ! What predecessors didn't do is binding on you = this is the rationale in including the word omission in Section 31 GR: admission of some1 else shouldn't be taken against • • azereth page 10 . Acts of the accused 2. the same are in all material respects identical. admission should not amount to a confession of judgment • Evidence you But Section 29 is an exception: admission of another can be taken against you – fair? Section 30 . There must be a relation of privity between the party and the declarant 2. Admissions made in connection with the winding up – still admissible Admission by counsel – admissible against client (agentprincipal) » Limitation: 1. Lucila denies the allegation. That the partnership. who was the source of the information.ADMISSION BY CONSPIRATOR The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence. as well as the alleged instruction. and not mancomunada • • 1st exception to Section 28 Word omission in Section 28 doesn't appear here » Because if it was. nobody was poisoned yet. Such conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde 2. He is what the defense counsel calls and “eleventh-hour witness 2. is evidence against the former. Querol The phrase joint debtor does not refer to a mere community of interest but should be understood according to its meaning in the common law system from which the provision was taken. The lack of objection may make any incompetent evidence admissible. He never saw what was inside the piece of paper. etc.ADMISSION BY CO-PARTNER OR AGENT The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency. may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. or omission of the latter. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative value Section 29 . while holding the title. or other person jointly interested with the party. By prima facie proof thereof People vs. Admission relates to the conspiracy itself These are not required in admissions during the trial as the co-accused can examine the declarant. That the act/declaration must have been within the scope of the partnership. Section 31 . Serrano This rule applies only to extrajudicial acts or statements and not to testimony given on the witness stand at the trial where the party adversely affected thereby has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. joint debtor. Both claimed that they learned the information from Pipe after interviewing him by means of sign language. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner. It violates the principle of res inter alios acta. 3. as a circumstance to determine the credibility of a witness 4. Issue: WON the testimonies of Jaime and Velasco may be admitted Held: No Ratio: The evidence is pure hearsay. agency or joint interest is established by evidence other than the act or declaration 2. the extrajudicial confession of an accused cannot be used against his co-accused as the res inter alios rule applies to both extrajudicial confessions and admissions • Extrajudicial admission made by a conspirator after the conspiracy has ended and even before trial – not admissible against co-conspirator » Except: 1. by acts mortis causa or by acts inter vivos Jaucian vs. • Requisites: 1. • Requisites: 1. People vs. Admission was made during the existence of the conspiracy 3. Rule 130. Ola (1987) In order that the extrajudicial statements of a coaccused may be taken into consideration in judging the testimony of a witness. as predecessor in interest. while holding title to the property 3. in relation to the property. may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration. etc.ADMISSION BY PRIVIES Where one derives title to property from another. With regard to the testimony of Jaime. Where the facts stated in the said admissions are confirmed in the individual extrajudicial confessions made by the coconspirators after their apprehension 3. Testimony of Jaime was confusing. Alfonso. An admission by a conspirator is admissible against his co-conspirator if: 1. declaration. Federico Jaime and Ceferino Velasco – did not see Lucila deliver to Alfonso the alleged parcel. The admission was made by the declarant. The failure of the defense counsel to object to the presentation of incompetent evidence does not give such evidence probative value. as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the co-conspirator’s participation in the offense • • People vs.Admissibility of Evidence children. If made in the presence of the coconspirator who expressly or impliedly (tacit admission. was never presented as a witness either for the defense or the prosecution. But admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence. The evidence of the defense tends to show that the children might have eaten one of the sliced poisoned bread used by their father in poisoning the rats. The admission is in relation to said property Privity in estate may have arisen by succession. Alegre (1976) Where there is no independent evidence of the alleged conspiracy.admissions after the conspiracy has ended Existence of conspiracy may be inferred from 1. There is nothing in the testimony of Velasco indicating that Alfonso pointed to Lucila as the source of the poisoned bread. His testimony as to WON he saw the parcel delivered to the children was a series of contradictions. • • Judicial admissions . Testimony of Velasco cannot be considered as part of res gestae because when the information was allegedly obtained by Velasco from Alfonso. Such act/declaration must have been made during the existence of the partnership. there is no showing that the revelation was made by Alfonso under the influence of a startling occurrence. in solidum. that is.

the validity and efficacy of the confession must first be shown Section 12. such that he would naturally have done so. • Requisites to be admissible against a party: 1. shall not be sufficient ground for conviction. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. as opposed to a statement orally made • Evidence Judicial confession – one made before a court in which the case is pending and in the course of legal proceedings therein » By itself. He must have an interest to object. 3. violence. or of any offense necessarily included therein. and to be informed of such right. Secret detention places. incommunicado. intimidation. 1973 Constitution No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. or other similar forms of detention are prohibited Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. contains corrections made by the accused in his handwriting or with his initials 5. • • • • Section 33 – CONFESSION The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged. contents were affirmed by the accused in his voluntary participation in the reenactment of the crime 10. threat. unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. violence. Section 3 EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION. humanitarian considerations 3. he must be provided with one. He must have had the opportunity to deny it 3. made in the presence of an impartial witness with the accused acting normally on that occasion 7. Confession must have been given voluntarily 4. the accused realizing the importance of his act 5. solitary. unreliable 2. Facts admitted must be constitutive of an offense 3. 4. intimidation. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is material to the issue Applies where a person is surprised or even if he is already in the custody of the police » Voluntary participation in the reenactment of the crime conducted by police is considered tacit admission of complicity ! But to be given weight. Diokno Section 20. Art III of the Constitution • • 1. The facts were within his knowledge 6. force. intimidation. Any confession in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence • If confession obtained before effectivity of 1973 Constitution (17 Jan 1973). Article III. Confession must have been intelligently made. after confession.Admissibility of Evidence Section 32 . 1987 Constitution Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. contains details which the police could not have supplied or invented 2. merely an admission Confession of judgment – made in a civil case where the party expressly admits his liability Confession can be made orally or in writing » Ii in writhing – need not be under oath • • azereth page 11 . These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. Article IV. No violation of Sec 12. No force. Garcia (101 Phil 615) Confessions are presumed to be voluntary and the onus is on the defense to prove that it was involuntary for having been obtained by violence. accused questioned the voluntariness of his confession only on trial 9. He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other person 2. 1987 Constitution No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself • Rule does not apply: » if the statements adverse to the party were made in the course of an official investigation » Or where the party had a justifiable reason to remain silent (e. threat or promise of reward or leniency. Confession must involve an express and categorical acknowledgement of guilt 2.g. rule is relaxed ! Theory: a prompt response can generally not be expected if the party still has to resort to a written reply. may be given in evidence against him. NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR CONVICTION An extrajudicial confession made by an accused. accused sufficiently educated and aware of his the consequences of his acts 6. People vs. • Requisites for admissibility 1. No torture. contains statements which are exculpatory in nature 4. admissible even without informing the accused of his right to remain silent 2. Article III.ADMISSION BY SILENCE An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true. He must understood the statement 4. or any other means which vitiate free will shall be used against him. acting on advice of counsel) Keep in mind that a person under investigation for the commission of a crime has the right to remain silent and to be informed of that right Rule applies to adverse statements in writing if the party was carrying on a mutual correspondence with the declarant » If no such mutual correspondence. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices and their families. contains details which could have been known only to the accused 3. legal considerations of their violative of the Constitution But there were cases stating that involuntary admissions are admissible if they contain the truth » No longer applies because of the ruling in Stonehill vs. • Confession – categorical acknowledgement of guilt made by an accused in a criminal case. facts in confession were confirmed by other subsequent facts 11. accused subjected to physical examination and there were no signs of maltreatment or accused never complained thereof ! not applicable when accused failed to complain because of a reasonable apprehension of further maltreatment as he was still in the custody of his torturers Justifications for inadmissibility of involuntary confessions 1. Section 17. if the statement was not true 5. may be given in evidence against him. can sustain a conviction Extrajudicial confession – one made in any other place or occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti Rule 133. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. without any exculpatory statement or explanation » If there is an allegation of a justification for the act. lack of motive on the part of the investigators to extract a confession 8. • Indicia of voluntariness of confession 1. and when proper and possible for him to do so. threat.

Domantay rolled up his shirt and said that he will massacre somebody in their place. Jiezl Domantay (10 years old) – testified that at about 2pm. Macasaeb and Domantay. Domantay said yes. De la Cruz and De Guzman) picked up Domantay at the public market and took him to the police station. Upon questioning by SPO1 Espinoza. He interviewed Domantay who was then detained in the municipal jail. SPO1 Antonio Espinoza – testified that he investigated the case. There was no lawyer present and it was the first time that he was called to testify regarding an azereth page 12 . to which he answered that he was going to tell the truth. 6. Provost Marshal (78 Phil 131) Where the extrajudicial confession was obtained by maltreatment. not under the confession rule. but he was never asked whether he wanted to exercise or avail himself of such rights. his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible People vs. Broqueza (1988) Where the extrajudicial confession of the accused while under custodial investigation was merely prefaced by the investigator with a statement of his constitutional rights. This testimony was admitted over the objection of the defense. There. Jara (1986) Where a confession was illegally obtained from two of the accused and. with much more reason should the same be inadmissible against a third accused who had no participation therein • Promise of immunity or leniency vitiates a confession if given by the offended party or by the fiscal » Not if given by a person whom the accused could not have reasonably expected to be able to comply with such promise (e. consequently. Edward has seen that bayonet being carried by Domantay many times. Domantay alighted near the Mormon church outside Malasiqui. Domantay appears restless and worried as he kept looking around. 1973 Constitution and he answered in the affirmative. Domantay also said that he killed Jennifer in his revenge for a boundary dispute and that he is willing to accept his punishment. He introduced himself as a media reporter to Domantay. (Cross-examination) Espinoza admitted that Domantay was not assisted by counsel during the course of the questioning. The investigation by the police pointed to Bernardino Domantay. He said that he saw Domantay standing at the spot in the bamboo grove where Jennifer’s body was later found. his aunt and uncle. He also said that he had given the bayonet he used in the killing to Casingal spouses. Neither was Domantay’s statement reduced into writing. 2. but it was spontaneously made by the accused immediately after the assault. 4. Domantay confessed to the killing of Jennifer. the same is inadmissible as his answer does not constitute a waiver of his right to counsel and he was not assisted by one when he signed the confession. Celso Manuel – radio reporter of DWPR. she saw Domantay and Jennifer walking towards the bamboo grove where the body of Jennifer was later found. An uncle of Jennifer was with him. • which confessions are corroborated by other evidence and not contradicted by the co-accused who was present People vs. the judgment based solely thereon is null and void and the accused may obtain his release on a writ of habeas corpus • The extrajudicial confession of an accused is binding only upon him and is not admissible against his co-accused » Except if: 1) Co-accused impliedly adopted said confession by not questioning its truthfulness 2) Interlocking confessions – accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical confessions without conclusion. Before questioning Domantay. Enrile (1983) The waiver of the right to counsel during custodial investigation must be made with the assistance of counsel • Requirement is now embodied in the 1987 Constitution • • 3) Evidence Accused admitted the facts stated in the confession after being apprised of such confession 4) Charged as co-conspirators and confession is used only as corroborating evidence 5) Confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation by the co-conspirator 6) Confessant testified fro his co-defendant 7) Co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is corroborated by other evidence of record Confession of the accused admissible not only with respect to the offense charged but also any offense necessarily included therein 1987 Constitution – illegal confessions and admissions are inadmissible against confessant or admitter » But admissible against the person who violated the constitutional provision against obtaining illegal confessions or admissions People vs. investigator who is not a prosecuting officer) or could not bind the offended party which was a corporation US vs. but as part of the res gestae People vs. Domantay approached him and implored him to take him (Domantay) to Malasiqui at once. Joselito Mejia – a tricycle driver. His short answer does not show that he knew the legal significance of what were asked of him Morales. When he asked Domantay if he committed the crime. Mejia said he will first take his lunch. Edward saw that tucked in the left side of Domantay’s waistline was a bayonet without a cover handle. he appraised the latter of his constitutional right to remain silent and to have a competent and independent counsel. Lorenzo Domantay – corroborated Jennifer’s testimony. are not admissible as against them. Lorenzo was in a hurry and did not try to find out why Domantay was restless. the same is admissible. cousin of the victim’s grandfather. Domantay was about 2 meters ahead of Jennifer. (Cross) Manuel explained that the interview was conducted in the jail. and the statement which he signed states that he had been apprised of his constitutional rights with the warning that anything he would say might be used against him in court. The prosecution presented 7 witnesses: 1. as the lone suspect in the crime. He said that when he was about to take his lunch. Domantay also disclosed the location of the bayonet he used.Admissibility of Evidence Draculan vs. instead of the town proper 5. 2-3 meters away from the police station. Police officers (Montemayor. in appreciating it. Art IV. was found sprawled amidst a bamboo grove. reject such portions as are incredible Camasura vs. Domantay agreed to answer the questions even in the absence of counsel and admitted to the killing of Jennifer. vs. Edward Domantay – testified that in the morning of the incident. in English. Mercado (6 Phil 332) Where the accused voluntarily made a second extrajudicial confession after he has been maltreated in order to extort the first confession. which was later translated into Pangasinense. Tampus (1980) Where the verbal extrajudicial confession was made without counsel. such second confession is admissible only if it can be proved that he was already relieved of the fear generated by the previous maltreatment • Entire confession must be admitted in evidence » But court may. Donato (1978) Where. bearing several stab wounds. he was drinking with Caballero. He said that Domantay was willing to state what happened. Domantay (1999) Facts: The body of six year old Jennifer Domantay. The next day. Domantay pleaded with him and said that they will not be long so Mejia agreed. Jr. Felipe (1981) Where the accused was merely told of his constitutional rights and asked if he understood what he was told. SPO1 Espinoza and another policeman took Domantay to the Casingal spouses where they recovered the bayonet. The nearest policeman was 2-3 meters away. such extrajudicial confession is admissible People vs. before the statement containing the extrajudicial confession of guilt was taken. 3. the accused was asked whether he was familiar with the provisions of Sec 20.g.

Prior to the conduct of examination-in-chief of Cortez. In the counter. the security guard assigned to the branch. (Cross) He testified that he did not witness the incident. respectively Ratio: Art III. Domantay denied the allegations against him. There. According to him. Lumban. district manager of Cebuana Lhuiller. Laguna. 3. he was immediate brought to Paramour where he was presented to the media at a press conference called by Mayor Joey Marquez. The bayonet is also inadmissible in evidence as it was a “fruit of a poisonous tree”. a Barangay Captain. The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relation between private individuals. It must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel 3. Cortez emphasized that he was not the one who conducted the PI. Domantay’s confession to Manuel is admissible. Rogelio Javan – performed the necropsy 4. The Court does not agree. he saw the dead body of San Juan. The constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement. when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect. He denied that pieces of jewelry were recovered from him. Mantung wrote in Filipino that he killed Mayola and Balderas because they gave him pork which his Moslem religion prohibited him from eating. It must be voluntary 2. Domantay was convicted by the trial court Issue: WON the extrajudicial confessions made by Domantay to SPO1 Espinoza and Manuel are admissible Held: No and Yes. Andan). Mayola and Balderas saw what was happening and shouted for help. he felt the car stop and he was left alone by his captors. He then seized the opportunity to escape. He admitted hiring Mejia to get to Malasiqui to meet his brother. Requirements for admissibility of extrajudicial confessions: 1. Clippings of these reports were presented as evidence by the prosecution during the trial. The men took him out. the waiver was not put into writing nor made in the presence of counsel. authenticity. Defense presented Domantay as its lone witness. PO2 Leopoldo Cacalda Jr. RA 7438 extended the constitutional guarantee to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been “invited” for questioning. – He recounted that somebody whose name he could not recall reported to him about an existing trouble in the scene of the incident. The letter was written by Guiamad Mantung. The prosecution presented 5 witnesses: 1. an employee of Cebuana Lhuiller present during the press conference. There is also no evidence that Manuel was a police beat reporter and it has not been shown that his purpose in conducting the interview was to elicit incriminating information from Domantay. She also presented the death certificate of her husband. The case was filed in the Sandiganbayan and Ladiana was found guilty of homicide. He gathered from the people milling around the body that it was Ladiana who killed San Juan. 2. It must be in writing When Domantay was brought to the police station he was already under custodial investigation and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution apply to him. This testimony was admitted over the objection of the defense 7. Mantung answered yes and said that he killed the victims because they induced him to eat pork. Sec 12 of the 1987 Constitution applies to custodial investigation. Defense filed a Demurrer to Evidence Issue: WON the counter-affidavit executed by Ladiana during the preliminary investigation is admissible although no counsel was present when he executed it Held: Yes Ratio: The constitutional guarantee applies only during custodial investigations. defense counsel admitted to the authorship. He also saw a stab wound on Ladiana’s right bicep but he did not ask him how he got it. (Cross) She admitted that she did not witness the killing of her husband. he was locking one of the doors of the shop when 3 men approached him from behind and one of them held him at gunpoint. He admitted being interviewed by Manuel but denied ever admitting anything to the reporter. The defense presented the lone testimony of Mantung to substantiate his claims of innocence. as required by Rule 133. who did not come. claiming that he needed the money. not elicited through questioning by the authorities. The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the State and its agents. The rights under Sec 12 are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the State as would lead the accused to admit something false. When Mayor Marquez then asked him if he is the one who killed the two employees. but given in an ordinary manner whereby accused orally admitted having committed a crime. and voluntariness of the execution of the counteraffidavit of Ladiana. He denied Edward’s claim. He also admitted taking the cash and jewelry inside the vault. Mantung (1999) Facts: Maribel Mayola and Renjie Balderas were found dead inside the vault room of the Maywood branch of Cebuana Lhuiller where they were employed. Custodial investigation is the questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a azereth page 13 . Ladiana admitted shooting Francisco but he allegedly did so in self-defense as Francisco was then attacking Ladiana and had in fact already inflicted a stab wound on the arm of Ladiana. was accused of killing Francisco San Juan. He denied confessing to SPO1 Espinoza and he denied having a grudge against Jennifer’s parents because of a boundary dispute. He responded by going to the scene. Caridad San Juan – wife of the victim. He claimed that on the day of the incident. He admitted that he passed the bamboo grove but said that he did not know that Jennifer was following him. There is nothing to show that Mantung’s admission was coerced or made under duress. Domantay’s extrajudicial confession is corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. He later learned that Ladiana surrendered to the police. Ricardo Diago. Afterwards. He immediately left to look for Ladiana. It must be express 4. He wrote another letter addressed to his wife. Mantung was taken to Evidence the comfort room when he heard 2 gunshots and the shouts of Mayola and Balderas stopped. Sec 3. There is no indication that the presence of the police officers exerted any undue pressure or influence on Domantay and coerced him into giving his confession. The jewelries kept inside the safe were all gone and the cash drawer had been emptied of its contents. However. Salac. She said that she was in her house when an unidentified woman came and told her that her husband was killed by Ladiana. he did not tell anyone what happened because he was confused and he did not know what to do. He saw that they stopped in the pier so he mingled with the people and boarded a ship to Cebu and from there went to Cotabato. was presented as rebuttal witness to prove that Mantung indeed claimed responsibility for the killings. Dr. Domantay claims that the atmosphere during the interview was tense and intimidating. In the counter-affidavit. a police officer. Ronald Bandonill – conducted an autopsy of the victim. Therefore the waiver is invalid and the confession is inadmissible. SPO2 Percival Gabinete – his testimony was dispensed with upon the admission of the defense that he was part of the group that responded to the incident 5. He also said that he would not be able to recognize the face of the affiant in the counteraffidavit but maintained that there was a person who appeared and identified himself as Josue Ladiana before him. After his arrest. People vs. People (2002) Facts: Josue Ladiana. The news about Manton’s admission to the killings appeared in the Inquirer and Manila Bulletin the following day. a holster was placed on top of a letter addressed to Mary Ann Gordoncillo. pushed him inside a red car and blindfolded him. not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth (People vs. accompanied by another person. Even though he waived the assistance of counsel. Dr. Cotabato and several pieces of jewelry believed to be part of the loot were recovered from him. Ladiana vs. Issue1: WON Mantung’s admission during the press conference is admissible Held1: Yes Ratio1: The clippings of the news articles reporting Mantung’s confession is hearsay because their writers were not presented to affirm the veracity of the reports. which was found in the office logbook. She testified that San Juan was the Barangay Captain of Brgy.Admissibility of Evidence interview he conducted. He refuted the reports saying he admitted to the killing of the victims in the press conference. He also said that it was the people around the incident who told him that Ladiana already left. Mantung was later arrested in Sultan Kudarat. Mario Cortez – retired Assistant Prosecutor of Laguna.

A person undergoing PI before a public prosecutor cannot be considered as being under custodial investigation. Filomeno Macalinao. the right to refuse to answer a specific question that tends to incriminate him for some crime other than that for which he is being prosecuted Ladiana’s counter-affidavit is not an extrajudicial confession. Walter Apa. it has no probative value and as opposed to direct primary evidence.Admissibility of Evidence person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom of action in any significant way. except as otherwise provided in these rules. it is only an admission. if intended to establish the truth of the facts asserted in the statement. plan. In the counter-affidavit. If the child is available. Right not to have any prejudice whatsoever imputed to him by such refusal 3. habit. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE Section 34 – SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time. custom or usage. whose probative value is based not on personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand » Excluded because the party against whom it is presented is deprived of the right to cross-examine the persons to whom the statements or writings are attributed » If a party does not object – admissible Savory Luncheonette vs. Cusi. usages and the like Evidence of another crime is admissible in a prosecution for robbery where it has the tendency to identify the accused or show his presence at the scene of the crime » But not where the evidence is to prove that he committed another crime wholly independent of that for which he is on trial Previous acts of negligence is admissible to show knowledge or intent 5. but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge. Issue: WON the witness should be allowed to name all the conspirators as stated to him by Puesca Held: Yes Ratio: While the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person. identity. scheme. its proponent shall make known to the adverse party the intention to offer such statement and its particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to object. Trial judge resolved the objection directing the witness to name the coconspirators other than the 3 objectors. Counsel for Macalinao. In general. For the limited purpose of establishing the fact that Puesca mentioned the names of his co-conspirators. It shall consider the following factors: 1. 2. Right to testify on his own behalf. subject to crossexamination by the prosecution 4. Established customs. When the child is unavailable. During trial. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness HEARSAY EXCEPTION IN CHILD ABUSE CASES A statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse not otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule. The general character of the declarant child. Ladiana never offered any rationalization why he made the admission. • • Second branch of res inter alios acta » Applies to both criminal and civil cases » Strictly enforced in all cases applicable Exceptions to the rule: evidence of similar acts may prove 1. and the like. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino (1975) The repeated failure of the party to cross-examine the witness is an implied waiver of such right and the testimony of the said witness who died thereafter should not be excluded from the record People vs. Plan. while Sgt. the evidence should be admitted but with the understanding that the testimony shall not be taken as competent evidence to show that the persons named really and actually conspired with Puesca. • Hearsay evidence – any evidence. The admissions of Ladiana made through his counsel during the trial are very clear. whether oral or documentary. • • Section 35 – UNACCEPTED OFFER An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is. In an admission. Jose Gustilo. HEARSAY EXCLUDED A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge. Bano was testifying as prosecution witness regarding the extrajudicial confession made to him by Puesca. Ladiana admits shooting San Juan but denies having done it with criminal intent since he claimed that it was done in self-defense. the court shall. it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made or the tenor of such statement. Specific habit 5. the court shall consider the time content and circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia of reliability. Specific intent or knowledge 2. 4. There is no doubt as to the voluntariness of the counteraffidavit. the fact of such circumstance must be proved by the proponent b. Gustilo and Dario objected to the naming of the co-conspirators. However. (1965) Facts: Arcadio Puesca. the accused possesses rights that must be safeguarded: 1. In confession. admissions may be rebutted by confessing their untruth or by showing that they were made by mistake. instrument or property • • Merely evidentiary complement to the rule on payment Such tender of payment must be followed by consignation of the amount in court in order to produce the effects of valid payment azereth page 14 . In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement. may be admitted in evidence in any criminal or noncriminal proceeding subject to the following rules: a. equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money. he said that Puesca admitted his participation in the offense and revealed the name of other persons who conspired with him. that is. TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE Evidence Section 36 – TESTIMONY GENERALLY CONFINED TO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. Ricardo Dario and Magno Montano were charged with robbery in band with homicide. Identity 3. which are derived from his own perception. if rejected without valid cause. there is merely a statement of fact not directly involving an acknowledgement of guilt or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which one is charged. Jr. system or scheme 4. require the child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-examination by the adverse party. system. there is an acknowledgement of guilt. • But even if hearsay evidence not objected to is admissible. Right to refuse to be made witness 2. Before such hearsay statement may be admitted. A PI is an inquiry or a proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed. Whether there is motive to lie. The Court held that the right to counsel does not extend to PIs. upon the motion of the adverse party. and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. While testifying. the latter always prevails Section 28. is clearly hearsay evidence.

although the same may be admitted as part of the res gestae since it was made immediately after the incident • • • • The credibility and weight of the admitted dying declaration should be determined under the same rules used in other testimonial evidence A dying declaration is admissible only to insofar as it refers to facts regarding the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death A dying declaration is admissible in any case as long as the requisite concur A dying declaration may be oral or written or made by signs which could be testified to by a witness thereto d. and 8. his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other admissible evidence. • • Not covered by hearsay rule . “I cannot ascertain.Admissibility of Evidence 3. Concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death 2. It was indubitably a dying declaration. Molas (1993) Facts: Bernardo Resonable went home after working in his farm. the victim was asked as to whether he believed he would die and to which he replied. the witness who heard it may testify thereto. That the time it was made. as a result of which he died the next day. shortly after he was wounded. lack of memory. Gueron (1983) Where. That death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of that fact ! Considerations for the consciousness of imminent death: a. That the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry Intervening time from the making of the declaration up to the actual death is immaterial as long as the declaration was made under the consciousness of impending death and as long as no retraction was made by the declarant before his death People vs. they are relevant because they are the facts in issue or are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue People vs. or 2. mental illness. Arguel (1980) Newspaper clippings or facts published in the newspapers are hearsay and have no evidentiary value unless substantiated by persons with personal knowledge of said facts 6. The possibility of faulty recollection of declarant child is remote. and not the rapid succession of death. Issue: WON the statement of Abelardo is admissible Held: Yes Ratio: Abelardo’s statement was given to his father while he lay at death’s door. Is deceased. People vs. Molas and Dulcesima were sweethearts and engaged to be married. without necessarily reproducing the exact words as long as he can give the substance thereof. The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child and witness. That the declaration relates to facts which the victim is competent to testify to 4. the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death 3. that renders the dying declaration admissible. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE Dying Declaration Section 37 – DYING DECLARATION The declaration of a dying person. People vs.” his declaration was not made under the consciousness of his imminent death and does not qualify as an antemortem statement. People vs. The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason to suppose the declarant child misinterpreted the involvement of the accused. There he found his son Abelardo (8) bleeding at the doorway of their house. Whether more than one person heard the statement. Serious nature of his wounds as to engender a belief on his part that he would not survive 2. and if the deceased had an unsigned dying declaration. Laquinon (1985) Where the victim. Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means. the same may be used as a memorandum by the witness who took it down • May be attacked on the absence of any of the requisites and may be impeached in the same manner as the testimony of any other witness on the stand » American jurisprudence: dying declarations are on the same footing as testimony of a witness on a stand and whatever would disqualify the witness would also make such declaration incompetent evidence • People vs. Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant child. 7. To be admissible. as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. Abelardo informed his father that Josue Molas was the person who not only inflicted his injuries but also stabbed his sister Dulcesima and mother Soledad. a dying declaration must: 1. Whether the statement was spontaneous. When the child witness is unavailable. • • Dying declaration – antemortem statement or statement in articulo mortis Requisites: 1. made under the consciousness of an impending death. as part of res gestae. or at least. That he was a competent witness azereth page 15 . Antonio (1970) Where the declarant stated that he would not die if treated. Abelardo died the next day. such statement indicates an awareness of death and the nature of his wound and his death an hour later qualifies such statement into a dying declaration. Bernardo carried Abelardo inside the house. Sabio (1981) It is the belief in the impending death at the time the statement was made. Words or statements of the declarant b. “I don’t know. Abelardo was brought to the hospital by his brother Nicholas. Odencio (1979) If the antemortem statement was made orally. Evidence People vs. 5. 4.” and he died the following day. The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following situations: 1. 6. or will be exposed to severe psychological injury. replied. His conduct at the time the declaration was made c. That the declaration refers to the cause and the surrounding circumstances of such death 3. bleeding from stab wounds. when asked as to whether he thought he would die. may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry. • Interval of time may be taken into account where the declaration was ambiguous as to whether the declarant believed that his death was imminent when he made the declaration c. While Bernardo looked for the bodies of his wife and daughter.where the statements or writings attributed to a person who is not on the witness stand are being offered not to prove the truth of the facts stated therein but to prove that those statements were made or writings executed » Witness who testifies is competent – these are matters derived from his own perception Doctrine of independently relevant statements – independent of whether the facts stated are true or not. suffers from physical infirmity. his statement is admissible both as part of res gestae and as a dying declaration.

Molo (1979) Facts: Not long after the couple Venacio Gapisa and Simeona Rapa-Gapisa had retired for the night. Venacio woke up and tried to fight back but he was unable to retaliate because Molo started hacking him again. That his declaration was offered in evidence in a criminal case for homicide. or unable to testify. Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation • Common reputation – general reputation. Venacio must have the seriousness of his condition and that it can therefore be inferred that he made the incrimination under the consciousness of an impending death. may be received as evidence of pedigree • Requisites: 1. Although seized by fear. Monuments and inscription in public places 3. respecting facts of public or general interest more than 30 years old. and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. the name by which Molo was known in their locality. or by monuments or documents existing for that length of time ! Marriage ! Moral character • Not required to be more than 30 years old » Must be ante litem motam » Established by: 1. that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true. may be given in evidence. Issue: WON the statements made by Venacio to Alejandro and Roman are admissible Held: Yes Ratio: The statements of Venacio identifying Molo as his assailant to Alejandro and Roman are dying declarations. character may be established through common reputation As a rule. if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made was so contrary to declarant’s own interest. against the interest of the declarant. Choa Chiok The character of a place as an opium joint may be proved by its common reputation in the community azereth page 16 . the dates when and the places where these facts occurred. When Alejandro took his father in his arms. Roman also asked Venacio who his assailant was and the latter answered Boslo. may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons. family portraits and the like. Her son Alejandro and Roman Mangaring ran towards the house and there they found Venacio bleeding profusely. Documents containing statements of reputation Reputation – opinion of him by others Character – inherent qualities of a person » Under this section. Declaration Against Interest Section 38 – DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST The declaration made by a person deceased. The act or declaration was made prior to the controversy • • • US vs. When he found Venacio asleep near the door.Admissibility of Evidence 4. Simeona rushed out of the house and called for help. engravings on rings. definite opinion of the community in which the fact to be proved is known or exists » General or substantially undivided reputation and need not be unanimous » Admissible to prove: ! Facts of public or general interest more than 30 years old • Public interest – national interest • General interest – affecting inhabitants of a particular region or community • Must be more than 30 years old » Established only by persons who have had knowledge of that fact for such length of time. Testimonial evidence of competent witness 2. alone. and the names of the relatives. he is aware that the same was contrary to the aforesaid interest 4. Witness testifying thereto must be a member. She tried to awaken Venacio but he did not respond. either by consanguinity or affinity. may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family. Simeona managed to peep through the dilapidated buri wall and saw Dominador Molo attired only in short pants. It relates to the facts against the declarant 3. At the time he made the declaration. family genealogy. murder or parricide in which the declarant is the victim All these circumstances were present when Abelardo made his declaration People vs. reputation of a person should be that existing in the place of his residence » But. Declarant is dead or unable to testify 2. marriage. 8 in all. • Made by a person who is neither a party nor in privity with a party to the suit » Admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness Requisites: 1. may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy. it may also be that existing in the place where he is best known • Act or Declaration About Pedigree Section 39 – ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE The act or declaration of a person deceased. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts. by consanguinity or affinity. he immediately grabbed the latter’s left wrist and started hacking the old man. The relationship between the declarant or the actor and the subject is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration 4. Simeona heard and indistinct sound of murmur and gnashing teeth. The act or declaration is made by the person related to the subject by birth or marriage 3. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. death. Venacio was asleep by then. of the same family as the subject 2. Venacio told him that he was boloed by Boslo. The word “pedigree” includes relationship. Considering the nature of the wounds. respecting marriage or moral character. Declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to be true • Evidence Do not require any specific degree of relationship » But may affects the weight of such act declaration or Family Reputation or Tradition Regarding Pedigree Section 40 – FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING PEDIGREE The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy. Venacio was rushed to the hospital where he died a few minutes after arrival. The actor or declarant is dead and unable to testify 2. • Requisites: 1. in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members. Such tradition or reputation must have existed in that family ante litem motam Person’s statement of date of birth and age – declaration of family tradition » Prevails over mere opinion of the trial judge » But cannot generally prevail over secondary statement of the father • Common Reputation Section 41 – COMMON REPUTATION Common reputation existing previous to the controversy. or unable to testify in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage. Molo had already climbed up the stairs and barged into the house. birth.

though he retain no recollection of the particular facts. but may be admissible as part of res gestae if made immediately after the incident Where the elements of both are present.. Gutierrez. if he chooses. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty • • Cang Yui vs. Statements must accompany the equivocal act 4. may be received as part of the res gestae • Res gestae (“things done”) refers to: 1. who may. by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred. also. who was in a position to know the facts therein stated. may be admitted as both Entries in the Course of Business Section 43 – ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS Entries made at. but in such case the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party. Statements refer to the occurrence in question and its attending circumstances » Only such statements as appear to have been involuntarily wrung from the witness by the impact of the occurrence are admissible Interval of time between the startling occurrence and the statement depends upon the circumstances » But statement must have been made while the declarant was under the immediate influence of the startling occurrence ! If declarant rendered unconscious after the startling occurrence. moral or religious 5. So. crossexamine the witness upon it and may read it in evidence. contractual. accompany. It is sufficient that the person who supervises the work of the clerks or other employees making the entries testify that the account was prepared under his supervision and that the entries were regularly entered in the ordinary course of business Entries in Official Records People vs. Gardner (34 Phil 376) If the entrant is available as a witness. Res gestae be characterized as equivocal 2. but such evidence must be received with caution. The entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to which they refer 3. The statements forming a part thereof were made before the declarant had the opportunity to contrive 3. are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated • • Merely prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated Requisites: 1. or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was correctly written or recorded. a witness may testify from such a writing or record. The entrant had personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or such facts were acquired by him from reports made by persons under a legal duty to submit the same • Statement may not be a dying declaration because it was not made under the consciousness of an impending azereth page 17 . Entries were made by a public officer in the performance of his duties or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law 2. there is no overriding necessity to bring into court all the clerks or employees who individually made the entries in a long account. Spontaneous statements in connection with a startling occurrence relating to that fact and in effect forming part thereof 2. Statements accompanying an equivocal act (verbal act) on the theory that they are the verbal parts of the act to be explained Requirements: 1.Admissibility of Evidence Res Gestae Section 42 – PART OF THE RES GESTAE Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries 4. his statement relative to thereto upon regaining consciousness still forms part of re gestae regardless of the time that intervened between • Evidence death. Statements give a legal significance to the equivocal act » “Verbal act” – used to denote that such statements are the verbal parts of the equivocal act of which such statements are explanatory • Borromeo vs. Such act must be material to the issue 3. but they may nevertheless be availed of by said entrant as a memorandum to refresh his memory while testifying on the transactions reflected therein Rule 132. Inc. The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify 2. may be received as prima facie evidence. Yek Tong Fire & Marine Insurance Co. CA (1976) Notes taken regarding a transaction by a person who is not a party thereto and who has not been requested to take down such notes are not part of the res gestae Res Gestae (re a homicidal act) Statement may also be made by the killer himself or by a third person Statement may precede. even if made 9 hours after the killing. • Requisites: 1. or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. The principal act (res gestae) is a startling occurrence 2. Berame (1976) If the statement was made under the influence of a startling event and the declarant did not have time to concoct or contrive a story. So also statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue. et al (CA. 59 OG 8122) In the presentation and admission as evidence of entries made in the regular course of business. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty. the said entries will not be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule. establish admission of liability on part of the accused Requirements for verbal acts to be admissible: 1. the statement is admissible as part of res gestae • Statements or outcries as part of res gestae had been admitted to establish the identity of assailant. if he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made. by a person deceased. Section 16 – WHEN WITNESS MAY REFER TO MEMORANDUM A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact. prove the complicity of another person to the crime. and giving it a legal significance. or near the time of the transactions to which they refer. vs. if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. or unable to testify. whether legal. may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. or immediately thereafter. or be made after the homicidal act was committed Has its justification in the spontaneity of the statement Dying Declaration Declaration can only made by the victim be Declaration made only after the homicidal attack was committed Trustworthiness is based upon its being given under the awareness of impending death Section 44 – ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines.

even if said witness had died in the interim. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co.Admissibility of Evidence 3. City of Manila vs. The adverse party had an opportunity to crossexamine the witness in the former case Subsequent failure or refusal to appear at the second trial. The matter is res inter alios and cannot be invoked as res judicata • Such judgment may only be admitted in evidence in a civil case by way of inducement. or hostility since testifying at the first trial " inability to testify » Inability should proceed from a grave cause almost amounting to death • • • Remigio vs. in the absence of collusion between the accused and the offended party. and c. between the same parties or those representing the same interests 8 Estrada vs. Seneris (1978) 10 11 9 azereth page 18 . may be received in evidence regarding a. Keller & Co. Ortiga (33 Phil 614) While a priest who officiates at a baptism acts pursuant to a legal duty in recording the facts of such baptism in a register. or a witness expert in the subject testifies. except as indicated in the following sections. 58 and Act No. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.) vs. A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity. • Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner in the official records Motor vehicle accident report made at about the time of the accident by a police officer in the performance of his duties » Admissible if based upon information given by the drivers who figured in the accident » Prima facie evidence of facts therein stated Sheriff’s return – exception to hearsay » Sheriff need not testify in court Entrant must have been competent 3. Section 49 . Manila Electric Co. Section 50 . periodical. (99 Phil 670) A judgment of conviction. • Examples: Carlisle or Wigglesworth Tables and accepted actuarial and annuity tables Almeida Chantangco vs. that the writer of the statement in the treatise. 190 » But still admissible as evidence of the facts stated therein » But necessary to be authenticated as private writings » A copy of the certificate transmitted to the public officer as required by law becomes a public document ! Admissible without prior authentication Entries in official records may be proved and evidenced in the manner provided by Rule 132 Sections 24 and 25 Aldecoa vs. register. b. Evidence The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case. Malate Garage & Taxicab. OPINION RULE Section 48 . (55 Phil 75) 13 Pajarito vs. given in a former case or proceeding. Inc.OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESSES The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given. or other published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein. (Ltd. periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. Almario (56 Phil 476) The testimony of the witness in a prior criminal action for libel as to the reputation of the offended party would be admissible in the civil case arising from the same criminal offense if said witness was no longer available • Admissibility of prior judgment – governed by different rules • Commercial Lists Section 45 . • • Testimony or Deposition at a Former Proceeding Section 47 . skill. 5810 as being admissible in the trial of the criminal case refers to testimony given in the preliminary investigation or prior trial of said criminal case and not to testimony taken in a prior civil case. Manila Electric Co. periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history. • Requisites: 1. The issues testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the present case 5. judicial or administrative. or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice. such entries in the register are not admissible to prove the date of birth of the child or its relation to particular persons as the entrant priest is not competent to testify with respect to the truth of these latter facts • Church registries – no longer public writings pursuant to GO No. (52 Phil 586) 12 Arambulo vs. is binding and conclusive upon the person subsidiarily liable not only with regard to his subsidiary liability but also with regard to the amount thereof • Said judgment is admissible in evidence in the civil action brought to enforce said subsidiary liability13 7.GENERAL RULE The opinion of witness is not admissible. His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding. • Requisites: 1. may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to crossexamine him. (Ltd.TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER PROCEEDING The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify. 49 OG 139) Also in People vs. although on different causes of action 4. The court takes judicial notice thereof 2. The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge. The same is testified to by a witness expert in the subject CA took judicial notice of the Ballantyne Scale of Values8 Legal treatises also included Miranda vs. or to show a collateral fact relevant to the issue in the civil action11 » Judgment can only prove that a certain defendant has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to the penalty therein imposed12 Learned Treatises Section 46 .OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge. Abaroa (40 Phil 1056) A judgment in a criminal proceeding or in an administrative proceeding cannot be read in evidence in a civil action against a person not a party thereto to establish any fact therein determined. experience or training which he shown to posses. Noble (CA. may be received in evidence.) (38 Phil 514). involving the same parties and subject matter. because the former testimony referred to in sec 15 of GO No. Jugo (61 Phil 374)9 Testimony given by a witness in a civil case is not admissible in a subsequent criminal case. law.COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list.LEARNED TREATISES A published treatise. judicial or administrative. science. the actions being essentially different Guevara vs. Villaluz (1983) Later 1964 ROC Rule 115 Sec 1(f) Ed A. Witness is dead or unable to testify 2.

• • • General rule: Section 48 Exceptions: Sections 49 and 50 Opinion of a witness is admissible in the following circumstances: 1. behavior. Legaspi (47 OG 807).Admissibility of Evidence The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion. Abriol (2001) People vs. Co. Florendo (68 Phil 619) 17 People vs. the procedure followed in analyzing the samples. condition or appearance of a person. when he has knowledge of the person or handwriting. behavior. because the greater his experience or knowledge. In Criminal Cases: 1. characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice or detection by an untrained observer • Whether or not courts are bound by the testimony of an expert depends greatly upon the nature of the subject of inquiry » If the same is one that falls within the general knowledge of judges. are admissible and conclusive on the non-paternity of a person over a child Admissibility of DNA evidence has been upheld by the SC » In assessing the probative value. On a matter requiring special knowledge. skill. whether he is an ordinary or expert witness 3. CA (1978) » Opinions of handwriting experts are not necessarily binding upon the courts Authenticity of a questioned signature cannot be determined solely upon its general characteristics. PNB (CA. (28 Phil 310) The testimony of a witness skilled in the unwritten law of a foreign country is not necessarily binding on our courts 8. EXCEPTIONS: a. the possibility of contamination of the samples. than to direct and credible testimony of witnesses as to the matters within their personal observation • Diphenaline or Paraffin Test – proved to be extremely unreliable in use People vs. inter alia. experience or training which he possesses. courts must necessarily consider all the circumstances of the case. Kosel (24 Phil 594) With respect to a handwriting expert. among them his qualifications. Unless in rebuttal. 439. 2. Leek (151 Pa. the constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail • Expert evidence on handwriting is at best. Sandiganbayan (1985)20 Where the supposed expert’s testimony would constitute the sole ground for conviction and there is equally expert testimony to the contrary. Ltd. condition or appearance of a person which he has observed 5. On the emotion. IAC (1985) azereth page 19 . On ordinary matters known to all men of common perception as the value of ordinary household articles14 Expert witness – one who belongs to the profession or calling to which the subject matter of the inquiry relates and who possesses special knowledge on questions on which he proposes to express an opinion » No definite standard of determining degree of knowledge or skill » Factors: 1. experience and degree of learning. necessary to consider. Particular. cited in NARIC vs.S. how they were handled.. The witness has been qualified as a witness » Hypothetical questions may be asked of an expert » Courts are not bound by the expert’s findings16 » Generally not regarded as conclusive. b. (CA. The matter to be testified to is one that requires expertise 2. Diansin (55 Phil 479) 19 Raymundo vs. and other nitrogenous compounds with nitrites and nitrates will give a positive reaction People vs. 431. the value of his opinion depends not upon his mere statement whether the handwriting is genuine or false. 20 • Galian vs. Ltd. (29 Phil 413) People vs. 59 OG 8404) Less weight should be given to inferences from comparison. Inc. even when several documents are used as bases for comparison ! Contrary ruling: see Lopez vs. the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. and the other evidence of record..CHARACTER EVIDENCE NOT GENERALLY ADMISSIBLE. courts are not bound by the conclusions of even a real expert along such line18 » Only where the subject of inquiry is of such a technical nature that a layman can possibly have no knowledge thereof that the courts must depend and rely upon expert evidence19 Conflicting expert evidence have neutralizing effect » Generates doubt • Bryan vs. but purely advisory in character17 Evidence Cesar vs. competently conducted by qualified persons. the determination of whether or not the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests and the qualification of the analyst who conducted those tests Wells vs. urine. when he is an expert thereon 2. Castillon III (2001) A finding that the paraffin test yielded negative results is not conclusive evidence that the accused had not fired a gun. It is possible for a person to have fired a gun and yet be negative for the presence of nitrates. First National Security & Assurance Co. Deauna (2002) 18 Paras vs. 25 Atl. the greater is the value of his opinion resting upon the same US vs. State Assurance Co. if the witness is sufficiently acquainted with the former or if the latter is an expert witness 4. cosmetics. On the mental sanity of a person. Dolar vs. The value of expert testimony depends largely on the extent of the experience or studies of the witness. first-hand familiarity with the facts of the case 3. The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. CHARACTER EVIDENCE Section 51 . Mendoza (1989) The Paraffin test is not conclusive as to the presence of gunpowder because fertilizers. Regarding the identity or the handwriting of a person. cigarettes. In Civil Cases: Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. how the samples were collected. 64 OG 10607) 15 16 14 Siasat vs. weak and unsatisfactory » Proof of handwriting by comparison is in most cases unsafe. Training and education 2. Eastern & Australian S. the basis and logic of his conclusion. as when he wore gloves or washed his hands afterwards • Results of blood grouping tests on the filiation of a child. The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. but upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out the distinguishing marks. Narciso (35 Phil 244). similarities or dissimilarities with the genuine signature » Dissimilarities are not decisive on the question of a signature’s authenticity Common knowledge that that the writing of a person changes as time passes • • • Cirujano vs. 101) In weighing the testimony of an expert witness. that is. Presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based15 » Expert evidence is admissible only when: 1.

obligation imposed upon a party who alleges the existence of facts necessary for the prosecution of his action or defense to establish the same by the requisite quantum of evidence » Civil cases – preponderance of evidence Rule 183. such does not have to be proven if it is only for the purpose of denying the existence of a document which would properly be in the custody of the adverse party ! The general rule is if the criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation or that a negative averment is an essential element of the crime. Sec 14. as sufficient to support a conclusion ! Also applies to cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies Burden of Evidence Both civil and criminal cases – lies with party who asserts an affirmative allegation » » Burden of Proof Civil cases . Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof. in civil cases. Evidence Summary of the rules on character evidence: • With respect to the nature of the case » Criminal cases ! Prosecution at the outset may not prove the bad moral character of the accused which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged • Intended to avoid unfair prejudice to the accused • If accused in his defense attempts to prove his good moral character. Section 1 » Criminal cases ! For issuance of warrant of arrest after PI – evidence of probable cause • Reasonable ground to believe that the accused committed the offense ! To warrant the filing of an information – prima facie evidence ! To sustain a conviction – evidence beyond reasonable doubt Charge of misconduct against judges – clear and convincing evidence ! Removal – beyond reasonable doubt Agrarian cases – substantial evidence ! Only such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept. BURDEN OF PROOF Section 1 – BURDEN OF PROOF Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law • Burden of proof – onus probandi.on the party who would be defeated if no evidence were given on either side Criminal cases – always on the prosecution Does not shift as it remains throughout the trial with the party upon whom it is imposed Generally determined by the pleading filed by the party Shifts from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in the course of the trial Generally determined by the developments at the trial or by provisions of law • Negative allegations – do not have to be proved » Except where such are essential parts of the COA or defense in a civil case or essential ingredients of the offense ! E. prosecution can introduce evidence of bad moral character in rebuttal ! Good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved by either party as long as such evidence is relevant » Civil cases ! Moral character of either party cannot be proved unless pertinent to the issue of character involved • With respect to the person » Accused: character evidence must be pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged » Offended party: sufficient that character evidence is relevant » Witness: bad moral character may always be proved by either party (Rule 132 Sec 11) ! Not evidence of his good moral character unless it has been impeached (Rule 132 Sec 14) Burden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved Rule 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions 1. even if negative allegation is an essential part of the COA or defense.g. the onus probandi rests on him. the prosecution has the burden of proving the charge. breach of contract: prove the fact that the defendant did not comply with the obligation Illegal possession of firearms: absence of a license ! However. or where the facts are more immediately within the knowledge of the accused. It is not incumbent upon the azereth page 20 .Admissibility of Evidence c. In the case provided for in Rule 132.

j. That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the latter ones is produced. or the delivery anything. That private transactions have been fair and regular. an absence of 5 years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened. p. act. z. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes. That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact. In case of disappearance. That a person is innocent of crime or wrong. 2. Macalaba (2003) Thus where the charge is made that the accused carried on a business without a license. the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead. in any case. That an unlawful act was done with unlawful intent. w. That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it. the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee. in any litigation arising out of such declaration. or judge acting as such. evidence of the existence or non-existence of facts from which the court can draw the inference of the fact in issue ! Judicial notice and judicial admission: as a rule. and to act upon such belief. That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it. That there was sufficient consideration for a contract. That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail. That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of money. or omission. Evidence That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid. b. That official duty has been regularly performed. or an aircraft which is missing. including the division of the estate among the heirs: 1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage. otherwise. if untrue. by his own declaration. x. That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act. That persons acting as co-partners have entered into a contract of partnership. are owned by him. 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. v. without prejudice to the effect of the reappearance of the absent spouse. but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: a. was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction. 2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities and has been missing for 4 years. act. the fact that he has a license is a matter which is peculiarly within his knowledge and he must establish that fact or suffer conviction. r. l. e. That an indorsement of a negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue and at the place where it was dated. That a court. has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly. or exercises acts of ownership over. m. Derived wholly and directly from the circumstances of the particular case by means of the common experience of mankind Types: 1. o. f. Disputable (juris tantum or prima facie) 1) Conclusive Presumptions Section 2 – CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS The following instances are conclusive presumptions: a. i. and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them. who has not been heard of for 4 years since the lost of the vessel or aircraft. azereth page 21 . or omission. proponent does not have to introduce evidence Presumptions of Law Praesumptiones juris Certain inference must be made whenever the facts appear which furnish the basis for the inference Reduced to fixed rules and form a part of the system of jurisprudence Presumptions of Fact Praesumptiones hominis Discretion is vested in tribunal as to drawing inference the the h. That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. c. could readily be disproved by documents or other evidence within the knowledge or control of the accused. FACTS WHICH ARE PRESUMED • Presumption – inference of an existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted to draw from the proof of other facts » Compared to judicial notice and judicial admission ! Presumption: proponent still has to introduce evidence of the basis of the presumption. People vs. However. That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. that things which a person possesses. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED A. That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life. u. The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of 10 years. before marrying again. d. s. t. 4) If a married person has been absent for 4 consecutive years. That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration. where there is danger of death under the circumstances hereinabove provided. That the thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter. an absence of only 2 years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. k. be permitted to falsify it. If he disappeared after the age of 75. intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true. Whenever a party has. That after an absence of 7 years. g. Conclusive (juris et de jure) 2. it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives. That the ordinary course of business have been followed. That a writing is duly dated. q. That the money paid by one to another was due to the latter. That a person in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act. he cannot. • Based upon doctrine of estoppel in pais 2) Disputable Presumptions Section 3 – DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted. whether in the Philippines or elsewhere.Burden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved prosecution to adduce positive evidence to support a negative averment the truth of which is fairly indicated by established circumstances and which. y. b. n. 3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for 4 years. he shall be considered dead for all purposes except those of succession.

2. has been obtained by their joint efforts. 2) If both were above the age of 60. That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey the real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his successor-in-interest. when 2 persons perish in the same calamity. however. property. instead. Party had the opportunity to produce the same 3. according to the following rules: 1) If both were under the age of 15. 2) A child born after 180 days following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage. or industry. hh. 5) If one be under 15 or over 60. the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. the defense could have availed of said evidence which was equally available to it People vs. cc. and the other between those ages. and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred. the male is deemed to have survived. while service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee. but if he fails to claim his mail from the post office within 5 days from the date of first notice. it is presumed that it was received by the addressee Barrameda vs. in the absence of proof. The receipt of a later installment of a debt without reservation as to prior installments. Castillo (1977) Under Rule 13. provided it be born within 300 days after the termination of the former marriage. WCC (106 Phil 1165) Where the fate of the vessel is known. work. the latter is deemed to have survived kk. • Par (j) – similar rationale: People vs. or is merely corroborative/cumulative or unnecessary People vs. the disputable presumption of death does not arise and the fact of death. 4) If both be over 15 and under 60. Navaja (1993) The adverse presumption of suppression of evidence does not arise when: 1. dd. 3. Sec 10. That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquired property through their actual joint contribution of money. even though it be born within 300 days after the termination of the former marriage. That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. or industry. service by pleadings by mail is complete upon the expiration of 10 days after mailing. The suppression is an exercise of a privilege • Par. without reservation with respect to the interest. and it is not shown who died first. the older is deemed to have survived. There must. That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within 300 days after such termination of the former marriage. Said evidence is available only to said party ! Presumption does not apply if evidence is equally available to both parties. if the sex is the same. Furthermore. was so printed or published. jj. That if there is doubt. must. 4. • Par (w) – taken from Civil Code » Sub par 1&2 – the absentee is presumed to have died at the end of the period (5/7/10 years) » Sub par 3 (qualified absence) – absentee is presumed to have died at the time he was exposed to the danger or peril ! At the start of the 4 year period ! Number (4) does not actually provide for a presumption – corollary procedural rule Victory Shipping Lines vs. the older. the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed arises and overrides the contrary claim of the addressee. as between 2 or more persons who are called to succeed each other. ff. The evidence withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative. unless the court otherwise provides. (i) is connected with the Civil Code principles Civil Code. as to which of them died first. and not where the vessel was merely lost or missing.Burden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved aa. Realon (1980) Presumption does not arise from the failure of the prosecution to present the NBI agents and the results of the fingerprint and paraffin tests in view of the overwhelming evidence on the positive identification of the accused. Sendaydiego (1978) If a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it. That except for purposes of succession. (e) 1. the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and age of the sexes. whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other. shall likewise raise the presumption that such installments have been paid. be established by preponderance of evidence azereth page 22 . Article 217 • Evidence Requisites for par. • Par (v) – it must be proved that the letter was properly addressed with postage pre-paid and that it was actually mailed » If not returned to sender. or conflagration. ii. taken advantage of it and profited thereby. That a printed or published book. That a printed or published book. The evidence is material 2. such as wreck. gg. That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. contains correct reports of such cases. these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary: 1) A child born before 180 days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during the former marriage. shall give rise to the presumption that said interest has been paid. be conclusive proof that a first notice was sent to the addressee as the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed does not apply to this situation Ferraren vs. • Par (a) » Legislature may provide for prima facie evidence of guilt provided there be a rational connection between the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed ! RPC. The suppression is not willful. Article 1176 The receipt of the principal by the creditor. the former is deemed to have survived. ee. 3) If one is under 15 and the other is above 60. The evidence is at the disposal of both parties. the service is complete at the expiration of such time. shall prove the same. and the sex is different. purporting to contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is published. however. Santos (1982) If. That the law has been obeyed. That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with the things of that nature. the postmaster certifies that first notice was sent. they shall be considered to have died at the same time. purporting to be printed or published by public authority. bb. the younger is deemed to have survived. battle. such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal.

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS A witness must answer questions. shall be recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable by the court. • To be admissible. Criminal cases – depositions or conditional examinations (Rule 119 Sections 12-15 and Rule 123 Sec 1) » Mere presentation of affidavits of witnesses subject to cross-examination is not allowed by the rules » But. or witnesses with reference to the case. Civil cases – depositions (Rules 23 – 24) 2. summary procedures may be authorized by SC in special cases ! May provide that affidavits and counteraffidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral testimony Testimony of witness should be elicited by questions of counsel » But Court itself may propound questions or may suggest questions to counsel • People vs. Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require.Burden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved • • Par (dd) – taken from Art 259 of the Civil Code. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES Section 1 – EXAMINATION TO BE DONE IN OPEN COURT The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court. 3. and the extent to which such examination may be conducted rests in its discretion and will not be controlled in the absence of abuse of discretion to the prejudice of either party Section 3 . A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer. Under the right against self-incrimination azereth page 23 . improper. Under the right against self-degradation unless: a. the answers of a witness shall be given orally Section 2 – PROCEEDINGS TO BE RECORDED The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing. and from harsh or insulting demeanor. To be protected from irrelevant. 2. testimony of a witness may be given in open court » May be supplanted by: 1. counsel. or insulting questions. 19a) • • Witness cannot refuse to answer questions material to the inquiry even if it may tend to establish a claim against him But may refuse if: 1. or the question calls for a different mode of answer. it is the right of a witness: 1. Deaths occurred in a calamity 2. or 5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation. 4. Such question is directed to the very fact in issue b. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak. Manalo (1987) The court should be given reasonable leeway to ascertain the truth. under BP 129. although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him. Refers to his previous final conviction or offense 2. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense. the statements made by the judge or any of the parties. stenotypist or recorder and certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings. unless it to be the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. There are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred that one died ahead of the other Evidence Presentation of Evidence Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence A. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law. in line with Art 168 of the Family Code Par (jj) – requisites: 1. (3a. and under oath or affirmation. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue. However. including the questions to be propounded to a witness and his answer thereto.

except: a. Section 11 . Section 7 . the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. Cross-examination by the opponent. director. or the reverse. On re-direct-examination. Direct examination by the proponent. • A witness may be cross examined by the adverse party not only as to matters stated in the direct examination but also as to matters connected therewith. and this should be allowed to do with sufficient fullness and freedom to test the witness’ accuracy. and also to elicit from him any important fact bearing upon the issue » American rule – cross-examination must be confined to the matters inquired about in the direct examination » English rule – witness may be cross-examined not only upon matters relevant to the issue » This jurisdiction – more on English rule Unwilling/hostile/adverse party witness – cross examination shall only be on the subject of his examination-in-chief » Same as accused testifying on his own behalf Question which assumes facts not on the record: » If on cross examination – objectionable for bring misleading » If on direct examination – objectionable for lack of basis ! Beltran vs. a.RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION.CROSS-EXAMINATION. she could not be compelled to give samples of her handwriting as it would amount to a denial of her right against self-incrimination in a possible charge for perjury ! Conflict can be reconciled: • Beltran: it was the accused himself who opened the issue on his direct examination » He could have refused to testify altogether » Therefore. It is not allowed. ITS PURPOSE AND EXTENT After the cross-examination of the witness has been concluded. and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness. c. Section 6 . Re-cross-examination by the opponent. by contradictory evidence.RECALLING WITNESS After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded. d. azereth page 24 .ORDER IN THE EXAMINATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL WITNESS The order in which the individual witness may be examined is as follows. Section 5 . Re-direct examination by the proponent. honestly. or e. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer. and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. or a deaf-mute. or a child of tender years. especially since further crossexamination could not be conducted due to the subsequent death of the said witness. the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered incomplete and should be stricken from the record People vs. Samson (53 Phil 570) Where in a prosecution for falsification. hence she did not waive the right “Unless otherwise provided by law” – refers to immunity statutes wherein the witness is granted immunity from criminal prosecution • • Bachrach Motor Co.. • Recall based on discretion of the court » But recall is a matter of right if the examination of the witness has not been concluded or the recall has been expressly reserved by a party with the approval of the court ! Section 4 .IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE PARTY'S WITNESS A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called. on cross-examination he can be compelled to give a sample of his handwriting and it was not a denial of his right against self-incrimination Bermudez vs. as the interests of justice may require. or contrary to that which he has previously stated. to explain or supplement his answers given during the cross-examination. with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias. b. ITS PURPOSE AND EXTENT Upon the termination of the direct examination. On cross examination. or connected therewith. the adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination. It is not allowed.LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a leading question. the complainant on cross-examination denied authorship of certain handwritten letters. Inc. The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion. questions on matters not dealt with during the crossexamination. or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party. the accused took the stand and testified denying his authorship of the alleged falsified signature. a circumstance not attributable to the prosecution Section 9 . b. d. Seneris (1980) Where in a criminal case the prosecution witness was extensively cross examined on the essential elements of the crime and what remained for further cross-examination was the matter of the prize or reward which was treated therein as merely an aggravating circumstance. may be allowed by the court in its discretion. vs. he may be re-examined by the party calling him. CIR (1978) When cross examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party who offered the witness. When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant.RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination. by evidence that his general reputation for truth. in a disbarment case. the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to many matters stated in the direct examination. his failure to appear for further cross-examination thereon will not warrant the striking out of his direct examination. Of an unwilling or hostile witness. Section 10 .DIRECT EXAMINATION Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. or is of feeble mind. c. On preliminary matters. he waived his right • Bermudez: complainant could not refuse to testify without an unfavorable inference being drawn against her » Also. Castillo (64 Phil 483) Where.Presentation of Evidence ! Criminal cases – Rule 115 Section 1(e): accused may refuse to take the stand altogether • Accused: may be with reference to the offense involved in the same case wherein he is charged or to an offense for which he may be charged and tried in another case • Witness: offense involved is one for which he may be tried in another case • Right should be seasonably invoked and may be waived Other cases/proceedings – a party may be compelled to take the stand but he may object to incriminating questions Evidence Section 8 . truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias. issue was raised during crossexamination.

The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented from conversing with one another until all shall have been examined. • Leading question – one which suggests to the witness the answer desired » May cause the witness. made by the witness sought to be impeached on occasions other than the trial in which he is testifying Paez vs. except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness. but in such case the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party. but not the testimony of another witness 2. so that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses.EXCLUSION AND SEPARATION OF WITNESSES On any trial or hearing. and he must be asked whether he made such statements. Dela Cruz (2002) Leading questions may be permitted in the examination of a witness who is immature. they cannot be divested thereof by an exclusion order People vs. bound by the testimony of the said witness. By confronting him with such statements. By asking him whether he made such statement c. who may. uneducated. on that count alone. or his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. unsophisticated. ignorant of. lacking in comprehension of questions or slow to understand.Presentation of Evidence or integrity is bad. as in the case of a subscribing witness to a will • Party can impeach adverse party’s witness by: 1. • ! Evidence “Laying the predicate” a. court proceedings. with the circumstances under which they were made b. Evidence of prior inconsistent statements » In case of hostile/adverse party/involuntary witnesses – can also be impeached by other modes of impeachment Section 14 . prejudice or incompetence Party can impeach his own witness only by: 1. • • Power of exclusions apply only to witnesses and not to parties in the civil case Parties have a right to be present at the trial » Either by themselves or by their counsels » Since they have such right. and if so. unjustified reluctance to testify. The unwilling or hostile witness so declared. timid or embarrassed while on stand.WHEN WITNESS MAY REFER TO MEMORANDUM A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact. and not merely to impeach him. if he azereth page 25 . vs. interest. with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present. Section 12 . or the witness who is an adverse party. Evidence contradictory to his testimony 2. Tantoco (49 Phil 380) A party who voluntarily offers the testimony of a witness in the case is.PARTY MAY NOT IMPEACH HIS OWN WITNESS Except with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10. the statements must be related to him. except by evidence of his bad character.EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER OF WITNESS Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached. court may bar him from testifying or give little weight to his testimony » Aside from his liability for contempt People vs. but such crossexamination must only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief. or by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present. Lua Chu (56 Phil 44) It is within the power of the trial judge to refuse to order the exclusion of the principal witness of the government during the hearing of a criminal case and it may not. oral or documentary. 4. The exceptions to the rule are: 1. be considered as an abuse of his discretion Section 16 . but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts. He may also be impeached and crossexamined by the adverse party. by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred.HOW WITNESS IMPEACHED BY EVIDENCE OF INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony. or immediately thereafter. Evidence of prior inconsistent statements – statements. that he has been convicted of an offense. the party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them. By giving him a chance to explain the inconsistency » Impeachment is incomplete if witness is not given the chance to explain the discrepancy » But defect is waived if no objection on that ground is raised when the document involved is offered for admission No need to lay the predicate if the prior inconsistent statement appears in a deposition of the adverse party and not a mere witness • Statements are in the nature of an admission ! Juan Ysmael & Co. aged and infirm. Berenguer (8 Phil 457) A party to an action has a right to be present in court while his case is being tried. allowed to explain them. may be impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party. Contradictory evidence – other testimony of the same witness. confused and agitated. or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew that the same was correctly written or recorded. Hashim (50 Phil 132) Where previous statements of a witness are offered as evidence of an admission. inexperienced. feebleminded. Section 15 . When the witness is not voluntarily offered but is required by law to be presented by the proponent. or unable to speak or understand the English language or only imperfectly familiar therewith • Misleading question – one which assumes facts not in evidence or without sufficient basis or which assumes testimony or proof which has not been given Fernandez vs. testimony. the judge may exclude from the court any witness not at the time under examination. terrified. to testify in accordance with the suggestion by the question ! Answer may be “rather an echo of the question than a genuine recollection » Testimony on direct examination elicited through leading questions has little probative value 3. A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest. and the rule authorizing the exclusion of witnesses during trial cannot be understood to extend to him • If witness violates the order of exclusion.. In case of a hostile witness 2. Inc. deaf and dumb. an bad physical condition. the rule on laying the predicate does not apply Evidence of bad character Evidence of bias. Section 13 . as a rule. or other evidence presented by him in the same case. or the record of the judgment. by reacting to an inference in his mind. or unaccustomed to. Where the witness is the adverse party or the representative of a judicial person which is the adverse party 3.

or of a foreign country. is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine. THE REMAINDER ADMISSIBLE When part of an act. notarial wills – law still requires witnesses for its probate Kinds: 1.RIGHT TO RESPECT WRITING SHOWN TO WITNESS Whenever a writing is shown to a witness. Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments.HOW GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING PROVED The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write. and when a detached act. if he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made. Official documents • Requisites for admissibility of copy of foreign official document: a. with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered. CA (1976) Where the witness has testified independently of or after his memory has been refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute.WHEN EVIDENCE OF AUTHENTICITY OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT NOT NECESSARY Where a private document is more than thirty years old. THE REMAINDER. or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. • American jurisprudence: » First sentence – “revival of present memory” ! Applies if witness remembers the facts regarding his entries and is entitled to greater weight » Second sentence – revival of past recollection ! Applies where the witness does not recall the facts involved and is entitled to lesser weight Applies only when it is shown beforehand that there is a need to refresh the memory of the witness Memorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness does not constitute evidence and may not be admitted as such » Reason: the witness has just the memorandum to testify on the basis of refreshed memory » Memorandum not admissible as corroborative evidence » » Evidence Except if law requires proof ! E. its record. any other act. Private documents required by law to entered in public records – subject to provisions of Section 27 • While public records of private writings are also public documents. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison. declaration.where the facts in the writing could only have been known by the writer » Rule of authentication by adverse party – where the reply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the sending to him and his receipt thereof of the letter azereth page 26 . whether of the Philippines. Section 4 – OATH OF COMMISSIONER Before entering upon his duties the commissioner shall be sworn to a faithful and honest performance thereof Section 18 . conversation. or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged.CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS For the purpose of their presentation evidence. writing or record is given in evidence by one party. writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other. Section 21 . Barcelon (37 Phil 148) Public documents generally include notarial documents and are admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof as to authenticity and due execution Section 20 . documents are either public or private. its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: a. its recordation. since the witness may not be corroborated by any written statement prepared wholly by him. it may be inspected by the adverse party. So. By anyone who saw the document executed or written. or b. but such evidence must be received with caution. Must be accompanied by a Philippine diplomatic or consular representative to the foreign country certifying that such attesting officer has the custody of the document ! Requirement is not merely a technicality but is intended to justify the giving of full faith and credit to the genuineness of a document in a foreign country 2. B.g. official bodies and tribunals. kept in the Philippines. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.PROOF OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence. • • Classification in RPC is different “Public documents” Antillon vs. Must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or his deputy b. (CA. unless the proper predicate of his failing memory is priorly laid down Section 17 . Worldwide Insurance & Surety Co. declaration. and public officers. WRITING OR RECORD GIVEN IN EVIDENCE. 62 OG 8857) If a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public record. • • Rules of authenticity In addition. no other evidence of its authenticity need be given. American jurisprudence also gives: » Doctrine of self-authentication . made by the witness or the court.WHEN PART OF TRANSACTION. Section 22 . The written official acts. such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative evidence. b. or its incorporation into the public record becomes a public document. and c. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS Section 19 . and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion. writing or record is given in evidence. conversation. Those acknowledged before persons authorized to administer oaths – further governed by Section 30 3. or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority. Public documents are: a. a witness may testify from such writing or record. though he retain no recollection of the particular facts. conversation. and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.Presentation of Evidence chooses. • Similar rule in depositions Rule 32. Public records. declaration. cross examine the witness upon it. also. He cannot be more credible just because he supports his open-court declaration with written statements of the same facts even if he did prepare them during the occasion in dispute. and may read it in evidence. of private documents required by law to the entered therein. but that does not make the private writing itself a public document so as to make the private writing it admissible without authentication • “Private documents” documents – commercial and private • • Borromeo vs. the public writing is not the writing itself but the “public record” thereof Republic vs. All other writings are private.

PROOF OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law. in respect to the proceedings. an official copy of which is admissible in evidence. vs. or a specific part thereof. b. if the record is not kept in the Philippines. Section 28 . Section 29 – HOW JUDICIAL RECORD IMPEACHED Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: a. Section 26 . The authenticity and due execution of the document has been expressly or impliedly admitted by a failure to deny the same under oath ! Actionable documents (Rule 8. with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. Section 8) Authenticity and due execution of a private document is proved by.WHAT ATTESTATION OF COPY MUST STATE 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. 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. Art 12) Mahilum vs. Fraud in the party offering the record. The writing is an ancient document (Sec 21) 2. except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case. may be presented in evidence without further proof.IRREMOVABILITY OF PUBLIC RECORD Any public record. Official publication thereof 3.PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19. or by his deputy. such opinion being exception to opinion rule (Rule 130. or c. may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record. Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer. before the establishment of civil registry in 1917 ! Considered presumptive evidence of facts stated therein » Issued by priests during Spanish regime – considered as public documents » Issued after the Spanish regime – private document and cannot even be prima facie evidence of the fact that gave rise to its execution (the fact of the baptism and the date thereon) ! Hearsay and inadmissible • Unless the priest who performed the baptismal rights and made the certificate is produced » Not sufficient to prove paternity21 or voluntary recognition of a child22 Arde vs. CA (1978) Rule 132 Section 22 merely enumerates the methods of proving handwriting but does not give preference or priority to a particular method Section 24 . the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. Expert evidence (Rule 130 Sec 49) Evidence Section 27 . with a certificate that such officer has the custody. CA (2000) Absent the attestation of the officer having the legal custody of the records and the certificate to that effect by a Philippine foreign service officer.PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office. consul.Presentation of Evidence in question. • Rule 39 Sec 1 • • Lopez vs. the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation. vice-consul. and accompanied. when admissible for any purpose. The writing is a public document or record (Sec 19) 3. must not be removed from the office in which it is kept. • Public record – cannot be removed from the office in which it is kept without a court order such as subpoena duces tecum » Even court cannot order its removal except when essential to the just determination of the pending case » Refers only to a public record an official copy of which could be made available to the interested party and is admissible in evidence Section 30 . Witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument (Sec 20a) 2. consulgeneral. Anocoche (1978) Berciles vs. Certified true copy thereof ! Requirements in Secs 24 and 25 • Unless specifically exempted (FC. inter alia. consul general. It is a notarial document acknowledged. under the seal of such court. consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service in the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept of said public document and authenticated by the seal of his office • Even public documents do not have uniform probative value » Probative value depends on the kind of document that is presented in evidence Baptismal certificates » Held as analogous to the records of birth in CC Art 265. in substance.PUBLIC RECORD OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original record. the attestation must state. accompanied by a certificate as above provided. or by a copy thereof. Collusion between the parties. as the case may be. • Public documents may be proved by: 1. CA (1987) Where the special power of attorney is executed and acknowledged before a notary public or other competent officer in a foreign country. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country. GSIS (1984) • Wildvalley Shipping Co. Ltd. consul. proved or certified in accordance with Sec 30 4. Sec 50b) 3. vice consul. Original copy 2. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer. Witness familiar with such handwriting (Sec 22) and who can give his opinion thereon. evidence of genuineness of the handwriting of the maker » Handwriting is proved by: 1. or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal. attested by the legal custodian of the record. CA (1966) It is presumed that the requisite stamps have been affixed to the original copy of a document where only the carbon copies thereof are available Lopez vs. it cannot be admitted in evidence in Philippine courts unless it is certified as such in accordance with Rule 132 Sec 24 by a secretary of the embassy or legation. is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry.. Section 25 . a copy of which the proponent is offering as evidence Authentication of document not required if: 1. if there be any. Comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and admitted genuine specimens thereof (Sec 22) 4. a mere copy of the foreign document is not admissible as evidence to prove the foreign law 21 2 azereth page 27 .

or otherwise improper. without his concurrence. the court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the record. Valdez (32 Phil 644) If no ruling is made during the course of the trial.OFFER OF EVIDENCE The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. Section 37 . If he fails to do that. Sun Life Assurance Co. 1935 Constitution – English and Spanish A official languages Section 3(3). and such objection is found to be meritorious. He may show that the alteration was made by another. However. in a part material to the question in dispute. and the statement therein Garcia Fule vs. the document shall not be admissible in evidence. the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent. Tavera (47 Phil 645) The reservation of a ruling made by the court on an objection to the admissibility of evidence. it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection. a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. counsel would have no means of knowing whether or not he would be compelled to meet any evidence at all.WHEN TO MAKE OFFER As regards the testimony of a witness. must account for the alteration.STRIKING OUT ANSWER Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same. the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. To avoid interruption of proceedings. Singh (45 Phil 645) The failure of the court to make such ruling should be brought to its attention. Llandelar (2001)23 While recognizing the primacy of a birth certificate as proof of the victim’s age. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. the victim’s minority may be proved by other documentary evidence such as her baptismal certificate or other authentic records • Death certificate Sison vs. in the absence of such evidence. On proper motion. unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented. 23 Also in People vs. English. Fruna (2002) azereth page 28 . 1987 Constitution . 58 OG 5446) The courts should consider the evidence only for the purpose for which it was offered C. without subsequently excluding the same. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. Article XIV. irrelevant. the grounds for the objections must be specified. Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. HOW TO EXPLAIN The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution. Section 39 . Section 35 . until otherwise provided by law. If the evidence excluded is oral. Article XIV. Section 40 . • • Section 3. The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. failing which the case cannot be reopened for a new trial on that ground People vs. the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify. Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent. Jalosjos (2001) and People vs. whether such objection was sustained or overruled. or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. 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. 47 OG 1954) A death certificate is not proof of the cause of death. In any case. OFFER AND OBJECTION Section 34 . if the objection is based on two or more grounds.ALTERATION IN DOCUMENT. its probative value being confined only to the fact of death. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court. the SC held that. or was otherwise properly or innocent made. Section 32 – SEAL There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. 1973 Constitution – English and Pilipino » PD 155 – Spanish language shall continue to be recognized as an official language while important documents in government files are in the Spanish language and not translated into Pilipino or English Section 7.the official languages are Filipino and. with the regional languages as auxiliary official languages in the region • Lopez vs. the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. CA (1980) A baptismal certificate is proof only of the baptism administered by the priest who baptized the child but not the veracity of the declarations and statements in the certificates concerning the relationship of the person baptized » Above doctrines modified by the SC in determining the minority of the victim in statutory rape or where that fact is an element of qualified rape Evidence Section 36 – OBJECTION Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made. it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to such class of questions. Section 33 . amounts to a denial of said objection People vs. • Parties who offer objections to questions on whatever ground are entitled to a ruling at the time the objection is made » Unless they present a question with regard to which the court desires to inform itself before making a ruling People vs.TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court.WHEN REPETITION OF OBJECTION UNNECESSARY When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the question being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made. Abalos (CA. or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it. hence it would prejudice the substantial rights of his client People vs.Presentation of Evidence Macadangdang vs. Malvar (1976) A death certificate is admissible to prove the residence of the deceased at the time of his death Section 31 .DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN AN UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence. parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. of Canada (CA. Section 38 – RULING The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made. unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. Article XV.

Yusay (47 Phil 639) Also Republic vs. Jose (1976)27 Considering the gravity of the offenses and in the interest of justice. CA and People vs.. or if the rejected evidence.) vs.Presentation of Evidence Oliveros vs. CA (1974) Where documentary evidence was rejected by the trial court and the offeror did not move that the same be attached to the record. People vs.) (38 Phil 514) The court itself may motu proprio treat the objection as a continuing one Also Lamagan vs. • • Otherwise. it would infringe on the constitutional right of the adverse party to due process of law25 The practice of excluding evidence on doubtful objections should be avoided Evidence People vs. Sandiganbayan (1986) 27 Also Co vs. the appellate court may be able to examine the same and determine the propriety of their rejection Bañez vs. safely accept the testimony upon the statement of the attorney that the proof offered will be connected later People vs. CA (75 Phil 824) Documents forming no part of the of proofs before the appellate court cannot be considered in disposing of the case. Yusay (47 Phil 639) If the trial court erroneously ruled out the evidence and discovered such error before the judgment had become final or before an appeal therefrom had been perfected. would not have changed the decision • Otherwise. the SC allowed the presentation and admitted the birth certificates of the accused to prove the mitigating circumstance of minority although said birth certificates were not presented or offered in the trial courts • Section 37 – party may just enter a general and continuing objection to the same class of evidence the ruling of the court shall be applicable to all such evidence of the same class Ed. A. Bande An erroneous rejection or admission of evidence by the trial court is not a ground for a new trial or reversal of the decision if there are other independent evidence to sustain the decision. the court may. in the early stages of the development of the proof. Oliveros (106 Phil 369)24 The trial courts should permit all exhibits presented by the parties. Villanueva (18 Phil 639) azereth page 29 . vs. (Ltd. CA (1982). to be attached to the records so that. 66 OG 6405) Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be considered for any other purpose Sheraton-Palace hotel vs. Dela Cruz (1971) Tinsay vs. (52 Phil 807) In a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of first instance. although not admitted. cf. WCC (1977)26 Documents which may have been marked as exhibits during the hearing but which were not formally offered in evidence cannot be considered as evidence nor can they be given evidentiary value People vs. and where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the attorney offering the evidence. it may reopen the case • Rulings of trial court on procedural questions and on admissibility of evidence during the course of the trial are interlocutory in nature and may not be the subject of separate appeals or review on certiorari Prats & Co. said exhibits are admissible against the accused People vs. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co. the same cannot be considered by the appellate court De Castro vs. 64 OG 9118) A document or writing which is admitted not as independent evidence but merely as part of the testimony of a witness does not constitute proof of the facts related therein • Identification of documentary evidence " its formal offer » Identification – made in the course of the trial ! Evidence identified and marked as exhibits may be withdrawn before formal offer » Formal offer – when proponent rests his case ! Where objection may be made Vda de Flores vs. Diano (CA. if it had been admitted. Quijano (CA. Phoenix Insurance Co. in case of appeal. Pecardal and Soliman vs. (Ltd. as a rule. to know with any certainty whether testimony is relevant or not. Keller & Co. a new trial is warranted by reason of the erroneous ruling which goes into the merits of the case and would have affected the decision28 Tinsay vs. Ca (1980) 25 26 24 28 US vs. Mate (1981) (Criminal case for kidnapping with murder) Even if there was no formal offer of the exhibits but the same have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and the exhibits have been incorporated in the records of the case.

Reyes (CA. the nature of the facts to which they testify.PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT In a criminal case. unlike appellate magistrates. such testimony comes from a polluted source and must be scrutinized with great caution as it is subject to grave suspicion • • Testimony of a single witness may support a conviction – if trustworthy and reliable » And clear and convincing Testimony of offended party – not essential to convict accused if there are already other evidence to prove the guilt of the accused » Prosecution not obliged to present each and every person who witnesses the occurrence but only a sufficient number to prove the commission of the crime azereth page 30 . It is also quite common that advanced age makes a person mentally dull and completely hazy about things which have happened to him and. the party having burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. Credit should be given to the one whose demeanor and manner of testifying convinces the court of his veracity • Testimony of interested witness – not necessarily biased or self-serving » But may affect their credibility People vs. The court may also consider the number of witnesses. Enriquez (CA. the accused is entitled to an acquittal. the numerical factor may be given certain weight People vs. and the conclusions of the trial courts command great weight and respect People vs. Magallanes (1968) The matter of assigning values to declarations at the witness stand is best and most competently performed by a trial judge. CA (1974) When a witness makes two sworn statements and these two statements incur in the gravest contradictions. can weigh such testimony in light of the defendant’s behavior. The witness by his own act of giving false testimony impeaches his own testimony and the court should exclude it from all consideration People vs. 67 OG 5899) When the witnesses on both sides are equally interested or otherwise biased. but in case of conflicting testimonies of witnesses. 57 OG 2518) The fact that a person has reached the “twilight of his life” is not always a guaranty that he would tell the truth. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof. Moral certainly only is required. might affect the outcome of the case ! Does not apply if one judge heard the witnesses and another judge penned the decision • • People vs. and the facts adduced therein are evidence only for the purpose of testing the credibility of the witnesses • Bias – that which excites the disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence Rule 133 – Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence Section 1 . and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. 44 OG 3853) The trial court should not discredit a witness by the supposed expression of lack of sincerity in his face. or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Quilino (CA. Macuti (26 Phil 170) It is a well-settled doctrine that the demeanor. the court cannot accept either statement as proof. Section 2 . reasonable. who. 58 OG 68) By credibility of a witness is meant his integrity. unless it is presented in evidence. the witnesses' manner of testifying. if considered. Aquino (1974) While the testimony of a co-conspirator or an accomplice is admissible. it weakens the resistance to outside influence US vs. The Art of Cross-Examination) People vs. their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are testifying. unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Courts allow a person to testify as a witness upon a given matter because he is competent but may thereafter decide whether to believe or not to believe his testimony US vs. the number of witnesses should not in and by itself determine the weight of evidence. Watin (CA. Competency of a witness is one thing. Laban (21 Phil 297) The record of a PI constitutes no part of the final proceedings in a cause. El Beaterio del Santissimo Rosario de Molo (1968) To hold that a particular person is competent to testify upon a given matter does not mean that his testimony thereon must be believed by the court or must be deemed by it to be of sufficient probative value to establish the point which it was intended to prove. if properly considered. demeanor. and it is another to be credible witness. Juarez (CA.trial court is in the better position to decide the question. though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. Facial expressions are not necessarily indicative of one’s feelings. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies. their intelligence. excluding possibility of error. while testifying. bias ceases to be a consideration in determining where the weight of evidence rests. and probable as to make it easy to believe » To be believed.Presentation of Evidence Evidence People vs. Rivera (CA. gestures and inflection of the voice of a witness. are potent aids in the proper evaluation of his credibility Mondragon vs. 50 OG 665) It has been said that “perhaps the most subtle and prolific of all fallacies of testimony arises out of unconscious partisanship. at times. The trial court should have made it appear in the record and allowed the witness the opportunity to explain why he was showing such an expression on his face Caluna vs. it should be in accord with common knowledge and experience of mankind General rule: findings of judge who tried the case and heard the witnesses are not to be disturbed on appeal. Upon the happening of an accident. the occasional passengers on board of a streetcar are very apt to side with the employees in charge of the car (citing Wellman. HOW DETERMINED In civil cases. having heard and observed the demeanor of the witness ! Unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which. • Sections 1&2 give the rule on the requisite quantum of evidence in civil and criminal cases » Last 2 sentences of Sec1: factors which the court may take into consideration in determining the weight to be given in testimonial evidence Evidence must be from a credible source and must be credible in itself » It shall be natural. the probability or improbability of their testimony. the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case. Vicente (1951) As a general rule. their interest or want of interest. unless there are substantial facts and circumstances which have been overlooked and which. conduct and attitude at the trial. especially if there is no numerical preponderance on either side. produces absolute certainly. 50 OG 68) The failure of a party to present merely corroborative or cumulative evidence does not give rise to any adverse or unfavorable presumption People vs. disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testimony he has given as distinguished from the credibility of his testimony Arroyo vs.PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. the emphasis. might affect the result of the case » Issue: credibility of the witness .

Suggestiveness of the identification procedure Res ipsa loquitur – the fact of the occurrence of an injury. Witness’ degree of attention at the time 3. is not as weighty as that of the subscribing witness • Affirmative testimony – stronger than negative testimony » Greater weight must be given to the positive testimony of the witness than to the denial of the defendant Conflict in the testimony of 2 witnesses – may be due to difference in observation or memory » Does not necessarily imply falsehood Delay of the witness in revealing to the authorities what he knows of the crime – does not render his testimony false » Attributed to natural reticence and abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case » Or inherent fear of reprisal » Or intense grief Relationship of witness to the victim – does not impair his clear and positive testimony nor give it lesser credit » Unless there is a showing of improper motive • • • • • Tunala vs. Garcia (63 Phil 419) The testimony of persons accidentally present at the time of the execution of the will. especially if accompanied by OCEAN possession ! But not conclusive evidence of ownership » Non-payment – indicative of the fact that claimant does not believe himself to be the owner of the property Motive of the accused in a criminal case – immaterial » But necessary in the following instances: 1. the court should not at once have a mental prejudice against him • • • • People vs. Where malice is an element of the offense » Mere proof of motive. Length of time between the crime and the identification 6. Aquiedo (108 Phil 186) Where one accused withdraws his appeal after realizing the futility of his defense. Accuracy of any prior description given by the witness 4. it is presumed that he knows perfectly well that his cause is groundless. Where identity of the assailant is in question 2. taken with the surrounding circumstances. The falsity consists of mistakes on points that are not material 3. Diola (CA. without any motive – reasonable doubt “Totality of circumstance” test – used for the admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identification of suspects » Factors: 1. whereas the righteous are as brave as a lion” » Non-flight – not an indication of innocence Payment of taxes » Continuous payment – evidence of great weight in favor of ownership. clear and satisfactory evidence » Must be physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission » Strong defense when there is no positive and proper identification of the accused as the author of the offense » When set up. Where the evidence is circumstantial and inconclusive 8. conditions and circumstances Qualifying and aggravating circumstances – must be proved in an evident and incontestable manner » As conclusively as the crime itself Self-defense – one who sets up must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution » Quantum: clear and convincing evidence Alibi – one of the weakest defenses » May be considered only when established by positive. Abonales (106 Phil 190) The non-production of a corroborative witness without any explanation given why he was not so produced. no matter how strong. To determine the voluntariness of the criminal act or the sanity of the accused 3. Level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification 5. weakens the testimony of the witness who named the corroborating witness in his testimony • Rape cases: corroborative statements not required » But testimony should be exercised with greatest care People vs. The challenged testimony is sufficiently corroborated on many grounds 2. 62 OG 4946) Where a party resorts to falsehood to advance his suit. To determine whether the shooting was intentional or accidental 6. and the other escapes from confinement thereby causing the dismissal of his appeal. To determine from which side the unlawful aggression commenced (self-defense) 4. and this presumption affects the whole mass of evidence presented by such party • Affidavits – generally subordinated in importance to open court declarations » Often executed when the affiant is at a high pitch of excitement » Not complete reproductions of what the declarant have in mind because they are generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiant simply signs after the same have been read to him » Discrepancies between the affidavit and the open court statement ! Do not discredit the witness because ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete for want of suggestion and inquiries ! Does not apply where the self-contradiction or inconsistencies are on very material and substantial matters » Only prima facie evidence of weak probative force and should be received with caution Conspiracy – need not establish that all parties agreed to every detail • • • azereth page 31 . cannot sustain a conviction if there is no other evidence establishing the guilt of the accused » Evidence is weak. Witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime 2. Such mistakes do not arise from the apparent desire to pervert the truth but from innocent lapses and the desire of the witness to exculpate himself but not completely » Evidence Enough that it may be reasonably deduced that they had a common plan to commit the felony » But must be proven beyond reasonable doubt » Need not be established by direct evidence ! May be proved by a number of indefinite acts. Where the accused contended that he acted in the defense of a stranger 7.Index • Inconsistencies on mere details – do not impair the credibility of the witness » Actually indicate veracity rather than prevarication » Perfect dovetailing of witnesses testimonies can generate suspicion – prefabricated story Falsus in uno. but who have nothing to do with the transaction. To determine the specific nature of the crime committed (murder or homicide) 5. falsus in omnibus – deals only with eight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law and the rule is not an inflexible one of universal application » Modern trend – testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part ! Depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case ! Does not apply where: 1. may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case and present a question of fact for the defendant to meet with an explanation Garcia vs. said acts are unmistakable signs of guilt • Flight – evidence of guilt and a guilty conscience » “The wicked flee even when no man pursueth.

circumstantial evidence not sufficient to sustain a conviction ! Documents involved must be presented ! Bigamy: direct evidence of first marriage is necessary • Reputation or cohabitation merely corroborative azereth page 32 . there is no corpus delicti A mere voluntary extrajudicial confession uncorroborated by independent proof of corpus delicti is not sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction » Evidence may be circumstantial but it must substantiate the confession » But corpus delicti is not synonymous with the whole charge ! Need not require that all the elements of the crime be established independently ! Were it required that. the court can have no basis to make its findings of fact and the prudent course is to subject the affiants to cross-examination so that the court can decide whom to believe People vs. De Ramonal (1975) The court has the power to stop the introduction of testimony which will merely be cumulative Section 7 . People vs. such motive becomes important when the evidence of the crime is purely circumstantial • • Section 3 . it is incumbent upon the prosecution to present such circumstantial evidence which will and must necessarily lead to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. bigamy and libel .CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. robbery as the motive explains the killing Section 5 . but such kind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion • Or evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs • • • • Section 6 . The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven.EVIDENCE ON MOTION When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties. Guinea vs. NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR CONVICTION An extrajudicial confession made by an accused. b. Sasota (91 Phil 111) When the complex crime of robbery with homicide is charged and the extrajudicial confession of the accused of the entire charge is corroborated by corpus delicti of homicide alone.SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies. excluding all and each and every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence • Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction in capital offenses » Except when law specifies the quantum of evidence. or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Existence of the firearm 2. if the affidavits contradict each other on matters of fact. Biak-na-Bato Mining Co. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. But this power should be exercised with caution.POWER OF THE COURT TO STOP FURTHER EVIDENCE The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. Tanco (1991) Substantial evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof as required in ordinary civil cases. Jara (1986) In order to convict a person accused of a crime on the strength of circumstantial evidence alone. parricide or other cases where issue of marriage is primarily involved Prior and coetaneous. the utility of a confession as a species of proof would be illusory People vs. vs. Sapida vs. De Villanueva (1972) While the court may hear and rule upon motions solely on the basis of affidavits or counter-affidavits. the entire confession is admissible although there is no independent evidence of the robbery Section 4 . such as in treason » Falsification. as well as subsequent. but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. and c. evidence be adduced sufficient in itself to convict.EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION. Turtoga (2002) The fact that the accused was in dire need of money and the victim scolded him for soliciting a loan from her.Index » Doctrine is merely evidentiary or procedural in nature ! Does not dispense with the requirement of proof of negligence • Evidence Same as in adultery. People vs. shall not be sufficient ground for conviction. independent of the confession. a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence. • Corpus delicti – actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged » Common fact made up of 2 things: Existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge Existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result » Identity of the accused not a necessary element » Literally means “body of the crime” » Proved when the evidence on record shows that the crime prosecuted had been committed Theft: corpus delicti – 1. Property was lost by the owner 2. There is more than one circumstances. Tan-Choco. in the absence of any other evidence. acts of the accused are circumstantial evidence of guilt While motive of the accused is generally immaterial not being an element of the crime. WHEN SUFFICIENT Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: a. It was lost by felonious taking » Crime may be established without recovery of the property Illegal possession of firearms 1. It has actually been held with animus possidendi by the accused without the corresponding license Murder: corpus delicti is the fact of death » Where there is doubt as to the identity of the cadaver. Vda.