You are on page 1of 42

Preliminary Considerations Evidence

Preliminary Considerations
Rule 128 General Provisions
Section 1 EVIDENCE DEFINED Evidence is the means sanctioned !" these rules o# ascertainin$ in a %udicial &roceedin$ the truth res&ectin$ a matter o# #act Section 2 ' SC(PE )he rules o# evidence shall !e the same in all courts and in all trials and hearin$s e*ce&t as other+ise &rovided !" la+ or these rules, Evidence - mode and manner of proving competent facts in judicial proceedings Proof - result or effect of evidence When the requisite quantum of evidence of a particular fact has been duly admitted and given weight Factum probandum ultimate fact or fact sought to be established proposition Factum probans evidentiary fact or the fact by which the factum probandum is to be established !aterials which establishes the proposition "aw on evidence procedural law #hall not diminish$ increase or modify substantive rights %#ec & %&'$ (rt )***$ +onsti' ,ew 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 E.cept in criminal cases when the new rule would permit reception of lesser quantum of evidence to convict -/ unconstitutional$ e. post facto Principally found in 01+ #pecial laws2 0( 3455$ +ode of +ommerce (rt 336$ +ivil +ode$ 0P+ (rt 478 9ill of 0ights #ec 4 and : #ee notes under #ec ::$ 0ule 7:5 0ight against self-incrimination cannot be invo;ed in situations covered by immunity statutes 0( 7:8< immunity to witnesses in proceedings for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property P= 83< immunity in bribery and graft cases #pecifically applicable only in judicial proceedings >uasi-judicial2 suppletory character whenever practicable and convenient$ e.cept when the governing law specifically adopts 01+ +lassification of evidence based on 01+2 7? 1bject that which is directly addressed to the senses of the court and consists of tangible things e.hibited or demonstrated in open court$ in an ocular inspection or at a place designated by the court for its view or observation of an e.hibition$ e.periment or demonstration (utoptic proference presenting in open court the evidentiary articles for the observation or inspection of the tribunal 4? =ocumentary evidence evidence supplied by written instruments or derived from conventional symbols$ such as letters$ by which ideas are represented on material substances :? @estimonial submitted to the court through the testimony or deposition of a witness 1ther classifications 7? 0elevant$ !aterial$ and +ompetent Evidence a? 0elevant evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove any matter provable in an action @est 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? !aterial evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings 4?





!ateriality of evidence is determined by W1, the fact it tends to prove is in issue c? +ompetent one that is not e.cluded by the 0ules$ law or +onsti =irect and +ircumstantial Evidence a? =irect that which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption b? +ircumstantial proof of the fact or facts from which$ ta;en either singly or collectively$ the e.istence of a particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence +umulative and +orroborative Evidence a? +umulative evidence of the same ;ind and to the same state of facts b? +orroborative additional evidence of a different character to the same point Prima facie and +onclusive Evidence a? Prima facie that which$ standing alone$ une.plained or uncontradicted$ is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed b? +onclusive that class of evidence which the law does not allow to be contradicted Primary and #econdary Evidence a? Primary or best evidence$ that which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question b? #econdary 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 ,egative 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 ;nowledge b? ,egative witness states that he did not see or ;now of the occurrence of a fact @otal disclaimer of personal ;nowledge

Section - .D/ISSI0I1I)2 (F EVIDENCE Evidence is admissi!le +hen it is relevant to the issue and is not e*cluded !" the la+ or these rules Section 3 RE1EV.NC24 C(11.)ER.1 /.))ERS Evidence must have such a relation to the #act in issue as to induce !elie# in its e*istence or non'e*istence, Evidence on collateral matters shall not !e allo+ed e*ce&t +hen it tends in an" reasona!le de$ree to esta!lish the &ro!a!ilit" o# the #acts in issue @wo requisites for admissibility2 7? 0elevance determinable by rules of logic and human e.perience ,one but facts having rational probative value are admissible %Wigmore' 4? +ompetence determined by prevailing e.clusionary rules of evidence (ll facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rule forbids their admission @herefore$ admissibility is an affair of logic and law (dmissibility determined at the time it is offered to the court 1bject evidence offered when presented for the courtBs view or evaluation @estimonial offered by the calling of the witness to the stand =ocumentary formally offered by the proponent immediately before he rests his case 1bjection to the admissibility made at the time such evidence is offered or as soon as the objection to the admissibility shall have become apparent 1therwise$ waived +onditional 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 stric;en out >ualification2 no bad faith on the part of the proponent

azereth page 1

Preliminary Considerations Evidence

,ecessary to avoid unfair surprises to the other party !ultiple admissibility where evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes$ such evidence should be admitted for any and all the purposes for which it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for its admissibility +urative admissibility treats upon the right of a party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted the same ;ind of evidence of the adverse party @heories2 7? (merican rule admission of such incompetent evidence$ without objection by the opponent does not justify such opponent in rebutting it by similar incompetent evidence 4? English rule if a party has presented inadmissible evidence? @he adverse party may resort to similar incompetent evidence :? !assachusetts 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 partyBs @o determine application2 7? W1, incompetent evidence was reasonably objected to$ and 4? W1,$ regardless of the objection vel non$ the admission will cause a plain and unfair prejudice to the party against whom it is admitted +onversely$ where admissible evidence has been improperly e.cluded$ the other party should not be permitted to introduce similar evidence %!artin' Former rule2 illegally obtained evidence still admissible unless specifically forbidden (bandoned in #tonehill vs? =io;no -/ documentary evidence$ illegally obtained$ is inadmissible on a timely motion or action to suppress +ollateral matters matters other than the facts in issue and which are offered as a basis for inference as to the e.istence or non-e.istence of the facts in issue *rrelevant collateral matters inadmissible +ircumstantial evidence evidence of relevant collateral facts Weight to evidence$ once admitted$ depends on judicial evaluation %0ule 7:: and jurisprudence' -

azereth page 2

What Need Not Be Proved Evidence

What Need Not Be Proved

Rule 125 6hat Need Not 0e Proved
Section 1 78DICI.1 N()ICE 69EN /.ND.)(R2 . court shall ta:e %udicial notice +ithout the introduction o# evidence o# the e*istence and territorial e*tent o# states their &olitical histor" #orms o# $overnment and s"m!ols o# nationalit" the la+ o# nations the admiralt" and maritime courts o# the +orld and their seals the &olitical constitution and histor" o# the Phili&&ines the o##icial acts o# le$islative e*ecutive and %udicial de&artments o# the Phili&&ines the la+s o# nature the measure o# time and the $eo$ra&hical divisions, Section 2 78DICI.1 N()ICE 69EN DISCRE)I(N.R2 . court ma" ta:e %udicial notice o# matters +hich are o# &u!lic :no+led$e or are ca&a!le to un;uestiona!le demonstration or ou$ht to !e :no+n to %ud$es !ecause o# their %udicial #unctions, Section - 78DICI.1 N()ICE 69EN 9E.RING NECESS.R2 Durin$ the trial the court on its o+n initiative or on re;uest o# a &art" ma" announce its intention to ta:e %udicial notice o# an" matter and allo+ the &arties to !e heard thereon, .#ter the trial and !e#ore %ud$ment or on a&&eal the &ro&er court on its o+n initiative or on re;uest o# a &art" ma" ta:e %udicial notice o# an" matter and allo+ the &arties to !e heard thereon i# such matter is decisive o# a material issue in the case, Cudicial notice cogniDance of certain facts which judges may properly ta;e and act on without proof because they already ;now them 9ased on considerations of e.pediency and convenience !ay be ta;en by court on its own motion or when it is requested by either parties +ourt will allow the parties to be heard on the matter in question !ust be e.ercised with caution and every reasonable doubt on the subject must be resolved in the negative +ourts are required to ta;e judicial notice of laws =ifferent with ordinances2 !@+ required to ta;e judicial notice of ordinances of the municipality or city wherein they sit 0@+ must ta;e judicial notice only2 7? When required to do so by statute 4? *n a case of appeal before them wherein the inferior court too; judicial notice of an ordinance involved in said case 1r when capable of unquestionable demonstration %also applies with administrative regulations' +ourts are required to ta;e judicial notice of the decisions of appellate courts but not of the decisions of coordinate courts ,ot even the decision or the facts involved in another case tried by the same court itself Enless the parties introduce the same in evidence or doing so is convenient Foreign laws question of fact !ay not be ta;en judicial notice and have to be proved E.cept2 said laws are within the actual ;nowledge of the court @o prove written foreign law2 follow requirements in #ec 43-4&$ 0ule 7:4 !ay be subject of judicial admission Processual presumption - no proof nor admission$ foreign law presumed to be the same as that in the Philippines @o prove unwritten foreign law #ec 3A$ 0ule 7:5

.n admission ver!al or +ritten made !" a &art" in the course o# the &roceedin$s in the same case does not re;uire &roo#, )he admission ma" !e contradicted onl" !" sho+in$ that it +as made throu$h &al&a!le mista:e or that no such admission +as made, Cudicial admissions may be made in 7? Pleadings filed by the parties 4? @he course of the trial$ either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations :? 1ther stages of the judicial proceeding !ust be made in the same case in which it is offered *f made in another case or in another court must be proved as in any other fact$ but entitled greater weight (dmissible unless2 7? !ade only for purposes of the first case 4? Withdrawn with the permission of the court :? +ourt deems it proper to relieve the party (dmissions in a pleading which have been withdrawn or supersede by an amended pleading +onsidered as e.trajudicial admissions Fowever$ the rule seems now to include superseded pleadings as judicial admissions

1im vs, 7a!alde <1585= 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 mista;e? PCI0 vs, Escolin <15>3= 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 uponG hence they are in estoppel to subsequently ta;e a contrary position

Section 3 78DICI.1 .D/ISSI(NS

azereth page 3

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

Admissibility of Evidence
Rule 1-? Rules o# .dmissi!ilit"
., (07EC) <RE.1= EVIDENCE SEC)I(N 1 ' (07EC) .S EVIDENCE (!%ects as evidence are those addressed to the senses o# the court, 6hen an o!%ect is relevant to the #act in issue it ma" !e e*hi!ited to e*amined or vie+ed !" the court, Where object is relevant to a fact in issue$ court may acquire ;nowledge by2 7? (ctually viewing the object becomes object evidence 4? 0eceiving testimonial evidence thereon @he fact that an ocular inspection has been held does not preclude a party from introducing other evidence on the same issue 1cular inspection lies within the discretion of the court *nvalid if conducted by a judge without notice or presence of the parties +ourt may refuse introduction of object evidence and rely on testimonial evidence alone if2 7? E.hibition of such object is contrary to public policy$ morals or decency 9ut if view is necessary in the interest of justice$ may still be e.hibited but the court may e.clude the public from such view )iewing may not be refused if the indecent or immoral object constitute the very basis for the criminal or civil action 4? @o require its being viewed in court or in an ocular inspection would result in delays$ inconvenience$ and e.penses out of proportion to the evidentiary value of such object :? #uch object evidence would be confusing or misleading 3? @estimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the object in question as to render a view unnecessary 1bject evidence includes any article or object which may be ;nown or perceived by the use of any of the senses sight %visual'$ hearing %auditory'$ touch %tactile'$ taste %gustatory'$ or smell %olfactory' *ncludes2 7? E.amination of the anatomy of a person or of any substance ta;en therefrom 4? +onduct of tests$ demonstrations$ or e.periments :? E.amination of representative portrayals of the object in question 1bservations of the court may be amplified by interpretations afforded by testimonial evidence$ especially be e.perts =ocuments are considered object evidence if the purpose is to2 7? Prove their e.istence or condition or the nature of the handwritings thereon 4? =etermine the age of the paper used or the blemishes or alterations thereon 1therwise$ considered documentary evidence

a, !,



6hen the ori$inal has !een lost or destro"ed or cannot !e &roduced in court +ithout !ad #aith on the &art o# the o##eror4 6hen the ori$inal is in the custod" or under the control o# the &art" a$ainst +hom the evidence is o##ered and the latter #ails to &roduce it a#ter reasona!le notice4 6hen the ori$inal consists o# numerous accounts or other documents +hich cannot !e e*amined in court +ithout $reat loss o# time and the #act sou$ht to !e esta!lished #rom them is onl" the $eneral result o# the +hole4 and 6hen the ori$inal is &u!lic record in the custod" o# a &u!lic o##icer or is recorded in a &u!lic o##ice

Section 3 (RIGIN.1 (F D(C8/EN) a, )he ori$inal o# a document is one the contents o# +hich are the su!%ect o# in;uir", !, 6hen a document is in t+o or more co&ies e*ecuted at or a!out the same time +ith identical contents all such co&ies are e;uall" re$arded as ori$inals, c, 6hen an entr" is re&eated in the re$ular course o# !usiness one !ein$ co&ied #rom another at or near the time o# the transaction all the entries are li:e+ise e;uall" re$arded as ori$inals, =ocument deed$ instrument or other duly authoriDed paper by which something is proved$ evidenced$ or set forth 9est Evidence 0ule rule of e.clusion #econdary evidence cannot inceptively be introduced as the original writing itself must be produced in court ,on-production of the original document$ unless justified under #ec :$ gives rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence (pplies only when the content of such document is the subject of inquiry *n criminal cases where the issue is not only with respect to the contents of the document but also as to whether such document actually e.isted with the participation therein as imputed to the accused$ the original itself must be presented? "ibel published in a newspaper2 copy of said newspaper Falsification of a document2 original of the document =oes not apply if transactions have been recorded in writing but the contents of such writing are not the subject of inquiry (ffidavits and depositions strictly spea;ing$ 9E0 does not apply$ but will not be admitted if affiants or deponents are available as witnesses

/ahilum vs, C. <15BB= ( signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document e.ecuted at the same time as the originals is ;nown as a duplicate original and may be introduced in evidence without accounting for the non-production of the original? Peo&le vs, )an <1?C Phil 1232= With respect to documents prepared in several copies through the use of carbon sheets$ #+ has held that each carbon copy is considered an original provided that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet$ including the signature of the party sought to be charged thereby$ produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath$ such signature being thus reproduced by the same stro;e of the pen which made the surface or e.posed impression Fowever$ even if said signature on each copy was written through separate acts$ all of carbon copies are regarded as originals if each copy was intended as a repository of the same legal act of the party thereto *mperfect carbon copies merely secondary evidence @elegrams and cables depends on the issue to be proved 1riginal dispatch issue is the contents of the telegram as received by the addressee !essage delivered for transition issue as to the telegram sent by the sender

0, D(C8/EN).R2 EVIDENCE Section 2 D(C8/EN).R2 EVIDENCE Documents as evidence consists o# +ritin$s or an" material containin$ letters +ords num!ers #i$ures s"m!ols or other modes o# +ritten e*&ressions o##ered as &roo# o# their contents 1, 0ES) EVIDENCE R81E Section - (RIGIN.1 D(C8/EN) /8S) 0E PR(D8CED4 E@CEP)I(NS 6hen the su!%ect o# in;uir" is the contents o# a document no evidence shall !e admissi!le other than the ori$inal document itsel# e*ce&t in the #ollo+in$ casesA

azereth page

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

9oth issue is the inaccuracy of the transmission Section 8 P.R)2 69( C.11S F(R D(C8/EN) N() 0(8ND )( (FFER I) . &art" +ho calls #or the &roduction o# a document and ins&ects the same is not o!li$ed to o##er it as evidence

Provincial Fiscal o# Pam&an$a vs, Re"es <CC Phil 5?C= 1n the issue as to the contents of the articles sent by the accused for publication$ the manuscript was the best evidenceG but on the issue as to what was actually published$ a copy of the newspaper publication was the best evidence? 2, SEC(ND.R2 EVIDENCE Section C 69EN (RIGIN.1 D(C8/EN) IS 8N.V.I1.01E 6hen the ori$inal document has !een lost or destro"ed or cannot !e &roduced in court the o##eror u&on &roo# o# its e*ecution or e*istence and the cause o# its unavaila!ilit" +ithout !ad #aith on his &art ma" &rove its contents !" a co&" or !" a recital o# its contents in some authentic document or !" the testimon" o# +itnesses in the order stated, 0equisites2 proof by satisfactory evidence of 7? =ue e.ecution of the original Proved through the testimony of either2 a? PersonHs who e.ecuted itG b? Person before whom its e.ecution was ac;nowledgedG or c? (ny person who was present and saw it e.ecuted and delivered or who thereafter saw it and recogniDed the signatures$ or one to whom the parties thereto had previously confessed the e.ecution thereof 4? "oss$ destruction or unavailability of all such originals$ not due to bad faith *ntentional destruction of the originals by a party who$ however$ had acted in good faith does not preclude his introduction of secondary evidence of the contents thereof !ay be proved by any person who2 a? Inew of fact of loss or destruction b? Fad made a sufficient e.amination of the places where the document or papers of similar character are usually ;ept by the person in whose custody the document was and has been unable to find it c? Fas made any other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the document is indeed lost :? 0easonable diligence and good faith in the search or attempt to produce the original (ll duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for before using copies thereof

De Vera vs, .$uilar <155-= #ince all the duplicates or multiplicates are parts of the writing to be proved$ no e.cuse for non-production of the document can be regarded as established until it appears that all of its parts are unavailable PN0 vs, (lila <58 Phil 1??2= When the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court$ as when it is in a foreign country$ secondary evidence is admissible #econdary evidence may consist of2 7? +opy of said document 4? 0ecital of its contents in an authentic document :? 0ecollection of witnesses *n this particular order E.cept when specifically required by law E?g? lost notarial will testimony of at least 4 credible witnesses 0econstitution governed by (ct :775 J jurisprudence

Section B 69EN (RIGIN.1 D(C8/EN) IS IN .DVERSE P.R)2DS C8S)(D2 (R C(N)R(1 I# the document is in the custod" or under the control o# the adverse &art" he must have reasona!le notice to &roduce it, I# a#ter such notice and a#ter satis#actor" &roo# o# its e*istence he #ails to &roduce the document secondar" evidence ma" !e &resented as in the case o# its loss

azereth page !

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

,o particular form of notice is required (s long as it fairly appraises the other party as to what papers are desired Even oral demand in court is allowed !ade on a reasonable time ,otice must be given to the adverse party or his counsel even if papers is in the hands of a third person De GuGman vs, Calma <1?? Phil 1??8= Parol evidence is based upon the consideration that when the parties have reduced their agreement on a particular matter into writing$ all their previous and contemporaneous agreements on the matter are merged therein

Phil, Read"'/i* Concrete Co, vs, Villacorta et al <58 Phil 55-= Where receipt of the original of a letter is ac;nowledged on a carbon copy thereof$ there is no need for a notice to the other party to produce the original of the letter

0emember2 the duplicate copy$ if complete is itself an original copy 1nly issue2 receipt of the original Custified refusal of the adverse party to produce the document K presumption of suppression of evidence 1nly authoriDes the introduction of secondary evidence Where such document is produced K admissibility

0equisites for admissibility must be present Production of evidence under 0ule 7:5 K Production of evidence under 0ule 48

6arner 0arnes E Co, 1td, vs, 0uena#lor <-B (G -25?= Where the nature of the action is in itself a notice$ as where it is for the recovery or annulment of documents wrongfully obtained or withheld by the other party$ no notice to produce said documents is required @hird e.ception to 9E0 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 e.ception to apply 7? @he voluminous character of the records must be established 4? #uch records must be made available to the adverse party so that their correctness may be tested on cross-e.amination 1riginals have to be produced if2

=etailed contents of the records are challenged for being hearsay7 *ssues are raised as to the authenticity or correctness of the detailed entries

Section > EVIDENCE .D/ISSI01E 69EN (RIGIN.1 D(C8/EN) IS . P801IC REC(RD 6hen the ori$inal o# a document is in the custod" o# a &u!lic o##icer or is recorded in a &u!lic o##ice its contents ma" !e &roved !" a certi#ied co&" issued !" the &u!lic o##icer in custod" thereo#

+omplements the 3th e.ception to 9E0 #ee 0ule 7:4 #ections 43 and 48

-, P.R(1 EVIDENCE R81E Section 5 EVIDENCE (F 6RI))EN .GREE/EN)S 6hen the terms o# an a$reement have !een reduced to +ritin$ it is considered as containin$ all the terms a$reed u&on and there can !e !et+een the &arties and their successors in interest no evidence o# such terms other than the contents o# the +ritten a$reement, 9o+ever a &art" ma" &resent evidence to modi#" e*&lain or add to the terms o# +ritten a$reement i# he &uts in issue in his &leadin$A a, .n intrinsic am!i$uit" mista:e or im&er#ection in the +ritten a$reement4 !, )he #ailure o# the +ritten a$reement to e*&ress the true intent and a$reement o# the &arties thereto4 c, )he validit" o# the +ritten a$reement4 or d, )he e*istence o# other terms a$reed to !" the &arties or their successors in interest a#ter the e*ecution o# the +ritten a$reement, )he term Fa$reementF includes +ills,

E# vs? 0aDon %:8 Phil 6&A'

azereth page "

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

Parol evidence evidence aliunde %oral or written' *ntended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document (s long as they have been put into issue$ parol evidence did not bar evidence of a collateral agreement in instances where2 +ollateral agreement is not inconsistent with the terms of the contract +ollateral agreement has not been integrated in and is independent of the written contract %suppletory to the original document' +ollateral agreement is subsequent to the written contract +ollateral agreement constitutes a condition precedent which determines whether the written contract may become effective =oes 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 0est Evidence #ituation wherein the original writing is not available andHor there is a dispute as to whether said writing is original Prohibits the introduction of substitutionary evidence in lieu of the original document (pplies to all ;inds of writings +an be invo;ed by any party to the action "atent ambiguity when the writing on its face appears clear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters or circumstances which ma;e the meaning uncertain

1r where the writing admits of two constructions both of which are in harmony with the language usedA

Prohibits the varying of the terms of a written agreement (pplies only documents that are contractual in nature +an be invo;ed only when the controversy is between the parties to the written agreement$ their privies or any party directly affected thereby %cestui que trust'

@o be admissible$ mista;e or imperfection of the document or its failure to the true intent and agreement of the parties$ or the validity of the document must be put in issue by the pleadings Plaintiff failed to allege in his complaint cannot introduce parol evidence

9ut if defendant invo;ed such fact in his answer$ parol evidence may be introduced4 Fowever$ even if not raised on the pleadings but parol evidence is not objected to$ objection deemed waived !ista;e or imperfection must be proved by clear and convincing evidence:

!ista;e refers to mista;e of fact which is mutual to the parties3 1r where the innocent party was imposed upon by unfair dealing of the other CC .rt, 1-B6hen one &art" +as mista:en and the other :ne+ or !elieved that the instrument did not state their real a$reement !ut concealed that #act #rom the #ormer the instrument ma" !e re#ormed,

Failure to true intent

Purpose2 enable the court to ascertain the true intent of the parties& or the true nature of their agreement

4 : 3 &

P,0 vs? +F* of (lbay %7<86' @olentino vs? LonDales #y +hiam %&5 Phil &&6' 9P* vs? Fidelity M #urety +o? %&7 Phil &8' @olentino vs? LonDales #y +hiam %&5 Phil &&6'

*gnacio vs? 0ementeria %<< Phil 75&3'

azereth page #

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

Palanca vs, Fred 6ilson E Co, <8> Phil C?B= @he phrase Ncapacity of A$555 litersO used in connection with a distilling apparatus was held to be a latent ambiguity which had to be clarified by parol evidence to determine whether it meant receiving$ treating$ or the producing capacity of the machine Patent ambiguity e.trinsicG 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 +ourt would not be construing a contract$ but creating a contract for the parties *ntermediate ambiguity the words of the writing$ though seemingly clear and with a settled meaning$ is actually equivocal and admits of two interpretations8 E.ample2 NdollarsO may refer to currency of E# or FI or (ustralia N@onO can be long ton$ short ton$ displacement ton$ freight ton or timber ton Parol evidence is admissible to clarify the ambiguity 0emember2 falsa demonstration non nocet cum de corpore constat False description does not vitiate a document if the subject is sufficiently identified ,o trust concerning an immovable or any interest therein may be proved by parol evidence Section 1> ' (F )6( C(NS)R8C)I(NS 69IC9 PREFERRED 6hen the terms o# an a$reement have !een intended in a di##erent sense !" the di##erent &arties to it that sense is to &revail a$ainst either &art" in +hich he su&&osed the other understood it and +hen di##erent constructions o# a &rovision are other+ise e;uall" &ro&er that is to !e ta:en +hich is the most #avora!le to the &art" in +hose #avor the &rovision +as made, Section 18 ' C(NS)R8C)I(N IN F.V(R (F N.)8R.1 RIG9) 6hen an instrument is e;uall" susce&ti!le o# t+o inter&retations one in #avor o# natural ri$ht and the other a$ainst it the #ormer is to !e ado&ted, Section 15 ' IN)ERPRE).)I(N .CC(RDING )( 8S.GE .n instrument ma" !e construed accordin$ to usa$e in order to determine its true character, 0ules on interpretation For contracts2 ++ (rticles 7:85 to 7:8< For wills2 ++ (rticles 866 to 8<3




Section 1? ' IN)ERPRE).)I(N (F . 6RI)ING .CC(RDING )( I)S 1EG.1 /E.NING )he lan$ua$e o# a +ritin$ is to !e inter&reted accordin$ to the le$al meanin$ it !ears in the &lace o# its e*ecution unless the &arties intended other+ise, Section 11 ' INS)R8/EN) C(NS)R8ED S( .S )( GIVE EFFEC) )( .11 PR(VISI(NS In the construction o# an instrument +here there are several &rovisions or &articulars such a construction is i# &ossi!le to !e ado&ted as +ill $ive e##ect to all, Section 12 ' IN)ERPRE).)I(N .CC(RDING )( IN)EN)I(N4 GENER.1 .ND P.R)IC81.R PR(VISI(NS In the construction o# an instrument the intention o# the &arties is to !e &ursued4 and +hen a $eneral and a &articular &rovision are inconsistent the latter is &aramount to the #ormer, So a &articular intent +ill control a $eneral one that is inconsistent +ith it, Section 1- ' IN)ERPRE).)I(N .CC(RDING )( CIRC8/S).NCES For the &ro&er construction o# an instrument the circumstances under +hich it +as made includin$ the situation o# the su!%ect thereo# and o# the &arties to it ma" !e sho+n so that the %ud$e ma" !e &laced in the &osition o# those +hose lan$ua$e he is to inter&ret, Section 13 ' PEC81I.R SIGNIFIC.)I(N (F )ER/S )he terms o# a +ritin$ are &resumed to have !een used in their &rimar" and $eneral acce&tation !ut evidence is admissi!le to sho+ that the" have a local technical or other+ise &eculiar si$ni#ication and +ere so used and understood in the &articular instance in +hich case the a$reement must !e construed accordin$l", Section 1C ' 6RI))EN 6(RDS C(N)R(1 PRIN)ED 6hen an instrument consists &artl" o# +ritten +ords and &artl" o# a &rinted #orm and the t+o are inconsistent the #ormer controls the latter, Section 1B ' E@PER)S .ND IN)ERPRE)ERS )( 0E 8SED IN E@P1.INING CER).IN 6RI)INGS 6hen the characters in +hich an instrument is +ritten are di##icult to !e deci&hered or the lan$ua$e is not understood !" the court the evidence o# &ersons s:illed in deci&herin$ the characters or +ho understand the lan$ua$e is admissi!le to declare the characters or the meanin$ o# the lan$ua$e,

Section 2? ' 6I)NESSES4 )9EIR H8.1IFIC.)I(NS E*ce&t as &rovided in the ne*t succeedin$ section all &ersons +ho can &erceive and &erceivin$ can ma:e their :no+n &erce&tion to others ma" !e +itnesses, Reli$ious or &olitical !elie# interest in the outcome o# the case or conviction o# a crime unless other+ise &rovided !" la+ shall not !e $round #or dis;uali#ication, Section 21 ' DISH8.1IFIC.)I(N 02 RE.S(N (F /EN).1 INC.P.CI)2 (R I//.)8RI)2 )he #ollo+in$ &ersons cannot !e +itnessesA a, )hose +hose mental condition at the time o# their &roduction #or e*amination is such that the" are inca&a!le o# intelli$entl" ma:in$ :no+n their &erce&tion to others4 !, Children +hose mental maturit" is such as to render them inca&a!le o# &erceivin$ the #acts res&ectin$ +hich the" are e*amined and o# relatin$ them truth#ull", >ualificationsHdisqualifications of witnesses - determined as of the time the witnesses are produced for e.amination in court or at the ta;ing of their depositions +hildren of tender years ta;e into account their competence at the time of the occurrence to be testified *nterest in the subject matter does not disqualify (ffects only his credibility$ not his competency E.cept2 =ead !anBs #tatute =efendant declared in default not disqualified from testifying fro his non-defaulting co-defendant +onviction of a crime not ground for disqualification 9ut must answer to the fact of a previous final conviction as it may affect credibility E.cept2 conviction of falsification of a document$ perjury or false testimony disqualified from being witnesses to a will$ therefore cannot testify on probate NEnsound mindO any mental aberration whether organic or functional or induced by drugs or hypnosis (t the time of the testimony *f at the time of the fact to be testifies affects only his credibility

Peo&le vs, De 7esus <1583= (s long as the witness can convey ideas by words or signs and give sufficiently intelligent answers to questions propounded$ she is a competent witness even if she is feebleminded 1r a mental retardate$ or is a schiDophrenic 0equirements for deaf-mutes2 7? +an understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath

0eferred to in (merican jurisprudence

azereth page $

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

4? :? +an comprehend facts they are going to testify to +an communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter +onsiderations for a child witness2 7? +apacity at the time the fact to be testified occurred such that he could receive correct impressions thereof 4? +apacity to comprehend the obligation of an oath :? +apacity to relate those facts truly at the time he is offered a witness ,ecessary that defendant is being sued in his representative capacity and not in individual capacity *f property involved has already been adjudicated to the heirs$ still protected considered as representatives of the deceased (pplies 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 :? +ase is upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased H insane person =oes not apply where it is the administrator who brought the action to recover property for the estate 3? @estimony 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 ,egative testimony testimony that the fact did not occur during the lifetime of the deceased not covered @estimony of the present possession by the witness of a written instrument signed by the deceased is also not covered !aBam2 misleading because the document contains acts of the deceased before he died =oes not apply to land registration cases or cadastral cases Purpose2 discourage perjury and protect the estate from fictitious claim Prohibition does not apply despite meeting all requirements if2 7? @estimony is offered to prove a claim less than what is established under a written document 4? @estimony is intended to prove a fraudulent transaction of the deceased$ provided such fraud is first established by evidence aliunde =isqualification waived2 7? =efendant does not timely object to the admission of such evidence 4? =efendant testifies on the prohibited matters :? =efendant cross-e.amines thereon -

Section 22 DISH8.1IFIC.)I(N 02 RE.S(N (F /.RRI.GE Durin$ their marria$e neither the hus!and nor the +i#e ma" testi#" #or or a$ainst the other +ithout the consent o# the a##ected s&ouse e*ce&t in a civil case !" one a$ainst the other or in criminal case #or a crime committed !" one a$ainst the other or the latterDs direct descendants and ascendants +alled rule on marital disqualification or spousal immunity 0equisites2 7? !arriage is valid and e.isting as of the time of the offer of testimony 4? @he other spouse is a party to the action !ay be waived as in the case of other witnesses generally

1eGama vs, Rodri$ueG <15B8= Where the wife is a co-defendant in a suit charging her and her husband with collusive fraud$ she cannot be called as an adverse party witness under %#ec 75$ 0ule 7:4' as this will violate the marital disqualification rule? Section 2- DISH8.1IFIC.)I(N 02 RE.S(N (F DE.)9 (R INS.NI)2 (F .DVERSE P.R)2 Parties or assi$nors o# &arties to a case or &ersons in +hose !ehal# a case is &rosecuted a$ainst an e*ecutor or administrator or other re&resentative o# a deceased &erson or a$ainst a &erson o# unsound mind u&on a claim or demand a$ainst the estate o# such deceased &erson or a &erson o# unsound mind cannot testi#" as to an" matter o# #act occurrin$ !e#ore the death o# such deceased &erson or !e#ore such &erson !ecame o# unsound mind =ead man statute Dead /an Statute Partial disqualification =isqualified only to testify as matter of facts occurring before the death of deceased person or before deceased person became of unsound mind (pplies only to civil case or special proceeding over the estate of deceased H insane person /arital Dis;uali#ication Rule +omplete disqualification

(pplies to civil or criminal case

0equisites2 7? Witness offered for e.amination is a party plaintiff$ or the assignor of said party$ or a person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted Plaintiff must be the real party in interest ,ot applicable to mere witnesses (ssignor one who transferred his interests in a case (ssignee not disqualified =oes not apply where a counterclaim has been interposed by the defendant as the plaintiff would thereby be testifying in his defense (lso if deceased contracted through an agent 4? +ase is against the e.ecutor or administrator or representative of the deceased or insane person

Section 23 DISH8.1IFIC.)I(N 02 RE.S(N (F PRIVI1EGED C(//8NIC.)I(N )he #ollo+in$ &ersons cannot testi#" as to matters learned in con#idence in the #ollo+in$ casesA a, )he hus!and or the +i#e durin$ or a#ter the marria$e cannot !e e*amined +ithout the consent o# the other as to an" communication received in con#idence !" one #rom the other durin$ the marria$e e*ce&t in a civil case !" one a$ainst the other or in a criminal case #or a crime committed !" one a$ainst the other or the latterDs direct descendants or ascendants4 !, .n attorne" cannot +ithout the consent o# his client !e e*amined as to an" communication made !" the client to him or his advice $iven thereon in the course o# or +ith a vie+ to &ro#essional em&lo"ment nor can the attorne"Ds secretar" steno$ra&her or cler: !e e*amined +ithout the consent o# the client and his em&lo"er concernin$ an" #act the :no+led$e o# +hich has !een ac;uired in such ca&acit"4 c, . &erson authoriGed to &ractice medicine sur$er" or o!stetrics cannot in a civil case +ithout the consent o# the &atient !e e*amined as to an" advice or treatment $iven !" him or an" in#ormation +hich he ma" have ac;uired in attendin$ such &atient in a &ro#essional ca&acit" +hich in#ormation +as necessar" to ena!le him to act in that ca&acit" and +hich +ould !lac:en the re&utation o# the &atient4 d, . minister or &riest cannot +ithout the consent o# the &erson ma:in$ the con#ession !e e*amined as to an" con#ession made to or an" advice $iven !" him in his &ro#essional character in the course o# disci&line en%oined !" the church to +hich the minister or &riest !elon$s4 e, . &u!lic o##icer cannot !e e*amined durin$ his term o# o##ice or a#ter+ards as to an" communications made to him in o##icial con#idence

azereth page %

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

+hen the court #inds that the &u!lic interest +ould su##er !" the disclosure, 1bjections can only be made by the persons protected and may be waived by the same persons e.pressly or impliedly /arital Privile$e 0equisites for marital privilege2 7? @here was a valid marital relations 4? Privilege was invo;ed with respect to a confidential communication between the spouses during the said marriage :? #pouse against whom the testimony is given did not give hisHher consent Privilege cannot be claimed to confidential matters given before the marriage Privilege cannot be invo;ed if the communication was not intended to be confidential *f third person heard the communication$ such person is not covered by the prohibition 9ut if person is the agent of one spouse$ covered by the prohibition /arital Privile$e +an be claimed W1, the spouse is a party to the action +an be claimed even after the marriage has been dissolved (pplies only to confidential communications between the spouses /arital Dis;uali#ication +an be invo;ed only if the spouse is a party to the action +an only apply if the marriage is e.isting at the time the testimony is offered +onstitutes a total prohibition against any testimony for or against the spouse of the witness

.ttorne" Client Privile$e 0equisites2 7? @here is an attorney-client relation 4? Privilege is invo;ed with respect to a confidential communication between them in the course of professional employment :? +lient has not given his consent to the disclosure of the communication (ttorney must have been consulted in his professional capacity even if pro bono Preliminary communications made for the purpose of creating attorney-client relationship are within the privilege +ommunications include verbal statements$ papers$ document or even actions =oes not apply to communication2 7? *ntended to be made public 4? *ntended to be communicated to others :? *ntended for an unlawful purpose 3? 0eceived from third persons not acting as agent of the client &? !ade 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 *n determining whether past or future crime +ommunication having to do with a future crime is not covered by the privilege *f attorney is a co-conspirator to the crime$ privilege not applicable Ph"sician Patient Privile$e 0equisites2 7? Physician is authoriDed to practice medicine$ surgery or obstetrics 4? *nformation was acquired or the advice or treatment was given by him in his professional capacity for the purpose of treating or curing the patient :? *nformation$ advice or treatment$ if revealed$ would blac;en the reputation of the patient 3? Privilege is invo;ed in a civil case$ whether the patient is a party thereto or not ,ot necessary that the relationship was created by the voluntary act of the patient may have been acquired by another E?g? patient in e.tremis Privilege e.tends to all forms of communication$ advice or treatment

azereth page 1&

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

*ncludes information acquired by the physician through his observations and e.aminations of the patient =oes not apply where2 7? +ommunication not given in confidence 4? +ommunication is irrelevant to the professional employment :? +ommunication was made for an unlawful purpose 3? *nformation was intended to be made public &? @here was a waiver of the privilege either by provisions of contract or law Rule 28 P92SIC.1 .ND /EN).1 E@./IN.)I(N (F PERS(NS Section 3 6.IVER (F PRIVI1EGE 0" re;uestin$ and o!tainin$ a re&ort o# the e*amination so ordered or !" ta:in$ the de&osition o# the e*aminer the &art" e*amined +aives an" &rivile$e he ma" have in that action or an" other involvin$ the same controvers" re$ardin$ the testimon" o# ever" other &erson +ho has e*amined or ma" therea#ter e*amine him in res&ect o# the same mental or &h"sical e*amination /inisterIPriest Penitent Privile$e 0equires that communication was made pursuant to a religious duty enjoined in the course of discipline of the sect or denomination !ust be confidential in character E?g? under the seal of the confessional Privile$ed Communications as to Pu!lic (##icials 0equisites2 7? *t was made to the public officer in official confidence 4? Public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the communication (thers 0( &:$ as amended by 0( 7388 Publisher$ editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper$ magaDine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to revel the source of any news report which was related to him in confidence Enless the court or a Fouse or committee of +ongress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the #tate (rticle 4:: of "abor +ode (ll information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communications and shall not be used as evidence in the ,"0+$ and the conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding the matter ta;en up at the conciliation proceedings conducted by them (lternative =ispute 0esolution (ct %0( <46&' #ec < %a' *nformation obtained through mediation shall be privileged and confidential 2, )ES)I/(NI.1 PRIVI1EGE Section 2C ' P.REN).1 .ND FI1I.1 PRIVI1EGE No &erson ma" !e com&elled to testi#" a$ainst his &arents other direct ascendants children or other direct descendants, =isqualification by reason of relationship Filial privilege - not correctly a rule of disqualification$ as the descendant was not incompetent to testify against his ascendants$ but was actually a privilege not to testify .rt, 21C FC No descendant shall !e com&elled case to testi#" a$ainst his $rand&arents e*ce&t +hen such indis&ensa!le in a crime a$ainst the !" one &arent a$ainst the other, in a criminal &arents and testimon" is descendant or +an be invo;ed in any case against any of his parents$ direct descendants$ children or direct ascendants

9oth parental and filial privileges are granted to any person

azereth page 11

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence



Section 2B ' .D/ISSI(N (F . P.R)2 )he act declaration or omission o# a &art" as to a relevant #act ma" !e $iven in evidence a$ainst him, (dmission 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 .dmissions #tatement of fact which does not involve an ac;nowledgement of guilt or liability !ay be or tacit !ay be made by third persons and$ in certain cases$ are admissible against a party Con#essions *nvolves an ac;nowledgement of guilt or liability !ust be +an be made only by the party himself and$ in certain cases$ are admissible against his co-accused

=oes not include his testimony as a witness in court +annot be considered self-serving if it was not made in anticipation of a future litigation

Peo&le vs, 0ocasas <158C= Flight from justice is an admission by conduct and circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt @he act of repairing a machine$ bridge or other facility after an injury has been sustained therein is not an implied admission of negligence by conduct !erely a measure of e.treme caution

@o be admissible$ an admission must2 7? *nvolve matters of fact$ not of law 4? 9e categorical and definite :? 9e ;nowingly and voluntarily made 3? 9e adverse to the admitterBs interest 1therwise would be self-serving and inadmissible Cudicial admission one made in connection with a judicial proceeding in which it is offered E.trajudicial admission any other admission

Section 2> ' (FFER (F C(/PR(/ISE N() .D/ISSI01E In civil cases an o##er o# com&romise is not an admission o# an" lia!ilit" and is not admissi!le in evidence a$ainst the o##eror, In criminal cases e*ce&t those involvin$ ;uasi'o##enses <criminal ne$li$ence= or those allo+ed !" la+ to !e com&romised an o##er o# com&romised !" the accused ma" !e received in evidence as an im&lied admission o# $uilt, . &lea o# $uilt" later +ithdra+n or an unacce&ted o##er o# a &lea o# $uilt" to lesser o##ense is not admissi!le in evidence a$ainst the accused +ho made the &lea or o##er, .n o##er to &a" or the &a"ment o# medical hos&ital or other e*&enses occasioned !" an in%ur" is not admissi!le in evidence as &roo# o# civil or criminal lia!ilit" #or the in%ur", 1ffer of compromise %civil case' not a tacit admission of liability and cannot be proved over the objection of the offeror 1ffer of compromise %criminal case' implied admission of guilt 9ut accused is permitted to prove that offer was not made under consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid ris;s of criminal action against him 1ffer of compromise %violation of internal revenue law' not admissible in evidence

Peo&le vs, .lin$ <158?= Facts2 ,orija !ohamad was stabbed in the chest and diaphragm and she died two days later in the hospital? Lirlie (ling and ,orijaBs daughter =aria brought ,orija to the hospital? @hey learned from the police that ,orija was stabbed by her husband (irol (ling? (ling was investigated by the police and he declared in +havacano dialect that he ;illed his wife because he was informed in prison by his relatives that his wife was fooling around with other men? (ling was charged with parricide and during arraignment$ he pleaded guilty although he had no lawyer? ( counsel de oficio was appointed for him? When he was again arraigned$ he pleaded guilty with the assistance of counsel? (ling was placed on the witness stand and e.amined by his counsel and after being informed that the penalty for parricide is death or life imprisonment$ (ling still admitted ;illing his wife? *ssue2 W1, the marriage of (ling and ,orija was proven Feld2 Pes 0atio2 @he testimony of (ling that he was married to ,orija is an admission against his penal interest? *t was a confirmation of the 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? .dmissions ,eed not be made against the proprietary or pecuniary interest of the parties 9ut if so made$ it will greatly enhance its probative weight !ade by the party himself$ and$ is a primary evidence and competent though he be present in court and ready to testify +an be made anytime Declarations .$ainst Interest !ust have been made against the proprietary or pecuniary interest of the parties

Peo&le vs, .miscua <15>1= *n a rape case$ an offer to compromise for a monetary consideration$ and not to marry the victim$ is an implied admission of guilt Peo&le vs, /anGano <1582= *n a rape case$ the attempt of the parents of the accused to settle the case with the complainant was considered an implied admission of guilt? Peo&le vs, ValdeG <158>= (n offer of marriage by the accused during the investigation of the rape case is also an admission of guilt +riminal cases involving criminal negligence or quasioffenses are allowed to be compromised$ hence an offer of settlement is not an admission of guilt 1ffer to pay or the actual payment of medical bills by reason of victimBs injuries not admissible to prove civil or criminal liability

Section 28 ' .D/ISSI(N 02 )9IRD P.R)2 )he ri$hts o# a &art" cannot !e &re%udiced !" an act declaration or omission o# another e*ce&t as hereina#ter &rovided, First branch of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet E.ceptions2 third person is a partner$ agent$ or has joint interest with the party$ or is a co-conspirator or a privy of the party

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

!ade ante litem motam

#elf-serving declaration one which has been made e.trajudicially by a party to favor his interests ,ot admissible in evidence

Peo&le vs, Valero <1582= Facts2 !ichael and (nnabel$ children of +eferino )elasco$ died of poisoning after eating bread containing endrin$ a commercial insecticide? @heir sister *melda would have also died if not for the timely medical assistance given to her? (t about the same time$ : puppies of )elasco under the balcony where the children ate the bread also died of poisoning? Earlier that morning$ )elasco was seen throwing poisoned rats in the river near his house?

azereth page 12

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

@he evidence of the prosecution shows that the poisoned bread was given to the children by (lfonso )alero alias Pipe$ deaf-mute brother of accused "ucila )alero$ and that it was "ucila who gave (lfonso the bread to be delivered to the children? "ucila denies the allegation? @he 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? :H< witnesses for the prosecution2 7? 0odolfo >uilang testified that he saw "ucila deliver something wrapped in a piece of paper to (lfonso and instructed him by sign language to deliver the same to the )elasco children? Fe never saw what was inside the piece of paper? Fis testimony as to W1, he saw the parcel delivered to the children was a series of contradictions? Fe is what the defense counsel calls and Neleventh-hour witness 4? Federico Caime and +eferino )elasco did not see "ucila deliver to (lfonso the alleged parcel$ as well as the alleged instruction? 9oth claimed that they learned the information from Pipe after interviewing him by means of sign language? @estimony of Caime was confusing? @here is nothing in the testimony of )elasco indicating that (lfonso pointed to "ucila as the source of the poisoned bread? *ssue2 W1, the testimonies of Caime and )elasco may be admitted Feld2 ,o 0atio2 @he evidence is pure hearsay? *t violates the principle of res inter alios acta? (lfonso$ who was the source of the information$ was never presented as a witness either for the defense or the prosecution? @estimony of )elasco cannot be considered as part of res gestae because when the information was allegedly obtained by )elasco from (lfonso$ nobody was poisoned yet? With regard to the testimony of Caime$ there is no showing that the revelation was made by (lfonso under the influence of a startling occurrence? @he failure of the defense counsel to object to the presentation of incompetent evidence does not give such evidence probative value? @he lac; of objection may ma;e any incompetent evidence admissible? 9ut admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence? Fearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative value Section 25 ' .D/ISSI(N 02 C('P.R)NER (R .GEN) )he act or declaration o# a &artner or a$ent o# the &art" +ithin the sco&e o# his authorit" and durin$ the e*istence o# the &artnershi& or a$enc" ma" !e $iven in evidence a$ainst such &art" a#ter the &artnershi& or a$enc" is sho+n !" evidence other than such act or declaration, )he same rule a&&lies to the act or declaration o# a %oint o+ner %oint de!tor or other &erson %ointl" interested +ith the &art", 0equisites2 7? @hat the partnership$ agency or joint interest is established by evidence other than the act or declaration 4? @hat the actHdeclaration must have been within the scope of the partnership$ etc? :? #uch actHdeclaration must have been made during the e.istence of the partnership$ etc? (dmissions made in connection with the winding up still admissible (dmission by counsel admissible against client %agentprincipal' "imitation2 7? admission should not amount to a compromise 4? admission should not amount to a confession of judgment 9ecause if it was$ can become vague %same as with #ection :5' *t only appears in #ection :72 admission by privies What predecessors didnQt do is binding on you R this is the rationale in including the word omission in #ection :7 L02 admission of some7 else shouldnQt be ta;en against you 9ut #ection 4< is an e.ception2 admission of another can be ta;en against you fairS

Section -? ' .D/ISSI(N 02 C(NSPIR.)(R )he act or declaration o# a cons&irator relatin$ to the cons&irac" and durin$ its e*istence ma" !e $iven in evidence a$ainst the co'cons&irator a#ter the cons&irac" is sho+n !" evidence other than such act o# declaration, Peo&le vs, Serrano @his rule applies only to e.trajudicial 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-e.amine the declarant? (n admission by a conspirator is admissible against his co-conspirator if2 7? #uch conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde 4? (dmission was made during the e.istence of the conspiracy :? (dmission relates to the conspiracy itself @hese are not required in admissions during the trial as the co-accused can e.amine the declarant? Cudicial admissions - admissions after the conspiracy has ended E.istence of conspiracy may be inferred from 7? (cts of the accused 4? +onfessions of the accused :? 9y prima facie proof thereof

Peo&le vs, .le$re <15>B= Where there is no independent evidence of the alleged conspiracy$ the e.trajudicial confession of an accused cannot be used against his co-accused as the res inter alios rule applies to both e.trajudicial confessions and admissions E.trajudicial admission made by a conspirator after the conspiracy has ended and even before trial not admissible against co-conspirator E.cept2 7? *f made in the presence of the coconspirator who e.pressly or impliedly %tacit admission$ 0ule 7:5?:4' agreed therein 4? Where the facts stated in the said admissions are confirmed in the individual e.trajudicial confessions made by the coconspirators after their apprehension :? as a circumstance to determine the credibility of a witness 3? as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the co-conspiratorBs participation in the offense

Peo&le vs, (la <158>= *n order that the e.trajudicial statements of a coaccused may be ta;en into consideration in judging the testimony of a witness$ it is necessary that the statements are made by several accused$ the same are in all material respects identical$ and there could have been no collusion among said co-accused in ma;ing such statements? Section -1 ' .D/ISSI(N 02 PRIVIES 6here one derives title to &ro&ert" #rom another the act declaration or omission o# the latter +hile holdin$ the title in relation to the &ro&ert" is evidence a$ainst the #ormer, 0equisites2 7? @here must be a relation of privity between the party and the declarant

7aucian vs, Huerol @he 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 ta;en$ that is$ in solidum$ and not mancomunada

7st e.ception to #ection 46 Word omission in #ection 46 doesnQt appear here

azereth page 13

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

4? @he admission was made by the declarant$ as predecessor in interest$ while holding title to the property :? @he admission is in relation to said property Privity in estate may have arisen by succession$ by acts mortis causa or by acts inter vivos Section -2 ' .D/ISSI(N 02 SI1ENCE .n act or declaration made in the &resence and +ithin the hearin$ or o!servation o# a &art" +ho does or sa"s nothin$ +hen the act or declaration is such as naturall" to call #or action or comment i# not true and +hen &ro&er and &ossi!le #or him to do so ma" !e $iven in evidence a$ainst him, 0equisites to be admissible against a party2 7? Fe must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other person 4? Fe must have had the opportunity to deny it :? Fe must understood the statement 3? Fe must have an interest to object$ such that he would naturally have done so$ if the statement was not true &? @he facts were within his ;nowledge A? @he fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is material to the issue (pplies where a person is surprised or even if he is already in the custody of the police )oluntary participation in the reenactment of the crime conducted by police is considered tacit admission of complicity 9ut to be given weight$ the validity and efficacy of the confession must first be shown Section 12 .rticle III 158> Constitution .n" &erson under investi$ation #or the commission o# an o##ense shall have the ri$ht to !e in#ormed o# his ri$ht to remain silent and to have com&etent and inde&endent counsel &re#era!l" o# his o+n choice, I# the &erson cannot a##ord the services o# counsel he must !e &rovided +ith one, )hese ri$hts cannot !e +aived e*ce&t in +ritin$ and in the &resence o# counsel, No torture #orce violence threat intimidation or an" other means +hich vitiate #ree +ill shall !e used a$ainst him, Secret detention &laces solitar" incommunicado or other similar #orms o# detention are &rohi!ited .n" con#ession or admission o!tained in violation o# this or Section 1> hereo# shall !e inadmissi!le in evidence a$ainst him, )he la+ shall &rovide #or &enal and civil sanctions #or violations o# this section as +ell as com&ensation to and reha!ilitation o# victims o# torture or similar &ractices and their #amilies, Section 1> .rticle III 158> Constitution No &erson shall !e com&elled to !e a +itness a$ainst himsel# 0ule does not apply2 if the statements adverse to the party were made in the course of an official investigation 1r where the party had a justifiable reason to remain silent %e?g? acting on advice of counsel' Ieep in mind that a person under investigation for the commission of a crime has the right to remain silent and to be informed of that right 0ule applies to adverse statements in writing if the party was carrying on a mutual correspondence with the declarant *f no such mutual correspondence$ rule is rela.ed @heory2 a prompt response can generally not be e.pected if the party still has to resort to a written reply$ as opposed to a statement orally made



-, 3,

Section -- C(NFESSI(N )he declaration o# an accused ac:no+led$in$ his $uilt o# the o##ense char$ed or o# an" o##ense necessaril" included therein ma" !e $iven in evidence a$ainst him, +onfession categorical ac;nowledgement of guilt made by an accused in a criminal case$ without any e.culpatory statement or e.planation *f there is an allegation of a justification for the act$ merely an admission +onfession of judgment made in a civil case where the party e.pressly admits his liability +onfession can be made orally or in writing

azereth page 1

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

*i in writhing need not be under oath Cudicial confession one made before a court in which the case is pending and in the course of legal proceedings therein 9y itself$ can sustain a conviction E.trajudicial confession one made in any other place or occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti Rule 1-Section ' E@)R.78DICI.1 C(NFESSI(N N() S8FFICIEN) GR(8ND F(R C(NVIC)I(N .n e*tra%udicial con#ession made !" an accused shall not !e su##icient $round #or conviction unless corro!orated !" evidence o# corpus delicti, 0equisites for admissibility 7? +onfession must involve an and categorical ac;nowledgement of guilt 4? Facts admitted must be constitutive of an offense :? +onfession must have been given voluntarily 3? +onfession must have been intelligently made$ the accused realiDing the importance of his act &? ,o violation of #ec 74$ (rt *** of the +onstitution

Peo&le vs, Garcia <1?1 Phil B1C= +onfessions are presumed to be voluntary and the onus is on the defense to prove that it was involuntary for having been obtained by violence$ intimidation$ threat or promise of reward or leniency? *ndicia of voluntariness of confession 7? contains details which the police could not have supplied or invented 4? contains details which could have been ;nown only to the accused :? contains statements which are e.culpatory in nature 3? contains corrections made by the accused in his handwriting or with his initials &? accused sufficiently educated and aware of his the consequences of his acts A? made in the presence of an impartial witness with the accused acting normally on that occasion 8? lac; of motive on the part of the investigators to e.tract a confession 6? accused questioned the voluntariness of his confession only on trial <? contents were affirmed by the accused in his voluntary participation in the reenactment of the crime 75? facts in confession were confirmed by other subsequent facts 77? after confession$ accused subjected to physical e.amination 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 Custifications for inadmissibility of involuntary confessions 7? unreliable 4? humanitarian considerations :? legal considerations of their violative of the +onstitution 9ut there were cases stating that involuntary admissions are admissible if they contain the truth ,o longer applies because of the ruling in #tonehill vs? =io;no Section 2? .rticle IV 15>- Constitution No &erson shall !e com&elled to !e a +itness a$ainst himsel#, .n" &erson under investi$ation #or the commission o# an o##ense shall have the ri$ht to remain silent and to counsel and to !e in#ormed o# such ri$ht, No #orce violence threat intimidation or an" other means +hich vitiates the #ree +ill shall !e used a$ainst him, .n" con#ession in violation o# this section shall !e inadmissi!le in evidence *f confession obtained before effectivity of 7<8: +onstitution %78 Can 7<8:'$ admissible even without informing the accused of his right to remain silent

azereth page 1!

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

Draculan vs, Donato <15>8= Where$ before the statement containing the e.trajudicial confession of guilt was ta;en$ the accused was as;ed whether he was familiar with the provisions of #ec 45$ (rt *)$ 7<8: +onstitution and he answered in the affirmative$ and the statement which he signed states that he had been apprised of his constitutional rights with the warning that anything he would say might be used against him in court$ such e.trajudicial confession is admissible Peo&le vs, )am&us <158?= Where the verbal e.trajudicial confession was made without counsel$ but it was spontaneously made by the accused immediately after the assault$ the same is admissible$ not under the confession rule$ but as part of the res gestae Peo&le vs, Feli&e <1581= Where the accused was merely told of his constitutional rights and as;ed if he understood what he was told$ but he was never as;ed whether he wanted to e.ercise or avail himself of such rights$ his e.trajudicial confession is inadmissible Peo&le vs, 0ro;ueGa <1588= Where the e.trajudicial confession of the accused while under custodial investigation was merely prefaced by the investigator with a statement of his constitutional rights$ to which he answered that he was going to tell the truth$ the same is inadmissible as his answer does not constitute a waiver of his right to counsel and he was not assisted by one when he signed the confession? Fis short answer does not show that he ;new the legal significance of what were as;ed of him /orales 7r, vs, Enrile <158-= @he waiver of the right to counsel during custodial investigation must be made with the assistance of counsel 0equirement is now embodied in the 7<68 +onstitution (ccused admitted the facts stated in the confession after being apprised of such confession 3' +harged as co-conspirators and confession is used only as corroborating evidence &' +onfession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation by the co-conspirator A' +onfessant testified fro his co-defendant 8' +o-conspiratorBs e.trajudicial confession is corroborated by other evidence of record +onfession of the accused admissible not only with respect to the offense charged but also any offense necessarily included therein 7<68 +onstitution illegal confessions and admissions are inadmissible against confessant or admitter 9ut admissible against the person who violated the constitutional provision against obtaining illegal confessions or admissions :'

Peo&le vs, 7ara <158B= Where a confession was illegally obtained from two of the accused and$ consequently$ are not admissible as against them$ with much more reason should the same be inadmissible against a third accused who had no participation therein Promise of immunity or leniency vitiates a confession if given by the offended party or by the fiscal ,ot if given by a person whom the accused could not have reasonably e.pected to be able to comply with such promise %e?g? investigator who is not a prosecuting officer' or could not bind the offended party which was a corporation

Peo&le vs, Domanta" <1555= Facts2 @he body of si. year old Cennifer =omantay$ bearing several stab wounds$ was found sprawled amidst a bamboo grove? @he investigation by the police pointed to 9ernardino =omantay$ cousin of the victimBs grandfather$ as the lone suspect in the crime? Police officers %!ontemayor$ =e la +ruD and =e LuDman' pic;ed up =omantay at the public mar;et and too; him to the police station? Epon questioning by #P17 EspinoDa$ =omantay confessed to the ;illing of Cennifer? Fe also said that he had given the bayonet he used in the ;illing to +asingal spouses$ his aunt and uncle? @he ne.t day$ #P17 EspinoDa and another policeman too; =omantay to the +asingal spouses where they recovered the bayonet? @he prosecution presented 8 witnesses2 7? Edward =omantay testified that in the morning of the incident$ he was drin;ing with +aballero$ !acasaeb and =omantay? @here$ =omantay rolled up his shirt and said that he will massacre somebody in their place? Edward saw that tuc;ed in the left side of =omantayBs waistline was a bayonet without a cover handle? Edward has seen that bayonet being carried by =omantay many times? 4? CieDl =omantay %75 years old' testified that at about 4pm$ she saw =omantay and Cennifer wal;ing towards the bamboo grove where the body of Cennifer was later found? =omantay was about 4 meters ahead of Cennifer?



8S vs, /ercado <B Phil --2= Where the accused voluntarily made a second e.trajudicial confession after he has been maltreated in order to e.tort the first confession$ such second confession is admissible only if it can be proved that he was already relieved of the fear generated by the previous maltreatment Entire confession must be admitted in evidence 9ut court may$ in appreciating it$ reject such portions as are incredible


Camasura vs, Provost /arshal <>8 Phil 1-1= Where the e.trajudicial confession was obtained by maltreatment$ the judgment based solely thereon is null and void and the accused may obtain his release on a writ of habeas corpus @he e.trajudicial confession of an accused is binding only upon him and is not admissible against his co-accused E.cept if2 7' +o-accused impliedly adopted said confession by not questioning its truthfulness 4' *nterloc;ing confessions accused persons voluntarily and independently e.ecuted identical confessions without conclusion$ which confessions are corroborated by other evidence and not contradicted by the co-accused who was present A?

"orenDo =omantay corroborated CenniferBs testimony? Fe said that he saw =omantay standing at the spot in the bamboo grove where CenniferBs body was later found? =omantay appears restless and worried as he ;ept loo;ing around? "orenDo was in a hurry and did not try to find out why =omantay was restless? Coselito !ejia a tricycle driver? Fe said that when he was about to ta;e his lunch$ =omantay approached him and implored him to ta;e him %=omantay' to !alasiqui at once? !ejia said he will first ta;e his lunch? =omantay pleaded with him and said that they will not be long so !ejia agreed? =omantay alighted near the !ormon church outside !alasiqui$ instead of the town proper #P17 (ntonio EspinoDa testified that he investigated the case? 9efore questioning =omantay$ he appraised the latter of his constitutional right to remain silent and to have a competent and independent counsel$ in English$ which was later translated into Pangasinense? =omantay agreed to answer the questions even in the absence of counsel and admitted to the ;illing of Cennifer? =omantay also disclosed the location of the bayonet he used? %+ross-e.amination' EspinoDa admitted that =omantay was not assisted by counsel during the course of the questioning? ,either was =omantayBs statement reduced into writing? @his testimony was admitted over the objection of the defense? +elso !anuel radio reporter of =WP0? Fe interviewed =omantay who was then detained in the municipal jail? Fe introduced himself as a media reporter to =omantay? Fe said that =omantay was willing to state what happened? When he as;ed =omantay if he committed the crime$ =omantay said yes? =omantay also said that he ;illed Cennifer in his revenge for a boundary dispute and that he is willing to accept his punishment? %+ross' !anuel e.plained that the interview was conducted in the jail$ 4-: meters away from the police station? (n uncle of Cennifer was with him? @he nearest policeman was 4-:

azereth page 1"

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

meters away? @here was no lawyer present and it was the first time that he was called to testify regarding an interview he conducted? @his testimony was admitted over the objection of the defense 8? =r? 0onald 9andonill conducted an autopsy of the victim? =efense presented =omantay as its lone witness? =omantay denied the allegations against him? Fe denied EdwardBs claim? Fe admitted that he passed the bamboo grove but said that he did not ;now that Cennifer was following him? Fe admitted hiring !ejia to get to !alasiqui to meet his brother$ who did not come? Fe denied confessing to #P17 EspinoDa and he denied having a grudge against CenniferBs parents because of a boundary dispute? Fe admitted being interviewed by !anuel but denied ever admitting anything to the reporter? =omantay was convicted by the trial court *ssue2 W1, the e.trajudicial confessions made by =omantay to #P17 EspinoDa and !anuel are admissible Feld2 ,o and Pes$ respectively 0atio2 (rt ***$ #ec 74 of the 7<68 +onstitution applies to custodial investigation$ when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect? 0( 83:6 e.tended the constitutional guarantee to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been NinvitedO for questioning? 0equirements for admissibility of e.trajudicial confessions2 7? *t must be voluntary 4? *t must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel :? *t must be 3? *t must be in writing When =omantay was brought to the police station he was already under custodial investigation and the rights guaranteed by the +onstitution apply to him? Even though he waived the assistance of counsel$ the waiver was not put into writing nor made in the presence of counsel? @herefore the waiver is invalid and the confession is inadmissible? @he bayonet is also inadmissible in evidence as it was a Nfruit of a poisonous treeO? =omantayBs confession to !anuel is admissible? @he 9ill of 0ights does not concern itself with the relation between private individuals? @he prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the #tate and its agents? =omantay claims that the atmosphere during the interview was tense and intimidating? @he +ourt does not agree? @here is no indication that the presence of the police officers e.erted any undue pressure or influence on =omantay and coerced him into giving his confession? @here is also no evidence that !anuel was a police beat reporter and it has not been shown that his purpose in conducting the interview was to elicit incriminating information from =omantay? =omantayBs e.trajudicial confession is corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti$ as required by 0ule 7::$ #ec :? Peo&le vs, /antun$ <1555= Facts2 !aribel !ayola and 0enjie 9alderas were found dead inside the vault room of the !aywood branch of +ebuana "huiller where they were employed? @he jewelries ;ept inside the safe were all gone and the cash drawer had been emptied of its contents? *n the counter$ a holster was placed on top of a letter addressed to !ary (nn Lordoncillo$ district manager of +ebuana "huiller? @he letter was written by Luiamad !antung$ the security guard assigned to the branch? !antung wrote in Filipino that he ;illed !ayola and 9alderas because they gave him por; which his !oslem religion prohibited him from eating? Fe also admitted ta;ing the cash and jewelry inside the vault$ claiming that he needed the money? Fe wrote another letter addressed to his wife$ which was found in the office logboo;? !antung was later arrested in #ultan Iudarat$ +otabato and several pieces of jewelry believed to be part of the loot were recovered from him? (fter his arrest$ he was immediate brought to Paramour where he was presented to the media at a press conference called by !ayor Coey !arqueD? When !ayor !arqueD then as;ed him if he is the one who ;illed the two employees$ !antung answered yes and said that he ;illed the victims because they induced him to eat por;? @he news about !antonBs admission to the ;illings appeared in the *nquirer and !anila 9ulletin the following day? +lippings of these reports were presented as evidence by the prosecution during the trial? @he defense presented the lone testimony of !antung to substantiate his claims of innocence? Fe claimed that on the day of the incident$ he was loc;ing one of the doors of the shop when : men approached him from behind and one of them held him at gunpoint? !ayola and 9alderas saw what was happening and shouted for help? !antung was ta;en to the comfort room when he heard 4 gunshots and the shouts of !ayola and 9alderas stopped? @he men too; him out$ pushed him inside a red car and blindfolded him? (fterwards$ he felt the car stop and he was left alone by his captors? Fe then seiDed the opportunity to escape? Fe saw that they stopped in the pier so he mingled with the people and boarded a ship to +ebu and from there went to +otabato? Fe denied that pieces of jewelry were recovered from him? Fe refuted the reports saying he admitted to the ;illing of the victims in the press conference? (ccording to him$ he did not tell anyone what happened because he was confused and he did not ;now what to do? *ssue72 W1, !antungBs admission during the press conference is admissible Feld72 Pes 0atio72 @he clippings of the news articles reporting !antungBs confession is hearsay because their writers were not presented to affirm the veracity of the reports? Fowever$ 0icardo =iago$ an employee of +ebuana "huiller present during the press conference$ was presented as rebuttal witness to prove that !antung indeed claimed responsibility for the ;illings? @he constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement$ not elicited through questioning by the authorities$ but given in an ordinary manner whereby accused orally admitted having committed a crime? @he rights under #ec 74 are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the #tate as would lead the accused to admit something false$ not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth %People vs? (ndan'? @here is nothing to show that !antungBs admission was coerced or made under duress? 1adiana vs, Peo&le <2??2= Facts2 Cosue "adiana$ a police officer$ was accused of ;illing Francisco #an Cuan$ a 9arangay +aptain? @he case was filed in the #andiganbayan and "adiana was found guilty of homicide? @he prosecution presented & witnesses2


+aridad #an Cuan wife of the victim? #he testified that #an Cuan was the 9arangay +aptain of 9rgy? #alac$ "umban$ "aguna? #he said that she was in her house when an unidentified woman came and told her that her husband was ;illed by "adiana? #he also presented the death certificate of her husband? %+ross' #he admitted that she did not witness the ;illing of her husband? 4? P14 "eopoldo +acalda Cr? Fe recounted that somebody whose name he could not recall reported to him about an e.isting trouble in the scene of the incident? Fe responded by going to the scene$ accompanied by another person? @here$ he saw the dead body of #an Cuan? Fe gathered from the people milling around the body that it was "adiana who ;illed #an Cuan? Fe immediately left to loo; for "adiana? Fe later learned that "adiana surrendered to the police? %+ross' Fe testified that he did not witness the incident? Fe also said that it was the people around the incident who told him that "adiana already left? Fe also saw a stab wound on "adianaBs right bicep but he did not as; him how he got it? :? =r? 0ogelio Cavan performed the necropsy 3? #P14 Percival Labinete his testimony was dispensed with upon the admission of the defense that he was part of the group that responded to the incident &? !ario +orteD retired (ssistant Prosecutor of "aguna? Prior to the conduct of e.amination-in-chief of +orteD$ defense counsel admitted to the authorship$ authenticity$ and voluntariness of the e.ecution of the counteraffidavit of "adiana? *n the counter-affidavit$ "adiana admitted shooting Francisco but he allegedly did so in self-defense as Francisco was then attac;ing "adiana and had in fact already inflicted a stab wound on the arm of "adiana? +orteD emphasiDed that he was not the one who conducted the P*? Fe also said that he would not be able to recogniDe the face of the affiant in the counteraffidavit but maintained that there was a person who appeared and identified himself as Cosue "adiana before him? =efense filed a =emurrer to Evidence

azereth page 1#

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

*ssue2 W1, the counter-affidavit e.ecuted by "adiana during the preliminary investigation is admissible although no counsel was present when he e.ecuted it Feld2 Pes 0atio2 @he constitutional guarantee applies only during custodial investigations? +ustodial investigation is the questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been ta;en into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom of action in any significant way? @he +ourt held that the right to counsel does not e.tend to P*s? ( P* is an inquiry or a proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed$ and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial? ( person undergoing P* before a public prosecutor cannot be considered as being under custodial investigation? Fowever$ the accused possesses rights that must be safeguarded2 7? 0ight to refuse to be made witness 4? 0ight not to have any prejudice whatsoever imputed to him by such refusal :? 0ight to testify on his own behalf$ subject to crosse.amination by the prosecution 3? While testifying$ the right to refuse to answer a specific question that tends to incriminate him for some crime other than that for which he is being prosecuted "adianaBs counter-affidavit is not an e.trajudicial confession$ it is only an admission? *n confession$ there is an ac;nowledgement of guilt? *n an admission$ there is merely a statement of fact not directly involving an ac;nowledgement of guilt or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which one is charged? *n the counter-affidavit$ "adiana admits shooting #an Cuan but denies having done it with criminal intent since he claimed that it was done in self-defense? @here is no doubt as to the voluntariness of the counteraffidavit? @he admissions of "adiana made through his counsel during the trial are very clear? *n general$ admissions may be rebutted by confessing their untruth or by showing that they were made by mista;e? "adiana never offered any rationaliDation why he made the admission? 3, PREVI(8S C(ND8C) .S EVIDENCE Section -3 SI/I1.R .C)S .S EVIDENCE Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thin$ at one time is not admissi!le to &rove that he did or did not do the same or similar thin$ at another time4 !ut it ma" !e received to &rove a s&eci#ic intent or :no+led$e identit" &lan s"stem scheme ha!it custom or usa$e and the li:e, #econd branch of res inter alios acta (pplies to both criminal and civil cases #trictly enforced in all cases applicable E.ceptions to the rule2 evidence of similar acts may prove 7? #pecific intent or ;nowledge 4? *dentity :? Plan$ system or scheme 3? #pecific habit &? Established customs$ usages and the li;e 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 9ut 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 ;nowledge or intent C, )ES)I/(NI.1 JN(61EDGE Section -B )ES)I/(N2 GENER.112 C(NFINED )( PERS(N.1 JN(61EDGE4 9E.RS.2 E@C18DED . +itness can testi#" onl" to those #acts +hich he :no+s o# his &ersonal :no+led$e4 that is +hich are derived #rom his o+n &erce&tion e*ce&t as other+ise &rovided in these rules, Fearsay evidence any evidence$ whether oral or documentary$ whose probative value is based not on personal ;nowledge of the witness but on the ;nowledge of some other person not on the witness stand E.cluded because the party against whom it is presented is deprived of the right to cross-e.amine the persons to whom the statements or writings are attributed *f a party does not object admissible

Savor" 1uncheonette vs, 1a:as n$ /an$$a$a+an$ Pili&ino <15>C= @he repeated failure of the party to cross-e.amine the witness is an implied waiver of such right and the testimony of the said witness who died thereafter should not be e.cluded from the record Peo&le vs, Cusi 7r, <15BC= Facts2 (rcadio Puesca$ Walter (pa$ Cose Lustilo$ Filomeno !acalinao$ 0icardo =ario and !agno !ontano were charged with robbery in band with homicide? =uring trial$ while #gt? 9ano was testifying as prosecution witness regarding the e.trajudicial confession made to him by Puesca$ he said that Puesca admitted his participation in the offense and revealed the name of other persons who conspired with him? +ounsel for !acalinao$ Lustilo and =ario objected to the naming of the co-conspirators? @rial judge resolved the objection directing the witness to name the coconspirators other than the : objectors? *ssue2 W1, the witness should be allowed to name all the conspirators as stated to him by Puesca Feld2 Pes 0atio2 While the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person$ if intended to establish the truth of the facts asserted in the statement$ is clearly hearsay evidence$ it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made or the tenor of such statement? For the limited purpose of establishing the fact that Puesca mentioned the names of his co-conspirators$ the evidence should be admitted but with the understanding that the testimony shall not be ta;en as competent evidence to show that the persons named really and actually conspired with Puesca? 9ut even if hearsay evidence not objected to is admissible$ it has no probative value and as opposed to direct primary evidence$ the latter always prevails Section 28 Rule on E*amination o# a Child 6itness 9E.RS.2 E@CEP)I(N IN C9I1D .08SE C.SES . statement made !" a child descri!in$ an" act or attem&ted act o# child a!use not other+ise admissi!le under the hearsa" rule ma" !e admitted in evidence in an" criminal or non' criminal &roceedin$ su!%ect to the #ollo+in$ rulesA a, 0e#ore such hearsa" statement ma" !e admitted its &ro&onent shall ma:e :no+n to the adverse &art" the intention to o##er such statement and its &articulars to &rovide him a #air o&&ortunit" to o!%ect, I# the child is availa!le the court shall u&on the motion o# the adverse &art" re;uire the child to !e &resent at the &resentation o# the hearsa" statement #or cross'e*amination !" the adverse &art", 6hen the child is unavaila!le the #act o# such circumstance must !e &roved !" the &ro&onent !, In rulin$ on the admissi!ilit" o# such hearsa" statement the court shall consider the time content and circumstances thereo# +hich &rovide su##icient indicia o# relia!ilit", It shall consider the #ollo+in$ #actorsA 1, 6hether there is motive to lie4

Section -C 8N.CCEP)ED (FFER .n o##er in +ritin$ to &a" a &articular sum o# mone" or to deliver a +ritten instrument or s&eci#ic &ersonal &ro&ert" is i# re%ected +ithout valid cause e;uivalent to the actual &roduction and tender o# the mone" instrument or &ro&ert" !erely evidentiary complement to the rule on payment #uch tender of payment must be followed by consignation of the amount in court in order to produce the effects of valid payment

azereth page 1$

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

2, )he $eneral character o# the declarant child4 -, 6hether more than one &erson heard the statement4 3, 6hether the statement +as s&ontaneous4 C, )he timin$ o# the statement and the relationshi& !et+een the declarant child and +itness4 B, Cross'e*amination could not sho+ the lac: o# :no+led$e o# the declarant child4 >, )he &ossi!ilit" o# #ault" recollection o# declarant child is remote4 and 8, )he circumstances surroundin$ the statement are such that there is no reason to su&&ose the declarant child misinter&reted the involvement o# the accused, c,)he child +itness shall !e considered unavaila!le under the #ollo+in$ situationsA 1, Is deceased su##ers #rom &h"sical in#irmit" lac: o# memor" mental illness or +ill !e e*&osed to severe &s"cholo$ical in%ur"4 or 2, Is a!sent #rom the hearin$ and the &ro&onent o# his statement has !een una!le to &rocure his attendance !" &rocess or other reasona!le means, d, 6hen the child +itness is unavaila!le his hearsa" testimon" shall !e admitted onl" i# corro!orated !" other admissi!le evidence, ,ot covered by hearsay rule - where the statements or writings attributed to a person who is not on the witness stand are being offered not to prove the truth of the facts stated therein but to prove that those statements were made or writings e.ecuted Witness who testifies is competent these are matters derived from his own perception =octrine of independently relevant statements independent of whether the facts stated are true or not$ they are relevant because they are the facts in issue or are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue impending death and as long as no retraction was made by the declarant before his death

Peo&le vs, .r$uel <158?= ,ewspaper clippings or facts published in the newspapers are hearsay and have no evidentiary value unless substantiated by persons with personal ;nowledge of said facts B, E@CEP)I(NS )( )9E 9E.RS.2 R81E D"in$ Declaration Section -> D2ING DEC1.R.)I(N )he declaration o# a d"in$ &erson made under the consciousness o# an im&endin$ death ma" !e received in an" case +herein his death is the su!%ect o# in;uir" as evidence o# the cause and surroundin$ circumstances o# such death, =ying declaration antemortem statement or statement in articulo mortis 0equisites2 7? @hat death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of that fact +onsiderations for the consciousness of imminent death2 a? Words or statements of the declarant b? Fis conduct at the time the declaration was made c? #erious nature of his wounds as to engender a belief on his part that he would not survive 4? @hat the declaration refers to the cause and the surrounding circumstances of such death :? @hat the declaration relates to facts which the victim is competent to testify to 3? @hat the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarantBs death is the subject of the inquiry *ntervening time from the ma;ing of the declaration up to the actual death is immaterial as long as the declaration was made under the consciousness of

azereth page 1%

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

Peo&le vs, Sa!io <1581= *t is the belief in the impending death at the time the statement was made$ and not the rapid succession of death$ that renders the dying declaration admissible? *nterval of time may be ta;en into account where the declaration was ambiguous as to whether the declarant believed that his death was imminent when he made the declaration 3? @hat his declaration was offered in evidence in a criminal case for homicide$ murder or parricide in which the declarant is the victim (ll these circumstances were present when (belardo made his declaration Peo&le vs, /olo <15>5= Facts2 ,ot long after the couple )enacio Lapisa and #imeona 0apa-Lapisa had retired for the night$ #imeona heard and indistinct sound of murmur and gnashing teeth? )enacio was asleep by then? (lthough seiDed by fear$ #imeona managed to peep through the dilapidated buri wall and saw =ominador !olo attired only in short pants$ alone? #he tried to awa;en )enacio but he did not respond? !olo had already climbed up the stairs and barged into the house? When he found )enacio asleep near the door$ he immediately grabbed the latterBs left wrist and started hac;ing the old man? )enacio wo;e up and tried to fight bac; but he was unable to retaliate because !olo started hac;ing him again? #imeona rushed out of the house and called for help? Fer son (lejandro and 0oman !angaring ran towards the house and there they found )enacio bleeding profusely? When (lejandro too; his father in his arms$ )enacio told him that he was boloed by 9oslo$ the name by which !olo was ;nown in their locality? 0oman also as;ed )enacio who his assailant was and the latter answered 9oslo? )enacio was rushed to the hospital where he died a few minutes after arrival? *ssue2 W1, the statements made by )enacio to (lejandro and 0oman are admissible Feld2 Pes 0atio2 @he statements of )enacio identifying !olo as his assailant to (lejandro and 0oman are dying declarations? +onsidering the nature of the wounds$ 6 in all$ )enacio must have the seriousness of his condition and that it can therefore be inferred that he made the incrimination under the consciousness of an impending death? Declaration .$ainst Interest Section -8 DEC1.R.)I(N .G.INS) IN)ERES) )he declaration made !" a &erson deceased or una!le to testi#" a$ainst the interest o# the declarant i# the #act asserted in the declaration +as at the time it +as made +as so contrar" to declarantDs o+n interest that a reasona!le man in his &osition +ould not have made the declaration unless he !elieved it to !e true ma" !e received in evidence a$ainst himsel# or his successors in interest and a$ainst third &ersons, !ade by a person who is neither a party nor in privity with a party to the suit (dmissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness 0equisites2 7? =eclarant is dead or unable to testify 4? *t relates to the facts against the declarant :? (t the time he made the declaration$ he is aware that the same was contrary to the aforesaid interest 3? =eclarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to be true

Peo&le vs, .ntonio <15>?= Where the declarant stated that he would not die if treated$ such statement indicates an awareness of death and the nature of his wound and his death an hour later qualifies such statement into a dying declaration$ or at least$ as part of res gestae? Peo&le vs, Gueron <158-= Where$ shortly after he was wounded$ the victim was as;ed as to whether he believed he would die and to which he replied$ N* cannot ascertain$O and he died the following day$ his statement is admissible both as part of res gestae and as a dying declaration? Peo&le vs, 1a;uinon <158C= Where the victim$ when as;ed as to whether he thought he would die$ replied$ N* donBt ;now$O his declaration was not made under the consciousness of his imminent death and does not qualify as an antemortem statement$ although the same may be admitted as part of the res gestae since it was made immediately after the incident @he credibility and weight of the admitted dying declaration should be determined under the same rules used in other testimonial evidence ( dying declaration is admissible only to insofar as it refers to facts regarding the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarantBs death ( dying declaration is admissible in any case as long as the requisite concur ( dying declaration may be oral or written or made by signs which could be testified to by a witness thereto

Peo&le vs, (dencio <15>5= *f the antemortem statement was made orally$ the witness who heard it may testify thereto$ without necessarily reproducing the e.act words as long as he can give the substance thereof$ and if the deceased had an unsigned dying declaration$ the same may be used as a memorandum by the witness who too; it down !ay be attac;ed 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 (merican jurisprudence2 dying declarations are on the same footing as testimony of a witness on a stand and whatever would disqualify the witness would also ma;e such declaration incompetent evidence

Peo&le vs, /olas <155-= Facts2 9ernardo 0esonable went home after wor;ing in his farm? @here he found his son (belardo %6' bleeding at the doorway of their house? 9ernardo carried (belardo inside the house? (belardo informed his father that Cosue !olas was the person who not only inflicted his injuries but also stabbed his sister =ulcesima and mother #oledad? !olas and =ulcesima were sweethearts and engaged to be married? While 9ernardo loo;ed for the bodies of his wife and daughter$ (belardo was brought to the hospital by his brother ,icholas? (belardo died the ne.t day? *ssue2 W1, the statement of (belardo is admissible Feld2 Pes 0atio2 (belardoBs statement was given to his father while he lay at deathBs door$ bleeding from stab wounds$ as a result of which he died the ne.t day? *t was indubitably a dying declaration? @o be admissible$ a dying declaration must2 7? +oncern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarantBs death 4? @hat the time it was made$ the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death :? @hat he was a competent witness

.ct or Declaration .!out Pedi$ree Section -5 .C) (R DEC1.R.)I(N .0(8) PEDIGREE )he act or declaration o# a &erson deceased or una!le to testi#" in res&ect to the &edi$ree o# another &erson related to him !" !irth or marria$e ma" !e received in evidence +here it occurred !e#ore the controvers" and the relationshi& !et+een the t+o &ersons is sho+n !" evidence other than such act or declaration, )he +ord K&edi$reeL includes relationshi& #amil" $enealo$" !irth marria$e death the dates +hen and the &laces +here these #acts occurred and the names o# the relatives, It em!races also #acts o# #amil" histor" intimatel" connected +ith &edi$ree, 0equisites2 7? @he actor or declarant is dead and unable to testify 4? @he act or declaration is made by the person related to the subject by birth or marriage :? @he relationship between the declarant or the actor and the subject is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration

azereth page 2&

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

3? @he act or declaration was made prior to the controversy =o not require any specific degree of relationship 9ut may affects the weight of such act or declaration Res Gestae Section 32 P.R) (F )9E RES GES).E Statements made !" a &erson +hile a startlin$ occurrence is ta:in$ &lace or immediatel" &rior or su!se;uent thereto +ith res&ect to the circumstances thereo# ma" !e $iven in evidence as &art o# the res $estae, So also statements accom&an"in$ an e;uivocal act material to the issue and $ivin$ it a le$al si$ni#icance ma" !e received as &art o# the res $estae 0es gestae %Nthings doneO' refers to2 7? #pontaneous statements in connection with a startling occurrence relating to that fact and in effect forming part thereof 4? #tatements accompanying an equivocal act %verbal act' on the theory that they are the verbal parts of the act to be e.plained 0equirements2 7? @he principal act %res gestae' is a startling occurrence 4? @he statements forming a part thereof were made before the declarant had the opportunity to contrive :? #tatements refer to the occurrence in question and its attending circumstances 1nly such statements as appear to have been involuntarily wrung from the witness by the impact of the occurrence are admissible *nterval of time between the startling occurrence and the statement depends upon the circumstances 9ut statement must have been made while the declarant was under the immediate influence of the startling occurrence *f declarant rendered unconscious after the startling occurrence$ his statement relative to thereto upon regaining consciousness still forms part of re gestae regardless of the time that intervened between

Famil" Re&utation or )radition Re$ardin$ Pedi$ree Section 3? F./I12 REP8).)I(N (R )R.DI)I(N REG.RDING PEDIGREE )he re&utation or tradition e*istin$ in a #amil" &revious to the controvers" in res&ect to the &edi$ree o# an" one o# its mem!ers ma" !e received in evidence i# the +itness testi#"in$ thereon !e also a mem!er o# the #amil" either !" consan$uinit" or a##init", Entries in #amil" !i!les or other #amil" !oo:s or charts en$ravin$s on rin$s #amil" &ortraits and the li:e ma" !e received as evidence o# &edi$ree 0equisites2 7? Witness testifying thereto must be a member$ by consanguinity or affinity$ of the same family as the subject 4? #uch tradition or reputation must have e.isted in that family ante litem motam PersonBs statement of date of birth and age declaration of family tradition Prevails over mere opinion of the trial judge 9ut cannot generally prevail over secondary statement of the father

Common Re&utation Section 31 C(//(N REP8).)I(N Common re&utation e*istin$ &revious to the controvers" res&ectin$ #acts o# &u!lic or $eneral interest more than -? "ears old res&ectin$ marria$e or moral character ma" !e $iven in evidence, /onuments and inscri&tions in &u!lic &laces ma" !e received as evidence o# common re&utation +ommon reputation general reputationG definite opinion of the community in which the fact to be proved is ;nown or e.ists Leneral or substantially undivided reputation and need not be unanimous (dmissible to prove2 Facts of public or general interest more than :5 years old Public interest national interest Leneral interest affecting inhabitants of a particular region or community !ust be more than :5 years old Established only by persons who have had ;nowledge of that fact for such length of time$ or by monuments or documents e.isting for that length of time !arriage !oral character ,ot required to be more than :5 years old !ust be ante litem motam Established by2 7? @estimonial evidence of competent witness 4? !onuments and inscription in public places :? =ocuments containing statements of reputation 0eputation opinion of him by others +haracter inherent qualities of a person Ender this section$ character may be established through common reputation (s a rule$ reputation of a person should be that e.isting in the place of his residence 9ut$ it may also be that e.isting in the place where he is best ;nown

Peo&le vs, 0erame <15>B= *f the statement was made under the influence of a startling event and the declarant did not have time to concoct or contrive a story$ even if made < hours after the ;illing$ the statement is admissible as part of res gestae #tatements or outcries as part of res gestae had been admitted to establish the identity of assailant$ prove the complicity of another person to the crime$ establish admission of liability on part of the accused 0equirements for verbal acts to be admissible2 7? 0es gestae be characteriDed as equivocal 4? #uch act must be material to the issue :? #tatements must accompany the equivocal act 3? #tatements give a legal significance to the equivocal act N)erbal actO used to denote that such statements are the verbal parts of the equivocal act of which such statements are e.planatory

0orromeo vs, C. <15>B= ,otes ta;en regarding a transaction by a person who is not a party thereto and who has not been requested to ta;e down such notes are not part of the res gestae Res Gestae <re a homicidal act= #tatement may also be made by the ;iller himself or by a third person #tatement may precede$ accompany$ or be made after the homicidal act was committed Fas its justification in the spontaneity of the statement D"in$ Declaration =eclaration can only be made by the victim =eclaration made only after the homicidal attac; was committed @rustworthiness is based upon its being given under the awareness of impending death

8S vs, Choa Chio: @he character of a place as an opium joint may be proved by its common reputation in the community

azereth page 21

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

#tatement may not be a dying declaration because it was not made under the consciousness of an impending death$ but may be admissible as part of res gestae if made immediately after the incident Where the elements of both are present$ may be admitted as both Entries in the Course o# 0usiness Section 3- EN)RIES IN )9E C(8RSE (F 08SINESS Entries made at or near the time o# the transactions to +hich the" re#er !" a &erson deceased or una!le to testi#" +ho +as in a &osition to :no+ the #acts therein stated ma" !e received as &rima #acie evidence i# such &erson made the entries in his &ro#essional ca&acit" or in the &er#ormance o# a dut" and in the ordinar" or re$ular course o# !usiness or dut", 0equisites2 7? @he person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify 4? @he entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to which they refer :? @he entrant was in a position to ;now the facts stated in the entries 3? @he entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty$ whether legal$ contractual$ moral or religious &? @he entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty 4? @he entrant had personal ;nowledge 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 :? #uch entries were duly entered in a regular manner in the official records !otor vehicle accident report made at about the time of the accident by a police officer in the performance of his duties (dmissible if based upon information given by the drivers who figured in the accident Prima facie evidence of facts therein stated #heriffBs return e.ception to hearsay #heriff need not testify in court Entrant must have been competent

Remi$io vs, (rti$a <-- Phil B13= While a priest who officiates at a baptism acts pursuant to a legal duty in recording the facts of such baptism in a register$ such entries in the register are not admissible to prove the date of birth of the child or its relation to particular persons as the entrant priest is not competent to testify with respect to the truth of these latter facts +hurch registries no longer public writings pursuant to L1 ,o? &6 and (ct ,o? 7<5 9ut still admissible as evidence of the facts stated therein 9ut necessary to be authenticated as private writings ( copy of the certificate transmitted to the public officer as required by law becomes a public document (dmissible without prior authentication Entries in official records may be proved and evidenced in the manner provided by 0ule 7:4 #ections 43 and 4&

Can$ 2ui vs, Gardner <-3 Phil ->B= *f the entrant is available as a witness$ the said entries will not be admitted as an e.ception to the hearsay rule$ but they may nevertheless be availed of by said entrant as a memorandum to refresh his memory while testifying on the transactions reflected therein Rule 1-2 Section 1B 69EN 6I)NESS /.2 REFER )( /E/(R.ND8/ . +itness ma" !e allo+ed to re#resh his memor" res&ectin$ a #act !" an"thin$ +ritten or recorded !" himsel# or under his direction at the time +hen the #act occurred or immediatel" therea#ter or at an" other time +hen the #act +as #resh in his memor" and he :ne+ that the same +as correctl" +ritten or recorded4 !ut in such case the +ritin$ or record must !e &roduced and ma" !e ins&ected !" the adverse &art" +ho ma" i# he chooses cross' e*amine the +itness u&on it and ma" read it in evidence, So also a +itness ma" testi#" #rom such a +ritin$ or record thou$h he retain no recollection o# the &articular #acts i# he is a!le to s+ear that the +ritin$ or record correctl" stated the transaction +hen made4 !ut such evidence must !e received +ith caution, 2e: )on$ Fire E /arine Insurance Co, Inc, vs, GutierreG et al <C. C5 (G 8122= *n the presentation and admission as evidence of entries made in the regular course of business$ there is no overriding necessity to bring into court all the cler;s or employees who individually made the entries in a long account? *t is sufficient that the person who supervises the wor; of the cler;s or other employees ma;ing 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 (##icial Records Section 33 EN)RIES IN (FFICI.1 REC(RDS Entries in o##icial records made in the &er#ormance o# his dut" !" a &u!lic o##icer o# the Phili&&ines or !" a &erson in the &er#ormance o# a dut" s&eciall" en%oined !" la+ are &rima #acie evidence o# the #acts therein stated !erely prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated 0equisites2 7? Entries were made by a public officer in the performance of his duties or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law

Commercial 1ists Section 3C ' C(//ERCI.1 1IS)S .ND )9E 1IJE Evidence o# statements o# matters o# interest to &ersons en$a$ed in an occu&ation contained in a list re$ister &eriodical or other &u!lished com&ilation is admissi!le as tendin$ to &rove the truth o# an" relevant matter so stated i# that com&ilation is &u!lished #or use !" &ersons en$a$ed in that occu&ation and is $enerall" used and relied u&on !" them therein, E.amples2 +arlisle or Wigglesworth @ables and accepted actuarial and annuity tables

1earned )reatises Section 3B ' 1E.RNED )RE.)ISES . &u!lished treatise &eriodical or &am&hlet on a su!%ect o# histor" la+ science or art is admissi!le as tendin$ to &rove the truth o# a matter stated therein i# the court ta:es %udicial notice or a +itness e*&ert in the su!%ect testi#ies that the +riter o# the statement in the treatise &eriodical or &am&hlet is reco$niGed in his &ro#ession or callin$ as e*&ert in the su!%ect, 0equisites2 7? @he court ta;es judicial notice thereof 4? @he same is testified to by a witness e.pert in the subject +( too; judicial notice of the 9allantyne #cale of )alues6 "egal treatises also included

)estimon" or De&osition at a Former Proceedin$ Section 3> ' )ES)I/(N2 (R DEP(SI)I(N .) . F(R/ER PR(CEEDING )he testimon" or de&osition o# a +itness deceased or una!le to testi#" $iven in a #ormer case or &roceedin$ %udicial or administrative involvin$ the same &arties and su!%ect matter ma" !e $iven in evidence a$ainst the adverse &art" +ho had the o&&ortunit" to cross' e*amine him,

Estrada vs? ,oble %+($ 3< 1L 7:<'

azereth page 22

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

7? 4? Witness is dead or unable to testify Fis testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding$ judicial or administrative$ between the same parties or those representing the same interests :? @he former case involved the same subject as that in the present case$ although on different causes of action 3? @he issues testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the present case &? @he adverse party had an opportunity to crosse.amine the witness in the former case #ubsequent failure or refusal to appear at the second trial$ or hostility since testifying at the first trial K inability to testify *nability should proceed from a grave cause almost amounting to death Section C? ' (PINI(N (F (RDIN.R2 6I)NESSES )he o&inion o# a +itness #or +hich &ro&er !asis is $iven ma" !e received in evidence re$ardin$ a, )he identit" o# a &erson a!out +hom he has ade;uate :no+led$e4 !, . hand+ritin$ +ith +hich he has su##icient #amiliarit"4 and c, )he mental sanit" o# a &erson +ith +hom he is su##icientl" ac;uainted, )he +itness ma" also testi#" on his im&ressions o# the emotion !ehavior condition or a&&earance o# a &erson, Leneral rule2 #ection 36 E.ceptions2 #ections 3< and &5 1pinion of a witness is admissible in the following circumstances2 7? 1n a matter requiring special ;nowledge$ s;ill$ e.perience or training which he possesses$ that is$ when he is an e.pert thereon 4? 0egarding the identity or the handwriting of a person$ when he has ;nowledge of the person or handwriting$ whether he is an ordinary or e.pert witness :? 1n the mental sanity of a person$ if the witness is sufficiently acquainted with the former or if the latter is an e.pert witness 3? 1n the emotion$ behavior$ condition or appearance of a person which he has observed

.ldecoa vs, 7u$o <B1 Phil ->3=5 @estimony given by a witness in a civil case is not admissible in a subsequent criminal case$ even if said witness had died in the interim$ because the former testimony referred to in sec 7& of L1 ,o? &675 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 ta;en in a prior civil case$ the actions being essentially different Guevara vs, .lmario <CB Phil 3>B= @he 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 (dmissibility of prior judgment rules governed by different


.lmeida Chantan$co vs, .!aroa <3? Phil 1?CB= ( 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? @he matter is res inter alios and cannot be invo;ed as res judicata

1n ordinary matters ;nown to all men of common perception as the value of ordinary household articles73 E.pert witness one who belongs to the profession or calling to which the subject matter of the inquiry relates and who possesses special ;nowledge on questions on which he proposes to an opinion ,o definite standard of determining degree of ;nowledge or s;ill Factors2 7? @raining and education 4? Particular$ first-hand familiarity with the facts of the case


#uch judgment may only be admitted in evidence in a civil case by way of inducement$ or to show a collateral fact relevant to the issue in the civil action77

Cudgment can only prove that a certain defendant has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to the penalty therein imposed74

Presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based7& E.pert evidence is admissible only when2 7? @he matter to be testified to is one that requires e.pertise 4? @he witness has been qualified as a witness Fypothetical questions may be as;ed of an e.pert +ourts are not bound by the e.pertBs findings7A Lenerally not regarded as conclusive$ but purely advisory in character78

/iranda vs, /alate Gara$e E )a*ica! Inc, <55 Phil B>?= ( judgment of conviction$ in the absence of collusion between the accused and the offended party$ is binding and conclusive upon the person subsidiarily liable not only with regard to his subsidiary liability but also with regard to the amount thereof

#aid judgment is admissible in evidence in the civil action brought to enforce said subsidiary liability7:

6ells vs, 1ee: <1C1 Pa, 3-1 3-5 2C .tl, 1?1= *n weighing the testimony of an e.pert witness$ courts must necessarily consider all the circumstances of the case$ among them his qualifications$ e.perience and degree of learning$ the basis and logic of his conclusion$ and the other evidence of record? @he value of e.pert testimony depends largely on the e.tent of the e.perience or studies of the witness$ because the greater his e.perience or ;nowledge$ the greater is the value of his opinion resting upon the same 8S vs, Josel <23 Phil C53= With respect to a handwriting e.pert$ the value of his opinion depends not upon his mere statement whether the handwriting is genuine or false$ but upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out the distinguishing mar;s$ 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 e.pert depends greatly upon the nature of the subject of inquiry

>, (PINI(N R81E Section 38 ' GENER.1 R81E )he o&inion o# +itness is not admissi!le indicated in the #ollo+in$ sections, e*ce&t as

Section 35 ' (PINI(N (F E@PER) 6I)NESS )he o&inion o# a +itness on a matter re;uirin$ s&ecial :no+led$e s:ill e*&erience or trainin$ +hich he sho+n to &osses ma" !e received in evidence,


(lso in People vs? )illaluD %7<6:' "ater 7<A3 01+ 0ule 77& #ec 7%f' 77 Ed (? Ieller M +o? %"td?' vs? Ellerman M 9uc;nall #teamship +o? %"td?' %:6 Phil &73'G +ity of !anila vs? !anila Electric +o? %&4 Phil &6A' 74 (rambulo vs? !anila Electric +o? %&& Phil 8&' 7: Pajarito vs? #eneris %7<86'

73 7& 7A 78

Lalian vs? #tate (ssurance +o? "td? %4< Phil 37:' People vs? (briol %4557' People vs? Florendo %A6 Phil A7<' People vs? =eauna %4554'

azereth page 23

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

*f the same is one that falls within the general ;nowledge of judges$ courts are not bound by the conclusions of even a real e.pert along such line76

1nly where the subject of inquiry is of such a technical nature that a layman can possibly have no ;nowledge thereof that the courts must depend and rely upon e.pert evidence7< +onflicting e.pert evidence have neutraliDing effect Lenerates doubt

Cesar vs, Sandi$an!a"an <158C=2? Where the supposed e.pertBs testimony would constitute the sole ground for conviction and there is equally e.pert testimony to the contrary$ the constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail E.pert evidence on handwriting is at best$ wea; and unsatisfactory Proof of handwriting by comparison is in most cases unsafe$ even when several documents are used as bases for comparison +ontrary ruling2 see "opeD vs? +( %7<86' 1pinions of handwriting e.perts are not necessarily binding upon the courts (uthenticity of a questioned signature cannot be determined solely upon its general characteristics$ similarities or dissimilarities with the genuine signature =issimilarities are not decisive on the question of a signatureBs authenticity +ommon ;nowledge that that the writing of a person changes as time passes

Ciru%ano vs, PN0 <C. C5 (G 83?3= "ess weight should be given to inferences from comparison$ than to direct and credible testimony of witnesses as to the matters within their personal observation =iphenaline or Paraffin @est unreliable in use proved to be e.tremely

Peo&le vs, /endoGa <1585= @he Paraffin test is not conclusive as to the presence of gunpowder because fertiliDers$ cosmetics$ cigarettes$ urine$ and other nitrogenous compounds with nitrites and nitrates will give a positive reaction Peo&le vs, Castillon III <2??1= ( finding that the paraffin test yielded negative results is not conclusive evidence that the accused had not fired a gun? *t is possible for a person to have fired a gun and yet be negative for the presence of nitrates$ as when he wore gloves or washed his hands afterwards 0esults of blood grouping tests on the filiation of a child$ competently conducted by qualified persons$ are admissible and conclusive on the non-paternity of a person over a child (dmissibility of =,( evidence has been upheld by the #+ *n assessing the probative value$ necessary to consider$ inter alia$ how the samples were collected$ how they were handled$ the possibility of contamination of the samples$ the procedure followed in analyDing the samples$ the determination of whether or not the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests and the qualification of the analyst who conducted those tests

0r"an vs, Eastern E .ustralian S,S, Co, 1td, <28 Phil -1?= @he testimony of a witness s;illed in the unwritten law of a foreign country is not necessarily binding on our courts 8, C9.R.C)ER EVIDENCE Section C1 ' C9.R.C)ER EVIDENCE N() GENER.112 .D/ISSI01E4 E@CEP)I(NSA a, In Criminal CasesA 1, )he accused ma" &rove his $ood moral character +hich is &ertinent to the moral trait involved in the o##ense char$ed, 2, 8nless in re!uttal the &rosecution ma" not &rove his !ad moral character +hich is &ertinent to the moral trait involved in the o##ense char$ed, )he $ood or !ad moral character o# the o##ended &art" ma" !e &roved i# it tends to esta!lish in an" reasona!le de$ree the &ro!a!ilit" or im&ro!a!ilit" o# the o##ense char$ed, !, In Civil CasesA
76 7<

Paras vs? ,arciso %:& Phil 433'G =olar vs? =iansin %&& Phil 38<' 0aymundo vs? "egaspi %38 1L 658'$ cited in ,(0*+ vs? First ,ational #ecurity M (ssurance +o?$ *nc? %+($ A3 1L 75A58'


#iasat vs? *(+ %7<6&'

azereth page 2

Admissibility of Evidence Evidence

Evidence o# the moral character o# a &art" in civil case is admissi!le onl" +hen &ertinent to the issue o# character involved in the case, In the case &rovided #or in Rule 1-2 Sec 13,


#ummary of the rules on character evidence2 With respect to the nature of the case +riminal 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 *ntended to avoid unfair prejudice to the accused *f accused in his defense attempts to prove his good moral character$ prosecution can introduce evidence of bad moral character in rebuttal Lood or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved by either party as long as such evidence is relevant +ivil cases !oral character of either party cannot be proved unless pertinent to the issue of character involved With respect to the person (ccused2 character evidence must be pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged 1ffended party2 sufficient that character evidence is relevant Witness2 bad moral character may always be proved by either party %0ule 7:4 #ec 77' ,ot evidence of his good moral character unless it has been impeached %0ule 7:4 #ec 73'

azereth page 2!

B'rden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved Evidence

B'rden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved

Rule 1-1 0urden o# Proo# and Presum&tions
1, 08RDEN (F PR((F Section 1 08RDEN (F PR((F 0urden o# &roo# is the dut" o# a &art" to &resent evidence on the #acts in issue necessar" to esta!lish his claim or de#ense !" the amount o# evidence re;uired !" la+ 9urden of proof onus probandiG obligation imposed upon a party who alleges the e.istence of facts necessary for the prosecution of his action or defense to establish the same by the requisite quantum of evidence +ivil cases preponderance of evidence Rule 18- Section 1 +riminal cases For issuance of warrant of arrest after P* evidence of probable cause 0easonable ground to believe that the accused committed the offense @o warrant the filing of an information prima facie evidence @o sustain a conviction evidence beyond reasonable doubt +harge of misconduct against judges clear and convincing evidence 0emoval beyond reasonable doubt (grarian cases substantial evidence 1nly such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept$ as sufficient to support a conclusion (lso applies to cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies 0urden o# Evidence 9oth civil and criminal cases lies with party who asserts an affirmative allegation

the facts are more immediately within the ;nowledge of the accused$ the onus probandi rests on him? *t is not incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce positive evidence to support a negative averment the truth of which is fairly indicated by established circumstances and which$ if untrue$ could readily be disproved by documents or other evidence within the ;nowledge or control of the accused? Peo&le vs, /acala!a <2??-= @hus where the charge is made that the accused carried on a business without a license$ the fact that he has a license is a matter which is peculiarly within his ;nowledge and he must establish that fact or suffer conviction? 2, 69.) NEED N() 0E PR(VED ., F.C)S 69IC9 .RE PRES8/ED Presumption inference of an e.istence or non-e.istence of a fact which courts are permitted to draw from the proof of other facts +ompared to judicial notice and judicial admission Presumption2 proponent still has to introduce evidence of the basis of the presumption$ evidence of the e.istence or non-e.istence of facts from which the court can draw the inference of the fact in issue Cudicial notice and judicial admission2 as a rule$ proponent does not have to introduce evidence Presum&tions o# 1a+ Praesumptiones juris +ertain inference must be made whenever the facts appear which furnish the basis for the inference 0educed to fi.ed rules and form a part of the system of jurisprudence Presum&tions o# Fact Praesumptiones hominis =iscretion is vested in tribunal as to drawing inference the the

0urden o# Proo# +ivil cases - on the party who would be defeated if no evidence were given on either side +riminal cases always on the prosecution =oes not shift as it remains throughout the trial with the party upon whom it is imposed Lenerally determined by the pleading filed by the party

=erived wholly and directly from the circumstances of the particular case by means of the common e.perience of man;ind

@ypes2 7? +onclusive %juris et de jure' 4? =isputable %juris tantum or prima facie' 1= Conclusive Presum&tions Section 2 C(NC18SIVE PRES8/P)I(NS )he #ollo+in$ instances are conclusive &resum&tionsA a, 6henever a &art" has !" his o+n declaration act or omission intentionall" and deli!eratel" led another to !elieve a &articular thin$ true and to act u&on such !elie# he cannot in an" liti$ation arisin$ out o# such declaration act or omission !e &ermitted to #alsi#" it4 !, )he tenant is not &ermitted to den" the title o# his landlord at the time o# the commencement o# the relation o# landlord and tenant !et+een them, 9ased upon doctrine of estoppel in pais

#hifts from party to party depending upon the e.igencies of the case in the course of the trial Lenerally determined by the developments at the trial or by provisions of law

,egative allegations do not have to be proved E.cept where such are essential parts of the +1( or defense in a civil case or essential ingredients of the offense E?g? breach of contract2 prove the fact that the defendant did not comply with the obligation *llegal possession of firearms2 absence of a license Fowever$ in civil cases$ even if negative allegation is an essential part of the +1( or defense$ such does not have to be proven if it is only for the purpose of denying the e.istence of a document which would properly be in the custody of the adverse party @he general rule is if the criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation or that a negative averment is an essential element of the crime$ the prosecution has the burden of proving the charge? Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof$ or where

2= Dis&uta!le Presum&tions Section - DISP8).01E PRES8/P)I(N )he #ollo+in$ &resum&tions are satis#actor" i# uncontradicted !ut ma" !e contradicted and overcome !" other evidenceA a, )hat a &erson is innocent o# crime or +ron$4 !, )hat an unla+#ul act +as done +ith unla+#ul intent4 c, )hat a &erson intends the ordinar" conse;uences o# his voluntar" act4 d, )hat a &erson ta:es ordinar" care o# his concerns4

azereth page 2"

B'rden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved Evidence

e, #, $, h, i, %, )hat evidence +ill#ull" su&&ressed +ould !e adverse i# &roduced4 )hat the mone" &aid !" one to another +as due to the latter4 )hat the thin$ delivered !" one to another !elon$ed to the latter4 )hat an o!li$ation delivered u& to the de!tor has !een &aid4 )hat &rior rents or installments had !een &aid +hen a recei&t #or the latter ones is &roduced4 )hat a &erson in &ossession o# a thin$ ta:en in the doin$ o# a recent +ron$#ul act is the ta:er and the doer o# the +hole act4 other+ise that thin$s +hich a &erson &ossesses or e*ercises acts o# o+nershi& over are o+ned !" him4 )hat a &erson in &ossession o# an order on himsel# #or the &a"ment o# mone" or the deliver" an"thin$ has &aid the mone" or delivered the thin$ accordin$l"4 )hat a &erson actin$ in a &u!lic o##ice +as re$ularl" a&&ointed or elected to it4 )hat o##icial dut" has !een re$ularl" &er#ormed4 )hat a court or %ud$e actin$ as such +hether in the Phili&&ines or else+here +as actin$ in the la+#ul e*ercise o# %urisdiction4 )hat all the matters +ithin an issue raised in a case +ere laid !e#ore the court and &assed u&on !" it4 and in li:e manner that all matters +ithin an issue raised a dis&ute su!mitted #or ar!itration +ere laid !e#ore the ar!itrators and &assed u&on !" them4 )hat &rivate transactions have !een #air and re$ular4 )hat the ordinar" course o# !usiness have !een #ollo+ed4 )hat there +as su##icient consideration #or a contract4 )hat a ne$otia!le instrument +as $iven or indorsed #or a su##icient consideration4 )hat an indorsement o# a ne$otia!le instrument +as made !e#ore the instrument +as overdue and at the &lace +here it +as dated4 )hat a +ritin$ is dul" dated4 )hat a letter dul" directed and mailed +as received in the re$ular course o# the mail4 )hat a#ter an a!sence o# > "ears it !ein$ un:no+n +hether or not the a!sentee still lives he shall !e considered dead #or all &ur&oses e*ce&t those o# succession, )he a!sentee shall not !e considered dead #or the &ur&ose o# o&enin$ his succession till a#ter an a!sence o# 1? "ears, I# he disa&&eared a#ter the a$e o# >C an a!sence o# C "ears shall !e su##icient in order that his succession ma" !e o&ened, )he #ollo+in$ shall !e &resumed dead #or all &ur&oses includin$ the division o# the estate amon$ the heirsA 1= . &erson on !oard a vessel lost durin$ a sea vo"a$e or an aircra#t +hich is missin$ +ho has not !een heard o# #or 3 "ears since the lost o# the vessel or aircra#t4 2= . mem!er o# the armed #orces +ho has ta:en &art in armed hostilities and has !een missin$ #or 3 "ears4 -= . &erson +ho has !een in dan$er o# death under other circumstances and +hose e*istence has not !een :no+n #or 3 "ears4 3= I# a married &erson has !een a!sent #or 3 consecutive "ears the s&ouse &resent ma" contract a su!se;uent marria$e i# he or she has a +ell'#ounded !elie# that the a!sent s&ouse is alread" dead, In case o# disa&&earance +here there is dan$er o# death under the circumstances hereina!ove &rovided an a!sence o# onl" 2 "ears shall !e su##icient #or the &ur&ose o# contractin$ a su!se;uent marria$e, 9o+ever in an" case !e#ore marr"in$ a$ain the s&ouse &resent must institute a summar" &roceedin$ as &rovided in the Famil" Code and in the rules #or declaration o# &resum&tive death o# the a!sentee +ithout &re%udice to the e##ect o# the rea&&earance o# the a!sent s&ouse, *, ", G, aa, !!, )hat ac;uiescence resulted #rom a !elie# that the thin$ ac;uiesced in +as con#orma!le to the la+ or #act4 )hat thin$s have ha&&ened accordin$ to the ordinar" course o# nature and the ordinar" ha!its o# li#e4 )hat &ersons actin$ as co'&artners have entered into a contract o# &artnershi&4 )hat a man and +oman de&ortin$ themselves as hus!and and +i#e have entered into a la+#ul contract o# marria$e4 )hat &ro&ert" ac;uired !" a man and a +oman +ho are ca&acitated to marr" each other and +ho live e*clusivel" +ith each other as hus!and and +i#e +ithout the !ene#it o# marria$e or under a void marria$e has !een o!tained !" their %oint e##orts +or: or industr"4 )hat in cases o# coha!itation !" a man and a +oman +ho are not ca&acitated to marr" each other and +ho have ac;uired &ro&ert" throu$h their actual %oint contri!ution o# mone" &ro&ert" or industr" such contri!utions and their corres&ondin$ shares includin$ %oint de&osits o# mone" and evidences o# credit are e;ual4 )hat i# the marria$e is terminated and the mother contracted another marria$e +ithin -?? da"s a#ter such termination o# the #ormer marria$e these rules shall $overn in the a!sence o# &roo# to the contrar"A 1= . child !orn !e#ore 18? da"s a#ter the solemniGation o# the su!se;uent marria$e is considered to have !een conceived durin$ the #ormer marria$e &rovided it !e !orn +ithin -?? da"s a#ter the termination o# the #ormer marria$e, 2= . child !orn a#ter 18? da"s #ollo+in$ the cele!ration o# the su!se;uent marria$e is considered to have !een conceived durin$ such marria$e even thou$h it !e !orn +ithin -?? da"s a#ter the termination o# the #ormer marria$e, )hat a thin$ once &roved to e*ist continues as lon$ as is usual +ith the thin$s o# that nature4 )hat the la+ has !een o!e"ed4 )hat a &rinted or &u!lished !oo: &ur&ortin$ to !e &rinted or &u!lished !" &u!lic authorit" +as so &rinted or &u!lished4 )hat a &rinted or &u!lished !oo: &ur&ortin$ to contain re&orts o# cases ad%ud$ed in tri!unals o# the countr" +here the !oo: is &u!lished contains correct re&orts o# such cases4 )hat a trustee or other &erson +hose dut" it +as to conve" the real &ro&ert" to a &articular &erson has actuall" conve"ed it to him +hen such &resum&tion is necessar" to &er#ect the title o# such &erson or his successor'in'interest4 )hat e*ce&t #or &ur&oses o# succession +hen 2 &ersons &erish in the same calamit" such as +rec: !attle or con#la$ration and it is not sho+n +ho died #irst and there are no &articular circumstances #rom +hich it can !e in#erred the survivorshi& is determined #rom the &ro!a!ilities resultin$ #rom the stren$th and a$e o# the se*es accordin$ to the #ollo+in$ rulesA 1= I# !oth +ere under the a$e o# 1C the older is deemed to have survived4 2= I# !oth +ere a!ove the a$e o# B? the "oun$er is deemed to have survived4 -= I# one is under 1C and the other is a!ove B? the #ormer is deemed to have survived4 3= I# !oth !e over 1C and under B? and the se* is di##erent the male is deemed to have survived4 i# the se* is the same the older4 C= I# one !e under 1C or over B? and the other !et+een those a$es the latter is deemed to have survived )hat i# there is dou!t as !et+een 2 or more &ersons +ho are called to succeed each other as to +hich o# them died #irst +hoever alle$es the death o# one &rior to the other shall &rove the same4 in the a!sence o# &roo# the" shall !e considered to have died at the same time,



l, m, n, o,


&, ;, r, s, t, u, v, +,

ee, ##, $$, hh,




azereth page 2#

B'rden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved Evidence

Par %a' "egislature may provide for prima facie evidence of guilt provided there be a rational connection between the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed 0P+$ (rticle 478

0equisites for par? %e' 7? @he evidence is material 4? Party had the opportunity to produce the same :? #aid evidence is available only to said party Presumption does not apply if evidence is equally available to both parties$ or is merely corroborativeHcumulative or unnecessary

Peo&le vs, Realon <158?= Presumption does not arise from the failure of the prosecution to present the ,9* agents and the results of the fingerprint and paraffin tests in view of the overwhelming evidence on the positive identification of the accused? Furthermore$ the defense could have availed of said evidence which was equally available to it Peo&le vs, Nava%a <155-= @he adverse presumption of suppression of evidence does not arise when2 7? @he suppression is not willful$ 4? @he evidence withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative$ :? @he evidence is at the disposal of both parties$ 3? @he suppression is an e.ercise of a privilege Par? %i' is connected with the +ivil +ode principles Civil Code .rticle 11>B )he recei&t o# the &rinci&al !" the creditor +ithout reservation +ith res&ect to the interest shall $ive rise to the &resum&tion that said interest has !een &aid, )he recei&t o# a later installment o# a de!t +ithout reservation as to &rior installments shall li:e+ise raise the &resum&tion that such installments have !een &aid,

Par %j'

similar rationale2

Peo&le vs, Senda"die$o <15>8= *f a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it$ ta;en advantage of it and profited thereby$ the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification? Par %v' it must be proved that the letter was properly addressed with postage pre-paid and that it was actually mailed *f not returned to sender$ it is presumed that it was received by the addressee

0arrameda vs, Castillo <15>>= Ender 0ule 7:$ #ec 75$ service by pleadings by mail is complete upon the e.piration of 75 days after mailing$ unless the court otherwise provides$ while service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee$ but if he fails to claim his mail from the post office within & days from the date of first notice$ the service is complete at the e.piration of such time? @here must$ however$ be conclusive proof that a first notice was sent to the addressee as the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed does not apply to this situation Ferraren vs, Santos <1582= *f$ however$ the postmaster certifies that first notice was sent$ the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed arises and overrides the contrary claim of the addressee? Par %w' ta;en from +ivil +ode #ub par 7M4 the absentee is presumed to have died at the end of the period %&H8H75 years' #ub par : %qualified absence' absentee is presumed to have died at the time he was e.posed to the danger or peril (t the start of the 3 year period ,umber %3' does not actually provide for a presumption corollary procedural rule

Victor" Shi&&in$ 1ines vs, 6CC <1?B Phil 11BC= Where the fate of the vessel is ;nown$ and not where the vessel was merely lost or missing$ the disputable

azereth page 2$

B'rden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved Evidence

presumption of death does not arise and the fact of death$ must$ instead$ be established by preponderance of evidence Par %dd' ta;en from (rt 4&< of the +ivil +ode$ in line with (rt 7A6 of the Family +ode Par %jj' requisites2 7? =eaths occurred in a calamity 4? @here are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred that one died ahead of the other

azereth page 2%

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

Presentation of Evidence


Rule 1-2 Presentation o# Evidence

., E@./IN.)I(N (F 6I)NESSES Section 1 E@./IN.)I(N )( 0E D(NE IN (PEN C(8R) )he e*amination o# +itnesses &resented in a trial or hearin$ shall !e done in o&en court and under oath or a##irmation, 8nless the +itness is inca&acitated to s&ea: or the ;uestion calls #or a di##erent mode o# ans+er the ans+ers o# a +itness shall !e $iven orall" Section 2 PR(CEEDINGS )( 0E REC(RDED )he entire &roceedin$s o# a trial or hearin$ includin$ the ;uestions to !e &ro&ounded to a +itness and his ans+er thereto the statements made !" the %ud$e or an" o# the &arties counsel or +itnesses +ith re#erence to the case shall !e recorded !" means o# shorthand or stenot"&e or !" other means o# recordin$ #ound suita!le !" the court, . transcri&t o# the record o# the &roceedin$s made !" the o##icial steno$ra&her stenot"&ist or recorder and certi#ied as correct !" him shall !e deemed &rima #acie a correct statement o# such &roceedin$s, @o be admissible$ testimony of a witness may be given in open court !ay be supplanted by2 7? +ivil cases depositions %0ules 4: 43' 4? +riminal cases depositions or conditional e.aminations %0ule 77< #ections 74-7& and 0ule 74: #ec 7' !ere presentation of affidavits of witnesses subject to cross-e.amination is not allowed by the rules 9ut$ under 9P 74<$ summary procedures may be authoriDed by #+ in special cases !ay provide that affidavits and counteraffidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral testimony @estimony of witness should be elicited by questions of counsel 9ut +ourt itself may propound questions or may suggest questions to counsel

0efers to his previous final conviction or offense Ender the right against self-incrimination +riminal cases 0ule 77& #ection 7%e'2 accused may refuse to ta;e the stand altogether (ccused2 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 Witness2 offense involved is one for which he may be tried in another case 0ight should be seasonably invo;ed and may be waived 1ther casesHproceedings a party may be compelled to ta;e the stand but he may object to incriminating questions 0eltran vs, Samson <C- Phil C>?= Where in a prosecution for falsification$ the accused too; the stand and testified denying his authorship of the alleged falsified signature$ on cross-e.amination he can be compelled to give a sample of his handwriting and it was not a denial of his right against self-incrimination 0ermudeG vs, Castillo <B3 Phil 38-= Where$ in a disbarment case$ the complainant on cross-e.amination denied authorship of certain handwritten letters$ she could not be compelled to give samples of her handwriting as it would amount to a denial of her right against self-incrimination in a possible charge for perjury +onflict can be reconciled2 9eltran2 it was the accused himself who opened the issue on his direct e.amination Fe could have refused to testify altogether @herefore$ he waived his right 9ermudeD2 complainant could not refuse to testify without an unfavorable inference being drawn against her (lso$ issue was raised during crosse.amination$ hence she did not waive the right NEnless otherwise provided by lawO refers to immunity statutes wherein the witness is granted immunity from criminal prosecution

Peo&le vs, /analo <158>= @he court should be given reasonable leeway to ascertain the truth$ and the e.tent to which such e.amination 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 - ' RIG9)S .ND (01IG.)I(NS (F . 6I)NESS . +itness must ans+er ;uestions althou$h his ans+er ma" tend to esta!lish a claim a$ainst him, 9o+ever it is the ri$ht o# a +itnessA 1, )o !e &rotected #rom irrelevant im&ro&er or insultin$ ;uestions and #rom harsh or insultin$ demeanor4 2, Not to !e detained lon$er than the interests o# %ustice re;uire4 -, Not to !e e*amined e*ce&t onl" as to matters &ertinent to the issue4 3, Not to $ive an ans+er +hich +ill tend to su!%ect him to a &enalt" #or an o##ense unless other+ise &rovided !" la+4 or C, Not to $ive an ans+er +hich +ill tend to de$rade his re&utation unless it to !e the ver" #act at issue or to a #act #rom +hich the #act in issue +ould !e &resumed, 0ut a +itness must ans+er to the #act o# his &revious #inal conviction #or an o##ense, <-a 15a= Witness cannot refuse to answer questions material to the inquiry even if it may tend to establish a claim against him 9ut may refuse if2 7? Ender the right against self-degradation unless2 a? #uch question is directed to the very fact in issue

Section 3 ' (RDER IN )9E E@./IN.)I(N (F .N INDIVID8.1 6I)NESS )he order in +hich the individual +itness ma" !e e*amined is as #ollo+s4 a, Direct e*amination !" the &ro&onent4 !, Cross'e*amination !" the o&&onent4 c, Re'direct e*amination !" the &ro&onent4 d, Re'cross'e*amination !" the o&&onent, Section C ' DIREC) E@./IN.)I(N Direct e*amination is the e*amination'in'chie# o# a +itness !" the &art" &resentin$ him on the #acts relevant to the issue, Section B ' CR(SS'E@./IN.)I(N4 I)S P8RP(SE .ND E@)EN) 8&on the termination o# the direct e*amination the +itness ma" !e cross'e*amined !" the adverse &art" as to man" matters stated in the direct e*amination or connected there+ith +ith su##icient #ullness and #reedom to test his accurac" and truth#ulness and #reedom #rom interest or !ias or the reverse and to elicit all im&ortant #acts !earin$ u&on the issue, Section > ' RE'DIREC) E@./IN.)I(N4 I)S P8RP(SE .ND E@)EN) .#ter the cross'e*amination o# the +itness has !een concluded he ma" !e re'e*amined !" the &art" callin$ him to e*&lain or su&&lement his ans+ers $iven durin$ the cross'e*amination, (n re'direct'e*amination ;uestions on matters not dealt +ith durin$ the cross'

azereth page 3&

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

e*amination discretion, ma" !e allo+ed !" the court in its Section 8 ' RE'CR(SS'E@./IN.)I(N 8&on the conclusion o# the re'direct e*amination the adverse &art" ma" re'cross'e*amine the +itness on matters stated in his re'direct e*amination and also on such other matters as ma" !e allo+ed !" the court in its discretion, ( witness may be cross e.amined by the adverse party not only as to matters stated in the direct e.amination but also as to matters connected therewith$ and this should be allowed to do with sufficient fullness and freedom to test the witnessB accuracy$ truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias$ and also to elicit from him any important fact bearing upon the issue (merican rule cross-e.amination must be confined to the matters inquired about in the direct e.amination English rule witness may be cross-e.amined not only upon matters relevant to the issue @his jurisdiction more on English rule EnwillingHhostileHadverse party witness cross e.amination shall only be on the subject of his e.amination-in-chief #ame as accused testifying on his own behalf >uestion which assumes facts not on the record2 *f on cross e.amination objectionable for bring misleading *f on direct e.amination objectionable for lac; of basis

0achrach /otor Co, Inc, vs, CIR <15>8= When cross e.amination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party who offered the witness$ the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered incomplete and should be stric;en from the record Peo&le vs, Seneris <158?= Where in a criminal case the prosecution witness was e.tensively cross e.amined on the essential elements of the crime and what remained for further cross-e.amination was the matter of the priDe or reward which was treated therein as merely an aggravating circumstance$ his failure to appear for further cross-e.amination thereon will not warrant the stri;ing out of his direct e.amination$ especially since further crosse.amination could not be conducted due to the subsequent death of the said witness$ a circumstance not attributable to the prosecution Section 5 ' REC.11ING 6I)NESS .#ter the e*amination o# a +itness !" !oth sides has !een concluded the +itness cannot !e recalled +ithout leave o# the court, )he court +ill $rant or +ithhold leave in its discretion as the interests o# %ustice ma" re;uire, 0ecall based on discretion of the court 9ut recall is a matter of right if the e.amination of the witness has not been concluded or the recall has been e.pressly reserved by a party with the approval of the court

Section 1? ' 1E.DING .ND /IS1E.DING H8ES)I(NS . ;uestion +hich su$$ests to the +itness the ans+er +hich the e*aminin$ &art" desires is a leadin$ ;uestion, It is not allo+ed e*ce&tA a, (n cross e*amination4 !, (n &reliminar" matters4 c, 6hen there is a di##icult" is $ettin$ direct and intelli$i!le ans+ers #rom a +itness +ho is i$norant or a child o# tender "ears or is o# #ee!le mind or a dea#'mute4 d, (# an un+illin$ or hostile +itness4 or e, (# a +itness +ho is an adverse &art" or an o##icer director or mana$in$ a$ent o# a &u!lic or &rivate cor&oration or o# a &artnershi& or association +hich is an adverse &art", . misleadin$ ;uestion is one +hich assumes as true a #act not "et testi#ied to !" the +itness or contrar" to that +hich he has &reviousl" stated, It is not allo+ed, Section 11 ' I/PE.C9/EN) (F .DVERSE P.R)2MS 6I)NESS

azereth page 31

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

. +itness ma" !e im&eached !" the &art" a$ainst +hom he +as called !" contradictor" evidence !" evidence that his $eneral re&utation #or truth honestl" or inte$rit" is !ad or !" evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent +ith his &resent testimon" !ut not !" evidence o# &articular +ron$#ul acts e*ce&t that it ma" !e sho+n !" the e*amination o# the +itness or the record o# the %ud$ment that he has !een convicted o# an o##ense, Section 12 ' P.R)2 /.2 N() I/PE.C9 9IS (6N 6I)NESS E*ce&t +ith res&ect to +itnesses re#erred to in &ara$ra&hs <d= and <e= o# Section 1? the &art" &roducin$ a +itness is not allo+ed to im&each his credi!ilit", . +itness ma" !e considered as un+illin$ or hostile onl" i# so declared !" the court u&on ade;uate sho+in$ o# his adverse interest un%usti#ied reluctance to testi#" or his havin$ misled the &art" into callin$ him to the +itness stand, )he un+illin$ or hostile +itness so declared or the +itness +ho is an adverse &art" ma" !e im&eached !" the &art" &resentin$ him in all res&ects as i# he had !een called !" the adverse &art" e*ce&t !" evidence o# his !ad character, 9e ma" also !e im&eached and cross' e*amined !" the adverse &art" !ut such cross' e*amination must onl" !e on the su!%ect matter o# his e*amination'in'chie#, Section 1- ' 9(6 6I)NESS I/PE.C9ED 02 EVIDENCE (F INC(NSIS)EN) S).)E/EN)S 0e#ore a +itness can !e im&eached !" evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent +ith his &resent testimon" the statements must !e related to him +ith the circumstances o# the times and &laces and the &ersons &resent and he must !e as:ed +hether he made such statements and i# so allo+ed to e*&lain them, I# the statements !e in +ritin$ the" must !e sho+n to the +itness !e#ore an" ;uestion is &ut to him concernin$ them, "eading question one which suggests to the witness the answer desired !ay cause the witness$ by reacting to an inference in his mind$ to testify in accordance with the suggestion by the question (nswer may be Nrather an echo of the question than a genuine recollection @estimony on direct e.amination elicited through leading questions has little probative value in the same case$ but not the testimony of another witness Evidence of prior inconsistent statements statements$ oral or documentary$ made by the witness sought to be impeached on occasions other than the trial in which he is testifying N"aying the predicateO a? 9y confronting him with such statements$ with the circumstances under which they were made b? 9y as;ing him whether he made such statement c? 9y giving him a chance to e.plain the inconsistency *mpeachment is incomplete if witness is not given the chance to e.plain the discrepancy 9ut defect is waived if no objection on that ground is raised when the document involved is offered for admission ,o need to lay the predicate if the prior inconsistent statement appears in a deposition of the adverse party and not a mere witness #tatements are in the nature of an admission 7uan 2smael E Co, Inc, vs, 9ashim <C? Phil 1-2= Where previous statements of a witness are offered as evidence of an admission$ and not merely to impeach him$ the rule on laying the predicate does not apply :? 3? Evidence of bad character Evidence of bias$ interest$ prejudice or incompetence Party can impeach his own witness only by2 7? Evidence contradictory to his testimony 4? Evidence of prior inconsistent statements *n case of hostileHadverse partyHinvoluntary witnesses can also be impeached by other modes of impeachment


Section 13 ' EVIDENCE (F G((D C9.R.C)ER (F 6I)NESS Evidence o# the $ood character o# a +itness is not admissi!le until such character has !een im&eached, Section 1C ' E@C18SI(N .ND SEP.R.)I(N (F 6I)NESSES (n an" trial or hearin$ the %ud$e ma" e*clude #rom the court an" +itness not at the time under e*amination so that he ma" not hear the testimon" o# other +itnesses, )he %ud$e ma" also cause +itnesses to !e :e&t se&arate and to !e &revented #rom conversin$ +ith one another until all shall have !een e*amined, Power of e.clusions 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 #ince they have such right$ they cannot be divested thereof by an e.clusion order

Peo&le vs, Dela CruG <2??2= "eading questions may be permitted in the e.amination of a witness who is immatureG aged and infirmG an bad physical conditionG uneducatedG ignorant of$ or unaccustomed to$ court proceedingsG ine.periencedG unsophisticatedG feeblemindedG confused and agitatedG terrified$ timid or embarrassed while on standG lac;ing in comprehension of questions or slow to understandG deaf and dumbG or unable to spea; or understand the English language or only imperfectly familiar therewith !isleading question one which assumes facts not in evidence or without sufficient basis or which assumes testimony or proof which has not been given

FernandeG vs, )antoco <35 Phil -8?= ( party who voluntarily offers the testimony of a witness in the case is$ as a rule$ bound by the testimony of the said witness? @he e.ceptions to the rule are2 7? *n case of a hostile witness 4? Where the witness is the adverse party or the representative of a judicial person which is the adverse party :? When the witness is not voluntarily offered but is required by law to be presented by the proponent$ as in the case of a subscribing witness to a will Party can impeach adverse partyBs witness by2 7? +ontradictory evidence other testimony of the same witness$ or other evidence presented by him

PaeG vs, 0eren$uer <8 Phil 3C>= ( party to an action has a right to be present in court while his case is being tried$ and the rule authoriDing the e.clusion of witnesses during trial cannot be understood to e.tend to him *f witness violates the order of e.clusion$ court may bar him from testifying or give little weight to his testimony (side from his liability for contempt

Peo&le vs, 1ua Chu <CB Phil 33= *t is within the power of the trial judge to refuse to order the e.clusion of the principal witness of the government during the hearing of a criminal case and it may not$ on that count alone$ be considered as an abuse of his discretion Section 1B ' /E/(R.ND8/ 69EN 6I)NESS /.2 REFER )(

azereth page 32

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

. +itness ma" !e allo+ed to re#resh his memor" res&ectin$ a #act !" an"thin$ +ritten or recorded !" himsel# or under his direction at the time +hen the #act occurred or immediatel" therea#ter or at an" other time +hen the #act +as #resh in his memor" and :ne+ that the same +as correctl" +ritten or recorded4 !ut in such case the +ritin$ or record must !e &roduced and ma" !e ins&ected !" the adverse &art" +ho ma" i# he chooses cross e*amine the +itness u&on it and ma" read it in evidence, So also a +itness ma" testi#" #rom such +ritin$ or record thou$h he retain no recollection o# the &articular #acts i# he is a!le to s+ear that the +ritin$ or record correctl" stated the transaction +hen made4 !ut such evidence must !e received +ith caution, (merican jurisprudence2 First sentence Nrevival of present memoryO (pplies if witness remembers the facts regarding his entries and is entitled to greater weight #econd sentence revival of past recollection (pplies where the witness does not recall the facts involved and is entitled to lesser weight (pplies only when it is shown beforehand that there is a need to refresh the memory of the witness !emorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness does not constitute evidence and may not be admitted as such 0eason2 the witness has just the memorandum to testify on the basis of refreshed memory !emorandum not admissible as corroborative evidence +lassification in 0P+ is different NPublic documentsO .ntillon vs, 0arcelon <-> Phil 138= Public documents generally include notarial documents and are admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof as to authenticity and due e.ecution

0orromeo vs, C. <15>B= Where the witness has testified independently of or after his memory has been refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute$ such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative evidence$ since the witness may not be corroborated by any written statement prepared wholly by him? Fe cannot be more credible just because he supports his open-court declaration with written statements of the same facts even if he did prepare them during the occasion in dispute$ unless the proper predicate of his failing memory is priorly laid down Section 1> ' 69EN P.R) (F )R.NS.C)I(N 6RI)ING (R REC(RD GIVEN IN EVIDENCE )9E RE/.INDER )9E RE/.INDER .D/ISSI01E 6hen &art o# an act declaration conversation +ritin$ or record is $iven in evidence !" one &art" the +hole o# the same su!%ect ma" !e in;uired into !" the other and +hen a detached act declaration conversation +ritin$ or record is $iven in evidence an" other act declaration conversation +ritin$ or record necessar" to its understandin$ ma" also !e $iven in evidence, #imilar rule in depositions Rule -2 Section 3 (.)9 (F C(//ISSI(NER 0e#ore enterin$ u&on his duties the commissioner shall !e s+orn to a #aith#ul and honest &er#ormance thereo# Section 18 ' RIG9) )( RESPEC) 6RI)ING S9(6N )( 6I)NESS 6henever a +ritin$ is sho+n to a +itness it ma" !e ins&ected !" the adverse &art", 0, .8)9EN)IC.)I(N .ND PR((F (F D(C8/EN)S Section 15 ' C1.SSES (F D(C8/EN)S For the &ur&ose o# their &resentation evidence documents are either &u!lic or &rivate, Pu!lic documents areA a, )he +ritten o##icial acts or records o# the o##icial acts o# the soverei$n authorit" o##icial !odies and tri!unals and &u!lic o##icers +hether o# the Phili&&ines or o# a #orei$n countr"4 !, Documents ac:no+led$e !e#ore a notar" &u!lic e*ce&t last +ills and testaments4 and c, Pu!lic records :e&t in the Phili&&ines o# &rivate documents re;uired !" la+ to the entered therein, .ll other +ritin$s are &rivate,

azereth page 33

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

E.cept if law requires proof E?g? notarial wills law still requires witnesses for its probate Iinds2 7? 1fficial documents 0equisites for admissibility of copy of foreign official document2 a? !ust be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or his deputy b? !ust be accompanied by a Philippine diplomatic or consular representative to the foreign country certifying that such attesting officer has the custody of the document 0equirement 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 4? @hose ac;nowledged before persons authoriDed to administer oaths further governed by #ection :5 :? Private documents required by law to entered in public records subject to provisions of #ection 48 While public records of private writings are also public documents$ the public writing is not the writing itself but the Npublic recordO thereof Re&u!lic vs, 6orld+ide Insurance E Suret" Co, <C. B2 (G 88C>= *f a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public record$ its record$ its recordation$ or its incorporation into the public record becomes a public document$ but that does not ma;e the private writing itself a public document so as to ma;e the private writing it admissible without authentication NPrivate documentsO documents commercial and private 0ule of authentication by adverse party where the reply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the sending to him and his receipt thereof of the letter in question$ a copy of which the proponent is offering as evidence (uthentication of document not required if2 7? @he writing is an ancient document %#ec 47' 4? @he writing is a public document or record %#ec 7<' :? *t is a notarial document ac;nowledged$ proved or certified in accordance with #ec :5 3? @he authenticity and due e.ecution of the document has been e.pressly or impliedly admitted by a failure to deny the same under oath (ctionable documents %0ule 6$ #ection 6' (uthenticity and due e.ecution of a private document is proved by$ inter alia$ evidence of genuineness of the handwriting of the ma;er Fandwriting is proved by2 7? Witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument %#ec 45a' 4? Witness familiar with such handwriting %#ec 44' and who can give his opinion thereon$ such opinion being e.ception to opinion rule %0ule 7:5$ #ec &5b' :? +omparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and admitted genuine specimens thereof %#ec 44' 3? E.pert evidence %0ule 7:5 #ec 3<'

1o&eG vs, C. <15>8= 0ule 7:4 #ection 44 merely enumerates the methods of proving handwriting but does not give preference or priority to a particular method Section 23 ' PR((F (F (FFICI.1 REC(RD )he record o# &u!lic documents re#erred to in &ara$ra&h <a= o# Section 15 +hen admissi!le #or an" &ur&ose ma" !e evidenced !" an o##icial &u!lication thereo# or !" a co&" attested !" the o##icer havin$ the le$al custod" o# the record or !" his de&ut" and accom&anied i# the record is not :e&t in the Phili&&ines +ith a certi#icate that such o##icer has the custod", I# the o##ice in +hich the record is :e&t is in #orei$n countr" the certi#icate ma" !e made !" a secretar" o# the em!ass" or le$ation consul $eneral consul vice consul or consular a$ent or !" an" o##icer in the #orei$n service o# the Phili&&ines stationed in the #orei$n countr" in +hich the record is :e&t and authenticated !" the seal o# his o##ice, Section 2C ' 69.) .))ES).)I(N (F C(P2 /8S) S).)E 6henever a co&" o# a document or record is attested #or the &ur&ose o# evidence the attestation must state in su!stance that the co&" is a correct co&" o# the ori$inal or a s&eci#ic &art thereo# as the case ma" !e, )he attestation must !e under the o##icial seal o# the attestin$ o##icer i# there !e an" or i# he !e the cler: o# a court havin$ a seal under the seal o# such court, Section 2B ' IRRE/(V.0I1I)2 (F P801IC REC(RD .n" &u!lic record an o##icial co&" o# +hich is admissi!le in evidence must not !e removed #rom the o##ice in +hich it is :e&t e*ce&t u&on order o# a court +here the ins&ection o# the record is essential to the %ust determination o# a &endin$ case, Public record cannot be removed from the office in which it is ;ept without a court order such as subpoena duces tecum Even court cannot order its removal e.cept when essential to the just determination of the pending case 0efers only to a public record an official copy of which could be made available to the interested party and is admissible in evidence

Section 2? ' PR((F (F PRIV.)E D(C8/EN) 0e#ore an" &rivate document o##ered as authentic is received in evidence its due e*ecution and authenticit" must !e &roved eitherA a, 0" an"one +ho sa+ the document e*ecuted or +ritten4 or !, 0" evidence o# the $enuineness o# the si$nature or hand+ritin$ o# the ma:er, .n" other &rivate document need onl" !e identi#ied as that +hich it is claimed to !e, Section 21 ' 69EN EVIDENCE (F .8)9EN)ICI)2 (F PRIV.)E D(C8/EN) N() NECESS.R2 6here a &rivate document is more than thirt" "ears old is &roduced #rom the custod" in +hich it +ould naturall" !e #ound i# $enuine and is un!lemished !" an" alterations or circumstances o# sus&icion no other evidence o# its authenticit" need !e $iven, Section 22 ' 9(6 GEN8INENESS (F 9.ND6RI)ING PR(VED )he hand+ritin$ o# a &erson ma" !e &roved !" an" +itness +ho !elieves it to !e the hand+ritin$ o# such &erson !ecause he has seen the &erson +rite or has seen +ritin$ &ur&ortin$ to !e his u&on +hich the +itness has acted or !een char$ed and has thus ac;uired :no+led$e o# the hand+ritin$ o# such &erson, Evidence res&ectin$ the hand+ritin$ ma" also !e $iven !" a com&arison made !" the +itness or the court +ith +ritin$s admitted or treated as $enuine !" the &art" a$ainst +hom the evidence is o##ered or &roved to !e $enuine to the satis#action o# the %ud$e, 0ules of authenticity *n addition$ (merican jurisprudence also gives2 =octrine of self-authentication - where the facts in the writing could only have been ;nown by the writer

6ildvalle" Shi&&in$ Co, 1td, vs, C. <2???= (bsent the attestation of the officer having the legal custody of the records and the certificate to that effect by a Philippine foreign service officer$ a mere copy of the foreign document is not admissible as evidence to prove the foreign law

azereth page 3

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

Section 2> ' P801IC REC(RD (F . PRIV.)E D(C8/EN) .n authoriGed &u!lic record o# a &rivate document ma" !e &roved !" the ori$inal record or !" a co&" thereo# attested !" the le$al custodian o# the record +ith an a&&ro&riate certi#icate that such o##icer has the custod", Section 28 ' PR((F (F 1.CJ (F REC(RD . +ritten statement si$ned !" an o##icer havin$ the custod" o# an o##icial record or !" his de&ut" that a#ter dili$ent search no record or entr" o# a s&eci#ied tenor is #ound to e*ist in the records o# his o##ice accom&anied !" a certi#icate as a!ove &rovided is admissi!le as evidence that the records o# his o##ice contain no such record or entr", Section 25 9(6 78DICI.1 REC(RD I/PE.C9ED .n" %udicial record ma" !e im&eached !" evidence o#A a, 6ant o# %urisdiction in the court or %udicial o##icer !, Collusion !et+een the &arties or c, Fraud in the &art" o##erin$ the record in res&ect to the &roceedin$s, 0ule :< #ec 7

,ot sufficient to prove paternity47 or voluntary recognition of a child44

Section -? ' PR((F (F N().RI.1 D(C8/EN)S Ever" instrument dul" ac:no+led$ed or &roved and certi#ied as &rovided !" la+ ma" !e &resented in evidence +ithout #urther &roo# the certi#icate o# ac:no+led$ment !ein$ prima facie evidence o# the e*ecution o# the instrument or document involved, Public documents may be proved by2 7? 1riginal copy 4? 1fficial publication thereof :? +ertified true copy thereof 0equirements in #ecs 43 and 4& Enless specifically e.empted %F+$ (rt 74' /ahilum vs, C. <15BB= *t is presumed that the requisite stamps have been affi.ed to the original copy of a document where only the carbon copies thereof are available 1o&eG vs, C. <158>= Where the special power of attorney is e.ecuted and ac;nowledged before a notary public or other competent officer in a foreign country$ it cannot be admitted in evidence in Philippine courts unless it is certified as such in accordance with 0ule 7:4 #ec 43 by a secretary of the embassy or legation$ consulgeneral$ consul$ vice-consul$ consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service in the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is ;ept 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 ;ind of document that is presented in evidence 9aptismal certificates Feld as analogous to the records of birth in ++ (rt 4A&$ before the establishment of civil registry in 7<78 +onsidered presumptive evidence of facts stated therein *ssued by priests during #panish regime considered as public documents *ssued after the #panish regime private document and cannot even be prima facie evidence of the fact that gave rise to its e.ecution %the fact of the baptism and the date thereon' Fearsay and inadmissible Enless the priest who performed the baptismal rights and made the certificate is produced


(rde vs? (nocoche %7<86' 9erciles vs? L#*# %7<63'

azereth page 3!

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

/acadan$dan$ vs, C. <158?= ( baptismal certificate is proof only of the baptism administered by the priest who baptiDed the child but not the veracity of the declarations and statements in the certificates concerning the relationship of the person baptiDed (bove doctrines modified by the #+ in determining the minority of the victim in statutory rape or where that fact is an element of qualified rape o##er shall !e done orall" unless allo+ed !" the court to !e done in +ritin$,

Peo&le vs, 1landelar <2??1=2While recogniDing the primacy of a birth certificate as proof of the victimBs age$ the #+ held that$ in the absence of such evidence$ the victimBs minority may be proved by other documentary evidence such as her baptismal certificate or other authentic records =eath certificate

Sison vs, Sun 1i#e .ssurance Co, o# Canada <C. 3> (G 15C3= ( death certificate is not proof of the cause of death$ its probative value being confined only to the fact of death$ and the statement therein Garcia Fule vs, /alvar <15>B= ( death certificate is admissible to prove the residence of the deceased at the time of his death Section -1 ' .1)ER.)I(N IN D(C8/EN) 9(6 )( E@P1.IN )he &art" &roducin$ a document as $enuine +hich has !een altered and a&&ears to have !een altered a#ter its e*ecution in a &art material to the ;uestion in dis&ute must account #or the alteration, 9e ma" sho+ that the alteration +as made !" another +ithout his concurrence or +as made +ith the consent o# the &arties a##ected !" it or +as other+ise &ro&erl" or innocent made or that the alteration did not chan$e the meanin$ or lan$ua$e o# the instrument, I# he #ails to do that the document shall not !e admissi!le in evidence, Section -2 SE.1 )here shall !e no di##erence !et+een sealed and unsealed &rivate documents inso#ar as their admissi!ilit" as evidence is concerned, Section -- ' D(C8/EN).R2 EVIDENCE IN .N 8N(FFICI.1 1.NG8.GE Documents +ritten in an uno##icial lan$ua$e shall not !e admitted as evidence unless accom&anied +ith a translation into En$lish or Fili&ino, )o avoid interru&tion o# &roceedin$s &arties or their attorne"s are directed to have such translation &re&ared !e#ore trial, #ection :$ (rticle T*)$ 7<:& +onstitution English and #panish ( official languages #ection :%:'$ (rticle T)$ 7<8: +onstitution English and Pilipino P= 7&& #panish language shall continue to be recogniDed as an official language while important documents in government files are in the #panish language and not translated into Pilipino or English #ection 8$ (rticle T*)$ 7<68 +onstitution - the official languages are Filipino and$ until otherwise provided by law$ English$ with the regional languages as au.iliary official languages in the region

C, (FFER .ND (07EC)I(N Section -3 ' (FFER (F EVIDENCE )he court shall consider no evidence +hich has not !een #ormall" o##ered, )he &ur&ose #or +hich the evidence is o##ered must !e s&eci#ied, Section -C ' 69EN )( /.JE (FFER .s re$ards the testimon" o# a +itness the o##er must !e made at the time the +itness is called to testi#", Documentar" and o!%ect evidence shall !e o##ered a#ter the &resentation o# a &art"Ms testimonial evidence, Such

(lso in People vs? Calosjos %4557' and People vs? Fruna %4554'

azereth page 3"

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

Section -B (07EC)I(N (!%ection to evidence o##ered orall" must !e made immediatel" a#ter the o##er is made, (!%ection to a ;uestion &ro&ounded in the course o# the oral e*amination o# a +itness shall !e made as soon as the $rounds there#or shall !ecome reasona!l" a&&arent, .n o##er o# evidence in +ritin$ shall !e o!%ected to +ithin three <-= da"s a#ter notice o# the o##er unless a di##erent &eriod is allo+ed !" the court, In an" case the $rounds #or the o!%ections must !e s&eci#ied, Section -> ' 69EN REPE)I)I(N (F (07EC)I(N 8NNECESS.R2 6hen it !ecomes reasona!l" a&&arent in the course o# the e*amination o# a +itness that the ;uestion !ein$ &ro&ounded are o# the same class as those to +hich o!%ection has !een made +hether such o!%ection +as sustained or overruled it shall not !e necessar" to re&eat the o!%ection it !ein$ su##icient #or the adverse &art" to record his continuin$ o!%ection to such class o# ;uestions, Section -8 R81ING )he rulin$ o# the court must !e $iven immediatel" a#ter the o!%ection is made unless the court desires to ta:e a reasona!le time to in#orm itsel# on the ;uestion &resented4 !ut the rulin$ shall al+a"s !e made durin$ the trial and at such time as +ill $ive the &art" a$ainst +hom it is made an o&&ortunit" to meet the situation &resented !" the rulin$, )he reason #or sustainin$ or overrulin$ an o!%ection need not !e stated, 9o+ever i# the o!%ection is !ased on t+o or more $rounds a rulin$ sustainin$ the o!%ection on one or some o# them must s&eci#" the $round or $rounds relied u&on, Section -5 ' S)RIJING (8) .NS6ER Should a +itness ans+er the ;uestion !e#ore the adverse &art" had the o&&ortunit" to voice #ull" its o!%ection to the same and such o!%ection is #ound to !e meritorious the court shall sustain the o!%ection and order the ans+er $iven to !e stric:en o## the record, (n &ro&er motion the court ma" also order the stri:in$ out o# ans+ers +hich are incom&etent irrelevant or other+ise im&ro&er, Section 3? ' )ENDER (F E@C18DED EVIDENCE I# documents or thin$s o##ered in evidence are e*cluded !" the court the o##eror ma" have the same attached to or made &art o# the record, I# the evidence e*cluded is oral the o##eror ma" state #or the record the name and other &ersonal circumstances o# the +itness and the su!stance o# the &ro&osed testimon", Parties who offer objections to questions on whatever ground are entitled to a ruling at the time the objection is made Enless they present a question with regard to which the court desires to inform itself before ma;ing a ruling (liveros vs, (liveros <1?B Phil -B5=23 @he trial courts should permit all e.hibits presented by the parties$ although not admitted$ to be attached to the records so that$ in case of appeal$ the appellate court may be able to e.amine the same and determine the propriety of their rejection 0aNeG vs, C. <15>3= Where documentary evidence was rejected by the trial court and the offeror did not move that the same be attached to the record$ the same cannot be considered by the appellate court De Castro vs, C. <>C Phil 823= =ocuments forming no part of the of proofs before the appellate court cannot be considered in disposing of the case?

1therwise$ it would infringe on the constitutional right of the adverse party to due process of law4& @he practice of e.cluding evidence on doubtful objections should be avoided

Prats E Co, vs, Phoeni* Insurance Co, <C2 Phil 8?>= *n a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of first instance$ in the early stages of the development of the proof$ to ;now with any certainty whether testimony is relevant or notG and where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the attorney offering the evidence$ the court may$ as a rule$ safely accept the testimony upon the statement of the attorney that the proof offered will be connected later Peo&le vs, Diano <C. BB (G B3?C= Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be considered for any other purpose Sheraton'Palace hotel vs, Hui%ano <C. B3 (G 5118= ( 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

*dentification of documentary evidence K its formal offer *dentification made in the course of the trial Evidence identified and mar;ed as e.hibits may be withdrawn before formal offer Formal offer when proponent rests his case Where objection may be made

Vda de Flores vs, 6CC <15>>=2B =ocuments which may have been mar;ed as e.hibits during the hearing but which were not formally offered in evidence cannot be considered as evidence nor can they be given evidentiary value Peo&le vs, /ate <1581= %+riminal case for ;idnapping with murder' Even if there was no formal offer of the e.hibits but the same have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and the e.hibits have been incorporated in the records of the case$ said e.hibits are admissible against the accused Peo&le vs, 7ose <15>B=2> +onsidering the gravity of the offenses and in the interest of justice$ the #+ 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 #ection :8 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, ., Jeller E Co, <1td,= vs, Ellerman E 0uc:nall Steamshi& Co, <1td,= <-8 Phil C13=

1o&eG vs, ValdeG <-2 Phil B33= *f no ruling is made during the course of the trial$ counsel would have no means of ;nowing whether or not he would be compelled to meet any evidence at all$ hence it would prejudice the substantial rights of his client Peo&le vs, Sin$h <3C Phil B3C= @he failure of the court to ma;e such ruling should be brought to its attention$ failing which the case cannot be reopened for a new trial on that ground Peo&le vs, )avera <3> Phil B3C= @he reservation of a ruling made by the court on an objection to the admissibility of evidence$ without subsequently e.cluding the same$ amounts to a denial of said objection Peo&le vs, .!alos <C. C8 (G C33B= @he courts should consider the evidence only for the purpose for which it was offered

43 4& 4A

(lso "amagan vs? =ela +ruD %7<87' @insay vs? Pusay %38 Phil A:<' (lso 0epublic vs? +( and People vs? +( %7<64'$ cf? People vs? Pecardal and #oliman vs? #andiganbayan %7<6A' 48 (lso +o vs? +a %7<65'

azereth page 3#

Presentation of Evidence Evidence

@he court itself may motu proprio treat the objection as a continuing one Peo&le vs, 0ande (n erroneous rejection or admission of evidence by the trial court is not a ground for a new trial or reversal of the decision if there are other independent evidence to sustain the decision$ or if the rejected evidence$ if it had been admitted$ would not have changed the decision

1therwise$ a new trial is warranted by reason of the erroneous ruling which goes into the merits of the case and would have affected the decision46

)insa" vs, 2usa" <3> Phil B-5= *f the trial court erroneously ruled out the evidence and discovered such error before the judgment had become final or before an appeal therefrom had been perfected$ it may reopen the case 0ulings 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


E# vs? )illanueva %76 Phil A:<'

azereth page 3$

(nde) Evidence

Weight and Evidence



Peo&le vs, Huilino <C. C? (G B8= @he failure of a party to present merely corroborative or cumulative evidence does not give rise to any adverse or unfavorable presumption

Rule 1-- 6ei$ht and Su##icienc" o# Evidence

Section 1 ' PREP(NDER.NCE (F EVIDENCE 9(6 DE)ER/INED In civil cases the &art" havin$ !urden o# &roo# must esta!lish his case !" a &re&onderance o# evidence, In determinin$ +here the &re&onderance or su&erior +ei$ht o# evidence on the issues involved lies the court ma" consider all the #acts and circumstances o# the case the +itnessesM manner o# testi#"in$ their intelli$ence their means and o&&ortunit" o# :no+in$ the #acts to +hich there are testi#"in$ the nature o# the #acts to +hich the" testi#" the &ro!a!ilit" or im&ro!a!ilit" o# their testimon" their interest or +ant o# interest and also their &ersonal credi!ilit" so #ar as the same ma" le$itimatel" a&&ear u&on the trial, )he court ma" also consider the num!er o# +itnesses thou$h the &re&onderance is not necessaril" +ith the $reater num!er, Section 2 ' PR((F 0E2(ND RE.S(N.01E D(80) In a criminal case the accused is entitled to an ac;uittal unless his $uilt is sho+n !e"ond reasona!le dou!t, Proo# !e"ond reasona!le dou!t does not mean such a de$ree o# &roo# e*cludin$ &ossi!ilit" o# error &roduces a!solute certainl", /oral certainl" onl" is re;uired or that de$ree o# &roo# +hich &roduces conviction in an un&re%udiced mind, #ections 7M4 give the rule on the requisite quantum of evidence in civil and criminal cases "ast 4 sentences of #ec72 factors which the court may ta;e into consideration in determining the weight to be given in testimonial evidence Evidence must be from a credible source and must be credible in itself *t shall be natural$ reasonable$ and probable as to ma;e it easy to believe @o be believed$ it should be in accord with common ;nowledge and e.perience of man;ind Leneral rule2 findings of judge who tried the case and heard the witnesses are not to be disturbed on appeal$ unless there are substantial facts and circumstances which have been overloo;ed and which$ if properly considered$ might affect the result of the case *ssue2 credibility of the witness - trial court is in the better position to decide the question$ having heard and observed the demeanor of the witness Enless it has plainly overloo;ed certain facts of substance and value which$ if considered$ might affect the outcome of the case =oes not apply if one judge heard the witnesses and another judge penned the decision

Peo&le vs, /a$allanes <15B8= @he matter of assigning values to declarations at the witness stand is best and most competently performed by a trial judge$ who$ unli;e appellate magistrates$ can weigh such testimony in light of the defendantBs behavior$ demeanor$ conduct and attitude at the trial$ and the conclusions of the trial courts command great weight and respect Peo&le vs, Enri;ueG <C. 33 (G -8C-= @he trial court should not discredit a witness by the supposed e.pression of lac; of sincerity in his face? Facial e.pressions are not necessarily indicative of oneBs feelings? @he trial court should have made it appear in the record and allowed the witness the opportunity to e.plain why he was showing such an e.pression on his face Caluna vs, Vicente <15C1= (s a general rule$ the number of witnesses should not in and by itself determine the weight of evidence$ but in case of conflicting testimonies of witnesses$ the numerical factor may be given certain weight

azereth page 3%

(nde) Evidence
Peo&le vs, Rivera <C. C8 (G B8= 9y credibility of a witness is meant his integrity$ disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testimony he has given as distinguished from the credibility of his testimony .rro"o vs, El 0eaterio del Santissimo Rosario de /olo <15B8= @o 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? +ompetency of a witness is one thing$ and it is another to be credible witness? +ourts 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 8S vs, /acuti <2B Phil 1>?= *t is a well-settled doctrine that the demeanor$ the emphasis$ gestures and inflection of the voice of a witness$ while testifying$ are potent aids in the proper evaluation of his credibility /ondra$on vs, C. <15>3= When a witness ma;es two sworn statements and these two statements incur in the gravest contradictions$ the court cannot accept either statement as proof? @he witness by his own act of giving false testimony impeaches his own testimony and the court should e.clude it from all consideration Peo&le vs, Re"es <C. C? (G BBC= *t has been said that Nperhaps the most subtle and prolific of all fallacies of testimony arises out of unconscious partisanship? Epon 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$ @he (rt of +ross-E.amination' Peo&le vs, 7uareG <C. C> (G 2C18= @he fact that a person has reached the Ntwilight of his lifeO is not always a guaranty that he would tell the truth? *t is also quite common that advanced age ma;es a person mentally dull and completely haDy about things which have happened to him and$ at times$ it wea;ens the resistance to outside influence 8S vs, 1a!an <21 Phil 25>= @he record of a P* constitutes no part of the final proceedings in a cause$ unless it is presented in evidence$ and the facts adduced therein are evidence only for the purpose of testing the credibility of the witnesses 9ias that which e.cites the disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are Peo&le vs, 6atin <C. B> (G C855= When the witnesses on both sides are equally interested or otherwise biased$ especially if there is no numerical preponderance on either side$ bias ceases to be a consideration in determining where the weight of evidence rests? +redit should be given to the one whose demeanor and manner of testifying convinces the court of his veracity @estimony of interested witness not necessarily biased or self-serving 9ut may affect their credibility sufficient number to prove the commission of the crime *nconsistencies on mere details do not impair the credibility of the witness (ctually indicate veracity rather than prevarication Perfect dovetailing of witnesses testimonies can generate suspicion prefabricated story Falsus in uno$ falsus in omnibus deals only with eight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law and the rule is not an infle.ible one of universal application !odern trend testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part =epending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case =oes not apply where2 7? @he challenged testimony is sufficiently corroborated on many grounds 4? @he falsity consists of mista;es on points that are not material :? #uch mista;es do not arise from the apparent desire to pervert the truth but from innocent lapses and the desire of the witness to e.culpate himself but not completely

Peo&le vs, .!onales <1?B Phil 15?= @he non-production of a corroborative witness without any e.planation given why he was not so produced$ wea;ens the testimony of the witness who named the corroborating witness in his testimony 0ape cases2 corroborative statements not required 9ut testimony should be e.ercised with greatest care

Garcia vs, Garcia <B- Phil 315= @he testimony of persons accidentally present at the time of the e.ecution of the will$ but who have nothing to do with the transaction$ is not as weighty as that of the subscribing witness (ffirmative testimony stronger than negative testimony Lreater weight must be given to the positive testimony of the witness than to the denial of the defendant +onflict in the testimony of 4 witnesses may be due to difference in observation or memory =oes not necessarily imply falsehood =elay of the witness in revealing to the authorities what he ;nows of the crime does not render his testimony false (ttributed to natural reticence and abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case 1r inherent fear of reprisal 1r intense grief 0elationship of witness to the victim does not impair his clear and positive testimony nor give it lesser credit Enless there is a showing of improper motive

)unala vs, Diola <C. B2 (G 353B= Where a party resorts to falsehood to advance his suit$ it is presumed that he ;nows perfectly well that his cause is groundless$ and this presumption affects the whole mass of evidence presented by such party (ffidavits generally subordinated in importance to open court declarations 1ften e.ecuted when the affiant is at a high pitch of e.citement ,ot 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 =iscrepancies between the affidavit and the open court statement =o not discredit the witness because e. parte affidavits are generally incomplete for want of suggestion and inquiries =oes not apply where the self-contradiction or inconsistencies are on very material and substantial matters

Peo&le vs, .;uino <15>3= While the testimony of a co-conspirator or an accomplice is admissible$ such testimony comes from a polluted source and must be scrutiniDed with great caution as it is subject to grave suspicion @estimony of a single witness may support a conviction if trustworthy and reliable (nd clear and convincing @estimony of offended party not essential to convict accused if there are already other evidence to prove the guilt of the accused Prosecution not obliged to present each and every person who witnesses the occurrence but only a

azereth page &

(nde) Evidence
1nly prima facie evidence of wea; probative force and should be received with caution +onspiracy need not establish that all parties agreed to every detail Enough that it may be reasonably deduced that they had a common plan to commit the felony 9ut must be proven beyond reasonable doubt ,eed not be established by direct evidence !ay be proved by a number of indefinite acts$ conditions and circumstances >ualifying and aggravating circumstances must be proved in an evident and incontestable manner (s conclusively as the crime itself #elf-defense one who sets up must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the wea;ness of the prosecution >uantum2 clear and convincing evidence (libi one of the wea;est defenses !ay be considered only when established by positive$ clear and satisfactory evidence !ust be physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission #trong defense when there is no positive and proper identification of the accused as the author of the offense When set up$ the court should not at once have a mental prejudice against him 0es ipsa loquitur the fact of the occurrence of an injury$ ta;en with the surrounding circumstances$ may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence or ma;e out a plaintiffBs prima facie case and present a question of fact for the defendant to meet with an e.planation =octrine is merely evidentiary or procedural in nature =oes not dispense with the requirement of proof of negligence

Section - ' E@)R.78DICI.1 C(NFESSI(N N() S8FFICIEN) GR(8ND F(R C(NVIC)I(N .n e*tra%udicial con#ession made !" an accused shall not !e su##icient $round #or conviction unless corro!orated !" evidence o# corpus delicti, +orpus delicti actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged +ommon fact made up of 4 things2 E.istence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge E.istence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result *dentity of the accused not a necessary element "iterally means Nbody of the crimeO Proved when the evidence on record shows that the crime prosecuted had been committed @heft2 corpus delicti 7? Property was lost by the owner 4? *t was lost by felonious ta;ing +rime may be established without recovery of the property *llegal possession of firearms 7? E.istence of the firearm 4? *t has actually been held with animus possidendi by the accused without the corresponding license !urder2 corpus delicti is the fact of death Where there is doubt as to the identity of the cadaver$ in the absence of any other evidence$ there is no corpus delicti ( mere voluntary e.trajudicial 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 9ut corpus delicti is not synonymous with the whole charge ,eed not require that all the elements of the crime be established independently Were it required that$ independent of the confession$ evidence be adduced sufficient in itself to convict$ the utility of a confession as a species of proof would be illusory

Peo&le vs, .;uiedo <1?8 Phil 18B= Where one accused withdraws his appeal after realiDing the futility of his defense$ and the other escapes from confinement thereby causing the dismissal of his appeal$ said acts are unmista;able signs of guilt Flight evidence of guilt and a guilty conscience N@he wic;ed flee even when no man pursueth$ whereas the righteous are as brave as a lionO ,on-flight not an indication of innocence Payment of +ontinuous payment evidence of great weight in favor of ownership$ especially if accompanied by 1+E(, possession 9ut not conclusive evidence of ownership ,on-payment indicative of the fact that claimant does not believe himself to be the owner of the property !otive of the accused in a criminal case immaterial 9ut necessary in the following instances2 7? Where identity of the assailant is in question 4? @o determine the voluntariness of the criminal act or the sanity of the accused :? @o determine from which side the unlawful aggression commenced %self-defense' 3? @o determine the specific nature of the crime committed %murder or homicide' &? @o determine whether the shooting was intentional or accidental A? Where the accused contended that he acted in the defense of a stranger 8? Where the evidence is circumstantial and inconclusive 6? Where malice is an element of the offense !ere proof of motive$ no matter how strong$ cannot sustain a conviction if there is no other evidence establishing the guilt of the accused Evidence is wea;$ without any motive reasonable doubt N@otality of circumstanceO test used for the admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identification of suspects Factors2 7? WitnessB opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime 4? WitnessB degree of attention at the time :? (ccuracy of any prior description given by the witness 3? "evel of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification &? "ength of time between the crime and the identification A? #uggestiveness of the identification procedure

Peo&le vs, Sasota <51 Phil 111= When the comple. crime of robbery with homicide is charged and the e.trajudicial confession of the accused of the entire charge is corroborated by corpus delicti of homicide alone$ the entire confession is admissible although there is no independent evidence of the robbery Section 3 ' CIRC8/S).N)I.1 EVIDENCE 69EN S8FFICIEN) Circumstantial evidence is su##icient #or conviction i#A a, )here is more than one circumstances4 !, )he #acts #rom +hich the in#erences are derived are &roven4 and c, )he com!ination o# all the circumstances is such as to &roduce a conviction !e"ond reasona!le dou!t, Peo&le vs, )an'Choco4 Peo&le vs, 7ara <158B= *n order to convict a person accused of a crime on the strength of circumstantial evidence alone$ it is incumbent upon the prosecution to present such circumstantial evidence which will and must necessarily lead to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt$ e.cluding all and each and every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence +ircumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction in capital offenses

azereth page 1

(nde) Evidence
E.cept when law specifies the quantum of evidence$ such as in treason Falsification$ bigamy and libel - circumstantial evidence not sufficient to sustain a conviction =ocuments involved must be presented 9igamy2 direct evidence of first marriage is necessary 0eputation or cohabitation merely corroborative #ame as in adultery$ parricide or other cases where issue of marriage is primarily involved Prior and coetaneous$ as well as subsequent$ acts of the accused are circumstantial evidence of guilt While motive of the accused is generally immaterial not being an element of the crime$ such motive becomes important when the evidence of the crime is purely circumstantial

Peo&le vs, )urto$a <2??2= @he fact that the accused was in dire need of money and the victim scolded him for soliciting a loan from her$ robbery as the motive e.plains the ;illing Section C ' S80S).N)I.1 EVIDENCE In cases #iled !e#ore administrative or ;uasi'%udicial !odies a #act ma" !e deemed esta!lished i# it is su&&orted !" su!stantial evidence or that amount o# relevant evidence +hich a reasona!le mind mi$ht acce&t as ade;uate to %usti#" a conclusion, 0ia:'na'0ato /inin$ Co, vs, )anco <1551= #ubstantial evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof as required in ordinary civil cases$ but such ;ind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion 1r evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs

Section B ' P(6ER (F )9E C(8R) )( S)(P F8R)9ER EVIDENCE )he court ma" sto& the introduction o# #urther testimon" u&on an" &articular &oint +hen the evidence u&on it is alread" so #ull that more +itnesses to the same &oint cannot !e reasona!l" e*&ected to !e additionall" &ersuasive, 0ut this &o+er should !e e*ercised +ith caution, Guinea vs, Vda, De Ramonal <15>C= @he court has the power to stop the introduction of testimony which will merely be cumulative Section > ' EVIDENCE (N /()I(N 6hen a motion is !ased on #acts not a&&earin$ o# record the court ma" hear the matter on a##idavits or de&ositions &resented !" the res&ective &arties !ut the court ma" direct that the matter !e heard +holl" or &artl" on oral testimon" or de&ositions, Sa&ida vs, De Villanueva <15>2= While the court may hear and rule upon motions solely on the basis of affidavits or counter-affidavits$ if the affidavits contradict each other on matters of fact$ the court can have no basis to ma;e its findings of fact and the prudent course is to subject the affiants to cross-e.amination so that the court can decide whom to believe

azereth page 2