Evidence Case Doctrines

I. Definition and Scope ,udicial /otice Sections 1-2, Rule 128 Sections 1-1, Rule 12# Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil 6 ! "1# 8$ %eld& The constitutional right of an accused to be confronted by the witnesses against him does not apply to preliminary hearings' nor will the absence of a preliminary examination be an infringement of his right to confront witnesses. Preliminary investigation may be done away with entirely without infringing the constitutional right of an accused under the due process clause to a fair trial '(ala de Ro)as v. *ase, 8 Phil 1#+ "1#!+$ %eld& There is no vested right in a mere rule of evidence Rewt of the Span Law is not substantive rather than evidential in its nature If substantive then the appellant has failed to comply with it! if not substantive but merely a matter of procedure then it must be ta"en to be replaced by the corresponding provisions of our new code. #e find therein no e$uivalent provision Pp v. ,aca, 1!6 Phil -+2 "1#-#$ %eld& %ven in case of doubt as to the materiality or relevancy of such $uestion it would be more in "eeping with the administration of &ustice to allow the answer to such $uestion and render the ruling as to its admissibility when all the evidence are in $uestion of the relevancy of such evidence therefore remains to be considered in connection with the suppletory and correlative evidence introduced If no testimony is introduced tending in any way to show its applicability the court should on motion of the party against whom it was offered exclude it from the &ury or instruct them to disregard it. 'ut if there is additional evidence tending to show the relevancy of that in aid of which it was offered it becomes the peculiar province of the (ury of &udge of its sufficiency to subserve its intended purpose. II. .hen /ot Re0uired /LS0 Law- 1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Ba2uio v. 3da. De ,ala2at, 2 S*R' 11+ "1#+1$ %eld& The lower court can ta"e &udicial notice of the finality of a &udgment in a case that was previously pending and thereafter was decided by it. )ourts have also ta"en &udicial notice of previous cases to determine whether or not the case pending is a moot one or whether or not a previous ruling is applicable in the case under consideration here was no denial as to the truth of the statement made by the lower court &udge that there was a prior dismissal of the same complaint against the predecessor* in*interest of defendants. +o denial that prop involved is the same and the finality of the decision in the prior case. Prieto v. 'rro(o, 1 S*R' - # "1#6-$ %eld& ,eneral rule- courts are not authori.ed to ta"e &udicial notice in the ad&udication of cases pending before them of the contents of other cases even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been tried or pending before the same &udge. 4a5uena v. *', 1#6 S*R' 6-! "1##1$ %eld& gen rule- courts are not authori.ed to ta"e &udicial notice in the ad&udication of cases pending before them of the contents of the records of other cases even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been heard or are actually pending b before the same &udge. exception- in the absence of ob&ection and as a matter of convenience to all parties a court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it when with the "nowledge of the opposing party reference is made to it for that purpose by name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated! or when the original record of Page 5

Evidence Case Doctrines

the former case or any part of it is actually withdrawn from the archives by the court's direction at the re$uest or with the consent of the parties and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pending. 'l6ua v. ,ohnson, 21 Phil 1!8 "1#12$ %eld& #e hold that this court as well as the court below may and should ta"e &udicial notice of the fact under the provisions of section 825 of the )ode of )ivil Procedure! and an extract from the official copy of the administrative order designate him for that duty which was furnished to all the courts of the Islands. The admission of the truth of material and relevant facts well pleaded does not extend to render a demurrer an admission of interference or conclusions drawn therefrom even if alleged in the pleading! nor mere inferences or conclusions from facts not stated! nor conclusions of law! nor matters of evidence! nor surplusage and irrelevant matter. 9urthermore it is settled that the general rule touching admissions by demurrer does not apply where the court may ta"e &udicial notice that the facts alleged are not true! nor does it apply to legally impossible facts! nor to facts which appear unfounded by a record incorporated in the pleading or by a document referred to! nor to general averments contradicted by more specific averments. 475oli '2ro-Industrial Develop8ent, Inc. v. Solilapsi, 1# S*R' 26# "2!!2$ %eld& :s a general rule courts are not authori.ed to ta"e &udicial notice in the ad&udication of cases pending before them of the contents of other cases even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been tried or are actually pending before the same &udge. )ourts may be re$uired to ta"e &udicial notice of the decisions of the appellate courts but not of the decisions of the coordinate trial courts or even of a decision or the facts involved in another case tried by the same court itself unless the parties introduce the same in evidence or the court as a matter of convenience decides to do so &udicial notice of matters which ought to be "nown to &udges because of their

&udicial functions is only discretionary upon the court. It is not mandatory. Pp v. 9odo(, 2-! S*R' 6+6 "1##-$ %eld& The )ourt ta"es &udicial cogni.ance of the fact that in rural areas in the Philippines young ladies are strictly re$uired to act with circumspection and prudence. ,reat caution is observed so that their reputations shall remain untainted. :ny breath of scandal which brings dishonor to their character humiliates their entire families. It could precisely be that complainant's mother wanted to save face in the community where everybody "nows everybody else and in an effort to conceal her daughter's indiscretion and escape the wagging tongues of their small rural community she had to weave the scenario of this rape drama. Repu5lic v *' 9.R. /o. - 886 %eld& The alleged practice of the post office of stamping immediately on the envelope the date on which a letter was posted is one that cannot be a proper sub&ect of &udicial notice. It is not covered under Section 5 and 2 of Rule 52;. (udicial notice of facts is measured by general "nowledge of the same facts. : fact is said to be generally recogni.ed or "nown when its existence or operation is accepted by the public without $ualification or contention. The test is whether the 'act involved is so notoriously "nown as to ma"e it proper to assume its existence without proof. The fact that a belief is not universal however is not controlling for it is very seldom that any belief is accepted by everyone. It is enough that the matters are familiarly "nown to the ma&ority of man"ind or those persons familiar with the particular matter in $uestion. (udicial notice rests on the discretion of the courts. 9alle2o v. People 9.R. /o. 182 + %eld& +othing prohibits the ): from ta"ing cogni.ance of a municipal ordinance. The Ro) en&oins courts to ta"e &udicial notice of matters which are capable of un$uestionable demonstration. RT)s should ta"e &udicial notice of municipal ordinances within their respective &urisdictions. Page 2

/LS0 Law- 1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527

Evidence Case Doctrines

*it( of :anila v 9arcia 1# S*R' 11 %eld& The charter of <anila re$uires all courts sitting therein to ta"e &udicial notice of all ordinances passed by the municipal board. :lso the courts may well ta"e &udicial notice of the fact that housing school children in the elementary grades has been and still a perennial problem in the city. Sections 2 -2-, Rule 112 ;ao <ee v S(-9on6ales 16+ S*R' +16 %eld& Philippine courts cannot ta"e &udicial notice of foreign laws. They must be alleged and proved as any other fact. In the absence of proof of the )hines law on marriage it should be presumed to be the same as ours ;processual presumption7. =lue8er v %i) - Phil 61! %eld& The laws of a foreign &urisdiction do not prove themselves in our courts. Philippine courts are not authori.ed to ta"e &udicial notice of the laws of the various States of the :merican union. Such laws must be proved as facts. Sections 28 and 2= of Rule 5>2 must be complied with. *ollector of Internal Revenue v =isher 11! Phil 686 %eld& In the absence of proof the court is &ustified in presuming that the law of %ngland is the same as the Philippine law! in the absence of any ante*nuptial agreement the contracting parties are presumed to have adopted the system of con&ugal partnership as to the properties ac$uired during their marriage. :lthough it is desirable that foreign laws be proved in accordance with the )ode of )ivil Procedure 3Ro)7 the S) held in Willamette Iron and Steel Works v Muzzal that its reading do not exclude the presentation of other competent evidence to prove the existence of a foreign law. In that case the S) considered the testimony of an attorney*at*law of San 9rancisco )alifornia who $uoted verbatim a section of the )alifornia )ivil )ode and who stated that the same was in force at the time the obligations were contracted as sufficient evidence to establish the existence of said law. /LS0 Law- 1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527

P*IB v >scolin -6 S*R' 266 %eld& #hatever might ultimately appear at the subse$uent proceedings to be actually the laws of Texas on the matter would no longer be of any conse$uence since P)I' would anyway be in estoppels already to claim that the estate of <rs. ?odges should be less than as contended by it now for admissions by a party related to the effects of foreign laws which have to be proven in our courts li"e any other controverted fact create estoppel. :anufacturers %anover 4rust *o. v 9uerrero 1#+ S*R' +!# %eld& 9oreign laws are not a matter of &udicial notice. They must be alleged and proven. Section 28 of Rule 5>2 has exceptions 3e.g. #illamette and 9isher cases7. ?owever it cannot be relied on in this case because the #alden affidavit was ta"en abroad ex parte and the affiant never testified in open court. The #alden affidavit cannot be considered as proof of +ew 1or" law on damages not only because it is self*serving but also because it does not state the specific +ew 1or" law on damages. Section 6, Rule 11! .ildvalle( Shippin2 *o. Ltd. v *' 1 2 S*R' 211 %eld& 9oreign laws do not prove themselves in our &urisdiction and our courts are not authori.ed to ta"e &udicial notice of them. : distinction must be made as to the manner of proving a written and unwritten law. The former falls under Section 25 Rule 5>2. #here the foreign law sought to be proved is @unwritten@ the oral testimony of expert witnesses is admissible as are printed and published boo"s of reports of decisions of the courts of the country concerned if proved to be commonly admitted in such courts. The court has interpreted Section 28 of Rule 5>2 to include competent evidence li"e the testimony of a witness to prove the existence of a written foreign law. #hen a foreign statue is involved the best evidence rule re$uires that it be proved by a duly authenticated copy of the statute. #ith respect to proof of written laws parol proof is ob&ectionable for the written law is the best evidence. 0nder the rules of private international law a foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved

Page >

*alupitan 2+ Phil 8 "1#1 $ 9actsThe properties of Lucido were sold to Rosales and Aolaivar. Its admission was proper especially in view of the fact that it was signed by )alupitan himself who was the time acting as his own attorney. 'orromeo 'ros. #hile they may nonetheless be utili. instituted in the )9I of Leyte original proceedings for confirmation and registration of title in its favor of a parcel of land fronting the sea in the coastal town of San Isidro Leyte. . Then Rosales and Aolaivar with the consent of Lucido sold the properties to )alupitan. The original application of the )ompany claimed that the land was formed by alluvium by action of the sea but it later amended its application which was allowed by the lower court that it was instead formed from accretions of soil and sediment carried from higher places by the currents of the Si*ong and Sinubdan )ree"s. /octrine9urther indication that )alupitan himself considered this transaction as a sale with the right to redemption is found in his original answer to the complaint. (ones on %vidence 3secs. 'ut some of the authorities still hold that if the pleading is not signed by the party there should be some proof that he has authori. Pleadings that have been amended disappear from the record lose their status as pleadings and cease to be &udicial admissions. #hen Lucido tendered payment to )alupitan )alupitan claimed the sale was not with a right to redeem. 4orres v. This original answer was introduced in evidence by the plaintiff over the ob&ection of the defendant. Director of Lands v.<any of the cases holding that pleadings inadmissible as admissions were based on the theory that most of the allegations were merely pleaderDs matter 6 fiction stated by counsel and sanctioned by the courts.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 . /octrineThe )ourt of :ppeals correctly overruled the petitioner's contention that the averment in the original application for registration attributing the origin of the land to the action of the sea which averment with leave of court was later superseded by an amendment to the effect that the land was formed by the action of rivers was binding on the private respondent as a &udicial admission. The whole modern tendency is to re&ect this view and to treat pleadings as statements of the real issues in the cause and hence as admissions of the parties having weight according to the circumstances of each case. %state Inc.ed it. It does not appear that the original application for registration containing the averment in $uestion or that particular averment itself was offered or received in evidence for the petitioner in the Trial )ourt. Rule 12# Lucido v.Evidence Case Doctrines as a fact otherwise it will be presumed to be the same as our own local or domestic law.ed against the pleader as extra*&udicial admissions they must in order to have such effect be formally offered in evidence.udicial 'd8issions Section . Bn the same date of the sale Lucido and )alupitan executed a document admitting a sale and that the redemption of Lucido of the said properties will only ta"e effect > years from the signing of the said document. 2C2 2C>7. Bn the same principles where amended pleadings have been filed allegations in the original pleadings are held admissible but in such case the original pleadings can have no effect unless formally offered in evidence. *ourt of 'ppeals 1#6 S*R' # "1##1$ 9acts)orporation R. The /irector of Lands opposed said motion. #hat is in dispute here is whether the children from the first marriage admitted that the child from the second marriage is a legitimated child of their <argarita Torres and Page 8 /LS0 Law. *ourt of 'ppeals 111 S*R' 2 "1#8 $ 9actsThis is a case between the 3plaintiffs7 legitimate children of <argarita Torres from her first marriage and her child 3defendant7 with her second husband who was born when <argarita was not yet married to her second husband.

Evidence Case Doctrines her second husband. Later on )hua executed a deed of exchange transferring a parcel of land to (:L%)B for 52 444 shares of said corporation! )hua subse$uently sold the shares to different persons.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Page = . :s early as 5.@ /ational Irri2ation v. The Roxas spouses adduced evidence which showed that they had received the loans aggregating !"#""".G 2=4."" with interest. )ontrary to petitioner's submission therefore there can be no estoppel by extra&udicial admission made in the original complaint for failure to offer it in evidence. *' 1## S*R' 1 # "1##1$ 9acts%layda sought recovery of loans extended to defendants in the aggregate sum of !"#""".44 66 of which the sum of P58 22>.. to principal 66 thus leaving a balance due from them of PE. of the Rules of )ourt. 'ecause of the failure of the companies to meet its obligation Philippine ban" filed a case against the companies and its surety. /octrine)hua's admission of the existence of the /eed of %xchange attached to the @Petition as :nnex @9@ falls s$uarely within the scope of Judicial Admissions under Section 8 Rule 52. C8. =2.44. >la(da v. 38E Phil.7 we have ruled that documents attached to the complaint are considered a part thereof and may be considered as evidence although they were not introduced as such. Olsen & Co. *' 1#. To counteract this evidence of the Roxases %layda tried to submit a statement prepared by her accountant to the effect that the total loan given by her to the spouses amounted to $%&#""". The rule providesJudicial Admissions. The said admission is in their original complaint which has been amended."" not !"#""". The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mista"e or that no such admission was made. /octrine?aving been amended the original complaint lost its character as a &udicial admission which would have re$uired no proof and became merely an extra&udicial admission the admissibility of which as evidence re$uired its formal offer. — :n admission verbal or written made by a party in the course of the proceeding in the same case does not re$uire proof. /octrine@an admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party ma"ing such admission and are conclusive as to him and that all proofs submitted by him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored whether ob&ection is interposed by the party or not . In Philippine 'an"Ds complaint it alleged that it found a property that was sub&ect to a deed of exchange between (:L%)B and )hua.44 and to pay as they did pay interest at the rate of 8F a month! and that the total payment made by them to %layda amounted to P552 GC8.ud2e Re2ino 1#2 S*R' 2 "1##!$ /LS0 Law.E5 was charged to interest at 58F per annum and P.44 and the other in the amount of P=4 444. Walter E.5. ."" on two separate occasions 66 one in the sum of P84 444. . S) affirmed.S*R' -6+ "1##1$ 9actsThere were three surety agreements made in favor of Philippine 'an" in this case with )hua acting as surety for 9ortune motors and 9orte <erchant. Philippine Ban? of *o88unications v.44! that they were re$uired to give and did give a @"ic"bac"@ of P54 444. The proffered statement was re&ected by the Trial )ourt on ob&ection of the Roxases on the ground that it was contrary to the &udicial admissions in plaintiff s complaint and was being presented after conclusion of the trial. .E5. )hua in his answer admitted the /eed of %xchange."" 3as stated in her complaint and as sought to be established by her in her evidence*in*chief7! that the payments made by the spouses on account thereof came up to only P554 8C8. In their answer the Roxases admitted having received said loans but claimed that the loans had been paid in full! that in fact their total payments exceeded the total obligation &ustly and actually due from them and they had been re$uired to pay usurious interests.2= in the case of Asia Banking Corporation v.

:na stipulated facts that showed that <aliwat had prior use to the name 9LBR<%+. /octrineSec.G27 Sta. The stipulation or agreement was accordingly -inding upon both parties.EE Brder of respondent &udge was received by the BS. In this connection it must be stated that admissions made by the parties in their pleadings or in the course of trial or other proceedings do not re$uire proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mista"e P*IB v.EE. The BS. )ounsels for both parties entered into a stipulation of facts which the court used to render &udgment. of a motion for extension of time.==. Rule 11! People v. /octrineIn petitioner's <otion for %xtension of Time to 9ile Petition for Review prepared by the BS. <inds of evidence A5Bect C Real Section 1.a5alde 1+2 S*R' 211 "1#8#$ 9acts- :n action for specific performance was commenced by Pedro Lim against defendant*appellee (abalde to compel the latter to execute a deed of reconveyance or repurchase covering seven parcels of land situated in Labangon )ebu )ity. H :dmission made by the parties in the pleadings or in the course of the trial or other proceedings do not re$uire proof and can not be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mista"e. 2. :ali@at 2 S*R' 1!18 "1#68$ 9actsIn 5.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Page G . :fter the rape incident she immediately had herself examines by officers and the examination showed that indeed she was raped.@ Since the stipulation of facts has not been shown to have been made through palpable mista"e it is vain for the petitioner to allege that the evidence for respondent <aliwat is false fabricated inconsistent indefinite contradictory unclear unconvincing and unsubstantial. he claimed its first use in commerce in 5. :na filed an application for the registration of the trademar" '()O*ME+. /octrineThe conduct of (uanita after the incident she lost no time the following day to have herself chec"ed then filed her complaint before the fiscals office after giving her testimony.# he claimed its first use in commerce in 5. The issue in this case is whether the result of the examination is sufficient to convict the accused. 161 S*R' 222 "1#88$ 9acts(uanita :ngeles 8> years old was raped by Sunpongco and three other people.G2 <aliwat sought to register the trademar" '()O*MA++. Li8 v. on :ugust = 5. of the Revised Rules of )ourt not only do not re$uire proof but more importantly @cannot -e contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mista"e. 'na v. . Judicial admissions.@ In the present case there was no showing that defendant*appellee acted under a @palpable mista"e@ at the time he entered into the stipulation of facts. /octrineSince the evidence was clearly controverted the stipulation or agreement of facts entered into by the parties at pre*trial it constitutes &udicial admissions by both parties which under Section 2 Rule 52. Paragraph 2 stated that the :ugust 2 5. a. Sunpon2co. >scolin supra Sta.Evidence Case Doctrines 9actsThis case concerns the filing of the BS. :s stated /LS0 Law.=.. :lso in the same year 35. /uring the course of the trial counsel for Sta. contends that it did not receive the respondent &udgeDs denial of the motion for extension of time.

arden where they saw the victim who was wearing yellow they thought he was a )ory loyalist so they chased him. Sison vs. /octrine: document is a Jdeed instrument or other duly authori.ed document evidencing an agreement for rent of a place in a theater to enable to possessor to witness a theatrical performance is a private document. 3illaflor vs. The corollary to the proposition is that an ocular inspection of the body of the accused is permissible. Docu8entar( Section 2. Arera 9actsThis case involves the falsification of the tic"et of )hinese theatrical )ompany by counterfeiting and simulating the signature of one %ng Ting on the tic"et. The group proceeded to )hinese . People 9actsStephen Salcedo a "nown J)oryistaK was murdered. Salcedo was stabbed by few members of the group. 'y using the photograph they already admitted its accuracy and exactness. )ompetent witnesses can also testify. Su88ers 9acts%meteria Iillaflor and 9lorentino Souingco are charged with the crime of adultery. Bnce again we lay down the rule that the constitutional guaranty that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself is limited to a prohibition against compulsory testimonial self*incrimination.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 testify to circumstances surrounded when the photograph was ta"en. ?owever since they do not have a permit they were dispersed by the police officers. The proviso is that torture of force shall be avoided.ano and +uega.ed paper by which something is proved evidenced or set forthK and a private document is Jevery deed or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a public notary or of other person legally authori. It follows that the tic"et being an authori. There was a rally held in Luneta by the <arcos loyalist which was led my Lo. Rule 112 D.ed by which document some disposition or agreement is proved evidenced or set forthK. 4esti8onial Page C . The sole legal issue from the admitted facts is whether the compelling of a woman to permit her body to be examined by physicians to determine if she is pregnant violates that portion of the Philippine 'ill of Rights and that portion of our )ode of )riminal Procedure which find their origin in the )onstitution of the 0nited States and practically all state constitutions and in the common law rules of evidence providing that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Rule 11! Section 1#. It spea"s more elo$uently than a hundred witnesses. :lso the accused made use of the said photographs to allege their non participation in the crime. The photographer however is not the only person who can testify on the pictures. vs. /octrinePhotographs when presented in evidence must be identified by the photographer who too" the picture as to its production and /LS0 Law. The value of this evidence lies in its correct representation of the original. /octrineThe rules of evidence and constitutional provisions are then provided not to protect the guilty but to protect the innocent.Evidence Case Doctrines by the S) Physical evidence is evidence of the highest order.S. The incident was witnessed by bystanders and several people from the press who too" pictures and videos.

eneral Luna the houses of these )hinese were sac"ed. Bb&ection prior to that time is premature. )olonel Tecson conducted the investigation and testified that he proceeded in the hearing pursuant to the provisions of the <ilitary )ode made up of orders of the )ommanding .GG which they converted to their own personal use and benefit. to collect payments from various clients for airway bills in the amount of P248 4>4. I3. The defendants along with others participated directly. Some )hinese in the municipality had been suspected of being spies of the :mericans. Interpacific 4ransit v.Evidence Case Doctrines Section 2!. /octrineThe entire records of the case show that the defense did not formally offer in evidence such sworn statements. The prosecution must establish its case by evidence which ta"en together is found to be clear and convincing and remembering finally that the testimony of the witnesses for the defense are not to be re&ected without good reason but are to be given in view of the circumstances of this case special consideration. :fter examining many persons both in +ueva %ci&a and in Tarlac )olonel Tecson says that he found it to be true that the dead )hinese had been spies who had transmitted information to the :mericans. v. 8.eneral Luna 3in command of the Revolutionary forces in the +orth7 issued an order to the authorities of the Revolutionary . 1+6 S*R' 1# "1#8#$ 9actsThe petitioner obtained a loan in the amount of P> 444. The issue here is whether the testimony of Tecson be given credence. 5. Affer and A5Bection Sections 1 -1#. The certificate of sale was registered Page E /LS0 Law. /uring the trial the prosecution introduced photocopies of the airway bills as evidence in the course of the direct examination of one of the prosecution witnesses. Rule 11! D. :ccused appealed saying among others that the trial court failed to consider the sworn statements of (enny :rceo Ricardo Sibay and <elencio Talisic which contradicted the finding of conspiracy.44 on :pril 2. 1# Phil #!1 "1#1#$ 9acts.S. /octrineBb&ection to documentary evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered as an exhibit and not before. :nd these were subse$uently admitted by the trial court.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 . +ine )hinese men were ta"en to the barrio of 'alucot and "illed. 186 S*R' 18"1##!$ 9actsRufo and (osephine :viles were accused of using their positions as sub*agents of Interpacific Transit Inc. Pa2aduan.overnment under his &urisdiction to hunt down and "ill all spies. The defense ob&ected when the photocopies were being identified for mar"ing by the prosecution 3identification7 but did not ob&ect when the exhibits as previously mar"ed were formally offered 3formal offer7 in evidence. Rule 112 People v. Pursuant to the circular of . 9or her failure to pay the debt the mortgage was extra&udicially foreclosed and the land was sold at public auction to the private respondents for P8 . Carino 5G= S)R: GG8 35. I'*.CG.2=. 'viles. De los Re(es v. %vidence not formally offered cannot be considered by the court only those that were formally offered to it.eneral.44 from the Rural 'an" of 'auan and secured the payment thereof with a real estate mortgage on a piece of land belonging to her. /octrineThe testimony of witnesses such are found in the present case while rightly sub&ect to careful scrutiny should not be re&ected if found to be reasonable and consistent and not contradicted by evidence from any reliable source.EE7 9acts- This is a case of homicide and frustrated homicide.

It was premature for the &udge to have the confession excluded. /octrineThe prosecution has not yet identifying :tty.44 plus interest as the redemption price for the sub&ect land. Phila82en v.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 /avao consisting of G44 bags of Low densioty Pluethylene G>5 and G 844 bags of Low /ensity Ployethylene G8C both consigned to the order of 9ar %ast 'an" and Trust )o wM arrival notice to Tagum Plastics.Evidence Case Doctrines with the Register of /eeds of 'atangas on <ay 8 5. Inc. *atuira v. *'. )argoes were covered with 'ills of Ladings G and C! insured by Tagum Plastics with Philamgen. 211 S*R' 1# "1##2$ 9actsIessel SS Iishva 1ash owned by The Shipping )o of India Limited 3S)I7 too" on board 2 consginments of cargoes to <anila and then to /LS0 Law. /octrine#hen the due execution and genuineness of an instrument are deemed admitted because of the adverse party's failure to ma"e a specific verified denial thereof the instrument need not be presented formally in evidence for it may be considered an admitted fact. The letters were formally submitted during the hearing of the petitioner's motion to dismiss on <ay . S@eet Lines. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. 2-! S*R' 281 "1##-$ 9actsLeonor Taguba bought Lot +o. 9ull payment has been made. Lavier who is testifying for the extra&udicial confession of )onsu&i. She maintains that they were part of the record of the case and that the trial &udge had a right and duty to consider them in arriving at his summary &udgment. 216 S*R' 1#8 "1## $ 9acts:n information was filed against the accused for the violation of 'P 22. The parties however failed to reduce their contract in writing. De Anate v. /octrineBffer of evidence.CE at which counsel for both parties were present. #+ Phil # ! "1#--$ 9acts)onsu&i and Panganiban were charged with the crime of murder for the "illing of Ramos.CE to the Provincial Sheriff of 'atangas tendering the amount of P8 . The prosecution presented :tty. Leonor Taguba eventually died. The petitioner contends otherwise. Petitioner however did not raise any ob&ection regarding the presentation of evidence during the pendency of the trial in the lower court. ?e added though that the petitioner's re$uest was @being seriously considered. 3da. Lavier much less offer him as a witness when the &udge ordered its exclusion. In a reply dated :pril 2G 5. The dismissal of her petition by the )ourt of :ppeals was proper because her failure to comply with the mandatory re$uirement of Section 5 Rule G= of the Rules of )ourt to submit certified true copies of the assailed orders of the trial court rendered her petition deficient in form and substance. The respondent &udge excluded such testimony for failing to offer it. /e Bnate for P=444 payable in 8 installments. . 5.. The complaint was filed when demand was made upon %lvira to execute a public Page .atco.CE the said officer refused to accept the tender on the ground that the period of redemption had already expired. :ccordingly she paid P22=4 PC=4 P5444 and another P5444. People v. 5=C5 a riceland in )agayan from %lvira <ato Ida. The private respondents $uestion the admissibility of these documents stressing that they have not at any time been formally offered.CC. )atuira filed a motion to $uash alleging that the pieces of evidence presented are not enough to lead to a conviction. . #hile this case was pending the petitioner wrote a letter dated :pril 5. H The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. /octrinePetitioner can raise at the trial the $uestion now being posed in her petition she has in contemplation of the rules a plain speedy and ade$uate remedy in the ordinary course of law.2=. *'.

R. Badilla. Instead the counsel blatantly refused to offer any of the exhibits for un"nown reasons. %lvira appealed to ): saying that the trial court made an error in ta"ing cogni.Bb&ections against the admission of any evidence must be made at the proper time and that if not so made it will be understood to have been waived. (ones when he was not presented as a witness to identify said certificate. The evidence in $uestion all show varying amounts paid by Leonor to %lvira which were mar"ed at the pre*trial for purpose of identifying them. 9ailure to ob&ect operates as a waiver."1##!$ 9acts.'adilla $uestions the admissibility of the post*mortem certificate signed by /r. /octrineThe case having been submitted for decision the counsel should have offered the exhibits he had presented during the trial which was the alleged deed conferring title on the original defendant. 12.S*R' 128 "1#81$ 9actsThe lot in $uestion was purchased by Petrona and her husband from <alinta. Page 54 . Re(es. %xhibits cannot be considered as evidence which had been offered /LS0 Law. 12 Phil 1 "1#!8$ ?eld.Evidence Case Doctrines document of sale in favor of Taguba and her heirs. 9. Sandi2an5a(an. It was also incorporated and made part of the case. People v.S*R' -. 2 /ov 1#86 %eld& : supposed confession of appellant which had not been formally and specifically offered in evidence by the prosecution is not admissible. There is a difference between I/%+TI9I):TIB+ B9 /B)0<%+T:R1 %II/%+)% and 9BR<:L B99%R :S :+ %L?I'IT. The exhibits were also explained by witnesses and were sub&ect of the cross examination of %lviraDs counsel. # Phil +1# "1#16$ %eld& #hen no timely ob&ection was made against the admission of parol evidence in repect to a contract relative to real estate and when the motion to stri"e out said evidence came too late! and if on the other hand the party against whom such evidence was presented cross*$uestioned the witnesses who testified in respect to the contract the said party will be understood to have waived the benefits of the law and such parol evidence is competent and admissible. 3these are receipts of payments mentioned above7. % without seeing the original this is not the ob&ection that is raised in his appeal. The first is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the mar"ing of the evidence as an exhibit while the second is done only when the party rests its case and not before. The proper to ma"e a protest or ob&ection is when from the $uestion addressed to the witness or from the answer thereto or from the presentation of the proof the inadmissibility of evidence is or may be inferred.ance of exhibits 9 9*5 9*2 and 9*> which had been mar"ed but never formally submitted in evidence. '5renica v.:cceptance of an incompetent witness in a civil suit as well as allowance of improper $uestions that may be put to him while on the stand is a matter within the discretion of the opposing litigant who may timely ob&ect or waive it. +11!-. Raci8o.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 and re&ected during the hearing so that they could be included in the record on appeal. /octrine9or an evidence to be considered it must be formally offered. /o. 18. It is a settled rule that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered 3Rule5>2 Section >=7. 0pon the death of her husband she as"ed for the issuance of its Spanish title called Informacion Posesoria. <oreover he did not ob&ect to its admissibility. 9onda. Soli8an v. 'lcara6 v. Since the evidence presented by the respondents was not formally offered as evidence the court did not ta"e the document into account and not used in deciding the case. The mere fact that a particular document is identified and mar"ed ans exhibit does not mean that it has already been offered as part of the evidence of a party. In this case even if 'adilla would not admit %xh. ?eld. In fact the P=444 payment was identified by LeonorDs sister during her recorded testimony. :arella v. %lvira refused.

Di8a(u2a. People v. The court may in its discretion stri"e out incompetent evidence although such evidence was given without ob&ection and although the motion to stri"e out is not made until the evidence is already in. 'so85ra v. ?e simply filed them after the trial of the case and while the case was already pending decision of the court a $uo. The court upon its own motion even during the closing argument of the counsel may stri"e out evidence improperly admitted. 4ender of >)cluded >vidence Section !. +. #8 S*R' 1+ "2!!6$ %eld& %vidence not formally offered to be admitted and considered by the trial court provided the following re$uirements are present vizfirst the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and second the same must have been incorporated in the records of the case. People v. :ate. They cannot even be /LS0 Law. /e )astro did not even follow the procedure outlined in the Rules of )ourt in order that they may be admitted as evidence if he had considered them material to the case. The court may also upon its own motion stri"e out evidence improperly admitted at any time during the day of the trial or at any time before the close of the trial.Evidence Case Doctrines Bnce admitted the &udge has no power to disregard it because it could have been excluded of ob&ected to nor can he stri"e it out on his own motion. -# S*R' 1. Ra8os v. Parties to the action are not precluded from as"ing the court to discard irrelevant and inadmissible evidence even though it had been previously admitted without ob&ection.uo to be attached to the record even if not admitted in evidence so t/at in case o0 an appeal# t/e court ad . ! S*R' 1!1 "1#+1$ %eld& It is the better practice to unite with the record exhibits which have been re&ected and that such re&ected or excluded exhibits should have been permitted by the &udge a . # Phil 88# "1#2+$ %eld& The protest or ob&ection against the admission of evidence should be presented at the time the evidence is offered and that the proper time to ma"e protest or ob&ection to the admissibility of evidence is when the $uestion is presented to the witness or at the time the answer thereto is given. #8 Phil -6# "1#-6$ %eld& #hen official records sought to be identified are not yet being presented in evidence nor the purpose thereof disclosed ob&ection thereto and the ruling sustaining the same are both premature. *'. *'. Bane6 v. Dorado. Di6on. %ven without the exhibits which have been incorporated into the records of the case the prosecution can still establish the case because the witnesses properly identified those exhibits and their testimonies are recorded.uem ma1 t/us -e a-le to e2amine said e2/i-its and to 3udge 4/et/er or not t/eir re3ection 4as erroneous. 'revalo v. 1!1 S*R' 8 "1#81$ =acts& The defense $uestions also the failure of the state prosecutor to ma"e a formal offer of his exhibits although they have been mar"ed and identified.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Page 55 . 16 Phil 811 "1#1+$ %eld& #hen no ob&ection is made in the lower court to the admissibility of evidence an ob&ection raised in the Supreme )ourt for the first time will not be considered."1#+ $ %eld& : party should as" that evidence ruled out at the trial be attached to record of case in order that same may be considered on appeal.Such an oversight appears trivial because the entire evidence for the prosecution is recorded. De la *ru6. 4eodoro.Phil 81 "1# 6$ =acts& The constancia and the decision of the <anila mayor were never formally offered as evidence at the hearing and cannot be considered as such. De *astro v. ?eld. Rule 112 La8a2an v.

-2 Phil 8!+ "1#1!$ %eld& (ustice is most effectively administered in the courts where trivial ob&ections to the admission of proof are received with least favor. the defendant is entitled to at least two days to prepare for trial. 22-21. v. /ue process re$uires that the parties be given the right to a hearing which includes the right of the party interested to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. *antiveros Though section 54> of the Philippine )ode of )ivil Procedure states that the genuineness and due execution of a written instrument Page 52 . Barcelon : document duly ac"nowledged before a notary public under his hand and seal with his certificate thereto attached is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution and delivery unless and until some $uestion raised as to the verity of said ac"nowledgment and certificate. In a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a &udge of first instance in the early stages of the development of the proof to "now with any certainty whether testimony is relevant or not! and where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the attorney offering the evidence the court may as a rule safely accept the testimony upon the statement of the attorney that the proof offered will be connected later. Docu8entar( Sections 1#-2!. :lthough an ocular inspection was conducted the wor"ers were still deprived of the opportunity to disprove what apparently was presented to the court during the ocular inspection.. 'leBandrino v. Phil. Inc. Prats E *o. If the (udge has any doubts that she wished to clarify after the termination of the trial she should have ordered motu proprio a reopening of the trial for this purpose and with due notice to the parties 3whose participation is essential to due process7. It was also improper for the (udge to go alone to the /LS0 Law. It is merely an auxiliary remedy the law affords the parties or the court to reach an enlightened determination of the case. Bou2h v. %eld& The order of exclusion is correct.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 place where the crime was committed without prior notice from the parties concerned let alone their consent. :oreno There cannot be any $uestion that a petition or a motion for postponement of hearing can be filed before or after arraignment. 3. Re(es The court only declined to admit the exhibits as evidence because they were private documents and that their authenticity had not yet been proven. '5uceBo-Lu6ano The (udge should have "nown that an ex*parte ocular inspection without notice or presence of the parties and after the case has already been decided was improper. Section 1. v. Pre8ier Productions. The court had every right to insist on the authenticity of the documents before receiving them in evidence. . Phoeni) Insurance *o. 'dan v. Rule 112 'ntillon v.Evidence Case Doctrines considered as evidence that had been offered and re&ected during the hearing. . :n ocular inspection is not the main trial nor should it exclude the presentation of other evidence which the parties may deem necessary to establish their case. The wor"ers were not given such right.or?ers7 'ssoc. :ovie Pictures . The proper time for filing said petition or motion is not provided for in section C of Rule 558 which is only intended to guaranty that @after a plea of not guilty . Rule 11! People v. The practice of excluding evidence on doubtful ob&ection to its materiality or technical ob&ection to the form of the $uestions should be avoided. PR>S>/4'4IA/ A5BectCReal.

Evidence Case Doctrines properly pleaded shall be deemed admitted unless the plaintiff or defendant specifically deny the same under oath. +either has that translation been agreed upon by the parties as a true and faithful one. *' :ccording to Section 2= Rule 5>2 of the Rules of )ourt when the SP: is executed and ac"nowledged before a notary public or other competent offcial in a foreign country it cannot -e admitted in evidence unless it is certi0ied -1 a secretar1 o0 em-ass1 or legation# consul general# consul# vice consul# or consular agent or -1 an1 o00icer in t/e 0oreign service o0 t/e /ilippines stationed in t/e /LS0 Law. v. 0oreign countr1 in 4/ic/ t/e record is kept o0 said pu-lic document and aut/enticated -1 t/e seal o0 /is o00ice5 Pacific 'sia Averseas Shippin2 *orp. Their probative value may either be substantiated or nullified by other competent evidence. Sections 2= and 2G of Rules 5>2 prescribe the manner of proving a public of official record of a foreign country in the following terms. Such documents however are not conclusive evidence. The %nglish translation does not purport to have been made by an official court interpreter of the Philippine .overnment nor of the /ubai . There is another problem in respect of the admissibility in evidence of the /ubai decision. *' The records show that the signatures which were used as @standards@ for comparison with the alleged signature of the private Page 5> Lope6 v. The %nglish translation submitted by the respondent is not sworn to as an accurate translation of the original decision in :rabic. B' =inance *orp. The /ubai decision is accompanied by a document which purports to be an %nglish translation of that decision. *' Public documents are presumed genuine and regular under the provisions of the Rules of )ourt but this presumption is a rebuttable presumption which may be overcome by clear strong and convincing evidence not conclusion evidence.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 . +either the Identity of the translator nor his competence in both the :rabic and %nglish languages has been shown. DS v. Section >8 of Rule 5>2 of the Revised Rules of )ourt re$uires that documents written in a non*official language 3li"e :rabic7 shall not be admitted as evidence unless accompanied by a translation into %nglish or Spanish or 9ilipino. but that translation is legally defective.overnment. Lope6 v. Fue Pin2 %xhibits in the nature of entries in public records made in the performance of their duty by public officers are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. v. Section 2E= of the )ode of )ivil Procedure permits a writing to be impeached because of its illegality or fraud! such defense would not be barred by the provision of section 54>. There is no showing of who effected the %nglish translation of the /ubai decision which respondent Rances submitted to the PB%:. Respondent Rances failed to submit any attestation issued by the proper /ubai official having legal custody of the original of the decision of the /ubai )ourt that the copy presented by said respondent is a faithful copy of the original decision which attestation must furthermore be authenticated by a Philippine )onsular Bfficer having &urisdiction in /ubai. /LR* The /ubai decision purports to be the written act or record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country and therefore a public writing under Section 24 3a7 of Rule 5>2 of the Revised Rules of )ourt. ?owever the failure of the party to file an affidavit denying the genuineness and due execution of the document does not estop him from controverting it by evidence of fraud mista"e compromise payment statute of limitations estoppel and want of consideration.

C> and 5. Kassing 352= +% 8EE 8. L.C>*C= her income tax returns for the years 5. :s was held in the case of Plymouth Saving & Loan Assn. No. San"igan#ayan 35>8 S)R: 54= 5>27 we ruledMr5 Mani4ang pointed to ot/er signi0icant divergences and distinctive c/aracteristics -et4een t/e sample signatures and t/e signatures on t/e . 1#+6 ='*4S& 5. arnsha! 35=G +.R. Page 58 . *' and 9arcia 9. In the case of Taylor-Wharton Iron & Steel Co.nless /is 0inding is 0ounded upon error o0 la4# or upon evidence 4/ic/ is# as matter o0 la4# insu00icient to 3usti01 t/e 0inding# t/is court 4ill not revise it upon e2ceptions5' #e cannot find any error on the part of the trial &udge in using the above documents as standards and also in giving credence to the expert witness presented by the private respondent whose testimony the petitioner failed to rebut and whose credibility it li"ewise failed to impeach.uestioned c/ecks in /is report 4/ic/ t/e court<s residing Justice kept mentioning during Mani4ang<s testimon15 In t/e course o0 /is cross=e2amination# +BI e2pert >a-a1o1ong admitted t/at /e sa4 t/e di00erences -et4een t/e e2emplars used and t/e . v.%.C= and from a document on long bond paper dated <ay 5E 5.uestioned signatures -ut /e dismissed t/e di00erences -ecause /e did not consider t/em 0undamental5 We rule t/at signi0icant di00erences are more 0undamental t/an a 0e4 similarities5 A 0orger al4a1s strives to master some similarities5 Dupilas v. In Cesar v.26+!8 /ove85er 2#.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 differences in the alleged signature of the private respondent in the SP: as compared with the specimen signatures something which the appellate court also too" into account.!-!2 and 9.uiesced in or recognized t/e same# or t/at it /as -een adopted and acted upon -1 /im /is -usiness transactions or ot/er concerns5555 9urthermore the &udge found such signatures to be sufficient as standards. These two interrelated cases bring to 0s the $uestion of what the word @resides@ in Section 5 Rule C> of the Revised Rules Bf )ourt referring to the situs of the settlement of the estate of deceased persons means. L. /o.R. *a5acun2an Public documents are perfect evidence of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter if the act which the officer witnessed and certified to or the date written by him are not shown to be false! but they are not conclusive evidence with respect to the truthfulness of the statements made therein by the interested parties.Evidence Case Doctrines respondent in the SP: were those from the latter's residence certificates in the years 5. 'ut more important is the fact that the unrebutted handwriting expert's testimony noted twelve 3527 glaring and material /LS0 Law. 2 v. +ot only were the signatures in the foregoing documents admitted by the private respondent as hers but most of the said documents were used by the private respondent in her transactions with the government.CC. /o. E== E=G7 it was heldW/en a 4riting is o00ered as a standard o0 comparison it is 0or t/e presiding 3udge to decide 4/et/er it is t/e /and4riting o0 t/e part1 to -e c/arged5 .87We -elieve t/e true rule deduced 0rom t/e aut/orities to -e t/at t/e genuineness o0 a 'standard' 4riting ma1 -e esta-lis/ed 6$7 -1 t/e admission o0 t/e person soug/t to -e c/arged 4it/ t/e disputed 4riting made at or 0or t/e purposes o0 t/e trial or -1 /is testimon18 697 -1 4itnesses 4/o sa4 t/e standards 4ritten or to 4/om or in 4/ose /earing t/e person soug/t to -e c/arged ackno4ledged t/e 4riting t/ereo08 6:7 -1 evidence s/o4ing t/at t/e reputed 4riter o0 t/e standard /as ac. =ule v.

:alvar.GC7.I'S 9. >5 5. 9ule as special administratrix ISSD>& #hether a death certificate admissible to prove the residence of the decedent at the time of his deathN %>LD& 1%S. : 8otion for reconsideration was filed by Preciosa '. She then gave birth to a baby boy.. )han L*2=... The term GresidesG connotes e2 vi termini @actual residence@ as distinguished from @legal residence or domicile.2J Septe85er 12. It must be stressed that the child under $uestion has no birth certificate of 'aptism 3attached in the List of %xhibits7 which was prepared in the absence of the alleged father PpetitionerQ. 1 ! 22J 'u2 +. a petition for letters of administration • she moved e2 parte for her appointment as special administratrix over the estate which @as 2ranted 2.C> obtained three months before his death 2. : death certificate is admissible to prove the residence of the decedent at the time of his death. *ru6 vs *risto5al 9r /o.arcia shows that his last place of residence was at 55 )armel :venue )armel Subdivision Oue. )hurch registries are no longer public writings and as private writings it is in need for proving li"e any other "inds of private writings DA*4RI/>& o In Bur &urisprudence this )ourt has been more definite in its pronouncements on the value of baptismal certificates.arcia the wife of :mado and at the same time the respondent contending that the order appointing Iirginia . '/4A/IA :'*'D'/9D'/9 vs. %li. − %ven where the statute uses the word @domicile@ still it is construed as meaning residence and not domicile in the technical sense. 1#8!J . o It thus ruled that while baptismal and marriage certificates may be considered public documents they are evidence only to prove the administration of the sacraments on the dates therein specified H but not the veracity of the states or declarations made therein with respect to his "insfol" andMor citi.. 9ule filed with the )ourt of 9irst Instance of Laguna at )alamba presided over 5( .. %li.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 • 1. Residence si8pl( re0uires 5odil( presence as an inha#itant in a 2iven place. @hile do8icile re0uires 5odil( presence in that place and also an intention to 8a?e it oneHs do8icile.enship 3Paa vs. :a?asiar ='*4S& 5.abeth <e&ias is married to )rispin :nahaw she had an affair with :ntonio <acadangdang 2. . :lso a 8otion to re8ove Iirginia .@ − This term @resides @ li"e the terms @residing@ and @residence @ is elastic and should be interpreted in the light of the ob&ect or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is employed. >. >. 9ule herself and also by Preciosa '.R. 'ecause of this her husband separated from her. .Evidence Case Doctrines Iirginia ..abeth filed a complaint for recognition and support for the baby. ISSD>& Is the lac" of baptismal certificate fatal to the caseN %>LD& +B. :s it is the death certificate of :mado .#. /LS0 Law. . /o.on )ity − :side from this the deceased's residence certificate for 5. 4%> %A/AR'BL> *ADR4 A= 'PP>'LS and >LII'B>4% :>. Bne of the evidences presented was the deceasedDs birth certificate. L.8= Bct. 9ule as special administratrix @as issued @ithout Burisdiction. 2!!6 Page 5= . − In the application of venue statutes and rules H Section 5 Rule C> of the Revised Rules of )ourt is of such nature H residence rat/er t/an domicile is the significant factor.arcia which was presented in evidence by Iirginia .ud2e Severo '. DA*4RI/>& 5. 8.

'uenaventura )ristobal purchased a parcel of land with an area of =>= s$ meters covered by T)T no.ette testified in 5.Evidence Case Doctrines ='*4S& 5.= the time of the rape she replied she was = ISSD>& Is his conviction of rape in $ualified form proper considering the age of the victim was not establishedN /A DA*4RI/>& : personDs age is best proved by birth certificate but the court set guidelines in appreciating age either as an element of the crime or as a $ualifying circumstanceo 'est evidence.R. 54ECE*2 >. This is a rape case involving <anuel Pruna 3accused! later changed to %rman Pruna the name appearing in his birth certificate7 and Li. o Trial court should always ma"e a categorical finding as to victimDs age =>LI*I'/A L>9'SPI vs. 1#2! Page 5G . 118 +1 Acto5er 1!.. To prove their filiations with deceased 'uenaventura )ristobal the baptismal certificate of %lisa :nselmo and the late Socorro were presented.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 5. L-1--+2J Septe85er 2 .. ISSD>& #ere the petitioners able to prove their filiation with deceased 'uenaventura )ristobalN %>LD& 1%S DA*4RI/>& :ny other means allowed by the Rules of )ourt and Special Laws Pto prove filiationQ K may consist of the childDs baptismal certificate a &udicial admission a family bible in which the childDs name has been entered common reputation respecting the childDs pedigree admission by silence the testimony of witnesses and other "inds of proof of admission under Rule 5>4 of the Rules of )ourt P>APL> vs.similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records o If 5 and 2 have been losMdestroyedMunavailable. 2. Bnly testimonial evidence of (ac$uelineDs mother was presented 8. Thus a complaint for :nnulment of Title and /amages was filed before the RT) against private respondents.ales 3> years old7.on.originalMcertified true copy of the certificate of live birth o In the absence. Petitioners claim that they are the legitimate children of 'uenaventura )ristobal during his first marriage to Ignacia )ristobal. 2.3if clear and credible7 testimony of victimDs mother M family member either by affinity or consanguinity who is $ualified to testify on such o If no 5 2 or >. >DS>BIA P'DDI4 9. Trial was suspended and Pruna was sent to the +atDl )enter for <ental ?ealth in <andaluyong as his counsel could not secure a coherent answer to even simple $uestions >. 9ailure of accused to ob&ect to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be ta"en against him. Sometime in 5.>4 'euventura died intestate 8. /o. Petitioners filed a petitioner in their barangay to attempt to settle the case between them and private respondents but no settlement was reached G. =. C. PRD/' 9R /o.complainantDs testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused o Prosecution has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. Li.G 2 years after the incident that she was =! however when the defense counsel as"ed her bac" in 5.ette . 2!!2 ='*4S& /LS0 Law. :fter more than G decades petitioner learned that private respondent had executed an extra&udicial partition of the sub&ect property and transferred its title to their names.

@ $"a. 2.Evidence Case Doctrines ='*4S& 5. Plaintiff-'ppellee. The defendant Paddit denied all the allegations and alleged that the plaintiff by means of fraud persuaded that he would give defendant a portion of his land but that defendant having given the carabao to him the plaintiff used it for four months without giving defendant possession of the land! >. The accused dia2nosed. =ernando *. treated and prescri5ed for certain diseases suffered 5( certain patients. /o. 1#1# ='*4S& 5.ose :a. /o. fro8 @ho8 he received 8one( as co8pensation! 2. 'ut it is contended that no evidence has 5een adduced to the effect that the accused had thus practiced 8edicine /LS0 Law. The &udge made a small map of the land which agreed with the contention of the plaintiff and the &ustice of the peace was then called to testify. 6!# J Septe85er 2+.>S DA*4RI/>& 5. vs. >.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 G@ithout havin2 previousl( o5tained the proper certificate of re2istrationissued 5( the Board of :edical >)a8iners. 4he court evidentl( 5ased its decision lar2el( on the evidence and report of the Bustice of the peace.@ o This docu8ent is ad8issi5le as evidence of its contents under one of the e)ceptions to the hearsa( rule regarding official written statements.  That document is si2ned 5( . DA*4RI/>& The )ourt of 9irst Instance seemed to have had some doubt as to the description and location of the lands in these two suits for an order @as issued to the Bustice of the peace of San (ose to go to the lands with the parties and to hear their evidence on the ground and ma"e a report to court. was smashed Page 5C . chair8an of the Board of :edical >)a8iners o Stated in part that @there is nothin2 in the records of this Board to sho@ that :r. o @The certificate of a custodian that he has diligently searched for a document or an entry of a specified tenor and has been unable to find it ou2ht to 5e usuall( as satisfactor( for evidencin2 its none)istence in his office as his testi8on( on the stand to this effect @ould 5e. The left front part of the <ercedes 'en. &LT &us Co. Lower court ma"es mention of >)hi5it =-2 as sho@in2 that the accused is not a re2istered ph(sician. Fue5ral is a re2istered ph(sician.) In(. =>R/'/DA *.G ISSD>& /oes the document signed by the )hair of the 'oard of <edical %xaminers admissibleN . 1#+! ='*4S& 5. The LT' bus made a complete 0*turn and finally stopped on the left lane of the concrete highway facing Los 'aRos or the direction where it came from. That the land now claimed by the plaintiff was not the land which they agreed should be exchanged but is another tract which the defendant has had for fifteen years.R. %e &oni'a(io v. 9eliciano Legaspi alleged that he was the owner of a certain parcel of land described in his complaint! that he agreed with the defendants %usebio Paddit to exchange two hectares of this land for a carabao 2. Del2ado. 9.R. L-2681!J 'u2ust 11. FD>BR'L. 9. This is a case of homicide and multiple physical in&uries and damage to property through rec"less imprudence in connection with the same vehicular accident. 4%> P>APL> A= 4%> P%ILIPPI/>S.

sought cancellation of the titles now appearing in St. of the Piedad estate in O) • :ction. "no@ %I:L'.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Page 5E . R>9I/A *L>A='S and LD*I' D> L' *RDI 9.25 and 5. %speran. 'pplica5ilit( • The deed of assignment in $uestion of Lot C5. PeterDs name /LS0 Law. 1#88 ='*4S& 5..certificate of title issued over it in favour of :ntonio )leofas who together with his wife possessed and occupied said land until 5. Regino )leofas and his mother 3Lucia7 filed a complaint agains St. The violent impact threw (ovito 'onifacio Sr. • :ncient /ocuments Section 25 Rule 5>2 S4. /o. I/*.@ • 4he clai8 on appeal that the alteration in the @ritin2 @as innocent. out of the car onto the right shoulder of the road facing Los 'aRos causing his instantaneous death =. I'* 9. /efendant memorial par" claims to have derived its title through a series of transfers • %vidence.+18. %vidence. PeterDs custody not in the 'ureau of LandsD folder o :s it was in possession thereDs a badge of bad faithS 3IAL>4' *'B'4B'4 LI: v. It also cannot be considered genuine where there are suspicious circumstances as to its due execution by the person concerned.'/9 PILIPI/A. although more than >4 years old was was found in St.a )abatbat.@ and super*imposing the word @9eb. 1#+# ='*4S& 5. or that the co8pan( should have 5een 2iven an opportunit( to e)plain 5ecause it @as cau2ht una@are that the court 5elo@ @ould ta?e the incident a2ainst the8 as it did.@ in pencil DA*4RI/>& • The rule re$uires that a party producing a writing as genuine but which as found altered after its execution in a part material to the $uestion in dispute should account for the alteration and if @he do that he may give the writing in evidence but not otherwise. I/*. L. Bne of the evidence presented was The change in lining was overdue but the appellant bus company tried to hide this fact by crossing out @(an.Evidence Case Doctrines 8. The petitioners Iioleta )abatbat Lim her husband Liam 'ia" )hiao and the )alasiao 'i&on 9actory assail the decision of the I:) which affirmed the trial court's decision finding that petitioner Iioleta )abatbat Lim is not the off-sprin2 hence not a le2al heir of the late %speran. praying that they be declared rightful owners of Lot C5.8= when :ntonio died 2.R.>C which were all in the memorial par"Ds possession and not in custody by the offices DA*4RI/>& :n ancient document would re$uire proof of due execution where it was not produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine. Peter et al.R. P>4>R :>:ARI'L P'R<. /o.Briginal documents alleged to have been executed way bac" in 5. L-6#6+# Acto5er 18. S'3I/9S vs.$ and B'/*A =IL.ul( 1!. This case involves a contest over the estate of the late /ra.a )abatbat 2. is untena5le.

a with the crime of murder Page 5. J#here a private writing is more than thirty years old is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion no other evidence of its execution and authenticity need be given@ @ does not appl( to petitionersH 5irth certificate. The t@o other pa2es contain the hand@ritten docu8ent in Ilocano statin2 that in consideration of the a8ount of P1!1. The first piece is a 5lan? sheet @hich apparentl( serves as a cover pa2e. It allegedly bears the signature of the vendor of the portion of Lot +o. >vidence presented& >)hi5it consists of three pieces of paper. : short distance from the mouth of Subaan River he caught hold of her pic"ed her up and carried her to the edge of some thic"ets where he threw her on the ground and attempted to have carnal intercourse with her 2.8E sufficient to prove her legitimacyN /A DA*4RI/>& 5. The Court) ho!ever) 'oun" that the Court o' Appeals 'aile" to (onsi"er an" "is(uss the thir" re2uirement3 that no alterations or (ir(umstan(es o' suspi(ion are present. !as more than thirty years ol" !hen it !as o''ere" in evi"en(e in -. − the absence of a record of the birth of petitioner Iioleta )abatbat in the Bffice of the )ivil Registrar .eneral puts a cloud on the genuineness of her birth certificate =.Evidence Case Doctrines ISSD>& /oes the private document of the supposed birth registry record of defendant Iioleta )abatbat showing that she was born on <ay 2G 5.anuar( 1!. 1##!J ='*4S& 5.hatHs thisKG . Ane of the part( stepped ashore. 4%> I/4>R:>DI'4> 'PP>LL'4> *ADR4 "no@ *ourt of 'ppeals$ and %>IRS A= SPADS>S B>R/'B> B'R4ALA:> and DRSDL' *ID 9. and left the place forth@ith DA*4RI/>& o N*. +6+#2J :arch 12. as?ed G. Ierily an incomplete document is a"in to if not worse than a document with altered contents. v.The missing page has nonetheless affected its authenticity./0. L-28 82 . Although +hi#it . Testimonial Section >G Rule 5>4 Sections 5*5E Rule 5>2 People of the Philippines-plaintiff-appellee v .uan Brioso and :ariano 4ae6a defendant-appellants 9.ed. and seein2 the accused 2et up fro8 the place @here the @o8an clai8s the cri8e @as co88itted. . . : party who were passing near the place where the crime was committed heard her cries and put into shore 1. 1#+1 ='*4S& 5. >4 'L. 555G= in $uestion and therefore it contains vital proof of the voluntary transmission of rights over the sub&ect of the sale.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 . /o.R. 4he accused 8ade no e)planation of his conduct or his presence there. It !as presente" in (ourt #y the proper (usto"ian thereo' !ho is an heir o' the person !ho !oul" naturally 1eep it. :n information filed by the Provincial 9iscal the two accused (uan 'rioso and <ariano Tae.+ISSD>& Is >)hi5it an ancient docu8entK R>SDRR>**IA/ B'R4ALA:>. Indeed its importance cannot be overemphasi.R.#ithout that signature the document is incomplete. /o. /LS0 Law.

Silvino /aria must have reali.>S. >)ception& 'ut 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. 3I*>/4> /. • %ven (uan 'rioso specifically said that he "new of no reason why she should testify against him. 9addi.ed the seriousness of his condition and it can be safely inferred that he made the same under the consciousness of impending death considering that he died only one hour after being shot 3 ante*mortem declaration7 ISSD>& /id the lower court erred in relying in the uncorroborated and contradictory terstimony and statemenet of )ecilia 'ernal on the physical identity of the accusedN /A DA*4RI/>& • )ecilia 'ernal had no motive to impute falsely this heinous charge of murder against the above*said accused considering that <ariano Tae. The $uestion propounded to the witness was proper and the latter should have been allowed to answer it in full with the understanding however that his answer shall not to be ta"en as competent evidence to show that the persons named really and actually conspired with Puesca. *DSI .a is a nephew of the deceased by a first degree cousin.ustilo 9ilomeno <acalinao Ricardo /airo and <agno <ontano were charged with robbery in band with homicide to which they pleaded not guilty.a.ustilo and /airo ob&ected to this upon the ground that whatever the witness would say would be hearsay as far as his clients were concerned. %A/. In )riminal )ase +o. Lucio 'ano of the Police 9orce of /igos /avao was testifying as a prosecution witness regarding the extra&udicial confession made to him by the accused :rcadio Puesca he said that the latter aside from admitting his participation in the commission of the offense charged revealed that other persons conspired with him to to commit the offense mentioning the name of each and everyone of them. 8. 1#6='*4S& 5. The motive for the "illing appearts to have been the disapproval by the spouses Silvino and Susana /aria of <arian Tae. her state8ent that she ca8e to court onl( to tell the truth should 5e 5elieve • Thus the allege inconsisitencies in her testimony do not detract from the positive and straightforward indentification of the accused who actually shot Silvio /aria. : few days later )ecilia 'ernal and the widow Susana Tumalip executed affidavits pointing to the two accused as the "illers >. L-2!#86 'u2ust 1 . The widow testified that ri2ht after 5ein2 shot she rushed to her husband's side and he told her that he was shot by (uan 'rioso and <ariano Tae.Evidence Case Doctrines 2.R. /LS0 Law. /uring the trial and while Sgt. /o. Silvino /aria expired one hour later as a result of gunshot wounds in the abdomen and leg. • )ounsel for the accused <acalinao .R 9. 4%> P>APL> A= 4%> P%ILIPPI/>S vs.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 2.aDs courtship of their duaghter. The fact which the prosecuting officer intended to establish would seem to be relevant to explain why the police force of the place where the offense was committed subse$uently $uestioned and investigated the persons allegedly named by Puesca. 1+! S*R' 6 # "1#8#$ Page 24 . Pp v. ISSD>& Is the lo@er court correct in allo@in2 the @itness to answer the $uestion and name his co*conspirators except those who had raised the ob&ectionN %>LD& . DA*4RI/>& 9eneral Rule&There is no $uestion that hearsay evidence if timely ob&ected to may not be admitted. %ence. GE5> of the )ourt of 9irst Instance of /avao :rcadio Puesca #alter :pa (ose .

It is hornboo" doctrine that unless the affiants themselves ta"e the witness stand to affirm the averments in their affidavits the affidavits must be excluded from the &udicial proceeding being inadmissible hearsay. 11 Phil 8+ "1#1-$ :n original writing must be produced and proved except as otherwise provided in this :ct. 2+ Dec 2!!2 : witness may testify only to those facts which he "nows of his own "nowledge. 81 S*R' 282 "1#+8$ The accused did not even ta"e the witness stand to deny the charges and the testimony of <agdalena . Pp v. Thus a verdict of conviction on the basis solely or Page 25 . would be meaningless if it did not include the right to testify in his own behalf. 0pon such proof being made together with proof of the due execution of the writing its contents may be proved by a copy or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document or by the recollection of a witness.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 &ustice and fairness and to stress further that substantial &ustice may not be denied merely on ground of technicality. Pp v. Desierto. 9. :ichael E *o. *o v. v. If it has been lost proof of the loss must first be made before evidence can be given of its contents. Ba2adion2 v.ed as admissions of a party. :n accused should be convicted on the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution and not on the wea"ness of his defense. Pp v. The argument that the testimony of an interested party is self* serving and therefore is inadmissible in evidence misses the essential nature of self*serving evidence and the ground for its exclusion. An1 person# ot/er4ise competent as a 4itness# 4/o /eard t/e con0ession# is competent to testi01 as to t/e su-stance o0 4/at /e /eard i0 /e /eard and understood all o0 it5 :n oral confession need not be repeated verbatim but in such case it must be given in its substance. /os. *'. Thus on direct examination leading $uestions are not allowed except on preliminary matters or when there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answer from the witness who is ignorant a child of tender years or feebleminded or a deaf*mute. L*2=.addi's confession of the crime to him cannot be given credence for being hearsay is unavailing. The right of a party to be present and give evidence as provided in section 8. -22!!. Fuidato. >strada v.Evidence Case Doctrines :ppellant's claim that %rnesto . 9ar2oles. >nri0ue6. 11!+1 and 11#61 . )unanan of the +'I. :n accused has the right to decline to testify at the trial without having any inference of guilt drawn from his failure to go on the witness stand.R. /o. 9on6ales . 2#+ S*R' 1 "1##8$ The failure to present the two on the witness stand gives these affidavits the character of hearsay. >. It contains direct statements of petitioner which can be categori. : party may call on adverse party or an officer director or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party and interrogate him by leading $uestions and contradict and impeach him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party and the witness thus called may be contradicted and impeached by or on behalf of the adverse party also and may be cross*examined by the adverse party only upon the sub&ect*matter of his examination in chief.GG : party may interrogate any unwilling or hostile witness by leading $uestions.R. 9.man's testimony on . 21 'u2 1#8! :lthough it is true the birth certificate was not presented during the trial the same must be admitted by 0s if only to satisfy Bur sense of /LS0 Law.. 1-6 S*R' 1!8 "2!!1$ :dmissibility of :ngara /iary an exception to the hearsay rule and best evidence rule. Inc. Self*serving evidence is evidence made by a party out of court at one time! it does not include a party's testimony as a witness in court. The petitioner invo"ed the privilege even prior to any $uestion being propounded and simply declined to ta"e the witness stand.iducos and findings of /r. Privilege against self*incrimination must be invo"ed at the proper time and the proper time to invo"e it is when a $uestion calling for a criminating answer is propounded.u.R +o. 9o.

>. vs. 1#8+ ='*4S& 5.denied the accused his fundamental right to due process of law.The accused could not be said to have en&oyed the right to be heard by himself and counsel and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him in the proceedings where his life and liberty were at sta"e. :pparently no sign language expert or representative ever arrived. /LS0 Law. IASI:A *RISALA9A.+ 11.The accuracy and fairness of the factual process by which the guilt or innocence of the accused was determined was not safeguarded.Evidence Case Doctrines mainly of the failure or refusal of the accused to ta"e the witness stand to deny the charges against him is a &udicial heresy which cannot be countenanced. . : criminal complaint was filed against the accused Aosimo )risologo alias @:mang @ a deaf*mute for robbery and homicide 2.ing upon the witness or of being ga. +2 S*R' 28 "1#+6$ JThe opponentK demands confrontation not for the Idle purpose of ga. 1#1+ Privilege of a person not to be compelled to be a witness against himself.an 1#82 The probative value of a witness testimony is very much lessened where it is obtained by leading $uestions which are so put that the witness merely assents to or dissents from a statement or assertion of an examining consul put with such vocal inflection as to be $uestion. /o. +1 -' .1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 P>APL> A= 4%> P%ILIPPI/>S.deprived the accused of a full and fair trial and a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. -1 Phil -+! "1#2#$ There is the well*established doctrine that the constitutional inhibition is directed not merely to giving of oral testimony but embraces as well the furnishing of evidence by other means than by word of mouth the divulging in short of any fact which the accused has a right to hold secret.une 1+. *aparas. Pp v. . Ber8ude6 vs *astillo Prec. =. Trial proceeded without any evidence being presented on his part. Doctrine&  The absence of an interpreter in sign language who could have conveyed to the accused a deaf*mute the full facts of the offense with which he was charged and who could also have communicated the accused's own version of the circumstances which led to his implication in the crime. alias G':'/9L 9. :llowing the complainant write the letter again is against the right against self*incrimination. Beltran v. L. 18 .R. 8. Pp v. subse$uently entered a plea of guilty on behalf of the accused. #riting from the fiscal's dictation by the petitioner for the purpose of comparing the latter's handwriting and determining whether he wrote certain documents supposed to be falsified constitutes evidence against himself within the scope and meaning of the constitutional provision under examination. >sten6o. + 1 -J .ed upon by him but for the purpose of cross*examination which cannot be had except by the direct and personal putting of $uestions and obtaining immediate answers. . Sa8son.ul( 26. a childhood ac$uaintance. <r. Page 22 . Rec. The accused was allegedly informed of the charge against him through sign language by Special Policeman :le&andro <uno. <uno. /o.

>. Peridas 3accused7 told %strella 3prosecution witness7 that he had "illed the man and Ienturina threw away the body in Pulilan. (oseph Taplin general manager of Rural Transit.Evidence Case Doctrines P>APL> A= 4%> P%ILIPPI/>S vs. Petitioner present its one and only witness <r. vs. 4%> *ADR4 A= I/DDS4RI'L R>L'4IA/S and RDR'L 4R'/SI4 >:PLA. The accused were charged with rape with homicide for the brutal rape and "illing of 5=*year old Imee /ie. /os. 1. 4%> B'*%R'*% :A4AR *A.R. =>R/'/DA :A/. (oseph Taplin be stric"en from the records DA*4RI/>&  4he ri2ht of a part( to confront and cross-e)a8ine opposin2 @itnesses in a Budicial liti2ation. Paulino. :ccused contends the testimony of witness <ichael )ordero since it was not sufficiently tested on the crucible of cross* examination for after his initial cross*examination by defense counsel witness )ordero failed and refused to return to court for the continuation of his cross*examination. :ccused were charged of the crime of robbery with homicide. 1#+8 ='*4S& 5. 8.>>S 'SSA*I'4IA/ 9. 1 668#.>. /o. is funda8ental ri2ht @hich is part of due process. Septe85er 2+. The case was reset on various dates but <r. +obody saw the actual commission of the crime. /o. >RLI/D' D>L' *RDI. Taplin failed to appear because he had left for abroad. Instead he turned them over later to the +ational 'ureau of Investigation Bffice in Pulilan. Page 2> . Doctrine&  /eclaration of an accused expressly ac"nowledging his guilt of the offense may be given in evidence against him and any person otherwise competent to testify as a witness who heard the confession is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood it. or in proceedin2s 5efore ad8inistrative tri5unals @ith 0uasi-Budicial po@ers. L-26116J Acto5er 1!. 'ut death now lur"s upon accused*appellant <on&e on the basis alone of the following circumstantial evidence put together by the court. L'RR. 2. I/*. %strella did not burn the bloodied clothes. 2!!2N ='*4S& 5. o Bral testimony may be ta"en into account only when it is complete that is if the witness has been wholly cross*examined by the adverse party or the right to cross*examine is lost wholly or in part thru the fault of such adverse party.. o The testimony of the police officers carried with it the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.R. 2.R. o 'ut when cross*examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party offering the witness the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered incompetent. 1 1162-61J . /LS0 Law. Bac/rac/ filed a @Petition for :uthority to discharge driver <aximo (acob from the service@ for the alleged violations of the <otor Iehicle Law by <aximo (acob resulting in damage to property and in&uries to third parties.ul( 11. RAS'RIA M9.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 2.  The testimony of prosecution witness <eliton %strella was clear straightforward and devoid of any signs of artificiality. >. P>RID'S and 9>RR. 2!!2 ='*4S& 1. P>APL> A= 4%> P%ILIPPI/>S vs. Since his clothes were covered with bloodstains he borrowed clothes from %strella and as"ed him to burn his sando and t*shirt. The employee's association filed a motion praying that the testimony of <r. o <oreover no improper motive was imputed on %strella who positively identified both accused* appellants as the perpetrators of the offense. 5e it cri8inal or civil in nature. 3>/4DRI/' 9.

R.AS> >S4R'D' 9. 9ulgado's witness (ose 9ulgado referred to in the dispositive part of the :ppellate )ourt's &udgment had earlier migrated to the 0nited States. L-16# 1 Acto5er 2#.'ut when the cross*examination is not or cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party offering the witness or to the witness himself the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered incompetent and inadmissible in evidence. L-61-+!J =e5ruar( 12. Oue. /o. a.Evidence Case Doctrines Doctrine& 9eneral Rule& the testimony of a witness given on direct examination should be stric"en off the record where there was no ade$uate opportunity for cross*examination. a (oun2. 1##! ='*4S& 1.c 2. /o. 1#68 ='*4S& 5. 2. 2. ?owever the right is a personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross*examination. b. Ruperto 9ulgado filed a case against Rufino )ustodia Simplicia )ustodia :rsenio Piguing Ismael Porciuncula and /ominga <acarulay for the annulment of certain contracts of sale and partition with accounting. IS:'>L PAR*ID/*DL' and DA:I/9' :'*'RDL'. *ADR4 A= 'PP>'LS. >lvira 4aOada de Principe. The principle re$uiring a testing of testimonial statements by cross*examination has always been understood as re$uiring not necessarily an actual cross*examination but merely an opportunit1 to exercise the right to cross*examine if desired. >. %A/.R. pro8inent patron of 9u8aca. . :'4>A D>L *'S4ILLAJ . The right of a party to confront and cross*examine opposing witnesses in a &udicial litigation be it criminal or civil in nature or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with $uasi*&udicial powers is a fundamental right which is part of due process. RD=I/A *DS4ADIA. 9.on @as ?idnapped 5( a 5and of %u?5alahaps. . SI:PLI*I' *DS4ADIA. 4%> P>APL> A= 4%> P%ILIPPI/>S vs. #here the failure to obtain cross*examination was imputable RDP>R4A =DL9'DA vs. :ccused %STR:/:  charges that the trial court had abused its discretion @hen it denied the defense the ri2ht Page 28 . :rs. 5.:.The direct testimony of a witness who dies before the conclusion of the cross*examination can be stric"en only insofar as not covered by the cross*examination and the absence of a witness is not enough to warrant stri"ing of his testimony for failure to appear for further cross*examination where the witness has already been sufficiently cross* examined. 'RS>/IA PI9DI/9. #hen the court was elevated to the ). Doctrine& /LS0 Law. Thus where a party has had the opportunity to cross*examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it he necessarily forfeits the right to cross*examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record. >)ceptions& .1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 to the cross examiner's fault the lac" of cross*examination is no longer a ground for exclusion according to the general principle that an opportunity though waived will suffice.where a party had the opportunity to cross*examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it he necessarily forfeits his right to cross*examine and the testimony given by the witness on direct examination will be allowed to remain on record.

=>D>RI*A R>LD*IA P GP>DRI/9G. >. @as then read( to retract his previous testi8on( for the prosecution and then testify for the defense. 8. )harged with treason on six counts the appellant was found guilty. )ount 2.:ccused "illed <a&or Leopoldo Santos. Bf the four witnesses in chief presented by the prosecution only )rispen :ngeles and <iguel Padrones can be said to have given incriminatory evidence against appellant. it is clai8ed. >DRI PI/>D'. Page 2= /LS0 Law. 1# 8 ='*4S& 5. )ount 5.  #e do not have before us the latter testimony except counsel's summary of it in his brief in the case mentioned. DA*4RI/>&  If the witness admits the ma"ing of such contradictory statement the accused has the benefit of the admission while the witness has the opportunity to explain the discrepancy if he can. )rispen :ngelesD testimony in open court and sworn statement.ranting the alleged contradictions the statements in the other case can not serve as basis for impeaching the witnesses' veracity unless their attention was directed to the discrepancies and they were given an opportunity to explain them but this has not been done.  Bn the other hand if the witness denies ma"ing any such contradictory statement the accused has the right to prove that the witness did ma"e such statement! and if the fiscal should refuse upon due notice to produce the document secondary evidence of the contents thereof would be admissible. 9ederico Relucio and Rosendo Ielasco were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of <urder.witness had seen him with (apanese soldiers on many other occasions also carrying arms.Evidence Case Doctrines to call 5ac? @itness *eri5o @ho. :ccused alleged that there were discrepancy in the witnesses' testimony one of the cases against him and the present case.AG ='*4S& 5. .  The alleged discrepancies between the witnesses' testimony in the case at bar and their testimony in another case can not be entertained. Doctrine&  Section 58 Rule 5>2 of the Rules of )ourt explicitly provides that the court may grant or withhold leave to recall a witness in its discretion as the interests of &ustice may re$uire! and  #e believe that it was the better part of discretion and caution on the part of the trial court to have denied as it did the re$uest of the defense to recall )eribo. >. Doctrine& 4%> P>APL> A= 4%> P%ILIPPI/>S vs.  The record is loaded with circumstances tending to show insidious attempts too obvious to be overloo"ed to tamper with the witnesses for the prosecution.alo Talastas was shot on different parts of his body with guns which directly caused his death.R. 0nder the circumstances to allow such a procedure would only encourage the perversion of truth and ma"e a moc"ery of court proceedings. %scosura and the other 9ilipinos with him were ma"apilis. 2. L-12#1J /ove85er 2. ?ence a denial of herein appellant's right to due process.on. 2. /o. RAS>/DA 3>L'S*A P G:'/9. o . 8. People v >scosura 9.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 .

9or much the same reasons the defendant*appellant should have 5een per8itted to present evidence in support of her special defense of conspirac(. The issues in the t@o cases are entirel( different! the former case dealt with the validity of a chattel mortgage while in the present case we are dealing with the amount of the defendant's indebtedness to the plaintiff.th of :pril 5. said defendant having failed to ma"e payment in accordance with the terms agreed upon the chattel 8ort2a2e @as foreclosed.Evidence Case Doctrines  This process of cross*examining a witness upon the point of prior contradictory statements is called in the practice of the :merican courts Hla(in2 a predicateH for the introduction of contradictory statements. − − . Page 2G . 27 )9I rendered &udgment in favor of the plaintiff for the full a8ount de8anded under the first cause of action 5ut dis8issed the second cause of action on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to show that the credit upon which said cause of action is based had been legally assigned to it.8C to the ?ashim )ommercial U Trading )ompany Ltd. DA*4RI/>&  The record shows that after the commencement of the trial the attorney for the defendant was notified that the trial was proceeding but by reason of other engagements was impossible for him to be present during even a part of the time of the trial.B'/ 9AR'. :D>R4>9D.. a.vs. defendants.D'/ . Bn the 2.5G e)ecuted a chattel 8ort2a2e in favor of said plaintiff.>B. o It is almost universally accepted that unless a ground is thus laid upon cross*examination evidence of contradictory statements are not admissible to impeach a witness! though undoubtedly the matter is to a large extent in the discretion of the court. 3PL'I/4I==7 commenced an action against Isidoro /elgado 3D>=>/D'/4 7 for the purpose of recovering a sum of money. 5. b. %'S%I: and '=I=> 'BDA *%>.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 the fact that such sources might have been examined in civil case +o.=G. ?ashim on September 25 5. DA*4RI/>& 2.>B ='*4S& 57 Plaintiff alleges in substancea7 that the defendant +ageeb T.S:'>L E *A. 2. They are also entitled to reasonable notice of the time fixed for the trial of their cause. /'9>>B 4. ISIDARA 3. o Parties have a right to be present at the trial of their causes by themselves or by their attorneys. The record clearly shows that the defendant had no notice that the cause had been set down for trial on a particular day. <uerteguy U :boiti.. The court below undou5tedl( erred in den(in2 the defendant-appellant the opportunit( to in0uire into the sources of the entries found in the plaintiff's boo"s of account in relation to the indebtedness of the defendants /LS0 Law.B'/ 9AR'. ?ashim has been indebted in the sum of P58 G8G. of the )ourt of 9irst Instance of <anila cannot 5e re2arded as a 5ar to a reasona5le in0uir( into the character of the debt in the present case.54 the ?onorable )harles :. I/*. '=I=> 'BDA *%>. D>L9'DA ='*4S& 5. 'ut was assi2ned the a8ount due it on said inde5tedness to the plaintiff. Low rendered a &udgment in said cause in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of P8 5G>. a. b7 /efendant +ageeb T. +either the defendant nor his attorney was present at the trial of the cause.4C with costs. v. E 'BAI4IS .

?e cannot be more credible &ust because he support 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. (et there is nothin2 to sho@ that this error has affected the appellantsH defense.nar that he could exercise the right to repurchase the lots and would deliver to him the corresponding options in writing. '6nar vs. +o. *ADR4 A= 'PP>'LS.The ): ruled that the T) did not err when it favorably considered the affidavits of %ufrocina and %fren Tecson 3:nnexes @'@ and @)@7 although the affiants were not presented and sub&ected to cross*examination. 'I/'R. It is self*evident that a witness may not be corroborated by any written statement prepared wholly by him. DA*4RI/>&  #itness may not be corroborated by any written statement prepared wholly by him.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 . 'I/'R.D'/ 4. as Special 'd8inistrator of the >state of :atias %.8G provides that the @Rules of )ourt shall not be applicable in agrarian cases even in a suppletory character. BARRA:>A vs. 27 Bn the date mentioned a <oro woman heard the appellant Sandal call the deceased and the later saw them engaged in conversation and saw the accused "illed the victim. 'L:' 'I/'R and .@ The same provision states that @In the hearing investigation and determination of any $uestion or Page 2C .nar and 'orromeo an absolute sale or security mortgages the )ourt /LS0 Law. used the noteboo" of )rispina Rallos :lcantara daughter of Simeon Rallos who testified that the transactions were disguised as absolute sales and Rallos was assured by <atias :. >::'/D>L B.  #here the witness has testified independently of or after his testimony has been refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative evidence. ?e cannot be more credible &ust because he support 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. *ADR4 A= 'PP>'LS and . >7 /uring the trial the <oro woman before she was examined was inside the court.D'/ 4. CA 25G S)R: 2= 35.Evidence Case Doctrines People v Sandal ='*4S& 57 The <oros Sandal :rimao Lonsing <ama and Pampang appeal from the &udgment of the )ourt of 9irst Instance of Lanao convicting them of murder.. especiall( @hen he stated that he did not hear @hat the other @itnesses testified. .>7 /octrine. • There is nothing to show what this witness would have testified if admitted and so it cannot be held that his failure to testify has materially affected the appellants' defense./. 'nd althou2h @e are of opinion that the court 5elo@ should have ad8itted the testi8on( of this @itness. BARRA:>A ='*4S& 57 To determine whether the transaction between :. DA*4RI/>& • Dnder such circu8stances it lies @ithin the courtHs discretion to ad8it or reBect the testi8on( of the @itness.AS> B. II. 'L:' 'I/'R and . 'I/'R. 'I/'RJ >::'/D>L B. Section 5G of P. :dmissibility Sections >*8 Rule 52E 4eyes v. 27 Petitioner assails her credibility.AS> B. 87 :ccused alleged that the testimony of the <oro woman should not be admitted because her testimony is influenced by the other witnesses.

This substantial evidence rule was incorporated in section 5E P. If this course is followed and the cause is prosecuted to the Supreme )ourt upon appeal this court then has all the material before it necessary to ma"e a correct &udgment.The circumstance that the declarant is a pagan and does not believe in a future state of rewards and punishment does not render his declaration inadmissible in a criminal prosecution./.2=7 /octrine. It was premature for the respondent &udge to have the confession excluded completely. :lthough the same evidence is inadmissible against his co*accused Panganiban for being hearsay. . The purpose of all evidence is to get at the truth. 5at(o# supra /octrine.Bn the admissibility of %xhibit 5.# supra /octrine.In a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a &udge of first instance in the early stages of the development of the proof to "now with any certainty whether testimony is relevant or not! and where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the attorney offering the evidence t/e court ma1 as a rule sa0el1 accept t/e testimon1 upon t/e statement o0 t/e attorne1 t/at t/e proo0 o00ered 4ill -e connected later5 The admission of proof in a court of first instance even if the $uestion as to its form materiality or relevancy is doubtful can never result in much harm to either litigant because the trial &udge is supposed to "now the law! and it is its duty upon final consideration of the case to distinguish the relevant and material from the irrelevant and immaterial. The prosecution has not yet even identified this piece of evidence much less formally offered the same to prove conspiracy between the two accused. ?on.8G which too" effect on (une 5C 5. A#ellera 8C Phil C>5 35.E. Such circumstance affects only the weight of the statement.K Pp v. >> Rule 5>4 at present7 provides that the declaration of an accused expressly ac"nowledging the truth of his guilt as to the offense charged may be given in evidence against him. 'ut they are not rendered inadmissible by the mere fact that the declarant is Page 2E /LS0 Law. Tole"o =5 Phil E2= 35. <oreover in agrarian cases the $uantum of evidence re$uired is no more than substantial evidence.Sec.2E7 /octrine. )ourt of :ppeals 585 S)R: 22G the Supreme )ourt defined what substantial evidence isJSubstantial evidence does not necessarily import preponderant evidence as is re$uired in an ordinary civil case. Pp v. #here however the declarant is dead or has disappeared his previous statements out of court if not inadmissible on other grounds are the best evidence. 58 Rule 52> 3Sec. 0nder the rule on multiple admissibility of evidence )onsun&iDs confession is admissible against him . The reason for the hearsay rule is that the extra&udicial and unsworn statement of another is not the best method of serving this purpose. Pp v. +o. vs. )S . Phoeni+ Insuran(e Co. :n attempt was made on the part of the appellant's lawyer to destroy the weight of /ay*ag's declaration by reason of the fact that /ay*ag was an Igorot and therefore a paganVV no belief in a possible future life or in a doctrine of future rewards and punishment. So long therefore as a declarant is available as a witness his extra&udicial statement should not be heard. :lso the same evidence cannot prove the conspiracy between both the accused without conspiracy being established by other pieces of evidence.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 .CG 3)astro vs. It has been defined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as ade$uate to support a conclusion and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence on record direct or circumstantial for the appellate court cannot substitute its own &udgment or criteria for that of the trial court in determining wherein lies the weight of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief..Evidence Case Doctrines controversy affidavits and counter*affidavits may be allowed and are admissible in evidence@.7.R. In 'agsican vs. In other words the great possibility of the fabrication of falsehoods and the inability to prove their untruth re$uires that the doors be closed to such evidence. +o. The lower court should have allowed such confession to be given in evidence at least as against )onsun&i and admit the same conditionally since the lower court at the final determination and consideration of the case could still distinguish those pieces of evidence that are admissible from those that are inadmissible. Prats & Co. >8G5> (anuary 2G 5.

al were charged with falsification of public documents in their capacity as public officials and employees by having made it appear that certain relief suppliesMmerchandise were purchased for distribution to calamity sufferers. Bne fact which will satisfy this necessity is that the declaration is or was against the declarant's interest and this is because no sane person will be presumed to tell a falsehood to his own detriment.Pacita <adrigal*. The prosecution presented a boo"let of receipts 3%xh /7 containing the blue invoices 3triplicate copy7 of <etro /rug )orp. Premiere Pro"u(tions) In(. The alleged financial loss suffered by Premiere which was the main basis for the layoff has not been established. Tan"oy 5.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 notary the deed of sale lac"s the necessary doc stamp there was no signature of 2 witnesses and it was not registered for 24 years. /ocumentary 'est %vidence Rule Sections >*C Rule 5>4 Section >e Rule 5>5 6ahilum v. 6ovie Pi(tures Wor1ers7 Asso(.. . Pp v. Tan 54= Phil 5282 35.C4 >4 (une 5. (udge Tan interrupted the proceeding holding the triplicates as not admissible unless it is proven that the originals were lost and cannot be produced. %xhibit / is a deed of sale notari.they never appeared before the /LS0 Law. /octrine.ed and ac"nowledged by the vendors.Invoice sought to be introduced were produced by use of carbon sheets 3duplicate originals7.:n ocular inspection is not the main trial nor should it exclude the presentation of other evidence which the parties may deem necessary to establish their case. %xt %*2*: was merely a Lerox copy of the P54 bill used as buy*bust money which Tandoy $uestioned as not the best evidence for being mere photocopy.orgonia 9lora and that . )ase remanded to court of origin for further proceedings giving the wor"ersD association an opportunity to present its evidence in support of its opposition to PremiereDs petition for layoff. Pp v. It is merely an auxiliary remedy the law affords the parties or the court to reach an enlightened determination of the case.orgoniaDs possession was a mere tolerance. /octrine.E 35.on. /uplicate originals may be introduced as such even without accounting for the non*production of the originals.=. The stamps are affixed to the original or first copy and not to any duplicate or carbon copies. Tur(o >>C S)R: C58 324447 /octrine.<ario Tandoy was convicted of violation of /angerous /rugs :ct in a buy*bust operation. )lear and positive evidence is necessary to destroy the credence of a public instrument especially the notary public who ratified the deed of sale too" the witness stand and categorically declared the genuineness of thumbmar"s and signatures. Pp v. supra /octrine. /uplicate original may be introduced in evidence without accounting for the nonproduction of other copies. There is a presumption that official duty has been regularly performed and the regular course of business has been followed.47 9acts.ales et.In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved the testimony of the complainant is scrutini.2 S)R: . Page 2.%xhibit / is a duplicate copy of the original. The <ahilums claim.Evidence Case Doctrines unavailable H something else is necessary.GG 9acts. v.7 9acts.The <ahilums claim they never sold any portion of their lot to . The 2 witness re$uirement has been complied with by the notary public and his wife. CA L*5C. It is a signed carbon copy or duplicate executed at the same time as the original.ed with extreme caution! and the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the wea"ness of the defense Bb&ect M Real Section 5 Rule 5>4 Phil.

uing(o 24C S)R: GG 35. v.Sec = Rule 5>4 6 Re$uisites for admissibility of secondary evidence when original is in the custody of the adverse party5. %xh / a copy of the memo was alleged by Sala.27 9acts. 8. . )opies of wee"ly where the libelous article was published and its translation constitute the best evidence of the libel charged. :errer 2= S)R: E8= 35. 9ailure or refusal of opponent to produce the original in court It is not necessary for a party see"ing to introduce secondary evidence to show that the original is in the actual possession of his adversary.uevarra for publishing on the wee"ly paper Ing Magumasid an article intending to impeach the honesty integrity and reputation of /ayrit.Evidence Case Doctrines /octrine. In criminal proceedings for falsification of a document it is indispensable that the &udges and the courts have before them the document alleged to have been simulated counterfeited or falsified in order that they may find whether or not the crime was committed. +either is it re$uired that the party entitled to the custody of the instrument should on being notified to produce it admit having it in his possession. The condition was violated. %xh 5E was a certification of /irector of 'ureau of Records and :rchives attesting to the correctness of an entry appearing on the notarial register of notary public Ialle&era which ma"es reference to a deed of purchase and sale by 9lores and )laverias.S. Satisfactory proof of its existence 8. 4eyes == Phil .)omplaint for libel as a general rule must set out the particular defamatory words as published except published in a non* official language. The libelous articles were not $uoted in the information but only its translation.ar instituted a suit as creditor against 'alistoy for payment of certain sum of money. $illa 4ey Transit v. : buy*bust money is not indispensable to the conviction of the accused because the sale of mari&uana had been ade$uately proven by the testimony of the police officers.regorio re$uested the sheriff to exclude one of the lots from attachment alleging he was the owner which he ac$uired by purchase in 5. Page >4 .: libel case was filed against .'est evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document are the sub&ect of in$uiry. It is enough that the circumstances are such as to indicate that the writing is in his possession or under control.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Pampango dialect it is sufficient to insert a Spanish translation in the information. The sheriff testified to have seen the original of the said document.GE7 9acts.ar to be a simulated conveyance of the property to avoid attachment. %xhibits contain the copies of the wee"ly paper containing the libelous article with its translation into Spanish. /octrine. +ewspaper itself is the best evidence of an article published in it. BpponentDs possession of the original 2. :is(al o' Pampanga v. : crime of falsification of private document was charged. Claverias v.)laverias filed an action for annulment of title and reconveyance with damages involving more than 5= hectares of land.The mere exhibition of a copy of an unauthenticated private doc could not legally produce the effect of suspending the sale of the land 6 a copy is not sufficient proof of the right to intervene whose legality has not been proven.>57 9acts. . 9regorio 5C Phil =22 35. :mong the exhibits presented were photostatic copies of ledger entries and vouchers showing that Iillarama had co*mingled his personal funds and transactions with those made in the name of the corporation. Since the article in $uestion was published in /LS0 Law. <ar"ed money was presented solely for the purpose of establishing its existence and not its contents. )an the said evidence be admitted without amending the informationN yes /octrine. /octrine. Pantranco filed a complaint.547 9acts. The party calling for such evidence may introduce a copy as in the case of loss.4= from 'alistoy prior to the filing the complaint. Secondary evidence is admissible where he denies having it in his possession. The debtor was sentenced to pay 2 properties were attached.Pedro Sala.4= 35.Iillarama sold 2 certificates of public convenience of Iilla Rey Transit to Pantranco with a condition.. Reasonable notice to opponent to produce the original >.

Allie" :ree Wor1ers 8nion CC S)R: 28 35.The destruction of the instrument may be proved by any person "nowing the fact.CC7 The parties are engaged in a protracted labor case. Respondent union charged the company of unfair labor practice for refusing to recogni. San"igan#ayan 52= S)R: CG> 35.: case of double sale of real property and who has a better right between the registered buyer and the prior buyer but unregistered. Statements then admissible as part of the res gestae. <ara#e 22 S)R: 528C 35. The impact of the occurrence was still fresh and continued to be felt when the /LS0 Law. The alleged unregistered document could no longer be examined by the parties in court because it was lost but its original has been sufficiently proved as having existed. :bsence of the original documents ma"es it improper to conclude that there is falsification of document./ucusin filed a complaint against 'or&e 3Provincial Plant Industry Bfficer of 'ureau of Plant Industry7 who falsified his daily time record and payroll.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 dialogue happened. CA .GE7 9acts. Oualified 'y Air :ran(e v. There was no showing of unnecessary or numerous accounts which cannot be examined without great loss of time.R. 0pon examination &ewelries were discovered hidden inside the fruits and sewn in &ac"ets blan"ets and clothes.#hile the certification may be ta"en as evidence that sometime in the past the notary public did ma"e that entry in his notarial boo" the entry is neither a substitute for the document nor the best evidence. =GEGG 2C (une 5. Carras(oso 5E S)R: 5== 35. The company argued that its contract with the union provided that the cargo owners should be the one paying for the stevedoring services rendered by the former.the transcribed testimony of )arrascoso is admissible in evidence. %xhibits / and ) are Lerox copies only of the falsified documents.The original reports must be presented.E>7 9acts. The sub&ect of in$uiry is not the entry but the ouster incident.:ir 9rance issued to )arrascoso a Wfirst classD roundtrip tic"et from <la to Rome via 'ang"o" as a pilgrim. The failure to present the originals 3lost misplaced or missing7 is suspicious for there is ill motive. :side from this the company alleged that it has been losing money due to the negligence of the union. /octrine. :nd even if so the records should be made accessible to the adverse party to chec" the correctness.e them as the exclusive bargaining unit to load and unload the cargo.Evidence Case Doctrines /octrine. ?owever the original Page >5 . in this environment are &or=e v.. It does not fall under any exceptions.In a criminal case for falsification of a document it is indispensable that &udges and courts have before them the document alleged to have been simulated. )arrascosoDs testimony include that a purser recorded the incident in his noteboo" 3passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will and the captain refused to intervene7. :fter proving the due execution and delivery of the document together with the fact that the same has been lost or destroyed its contents may be proved among others by the recollection of witnesses. To prove this they presented the auditors whom they hired to compute the losses. 3?owever in this case laches has foreclosed the petitionerDs right to recover the property 6 >G years7 Paylago v. /octrine.E= 0pon arrival %den Tan was apprehended by the custom officials. /octrine.GG7 9acts. Tan v. :ir 9rance assailed the tic"et was no guarantee that he would have a first class ride but will depend upon its availability. Compania 6aritima v. ?e was forced to vacate the first class seat in favor of a Wwhite manD. >el". Testimony on the entry does not come with the proscription of the best evidence rule such testimony is admissible. +o. The loss may be shown by any person who "new the fact of its loss or by anyone who has made a sufficient examination of the place where the documentMpapers are "ept by the person in whose custody the document lost was.

The customs police who actually saw the declaration 3where Tan said that she only had personal effects7 testified as to its existence.. /ue to the failure of <)) to put up a Letter of )redit Ssangyon sued <)) Page >2 /LS0 Law. <elendres did not state that he was present when the deed of sale was supposedly executed or the fact of its execution was ac"nowledged or admitted to him by the person who executed the document.Since not all contents were produced electronically these are not considered electronic document under R: EC. v. #hat differentiates and electronic document from a paper*based document is the manner by which the information is processed! clearly the information contained in an electronic document is received recorded transmitted stored processes retrieved or produced electronically.>7 Petitioners and wife of respondent were all heirs of <arcosa 'ernabe. Aguilar 25E S)R: G42 35. CA L*2. )opy of receipts showing the actual loss information most of which were originally manually written and signed as evidence were presented.The declaration of the original counsel <elendres did not satisfy the re$uirement of the Rules.Evidence Case Doctrines baggage declaration was not presented.5 48 :pr 244C To recover damages due to collision of respondentsDs private ship to +:PB)BRDs power barges the latter presented several evidence of the loss. Ssangyong would send the pro 0orma invoices containing the details of the steel product order to <))! if the latter conforms thereto its representative affixes his signature on the faxed copy and sends it bac" to Ssangyong again by fax.2. The very testimony of /e Iera showed that the last original duplicate may have been with the Register of /eeds in <alolos.=C= >4 :pril 5. Since the last place where the document was seen was the fiscalDs office and it must be presumed that the fiscal diligently searched for it but was unable to find he can testify as to the fact of loss. >el".1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 . It was alleged to be lost at the office of the fiscal. National Po!er Corp. :lthough the notary public testified that his copy was burned it is not sufficient to prove loss of all originals! at best it &ust showed loss of the notary publicDs copy. >el". 5C48. Sangyong =>G S)R: 85E 3244C7 Petitioner <)) engaged in the business of importing and wholesaling stainless steel products. %ven assuming therefore that this witness could have read the contents of the document yet it is considered that there is no showing that the witness "new and recogni. +o.R.C5 Raymundo applied for registration of = parcels of lands ac$uired through prescription. San :gustin who was appointed as a &udge but was "illed afterwards7. %e $era v. It includes digitally signed documents and any printout readable by sight or other means which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. The Rules on %lectronic %vidence defines an Jelectronic documentK as an information or the representation of information data figures symbols or other models of written expression described or however affirmed which is received recorded transmitted stored processed retrieved or produced electronically. It appears simply that the deed perhaps then already accomplished was delivered to him by Raymundo together with other papers.ed the signatures affixed thereon such "nowledge of the terms would not $ualify him to testify in the due execution of the document. 6CC In"ustrial Sales v.. It was opposed by the /irector of Lands for lac" of registrable title and :guilar claiming to be the owner of the southern portion. >el". >el". :s evidenced by a /eed of :bsolute Sale several parcels of lands were sold to respondents. %ire(tor o' Lan"s v. Co"illa . :nd respondent Ssangyong 3supplier7 conduct business through telephone calls and facsimile or telecopy transmissions. The ): ruled that Raymundo owned the whole property since the original document was lost during the war 3original counsel gave the document to :tty.Since there was no showing that all duplicates were lost or could not be found secondary evidence should not be admitted. :s"ing for partition the petitioners merely presented a Leroxed copy of the alleged resale transaction 3from :guilars to <arcosa7.

al for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo '. Trial courts should not be so strict with reference to matters of the character under discussion as to cause a miscarriage of &ustice. >el".Since in an ordinary facsimile transmission there exists an original paper=-ased information or data that is scanned sent through a phone line and re*printed at the receiving end it is not considered an electronic document. v. <ichael and %. in favor of %.) In(. Then he would have been allowed to testify to its execution and delivery. 5ap 548 Phil =4.an filed a petition for the probate of a holographic will allegedly executed by the deceased. ?aving obtained an affirmative answer to the $uestion indicated counsel could then have shown how the witness came to "now of the execution or existence of the document.when the original is outside the &urisdiction of the court as when it is in a foreign country secondary evidence is admissible. 'e it noted that in enacting the %lectronic )ommerce :ct of 2444 )ongress intended virtual or paperless writings to be the 0unctional e$uivalent and to have the same legal 0unction as paper*based documents.:n original writing must be produced and proved. ?owever the will itself was not presented. transferring to it the land described in the sale with right to repurchase. :fter Ssangyong rested its case defendants filed a /emurrer to %vidence alleging that Ssangyong failed to present the original copies of the pro 0orma invoices on which the civil action was based. The will itself must be presented! otherwise it shall produce no effect. of which he claims to be the successor by reason of an instrument duly executed and delivered by said companies to appellant transferring property business and assets of every "ind including the land which is the sub&ect of this litigation. It was alleged that 9elicidad mentioned to her first cousin Iicente %sguerra her desire to ma"e a will but doesnDt want her husband to "now it. 9austo . 'onilla and the issuance of letters testamentary in her favor. S)R: 5G 35. 35. Petitioner tried to establish its contents and due execution by the statements in open court of the relatives of 9elicidad. . >el". So is the attempt to prove the fact that the instrument was lost as basis for the introduction of secondary evidence.Evidence Case Doctrines in the RT). 6i(hael & Co. 9urther in a virtual or paperless environment technically there is no original copy to spea" of as all direct printouts of the virtual reality are the same in all respects and are considered as originals.=G7 /octrine. 4o"elas v.The execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and or read such will. This was opposed on the ground that the alleged hollographic will itself and not an alleged Page >> . )ounsel if he had desired to identify the instrument to which the $uestion referred might have done better perhaps if he as"ed the witness if he "new of the execution of an instrument between appellant and its predecessor in interest relating to the lands described in the complaint or to the property and business of petitioner. Since a facsimile transmission is not an @electronic data message@ or an @electronic document @ and cannot be considered as electronic evidence by the )ourt with greater reason is a photocopy of such a fax transmission not electronic evidence.=E7 9elicidad %sguerra :lto 1ap died of heart failure.E27 :ppellant filed a petition with the )ourt of 9irst Instance of Ri. PN& v. Aran?a 55. The trial court however prevented appellant from proving the execution and delivery. nri2ue? supra The action is based on a sale with a right to repurchase made by :driano %nri$ue. <ichael U )o. Bpposing the petition her surviving husband Ildefonso 1ap asserted that the deceased had not left any will nor executed any testament during her lifetime. Since the time to repurchase having expired the title to the property became absolute in appellant.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 to its content. The law regards the document itself as material proof of authenticity. Oualified 'y Sections =*G Rule CG 9an v.E Phil 5442 35. :nd if lost the fact of loss must first be made before evidence can be given as /LS0 Law. *lila . >el".

In reply Ramos countered that the deed does not express the true agreement of the parties because certain important conditions agreed upon were not included therein by the counsel who prepared the contract. entered into an agreement with 1u Te" U )o. %ven a mimeographed or carbon copy! or by other similar means if any whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and tested before the probate court @ Parole %vidence Rule Section .?owever a party may present evidence to modify explain or add to the terms of the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading3a7 :n intrinsic ambiguity mista"e or imperfection in the written agreement! 3b7 The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto! 3c7 The validity of the written agreement! or The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.5=7 =acts& 'asilio ..ale. nri2ue? v. failed to comply with his obligation thus forcing 1u Te" U )o. JThe rule 3on parole evidence7 . 35. The defendant undertoo" to Page >8 /LS0 Law.eneral Rule.ale.N %eld& +o. The appellant presented a photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will. 9on?ales 2. 1ap it says that @Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic copy. Remember. %xception.Evidence Case Doctrines copy thereof must be produced otherwise it would produce no effect. Rule 5>4 . In defense .. JThere is no clause in the written contract which even remotely suggests such a condition.ale. The fact that such failure has been put in issue in this case is patent in the answer wherein defendant has specifically pleaded that the contract of sale in $uestion does not express the true intent of the parties with regard to the construction of the roads.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 . Issue& #hether or not extrinsic evidence could be adduced in proving the defense of .on. 4amos G S)R: 25. only holds true if there is no allegation that the agreement does not express the intent of the parties.on. It is necessary that there be a comparison between sample handwritten statements of the testator and the handwritten will. >el".K 5u Te1 v. Issue& #hether or not an agreement coetaneous to the execution of the contract of sale but not appearing therein may be proved by oral evidenceN %eld& 1es. /ue to fortuitous events .on.an v.on.G27 =acts& Rodrigo %nri$ue.The term JagreementK includes wills. argued that the parties intended that the sugar was to be secured from the crop which he raised on his plantation and that he was unable to fulfil the contract by reason of the almost total failure of his crop. If there is and this claim is in issue in the pleadings the same may be the sub&ect of parole evidence.#hen the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be as between the parties and their successors in interest no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the agreement. filed an action to foreclose a real estate mortgage executed by Socorro Ramos for brea"ing certain stipulations contained in a deed of sale over 24 parcels of land sold by the former to the latter. whereby he obligated himself to deliver to the latter G44 piculs of sugar of the first and second grade within three months. In 9ootnote E of . 'ut a photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writings of the testator. Phil >E8 35. to sue the former for damages.ale.If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available the will can not be probated because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will.

5 Phil C=G 35.arcia is allowedN %eld& 1es. Issue& #hether or not the verbal assurances of Seeto may be proved by extrinsic evidenceN %eld& +o.arcia 6 thereby placing the fact in issue in the pleadings. Bur conclusion is that the condition which the defendant see"s to add to the contract by parol evidence cannot be considered. ?e was e$ually at liberty to purchase it on the mar"et or raise it himself. JThe rule 3on parol evidence7 does not prevent the introduction of extrinsic evidence to show that a supposed contract never became effective by reason of the failure of some collateral condition or stipulation pre*re$uisite to liability@.P)I and /e .> Phil =2G 35.K PN& v.racia in their answer admitted the execution of the two promissory notes but contended that the same had been novated by a subse$uent agreement contained in a letter sent by the manager of the 'oard of Li$uidators of LS/) giving them an extension of time within which to pay the balance. 9ar(ia Plantation C S)R: C=4 35. Seeto .P)I and /e . In defense Seeto denied such verbal assurances.P)I and /e .arcia based on two promissory notes for the recovery of the unpaid balance from the purchase price of two tractors bought by the latter from the former. In reply LS/) admitted the due execution and genuineness of the letter but contended that the same did not express the true intent and agreement of the parties 6 in that there was a condition precedent before it was sent to . The rule excluding parol evidence to vary or contradict a writing does not extend so far as to preclude the admission of extrinsic evidence to show prior or contemporaneous collateral parol agreements between the parties but such evidence may be received regardless of whether or not the written agreement contains reference to such collateral agreement. +egotiations on the terms and conditions of their contract ensued. It may be true that defendant owned a plantation and expected to raise the sugar himself but he did not limit his obligation to his own crop of sugar.=27 =acts& 'enito Seeto indorsed a chec" payable to cash or bearer to the Surigao branch of the Philippine +ational 'an" in exchange for its face value. 3LS/)7 filed an action for specific performance against the .G>7 =acts& The Land Settlement U /evelopment )orp. It was drawn by . 3. . Incidentally the original draft contained a stipulation to the effect that )harles 6 who was designated as the manager 6 was the exclusive grantee of a franchise for the sale of the said beverages in the Philippines. %ventually 9ortunato thin"ing that it would be a profitable opportunity agreed to create an enterprise with )harles for the sale of the said beverages.=>7 =acts& )harles #oodhouse approached 9ortunato ?alili for a possible business venture for the bottling and distribution of <ission soft drin"s claiming that he 3)harles7 has the exclusive franchise to sell the said beverages in the Philippines. Issue& #hether or not extrinsic evidence tending to prove the existence of a condition precedent before the extension of time granted to .K Lan" Settlement & %ev7t v. The original draft of their agreement was that of a corporation! this was however re&ected because a partnership was the one desired by the parties. :fter almost a month the chec" was presented to P')om6 )ebu for payment but unfortunately the chec" was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. P+'6Surigao filed a complaint against Seeto on the ground that he gave verbal assurances to the effect that the drawer of the chec" had sufficient funds with P')om6)ebu.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Page >= .Evidence Case Doctrines deliver a specified $uantity of sugar within a specified time. The contract placed no restriction upon the defendant in the matter of obtaining the sugar.an 1e" Tiao against the )ebu 'ranch of Philippine 'an" of )ommerce.P)I7 andMor Salud /e . JPTQhe supposed assurances of refund in case of dishonor of the chec" are precisely the ordinary obligations of an indorser and these obligations are under the law considered discharged by an unreasonable delay in the presentation of the chec" for payment. >alili . Inc. The rights of the parties must be determined by the writing itself.K Woo"house v.arcia Plantation )o. /LS0 Law.

. filed an action against L? for the purpose of recovering compensation for the improvements he made on the hacienda and the value of the implements and farming e$uipment he supplied to the hacienda.ed to prove #oodhouseDs misrepresentationN %eld& 1es. the son Aacarias (r. /LS0 Law. :nd so notwithstanding the fact that the bottling plant was already in operation 9ortunato refused to execute the partnership agreement. 9urthermore the parol evidence rule expressly allows the evidence to be introduced when the validity of an instrument is put in issue by the pleadings as in this case. #ere parties prohibited from proving said representations or inducements on the ground that the agreement had already been entered into it would be impossible to prove misrepresentation or fraud. In the case before us the written contract is complete in itself! the oral agreement is also complete in itself and it is a Page >G . %ventually Aacarias (r. Li?arraga =4 Phil >EC 35. The representative of L? explained that this was unnecessary in view of the confidence existing between the parties.arraga ?ermanos 3L?7 proposed to buy the hacienda. The issue of fact is. JThe rule excluding parol evidence to vary or contradict a writing does not extend so far as to preclude the admission of extrinsic evidence to show prior or contemporaneous collateral parol agreements between the parties but such evidence may received regardless of whether or not the written agreement contains any reference to such collateral agreement and whether the action is at law or in e$uity. These are expressly excluded from the parol evidence rule. JPThe Supreme )ourtQ find3s7 that the principle 3on the integration of &ural acts7 .Ds rights as lessee nor to his compensation for the improvements and farming e$uipments. The deed of conveyance evidencing the agreement however made no reference to the surrender of the Aacarias (r. Issue& #hether or not extrinsic evidence could be used to prove Aacarias (r.K 4o#les v. Issue& #hether or not the first draft of the business agreement may be utili./id plaintiff represent to defendant that he had an exclusive franchiseN )ertainly his acts or statements prior to the agreement are essential and relevant to the determination of said issue.2C7 =acts& The spouses Aacarias Robles Sr. and :nastacia de la Rama owned hacienda J+ahalinanK. :fter negotiations the parties eventually came to an agreement that L? would buy the hacienda on the condition that Aacarias (r. leased the hacienda for six years from his mother with the stipulation that any permanent improvement necessary to the cultivation and exploitation of the hacienda should be made at the expense of the lessee.Ds right to reimbursementN %eld& 1es. The act or statement of the plaintiff was not sought to be introduced to change or alter the terms of the agreement but to prove how he induced the defendant to enter into it H to prove the representations or inducements or fraud with which or by which he secured the other party's consent thereto.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 #hen :nastacia died Li. is inapplicable since the purpose of considering the prior draft is not to vary alter or modify the agreement but to discover the intent of the parties thereto and the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract.. should shorten the term of his lease and that in consideration thereof L? would pay him the value of all the improvements that had made on the hacienda as well as the value of the implements and farming e$uipments supplied to the hacienda.K JThe verbal contract which the plaintiff has established in this case is therefore clearly independent of the main contract of conveyance and evidence of such verbal contract is admissible under the doctrine abovestated. The rule that a preliminary or contemporaneous oral agreement is not admissible to vary a written contract appears to have more particular reference to the obligation expressed in the written agreement and the rule has never been interpreted as being applicable to matters of consideration or inducement. 9raud and false representation are an incident to the creation of a &ural act not to its integration and are not governed by the rules on integration.Evidence Case Doctrines It turned out however that )harles prior to the execution of the contract did not have the franchise to sell the said beverages in the Philippines. 0pon the death of Aacarias Sr.

In defense :ntonio countered by saying that his leasehold relationship with . was improper. S)R: >E> 35.K Castro v.avino de la )ru. The rule is that ob&ections to evidence must be made as /LS0 Law. In the case of testimonial evidence the ob&ection must be made when the ob&ectionable $uestion is as"ed or after the answer is given if the ob&ectionable features become apparent only by reason of such answer. it is not intended to be an exclusive memorial and the facts may be shown irrespective of the terms of the receipt.E2 3%xhibit I7 Issue& #hether or not parol evidence may be used to verify %xhibits / 3receipt7 and I 3Jpa"yawK agreement7N %eld& 1es.Evidence Case Doctrines collateral to the written contract notwithstanding the fact that it deals with related matters. The receipt 3%xhibit /7 is not covered by the parol evidence rule. 35. This was evidenced by a receipt dated <ay 58 5. a written ac"nowledgment handed by one party to the other of the manual custody of money or other personality 6 will in general fall without the line of the rule! i. JIf the parties in the aforementioned leasehold agreement intended to include the sugar crusher area in $uestion then they could have embodie3d7 the same with its bananas and mangoes in their written agreement.. Sometime later Lucio verbally subleased the fishpond to )onrado for a period of one year.44 which constituted the consideration for their Jpa"yawK agreement. This is because usually a receipt is merely a written admission of a transaction independently existing and li"e other admissions is not conclusive.e.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 soon as the grounds therefor become reasonably apparent. The record shows that no ob&ection was made by 3)onrado7 when 3Lucio7 introduced evidence to explain the circumstances behind the execution and issuance of the said instruments.K Cru? v. In compliance with their sublease agreement Lucio received from )onrado P5= 2=4.K :ernan"e? v.K :s regards the Jpa"yawK agreement 3%xhibit I7 JPaQ deed is not conclusive evidence of everything it may contain. )elso on the other hand countered that <iguel had assured him over the telephone that the latter would willingly renew the lease for another ten years upon expiration of the original term. CA 5. :s stated by #igmore.. CA 5GG S)R: =CC 35.7 =acts& .e. the present lessee of :ntonio )astro over a certain parcel of riceland by virtue of a tenancy contract entitled JTasunduan ng Pamumuwisan ng Lupang Sa"ahan K filed a complaint in the )ourt of :grarian Relations for accounting and damages for having been deprived of his rightful share in the fruits of the sugar crusher area.JPaQ receipt 6 i.K 'efore the agreed term ended <iguel wrote )elso about the formerDs intention not to further extend or renew the lease.47 =acts& Lucio )ru.. Page >C . Issue& #hether or not parol evidence may be used to validate the claim that the sugar crusher area is included in the tenancy contractN %eld& +o. a lessee of fishpond out of necessity borrowed P>= 444 from )onrado Salonga evidenced by a receipt 3%xhibit /7. )onrado claimed that aside from P=4 2=4 3P>= 444 X P5= 2=47 he also gave Lucio P2E 444. as lessee entered into a ten*year contract of lease over a piece land where the latter would put up a mar"et! the lease contract is Jrenewable for another ten years at the option of both parties under such terms conditions and rental reasonable at that time.E. CA 5G.avino is limited to the five*hectare landholding which is described in their tenancy contract and that the sugar crusher area is entirely separate and distinct from that five*hectare land. 9or instance it is not the only evidence of the date of its execution nor its omission of a consideration conclusive evidence that none passed nor is its ac"nowledgment of a particular consideration an ob&ection to other proof of other and consistent considerations! and by analogy the ac"nowledgment in a deed is not conclusive of the fact.2 S)R: 24.K 9urthermore JPeQven if it were assumed that %xhibits / and I are covered by the parol evidence rule its application .EE7 =acts& <iguel Tan&angco as lessor and )elso 9ernande.

Evidence Case Doctrines Issue& #hether or not the term of the lease has been extended by virtue of <iguelDs alleged telephone assurance to )elsoN %eld& +o. It is the duty of every contracting party to learn and "now its contents before he signs and delivers it.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Page >E .K %e la 4an?a v. JThere is merit in 3LedesmaDs7 contention that the alleged oral reservation and the sale of the shares of stoc" were made simultaneously and contemporaneously so that /e la Rama to prove the same would run counter to the Parol %vidence Rule. S)R: 28= 35. JPrivate respondent must be held bound by the clear terms of the <emorandum of Repurchase that he had signed wherein he ac"nowledged the receipt of P5G=..EG7 =acts& Salvador de la Rama a former stoc"holder of the Inocentes de la Rama Inc. CA 55. %ventually the document evidencing the pacto de retro was found. Ledesma in his defense claimed that the indorsement by /e la Rama of the stoc" certificate was unconditional.E 58> S)R: G 35. 'esides he would have had no personality to ob&ect. +otwithstanding this awareness 3)elso7 entered into the lease agreement probably convinced that he would not only recover the costs of all the improvements he proposed to introduce into the leased lot but also ma"e profits in the process. JThe )ourt of :ppeals noted that 3)elso7 is a lawyer and was at the time of entering into the contract aware of the fact that 3<iguel7 might exercise the option not to renew and that the option to renew was not his alone. Issue& #hether or not the alleged verbal agreement of the parties concerning /e la RamaDs reservation of his right to the war damage claim can be proven by parol evidenceN %eld& +o. Issue& #hether or not extrinsic evidence could be adduced to prove that there was no valid repurchase of the parcel of landN %eld& +o. To uphold his oral testimony on that point would be a departure from the parol evidence rule and would defeat the purpose for which the doctrine is intended. filed a complaint against Rafael Ledesma upon whom he indorsed his stoc" certificate in the company for the recovery of his share in the companyDs approved war damage claim 6 which was approved by the Philippine #ar /amage )ommission during his tenure as stoc"holder of the company.44 and assumed the obligation to maintain the repurchasers in peaceful possession should they be Wdisturbed by other personsD. 1ears later Pio sold the same parcel of land to the spouses Ramon )onde and )atalina )onde. In any event an alleged verbal assurance of renewal of a lease is inadmissible to $ualify the terms of the written lease agreement under the parole evidence rule and unenforceable under the Stature of 9rauds.K J#hile parol evidence is admissible in a variety of ways to explain the meaning of written contracts it cannot serve the purpose /LS0 Law.K JThere is nothing in the document of repurchase to show that Paciente )ordero had signed the same merely to indicate that he had no ob&ection to petitioner's right of repurchase.K Con"e v. 'efore the period of redemption Paciente )ordero son*in* law of the spouses :lteras signed a document entitled J<emorandum of Repurchase over a parcel of land with repurchase which document got lostK wherein the spouses :lteras reconveyed the parcel of land to /ominga )onde.. If the contract is plain and une$uivocal in its terms he is ordinarily bound thereby. Respondents in their defense argued that Paciente merely signed the document of repurchase to show that he had no ob&ection to the repurchase. It was executed in the Iisayan dialect which he understood. @.E57 =acts& <argarito 'ernardo and /ominga all surnamed )onde sold with the right to repurchase a parcel of agricultural land to )asimira Pasagui married to Pio :ltera. Le"esma L*2E8. ?e cannot now be allowed to dispute the same. )ontending that she had validly repurchased the lot in $uestion /ominga filed a complaint against Paciente +icetas :ltera Ramon )onde )atalina )onde and )asimira for $uieting of title to real property and declaration of ownership.

Bbviously they could not introduce parol evidence to vary the terms of the agreement because they did not plead any of the exceptions mentioned in the parol evidence rule.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 the sole repository of the terms of the agreement between the parties.Laguna )oconut Bil )o. 'PI now filed a case for reformation of a written instrument of guaranty upon the ground of mista"e to obtain for 'PI a &udgment for P== 444 with interest against 9idelity. T?e )ode of )ivil Procedure however permits evidence of the terms of the agreement other than the contents of the writing when a mista"e or imperfection of the writing or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties is put in issue by the pleadings. )arr as"ed <oore Page >. : written agreement is presumed to contain all the terms of the agreement. . 35. 'esides 'PI filed > different actions regarding this case which showed that it has not remained loyal to any one of the theory of the case. :i"elity & Surety Co. Subse$uently 'PI made demands to the payment of the promissory notes from L)B) PIB) and 9idelity. =5 Phil =C 35.K &PI v. In reply the P+R argued that the donation was unconditional and that the complainants are guilty of laches. Issue& #hether or not the five conditions allegedly part of the supposed condition donation may be proved by oral evidenceN %eld& +o. executed in favor of the Philippine Iegetable Bil )ompany a promisiry note. Indeed the exceptions to the rule do not apply in the instant case there being no intrinsic ambiguity or fraud mista"e or failure to express the true agreement of the parties. The note said that L)B) will pay PIB) P=4 444. :ll three refused to pay.Evidence Case Doctrines of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing unless there has been fraud or mista"e. It was also stated that the relief by way of reformation will not be granted unless the proof of mutual mista"e be of the clearest and most satisfactory character. Issue& )an the action for reformation prosperN %eld& +o. The > lots were sold to Bng )hua with a right to repurchase within 8 years.2.K J:t the trial they tried to prove those conditions by parol evidence. J3The Rules of )ourt7 re$uires that in order that parol or extrinsic evidence may be admitted to vary the terms of the writing the mista"e or imperfection thereof or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties should be put in issue by the pleadings. *ng Chua v.C= 35. The S) also cited /ilippine Sugar Estates ?evelopment Compan1 v5 @overnment o0 t/e /ilippine Islands5 In the latter case it was announced that the courts of e$uity will reform a written contract where owing to mutual mista"e the language used therein did not fully or accurately express the agreement and intent of the parties. Later on PIB) endorsed the note and delivered it to 'PI. Then they prayed that the donation should be annulled or rescinded for noncompliance with those conditions. In this case the plaintiffs did not expressly plead that the deed of donation was incomplete or that its execution was vitiated by mista"e or that it did not reflect the intention of the donor and the donee.E> S)R: =G.K PN4 v.K JThe plaintiffs in their complaint merely alleged that the donation was sub&ect to five conditions.2C7 =acts. Subse$uently 9idelity and Surety )ompany made a notation on the the promissory note stating that it obligate itself to hold L)B) harmless against loss for having discounted the note at its stated value. C:I o' Al#ay &ran(h .7 =acts& Spouses Lim was the owner of > lots. Their case is covered by the general rule that the contents of the writing constitute /LS0 Law.CE7 =acts& )armen <yric" Salvacion <yric" and )elso (osefina and )elerina all surnamed <illabas filed a complaint to annul a supposed conditional donation of two parcels of land which they had allegedly made to the Philippine +ational Railways 3P+R7 on the ground that the five conditions contained therein were not fulfilled by the latter. In the present case mutual mista"e was not proven. Carr => Phil . <eanwhile )arr arrived in Aamboanga and approached <oore. #hen Salvacion was called to testify 6 after having identified the supposed deed of donation 6 was as"ed by their counsel to specify the five conditions contained in the conditional donation.

Btherwise stated in order to admit parol evidence to aid in the description of the sub&ect matter of a deed or other writing there must be a description that will serve as a foundation for such evidence! the writing must at least give some data from which the description may be found and made certain.a.a. Subse$uently )arr and Bng )hua negotiated regarding the purchase of the land. — #hen the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing it is to be considered as containing all such terms and therefore there can be between the parties and their successors in interest no evidence of the terms of the agreement other than the contents of the writing except in the following cases3a7 #here a mista"e or imperfection of the writing or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties or the validity of the agreement is put in issue by the pleadings! 3b7 #hen there is an intrinsic ambiguity in the writing. Issue& )an the court admit parol evidence despite the fact that there is already an instrument detailing the agreementN %eld& 1es.27 =acts& %speran. Issue& #as the ): correct in admitting testimonies to cure the ambiguity of the documentN %eld& +o. ?owever %lpidioDs sister claim that she bought the said land from %lpidio. Page 84 . Parol evidence is not admissible to identify the property where the description thereof is so vague as to amount to no description at all. Severino however defaulted on the balance so much so that LR< sent a demand letter to him.on Rice <ills 3LR<7 for P2= 444 payable in three installments. It is also well settled that an escrow delivered without authority or obtained fraudulently passes no title. &orillo v. Tolentino v. %ventually upon maturity Severino failed to pay his indebtedness to 'enito. Evidence o0 4ritten agreement. CA 24E S)R: 5>4 35. Sometime after the lots were transferred to )arr the spouses Lim sought to repurchased the lots.. ): however ruled against %speran. :nd since )arr acted fraudulently reformation of the contract may be granted. The ): disregarded the parol evidence rule then applicable namely Section C Rule 5>4 of the Rules of )ourt which /LS0 Law. The said deed of sale however suffered from a patent ambiguities. In other words parol evidence is not permitted to supply a description but only to apply it. Reformation will be given where there is a mista"e on one side and fraud or unfair delaing with the other. 'enito thereafter demanded the land.a 'orillo alleged that she owns certain parcels of land which she inherited from her husband %lpidio. The term @agreement@ includes wills. RT) ruled in favor of %speran. To pay the remaining balance Severino borrowed money from 'enito .a the ): relied on the deed of sale executed by %lpidio to her sister. <oore told )arr about the lots bought by Bng )hua from the spouses Lim. 'efore parol evidence may be admitted in order to identify explain or define the sub&ect matter of a writing it must first be shown that the writing itself already contains a description sufficient to serve as a foundation for the admission of such parol evidence! the evidence should also be consistent with the writing.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 provided as followsSec. )arr in this case acted fraudulently. In ruling against %speran. ?e did not honor the agreement between him and Bng )hua regarding the spouses LimDs right of repurchase. Bng )hua agreed to sell the lots provided that )arr honor the spouses LimDs right of repurchase over the land. ?owever )arr refused to resell the lots claiming that the document executed between him and Bng )hua was an absolute sale. Some of the documents to the transaction between Bng )hua and )arr were left with <oore in escrow. 'ut the ): admitted the testimonies to cure the documentDs ambiguities.ale. 9on?ales Sy Chiam =4 Phil ==E 35.2C7 =acts& Severino Tolentino purchased a parcel of land from Lu.on.Evidence Case Doctrines where he can buy coconut lands. Sy )hiam on the condition that he 3Severino7 would execute a pacto de retro sale with right to repurchase over the parcel of land in favor of 'enito. It is well settled that the condition upon which a deed is delivered in escrow may be proved by parol evidence. C.

Evidence Case Doctrines Severino on the other hand contends that the pacto de retro sale is actually a mortgage and not an absolute sale. In every case in which this court has construed a contract to be a mortgage or a loan instead of a sale with pacto de retro it has done so either because the terms of such contract were incompatible or inconsistent with the theory that said contract was one of purchase and sale. In the case before us we have a condition somewhat similar. They admit they sold the property in $uestion with the right to repurchase it. J#hile it is general rule that parol evidence is not admissible for the purpose of varying the terms of a contract but when an issue is s$uarely presented that a contract does not express the intention of the parties courts will when a proper foundation is laid therefor hear evidence for the purpose of ascertaining the true intention of the parties.K JIn the present case the plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the contract in $uestion is a pacto de retro. Serrano claimed that the indorsement was wholly without consideration and that in ma"ing it he merely acted as the agent of <aulini. #here an indorser claims that his name was forged it is clear thatparol evidence is admissible to prove that fact and if he proves it it is a complete defense the fact being that the indorser never made any such contract that no such relation ever existed between him and the indorsee and that there was no consideration whatever to sustain such a contract. Serrano indorsed said note to <aulini. Issue& #hether or not under the +egotiable Instruments Law an indorser of a negotiable promissory note may in an action brought by his indorsee show by parol evidence that the indorsement was wholly without consideration and that in ma"ing it the indorser acted as agent for the indorsee as a mere vehicle of transfer of the na"ed title from the ma"er to the indorsee for which he received no consideration whateverN /LS0 Law. The evidence was not offered for that purpose. #hile the indorser does not claim that his name was forged he does claim that it was obtained from him in a manner which between the parties themselves renders the contract as completely inoperative as if it had been forged. Issue& #hether or not the contract may be modified by parol evidenceN %eld& +o. Serrano 2E Phil G84 35. The prohibition in section 2E= of the )ode of )ivil Procedure does not apply to a case li"e this one. They admit that they signed it.K 6aulini v. The purpose of that prohibition is to prevent alternation change modification or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument admittedly existing by the use of parol evidence except in the cases specifically named in the section. Serrano introduce parol evidence to prove his claim but the trial court did not admit such evidence. The evidence was not offered to vary alter modify or contradict the terms of an agreement which it is admitted existed between the parties but to den1 t/at t/ere ever e2isted an1 agreement 4/atever ! to wipe out all apparent relations between the parties and not to vary alter or contradict the terms of a relation admittedly existing! in other words the purpose of the parol evidence was to demonstrate not that the indorser did not intend to ma"e the particular indorsement which he did ma"e! not that he did not intend to ma"e the indorsement in the terms made! but rather to deny the reality of any indorsement! that a relation of an1 kind 4/atever was created or e2isted -et4een /im and t/e indorsee by reason of the writing on the bac" of the instrument! that no consideration ever passed to sustain an indorsement of any "ind whatsoever. The purpose was to show that no contract of indorsement ever existed! that the minds of the parties never met on the terms of such contract! that they never mutually agreed to enter into such a contract! and that there never existed a consideration upon which such an agreement could be founded.587 =acts& : promissory note was made in favor of Serrano. The case at bar is not one where the evidence offered varies alters modifies or contradicts the terms of the contract of indorsement admittedly existing. Page 85 .1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 %eld& 1es. The terms of the contract $uoted by the plaintiffs to the defendant was a @sale@ with pacto de retro and the plaintiffs have shown no circumstance whatever which would &ustify us in construing said contract to be a mere @loan@ with guaranty.

?owever after the lapse of the original redemption period <ariano claimed absolute ownership of the land. was summoned because +aybe was already in Saudi :rabia while the case against Pantanosas was dismissed. RT) and ): ruled agaisnt Lechugas.regorio Pantanosas holding themselves &ointly and severally liable to the Philippine 'an" of )ommunications 3P')7 for Rudy )amposD debt.. Strangers to a contract are of course not bound by it and the rule excluding extrinsic evidence in the construction of writings is inapplicable in such cases! and it is relaxed where either one of the parties between whom the $uestion arises is a stranger to the written agreement and does not claim under or through one who is party to it.Evidence Case Doctrines Canuto v. Two days before the expiration of the redemption period <ariano promised orally to extend the redemption period for one month upon )anutoDs promise that she would find the money and repurchase within that period. ?owever of the three promissors only Inciong (r. Lechugas claimed that she bought the land from one Lasangue as evidenced by a public J/eed of :bsolute Sale.44.44 with Rene +aybe and .EG7 =acts& Lechugas filed a complaint for forcible entry with damages against private respondents alleging that the latter by means of force intimidation strategy and stealth unlawfully entered LechugasD land.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 respondents purchased said land from one Linor as evidence by the deed JIenta /efinitiva. signed a promissory note in the amount of P=4 444. Issue& #hether or not <ariano is bound to carry out his oral promiseN %eld& 1es. Issue& #as the lower courts correct when it sub&ected the true intent and agreement to parol evidence over the ob&ection of LechugasN %eld& 1es. CA 2=C S)R: =CE 35. ?e further alleged that in one of the five copies of the promissory note he indicated therein that he bound himself only for the amount of P= 444. #hen the due date of the promissory note expired without the promissors P') sued them for collection of sum of money.5E7 =acts& %spiridiona )anuto executed a deed of sale over her own parcel of land to (uan <ariano reserving the right to repurchase within a year. JThe rule forbidding the admission of parol or extrinsic evidence to alter vary or contradict a written instrument does not apply so as to prohibit the establishment by parol of an agreement between the parties to a writing entered into subse$uent to the time when the written instrument was executed notwithstanding such agreement may have the effect of adding to changing modifying or even altogether abrogating the contract of the parties as evidenced by the writing! for the parol evidence does not in any way deny that the original agreement of the parties was that which the writing purports to express but merely goes to show that the parties have exercised their right to change or abrogate the same or to ma"e a new and independent contract.K Oualified 'y Le(hugas v.44.K :lso LechugasD vendor Lasangue testified for the private respondents.44. Page 82 .K /uring trial Lechugas presented witnesses who corroborated her story. :s explained by a leading commentator on our Rules of )ourt the parol evidence rule does not apply and may not properly be invo"ed by either party to the litigation against the other where at least one of the parties to the suit is not party or a privy of a party to the written instrument in $uestion and does not base a claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby. CA 58> S)R: >>= 35. Private Respondents on the other hand also presented witnesses which stated that the predecessor*in*interest of the private /LS0 Law.G7 =acts& 'aldomero Inciong (r. 6ariano >C Phil E84 35. Thus it was by tric"ery fraud and misrepresentation that he was made liable for the amount of P=4 444. In such case the rule is binding upon neither In(iong v. In defense Inciong countered that he signed the document with the understanding that he would only be liable for P= 444.

In fact the sale is denominated as absolute in its own terms. %ia? Con"e 82 Phil CG. Two deeds of absolute sale were executed as proof of this transaction. If a law impairs the obligation of a contract it is prohibited by the (ones Law and is null Page 8> /LS0 Law.. 35.C7 =acts& Bscar Inocentes and :suncion Inocentes sold two parcels of land to Rafael BrtaRe. :ny law which enlarges abridges or in any manner changes the intention of the parties necessarily impairs the contract itself. the deeds of sale in this case made not reference to any pre*conditions or other agreement.D +o such fraud or mista"e exists in this case..S. That law must govern and control the contract in every aspect in which it is intended to bear upon it whether it affect its validity construction or discharge.K Interpretation Sections 54*5.K J#hat is re$uired is that the agreement be in writing as the rule is in fact founded on Wlong experience that written evidence is so much more certain and accurate than that which rests in fleeting memory only that it would be unsafe when parties have expressed the terms of their contract in writing to admit wea"er evidence to control and vary the stronger and to show that the parties intended a different contract from that expressed in the writing signed by them.K J9ifth P#Qe are not persuaded by 3the InocentesD7 contention that they Wput in issue by the pleadingsD the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent of the parties. J)learly the rule on parole evidence does not specify that the written agreement be a public document. Thus BrtaRe..K *rtane? v. :s a general rule bills notes and other instruments of a similar nature are not sub&ect to be varied or contradicted by parol or extrinsic evidence. Such issue must be Ws$uarely presented.227 /octrine. J9irst 3BscarDs7 oral testimony on the alleged conditions coming from a party who has an interest in the outcome of the case depending exclusively on human memory is not as reliable as written or documentary evidence.. sued Inocentes for specific performance.D Thus for the parol evidence to apply a written contract need not be in any particular form or be signed by both parties. CA 2GG S)R: =G5 35.D 3The Inocentes7 merely alleged that the sale was sub&ect to four conditions which they tried to prove during trial by parol evidence. ?owever fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence mere preponderance of evidence not even being ade$uate.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 .. Record shows that 3the Inocentes7 did not expressly plead that the deeds of sale were incomplete or that it did not reflect the intention of 3BrtaRe.+o.Evidence Case Doctrines Issue& #hether or not the contents of a promissory note which is not a public document be defeated by parol evidenceN ?eld. Bscar received the payment but failed to deliver the titles..K J9ourth . Spo"en words could be notoriously unreliable unli"e a written contract which spea"s of a uniform language.K JThirdly. Issue& #hether or not parol evidence should be admitted to establish the alleged oral conditions precedent to the contract of saleN %eld& +o.The obligation of the contract is the law which binds the parties to perform their agreement if it is not contrary to the law of the land morals or public order. PiQn this case the deeds are clear without any ambiguity mista"e or imperfection much less obscurity or doubt in the terms thereof.K JSecondly ..7 and the 3Inocentes7. v. PaQlthough parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a contract Wit cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing unless there has been fraud or mista"e.K :nyway JPbQy alleging fraud in his answer 3Inciong7 was actually in the right direction towards proving that he and his co* ma"ers agreed to a loan of P= 444. Rule 5>4 8.. /uring trial Bscar testified that the sale of the two parcels of land was sub&ect to four conditions although such conditions were not incorporated in the deeds of sale.44 only considering that where a parol contemporaneous agreement was the inducing and moving cause of the written contract it may be shown by parol evidence.

#here the language used by the parties is plain then construction and interpretation are unnecessary and if used result in ma"ing a contract for the parties. 6en"o?a 2=8 S)R: 5E 35. Tolentino 584 S)R: 855 35. EC.Interpretation and construction should be the instruments last resorted to by a court in determining what the parties agreed to. S)R: 8 35. Lam#ert v. :o+ 2G Phil =EE 35.ina during trial defense contests the testimony of Paul saying he is /ODd as a witness in line with his tender age 3= yr old7. /efense poses that she was placed in a mental institution due to shoc" dis$ualifies her as a witness and also on account of a child of tender age.E87 =acts& )lara <ina is a feeble minded girl who got raped. Sa"ang 25 S)R: 55E> 35. ?ad it been so then it should have been clearly stipulated in the contract. /LS0 Law.The above computation appears to be too much technical mumbo*&umbo and could not have been the intention of the parties to the transaction.GC7 /octrine.G7 =acts& Paul <icheal witnessed Rolando burning . Thus she is a competent witness. Salomon 22. )ontracts should be interpreted according to their literal meaning and should not be interpreted beyond their obvious intendment. Page 88 .Evidence Case Doctrines and void. %e <esus 52.2 %lectronic )ommerce :ct of 2444 Rules on %lectronic %vidence Testimonial /is$ualifications Sections 25*28 Rule 5>4 Pp v.587 /octrine. S)R: 842 35.. #hile in such a state she was raped by him. Capital Insuran(e v. The laws in force in the Philippine Islands prior to any legislation by the :merican sovereignty prohibited the Legislature from giving to any penal law a retroactive effect unless such law was favourable to the person accused. Pp v. This is in accordance to RB) rules on dis$ualifying a child of tender years Doctrine& any child regardless of age can be a competent witness! if he can perceive and perceiving can ma"e "nown his perception to others and of relating truthfully the facts which he is as"ed of.87 =acts& Sylvia a mentally handicapped girl was raped by Salomon! of course he denies saying he mere fingered her using five of his digits. :s in the case of other witnesses acceptance of his testimony depends on its nature and credibility or otherwise put the $uality of his perceptions and the manner he can ma"e them "nown to the court Pp v. Doctrine& :lthough Sylvia's speech was slurred and it was necessary at times to as" her leading $uestions @her testimony was positive clear plain coherent and credible. 58G S)R: >E= 35.@ ?er mental condition did not vitiate her credibility. Petrophil Corp. Republic :ct +o. /efense counsel says sheDs /ODd as a witness because of her condition. <ental retardation is not for this reason alone dis$ualified from being a witness.EG7 /octrine.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Doctrine& The )ourt is satisfied that the complainant can perceived and transmit her own way her own perceptions to others.E=7 =acts& <aria Ruby was boxed in the abdomen by the accused ma"ing her fell unconscious..If a contract as actually drafted seems to be vague and ambiguous the doubt must be resolved against the one who prepared such contract and in accordance with the real intention of the parties. >errera v. ?e says it was due to anger that she bumped into him S?% fell down along with him and seeing she wasnDt with undies became angry ma"ing him do such a thing. Pp v.

3Reversed7 Doctrine& )ourt says fiscal is an idiot dying declarations are intended by the dying person to be told. Antipolo >C Phil C2G 35. The wife was dis$ualified by virtue of her marriage to the accused but the court later on appeal reversed the said dis$ualification. who was raped by the +ursing aid! )ounsel contests that she is dis$ualified as a witness in line of her mental illness. husband7 Doctrine& the rule is neither a husband or wife shall in any case be a witness against each other! except in )ivilM)riminal prosecution for a crime committed by one to the other 8.ation made by the interpreter who is herself interested in sending the accused to prison. 55G>C2 5E (an 2445 Pp v. after the husband's death she is no longer his wife and the rules of evidence as between husbands and wives are no longer applicable.R.7 =acts& 9alsification case between husband and wife. Doctrine& The fact that a person is mentally handicapped alone does not prevent her from giving testimony especially if the testimony was candid straightforward and coherent Pp v. .<.8 35.. Rule on %xamination of a )hild #itness :. 3same thing wife testifies vs. The fiscal argues that she is dis$ualified to testify since her husband is dead and canDt give permission. CA . &ai" >>G S)R: G=G 324447 =acts& +ieva was a schi. Pp v. 4o"rigue? 2> S)R: 55GG 35. /uring trial the victim conveyed her testimony through her sister who was the only one who can communicate with her. :lso the dis$ualification applies to cases where spouses are to testify against each other! with the exception of civilMcriminal cases of one against the other.GE7 =acts& wife who is a co*defendant of her husband in an action may be examined as a hostile witness by the adverse party under sec.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 .Evidence Case Doctrines Doctrine& The )ourt says that <aria RubyDs being confined in the +)<? for treatment of Shoc" and +ervousness does not lessen her credibility as a witness. +o. 9inally as to the competency of the widow of the deceased to prove his dying declarations the )ourt sees no possible reason for excluding her . Doctrine& the exception applies where the victim of the crime and the person who stands to be directly pre&udiced by the falsification is not a third person but the wife herself.S. 3ac$uitted7 Doctrine& The court and the accused have no means of chec"ing the accuracy of the verbali. 0pon arrival he went upstairs stabbed his wife and child "illing the child but leaving his wife alive to testify. Castane"a EE S)R: =G2 35. G Page 8= /LS0 Law. Le?ama v.E47 =acts& victim was a deaf*mute who was allegedly raped by hayag. v. >ayag 545 S)R: GC 35.8C7 =acts& 9rancisco was arrested! he as"ed to be accompanied home by a cop to get bail money.C. .5E7 =acts& #ife of /almaceo Susana was ob&ected to by the fiscal when she was to give testimony on the dying declarations of her husband. :lso there was no other logical conclusion to deduce that being the one who rendered her unconscious the accused is the only person capable of doing the deed and even was the one who threatened her after she wo"e up. :ran(is(o CE Phil G. +o. It is undeniable that the act committed had the effect of directly and vitally impairing the con&ugal relation. Pp v. 44*8*4C*S) Pp v.

a /$Dd because she is the wife of the accused. ?aving made his selection of one of two courses which he may pursue he has no right after he discovers that the course selected is not to his advantage and after he has put the opposite party to the expense and has consumed the time of the courts in a trial of the case in accordance with the course selected to change his position and ma"e another and different selection.uerrero but :ndres . Laura added that upon the death of her mother <anuel came to their house and had her sign a piece of paper claimed by <anuel as a mere ac"nowledgment of her motherDs indebtedness to him.357 parties to the present case! 327 assignors of the parties! nor 3>7 persons in whose behalf the case is prosecuted. Later Priscilla Recto*Tasten was appointed administratrix /uring the hearing before the commissioner the counsel for the Recto*Tasten interposed a general and continuing ob&ection to the testimony of 9lorencia Ida.a other family members and Susan 3sis*in*law7 by igniting their house while they were still in it. 528 S)R: ==> 35. 4amire? 8C> S)R: C2 3244=7 =acts& :rson case <aximo tried to barbecue his wife %speran. St. Doctrine& There was a waiver of the prohibition when the counsel for the administratrix extensively cross*examined the witness on the very matters sub&ect of the prohibition. 9oni v. de :braham together with her sons :lfonso and (esus filed a @Reclamation@ demanding payment of the amount represented by the note. de :braham ** invo"ing the provisions of Section 2G3c7 Rule 52> of the Rules of )ourt. )ounsel for <aximo wants %speran. A#raham v. Clare7s 4ealty Co. Doctrine& #ifeDs testimony will turn out to be adverse or beneficial to her own interest the inevitable result would be to pit her against her husband.uerrero in the amount of P5 .Evidence Case Doctrines of Rule 5>2 of the RB) without infringing on her marital privilege not to testify against her husband under section 24 3b7 of Rule 5>4 3+ow more or less Sec.uerrero! and that )ristina did not really sell the land but merely mortgaged it. Doctrine& /uring their marriage neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse except in a civil case by one against the other or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latterDs direct descendants or ascendants. :mong the witnesses presented by the plaintiff was Iicente himself who testified as to facts occurring before the death of Iillanueva. This may also become a dangerous precedent wherein a spouse may via testimony ac$uit the other and during the re*trial the other spouse will do the same Y canDt prosecute further in lieu of double &eopardy.K 9uerrero v.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 . They were merely /LS0 Law. /efendants filed a motion to dis$ualify Laura on the basis of Sec. 22 and 28 of Rule 5>47 and re$uired the wife to appear and testify. 4e(to-Kasten 8 S)R: 2. Doctrine& Laura and the other witnesses dis$ualified were not.G27 =acts& In the settlement of the intestate estate of (uan 1smael 9lorencia O.E>7 =acts& Ouieting of title case petitioners presented Laura )ervantes daughter of )ristina who testified that her mother was indebted to <anuel . The ob&ect and purpose of this Statute is to close the lips of the party plaintiff when death has closed the lips of the party defendant in order to remove Page 8G Alvare? v. Doctrine& under ordinary circumstances Iicente would be dis$ualified from testifying as to any matter of fact occurring before IillanuevaDs death under the /ead <anDs Statute.44 used for her motherDs medicines.EG7 =acts& .uerrero who owned the land at the time of the alleged sale to <anual . This was ob&ected to by the defendants for being violative of the /ead <anDs Statute.44. CA 588 S)R: 222 35. 24 3a7 Rule 5>4 of the Rules of )ourt.aspar Iicente instituted an action for recovery of property against . Ida. witnesses presented to establish that it was not )ristina .oRi as administrator of the intestate estate of Iillanueva and the latterDs heirs based on the contractMpromise to sell executed in IicenteDs favor. : litigant cannot be permitted to speculate as to what his examination of a witness may bring forth.E 35. S) said wife may testify.

>47 =acts& 'enigno . .on %. )huidian prayed that defendants %nri$ue '. )huidian in the %. $ian?on =4 Phil G. .Evidence Case Doctrines from the surviving party the temptation to falsehood and the possibility of fictitious claims against the deceased. Doctrine& The purpose of the dead manDs doctrine is to @guard against the temptation to give false testimony in regard to the transaction in $uestion on the part of the surviving party. upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person . It was on issue the officers of a corporation which is a party to an action against an executor or /LS0 Law. 4a?on v. . Ra. de Leon (r. Ra. Carr supra Page 8C . E8 Phil >>4 35.on for the recovery of specified property and for damages.oitia was the representative and attorney*in*fact of the plaintiffs in the &oint*account partnership "nown as the @Tren de :guadas@ and located in the )ity of <anila of which the plaintiff Leonor <ende. *ng Chua v. Doctrine& )ounsel relies on that portion of section >E> of the )ode of )ivil Procedure as provides that @Parties or assignors of parties to an action or proceeding or persons in whose behalf an action or proceeding is prosecuted against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person .eronimo Ielasco 9rancisco de 'or&a (ose 9rancisco :lfredo '.)B7 of the estate began action against :nastacia Iian. Li(hau(o v.arme.ona.ing that the ob&ect and purpose of this statute is to guard against the temptation to give false testimony in regard to the transaction is $uestion on the part of the surviving party.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 administrator of a deceased person are dis$ualified from testifying as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person Doctrine& The officers andMor stoc"holders of a corporation are not dis$ualified from testifying for or against the corporation which is a party to an action upon a claim or demand against the estate of a deceased person as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person.on Inc. . :side from Santiago Inacay and <odesto 9lores the claimant also called as witnesses <r. %e 9oitia =8 Phil ==C 35. Atlanti( 9ul' & Pa(i'i( Co.27 =acts& Iicente '. . . ?e has however neglected the e$ually important rule that the law was designed to aid in arriving at the truth and was not designed to suppress the truth.abriel Llamas and Luis <. de Ra.@ )ounsel is eminently correct in emphasi.y vice*president*treasurer and president which the trial )ourt refused to admit testimonies. The administratrix 3TB+.on be ordered to deliver certificates of stoc"s representing the shareholdings of the deceased (uan T. 'elden and <r. Doctrine& The law prohibits a witness directly interested in a claim against the estate of a decedent from testifying upon a matter of fact which too" place before the death of the deceased. .oitia collected and received certain sums as dividends and profits upon the plaintiffs's stoc" in the @Tren de :guadas@ in his capacity as representative and attorney*in*fact for both of them which he has neither remitted nor accounted for to the said plaintiffs.@ 6en"e?ona v. $"a. Samuel . cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person . This however is not an absolute rule. The evidence of the plaintiff shown that he is the administrator of the intestate estate of (uan Telesforo )huidian. ?owever in this case the protection under the /ead <anDs Statute is deemed waived when the counsel for the Iillanuevas cross*examined Iicente. ?enry (. Ra.E 35. IAC 24C S)R: 2>8 35. . .on Inc. The second error assigned in the property case and the first error assigned in the cadastral case attac" the ruling of trial &udge to the effect that the widow was competent to testify 3violation of the /<S7.7 =acts& : company is on battle with the administrator of the estate f 9it.8.imon. Tong(o v.. 'enigno .2C7 =acts& It appears that shortly before the death of <arcelino Tongco he had presented claims in a cadastral case in which he had as"ed for titles to certain properties in the name of the con&ugal partnership consisting of himself and his wife and that corresponding decrees for these lots were issued in the name of the con&ugal partnership not long after his death.

'ecause of continued molest )arr finally gave the document.co. Doctrine& #here a privileged communication from one spouse to another comes into the hands of a third party whether legally or not without collusion and voluntary disclosure on the part of either of the spouses the privilege is thereby extinguished and the communication if otherwise competent becomes admissible in evidence. <oore was medically ill and while he was under medical treatmen )arr came to him on various occasion and demanded that the documents be delivered to him.ation and ac$uisition of the companies included in )ivil )ase +o. Doctrine& : communication made by a client to his attorney for the express purpose of its being communicated to a third person is essentially inconsistent with the confidential relation. 8y Chi(o v. wants them to divulge their clientDs names.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Page 8E . /efendant )arlos argues that the letter was a privileged communication and therefore not admissible in evidence. 8nion Li'e 2. San"igan#ayan 2G2 S)R: 528 35. 4egala v. Doctrine& Survivorship dis$ualification Rule. Later petitioners discovered the document that was executed by <iras and :sturias spouses and noting that it was in the form of a sale they agreed to partition the land even though it did not include in the will of :sturias spouses and <iras continued in possession of the land and paying the land taxes thereon. %L)%PTIB+S- /LS0 Law. Phil 5G> 35.. Doctrine& Information relating to the identity of a client may fall within the ambit of the privilege when the client's name itself has an independent significance such that disclosure would then reveal client confidences..Evidence Case Doctrines =acts& This is basically on a sale of land and the delivery of deed. +ow P). Doctrine& It is well settled that the condition upon which a deed is delivered in escrow may be proved by parol evidence. Bng )hua entered to negotiatins with )arr and <oor.ed by the police in searching his effects on the day of his arrest! 327The letter dated <ay 2= 5.5=7 =acts& PlaintiffDs maintains that the policies and goods insured belonged to him and not to the estate of his deceased father and alleges that he is not bound by the compromise effected by the administrator of his father's estate. Oualified 'y Asturias v. /efendantDs answer is tha the plaintiff had agreed to compromise settlement of the policies and for that purpose introduced evidence showing that the plaintiff's attorney had surrendered the policies to the administrator with the understanding that such a compromise was to be effected. Carlos 8C Phil G2G 35. :t first <oore refused because it was contrary to their agreement. Pp v.2=7 =acts&The trial curt held the crime was committed with premeditation and therefore constituted murder with the evidence presented.= >4 Sept 5.28 two days before the commission of the crime and shows that the writer feared that the defendant contemplated resorting to physical violence in dealing with the deceased. CA L*5CE.It is deemed waived when no timely ob&ection was made and one of the petitioners was made to testify on such prohibited matters covered by the exclusion rule.357 %xhibit L a letter written to the defendant by his wife and sei.G> =acts& <iras obtained property from Spouses :sturias and Bro.. The letter in $uestion was obtained through a search for which no warrant appears to have been issued. 44>> and in "eeping with the office practice :))R: lawyers acted as nominees*stoc"holders of the said corporations involved in se$uestration proceedings.G7 =acts& :s members of the :))R: Law 9irm petitioners and private respondent Raul Roco admit that they assisted in the organi. <iras now testifies.

Doctrine& The provision in section 2E> of the )ode of )ivil Procedure ma"ing the whole of a declaration conversation or writing admissible when part has been given in evidence by one party ma"es no exception as to privileged matter! and the &urisprudence on the sub&ect does not recogni.Evidence Case Doctrines 57 )lient identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the client's name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's advice.e any exception. The attorney for the defendant Brient Insurance )ompany interposed as"ing the witness to be re$uired to produce the letter or else his answer be stric"en out. Doctrine& The law protects the client from the effect of disclosures made by him to his attorney in the confidence of the legal relation. Lim v.. of <anila. Pp v..C7 =acts& In a so*called :ffidavit of %xplanations and Rectifications respondent Sansaet 3)ounsel of Paredes7revealed that Paredes contrived to have the graft case under preliminary investigation dismissed on the ground of double &eopardy by ma"ing it appear that the per&ury case had been dismissed by the trial court the documents which were later filed by respondent Sansaet in the preliminary investigation were prepared and falsified by his co*respondents in this case in the house of respondent Paredes. 4evilla =8 Phil . >7 #here the government's lawyers have no case against an attorney's client unless by revealing the client's name the said name would furnish the only lin" that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime the client's name is privileged. 'ut when such a document containing admissions of the client comes to the hand of a third party and reaches the adversary it is admissible in evidence. #here the nature of the attorney*client relationship has been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be confidential the identity of the client has been held to be privileged since such revelation would otherwise result in disclosure of the entire transaction. San"igan#ayan 2C= S)R: =4= 35.>47 =acts& Teal <otor )o. .1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Brient Insurance )ompany upon a stoc" of merchandise destroyed by fire in (an 5. CA 258 S)R: 2C> 35.287 =acts& : document was offered for evidence which consists of a carbon copy of a letter dated (une 5> 5. is plaintiff in a civil action instituted in the )9I of <anila to recover two fire insurance policies issued by the /LS0 Law. 87 The content of any client communication to a lawyer lies within the privilege if it is relevant to the sub&ect matter of the legal problem on which the client see"s legal assistance. &arton v.#hen as"ed the witness replied that he had the letter with him.27 =acts& Petitioner opposed on the grounds that the testimony sought to be elicited from the witness is privileged since /r :campado had Page 8.>E 35.2. Doctrine& : distinction must be made between confidential communications relating to past crimes already committed and future crimes intended to be committed by the client. 27 #here disclosure would open the client to civil liability! his identity is privileged. Leyte Asphalt an" 6ineral *il Co.25 written by the plaintiff to his attorney 9ran" '. Inc. )orollarily it is admitted that the announced intention of a client to commit a crime is not included within the confidences which his attorney is bound to respect. 35..5. To evade responsibility for his own participation in the scheme he claimed that he did so upon the instigation and inducement of respondent Paredes. *rient Insuran(e v. Ingersoll %s$. The plaintiff states therein that his profit from the San 9rancisco contract would have been at the rate of eigthy*five cents 3gold7 per ton. 0pon being as"ed about the other part of the letter the witness said that the other part contained private matter between the Teal <otor and its attorneys. 8G Phil .

'D:ISSIA/S S>*4IA/ 26-2+. RDL> 11! S>*4IA/ .rease! 3b7 Thixohtropic .1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Ignatius /.rease and )onnector .ed that it is the tenor only of the communication that is privileged.EG7 =acts& Petitioner 'anco 9ilipino filed its )omment on Respondent's petition to set aside the order for the production of the documents with the assertion. . Doctrine& Trade secrets should receive greater protection from discovery because they derive economic value from being generally un"nown and not readily ascertainable by the public. Subse$uently <a. It argued that what petitioner endeavored to in$uire upon constituted a trade secret which respondent cannot be forced to divulge. &an(o :ilipino v.roup reported to )hief Inspector :lbert /LS0 Law. Respondent sought reconsideration of the foregoing Brder contending that it cannot be compelled to disclose the chemical components sought because the matter is confidential. :fter an evaluation of the confidential information )hief Inspector 9erro decided to conduct a buy*bust operation.Evidence Case Doctrines examined Lim in a professional capacity and had diagnosed her with schi. Subpoena was later issued. Air Philippines v. Doctrine& The scope of the privilege is limited by its underlying purpose. 12# Page =4 . Plainly and clearly this does not fall within the claimed prohibition. The respondents cannot claim privilege in refusing to produce the )entral 'an" records because it is based only on the generali. Li"ewise once the identity of the informer has been disclosed to those who would have cause to resent the communication the privilege is no longer applicable.. Doctrine& The privileged communications applied to public officer that they cannot be examined as to communications made to him in official confidence does not apply when there is nothing to show that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure $uestion.ales sought to establish that a confidential informant 3)I7 of the Special Bperations /ivision 3SB/7 P+P +arcotics . Thus where the disclosure of the contents of the communication will not tend to reveal the identity of an informer the contents are not privileged. J Doctrine& The person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly authori. Pp v. *ng 8>2 S)R: 8C4 324487 =acts& Testimony of SPB5 Rodolfo S. ?e is simply the patient's husband who wishes to testify on a document executed by medical practitioners.3a7 )ontact . filed a <anifestation expressing her @continuing ob&ection@ to any evidence oral or documentary @that would thwart the physician* patient privileged communication rule. It is to be emphasi. 9erro about the alleged illicit drug activities of a certain #illiam Bng and an unidentified )hinese male partner. Penns!ell =84 S)R: 25C 3244C7 =acts& Petitioner filed a <otion to )ompel respondent to give a detailed list of the ingredients and chemical components of the following products to wit.ophrenia.on.87 =acts& %dgar Thron too" the witness stand and tried to testify on the contents of the )onfidential Psychiatric %valuation Report. Krohn v. ?ere ong and <ing were caught and was charged of violation of /angerous /rugs :ct.rease and /i*%lectric Strength Protective )oating! and 3c7 /ry Lubricant and :nti*Sei. CA 2>> S)R: 58G 35. 6onetary &oar" 582 S)R: =2> 35. This was ob&ected to on the ground that it violated the rule on privileged communication between physician and patient.ed to practice medicine surgery or obstetrics. Doctrine& Bnly disclosures which would have been made to the Physician to enable him to safely and efficaciously to treat his patient are covered by the privilege. Pa.e )ompound.ed interest in confidentiality.

The S) held that the two parcels were paraphernal property.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 . D':'SA 1#! S*R' -#. Iillalino stood up and slapped /amaso. 'ut the fact remains that the parents of the accused too" steps in approaching the parents of the offended party for a possible compromise settlement. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV *A v. The right of a party to be present and give evidence as provided in section 8. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVV P>APL> v. Doctrine& The testimony of the petitioner is not self*serving. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVV P>APL> v. Doctrine& :nd under the Rules of )ourt an offer of compromise may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. would be meaningless if it did not include the right to testify in his own behalf. Thus subse$uent sale was null and void. Doctrine& :dmission of the husband evidenced by a notari. :fter the shooting incident the > returned the carbine then tearing the page of the logboo". #hile Lolita a 5> year old barrio lass was alone folding clothes with Page =5 /LS0 Law. #hen .efes was lawfully married to the Salvio but that by a written agreement they lived apart. This > men sought revenge by borrowing a carbine <iane ma"ing the borrowers sign the K logboo"K. :ppellant's mother went to the house of the victim's parents to as" for a settlement of the case.efes married him she brought to the marriage two parcels of rice land situated in the municipality of Tibiao :nti$ue."1#8+$ /uring each harvest season accused stayed with the 'aliton family.Evidence Case Doctrines 9>=>S v. 3Rule 5>4 Section 28 Rules of )ourt7. S'L3IA 16 Phil 221 "1#1+$ .=4 as well as an extract from a police blotter JsalaysayK medical certificate and transcript of stenographic notes. ?e declared in the said document that she was the true and absolute owner of the said lands by him purchased out of his wife's funds and in her behalf. In support of said claim petitioner submits the original copy of the birth certificate showing that he was born on <ay C 5. :'/I'/A 118 S*R' +!. Self*serving evidence is evidence made by a party out of court at one time and does not include a partyDs testimony as a witness in court. 4%> *ADR4 A= 'PP>'LS #hen the stabbing incident occurred petitioner was only 5C years old. Instead he should have stayed and cooperated with the authorities in apprehending the culprits. It is excluded on the same ground as any hearsay evidence."1#82$ (ovita after having bought string beans noticed that /ominador <an."1##!$ :s the two groups were drin"ing /amaso poured beer on Iillalino. 3'LD>I 1-! S*R' !. #ithout her "nowledge and consent her husband sold these lands to %merenciana /ayanot. The following morning /amaso was advised to go into hiding as there is a shoot to "ill order. The document was ratified before a notary and attests the truth of all its contents even against third persons. In fact not even the readily contrived reason of fear of <artial Law averred by counsel for the appellant can overturn such a widely*accepted aphorism. DA*4RI/>& 9light is an indication of a guilty mind. The <ayor of <abini advised this mother to settle the case amicably.ed document is admissible.ano had caught up with her then snatched her and rape her. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVV P>APL> v.

as exclusive distributor of its household products."1#+8$ This case involves <irasol a little over 52Z years old who alleged that she was raped by Paragsa. Doctrine& <rs.all the invoices with delivery receipts together with a tabulation covering Bctober 5= 5. P'R'9S' 81 S*R' 1!.>G to 5. Doctrine& Section 22 Rule 5>4 of the Rules of )ourt provides that the act declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him @as admissions of a party@. to (anuary 22 5. This could only be ta"en as an admission of guilt. 4%> *ADR4 A= 'PP>'LS S*R' 1+6 "1#+2$ %dward :.roup <ar"eting owed Teller P5E8 =4.G..@ VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVV <>LL>R E *A. Brais and )ostelo made an agreement ac"nowledging )ostelo's right to possess the land from 5. 'ut before the silence of a party can be ta"en as an admission of what is said it must appear357 that he heard and understood the statement! 327 that he was at liberty to interpose a denial! 3>7 that the statement was in respect to some matter affecting his rights or in which he was then interested and calling naturally for an answer! 387 that the facts were within his "nowledge! and 3=7 that the fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence would be material to the issue :ccording to petitioners the deed of sale in favor of Brais was a simulated transaction so that Brais could @secure a loan from a ban"@. Doctrine& The offer of marriage instead of helping him in his defense betrays the appellant's culpability. :n offer of marriage was made in the presence of the 'rgy.C5. 9urthermore if the appellant and Lolita were really sweethearts the latter would have readily accepted the proposal of marriage much less filing a complaint for rape against him VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV 3I'*RD*IS v.C5. constitute a declaration of <r. )ostelo ac"nowledged BraisD dominical rights. Ltd. The land was possessed by )ostelo to guarantee the payment of a debt of Sanche. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV P>APL> v. Teller U )o. . v.7 as security for its obligation to Teller. The admissions of 'ax are supported by documentary evidence. )aptain at the time when an investigation was already being conducted. )astelo adverse to their interest which is admissible in evidence pursuant to section >2 of said Rule 5>4. Doctrine& The rule allowing silence of a person to be ta"en as an implied admission of the truth of the statements uttered in his presence is applicable in criminal cases. )osteloDs testimony and this recognition by the now deceased )astelo confirmed by the public document %xh. and <rs. She did not tell her aunt Lita about it. *AB 9RADP :'R<>4I/9 1 1 S*R' 86 "1#86$ /LS0 Law.roup <ar"eting through 'ax executed two second chattel mortgages over its 52 truc"s 3already mortgaged to +orthern <otors Inc.roup <ar"eting Inc. )B' .Evidence Case Doctrines her 52*year old friend appellant suddenly entered the house with a balisong then raped Lolita.85 so that he could apply the fruits to the satisfaction of his credit. That amount is reflected in the customer's ledger.. Such admission @may be received in evidence @ not only against the party who made it @or his successors in interest @ but also @against third persons.. appointed )B' . L4D.G4 as of (uly >5 5. Teller's finance manager submitted a statement of account showing that )B' .1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Page =2 .

Evidence Case Doctrines These re$uisites of admission by silence all obtain in the present case. In the case the reenactment of the crime was not a part of a formal official investigation li"e one conducted by a &ustice of the peace or a provincial fiscal. )have. The evidence mainly relied on :h SamDs silent participation in the reenactment of the crime by his co* accused. ?e admitted his participation in the "illing and robbery of the spinster. S>R3'/DA B'. ?e also corrected his co*accused as they were reenacting their respective positions Doctrine& )ertain situations in particular may furnish a positive motive for silence without regard to the truth or falsity of the statement. /'3A' 112 S*R' 1! "1#86$ 'ernardo Lim acting as an informer of Police )orporal Palmon and his co*arson operatives informed the latter that it was <anuel +avoa who was responsible for the fire ParsonQ. +avoa's testimony reveals that he was wal"ing home from school when he was accosted to the Page => . If the Appellant had not really ta"en part in the crime he should protested against the implication of the reenactment or to refuse his indicated participation. 2+ Phil #. )udillan was apprehended in the act of pawning a bracelet one of those ta"en from the victim. in particular testified that :h Sam too" part in the reenactment of the crime and without any opposition on his 3:h SamDs7 part. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV P>APL> v.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Immediately thereafter the woman went to the councilman of the barrio and made a complaint. Lt. : passerby heard her cries he stepped ashore and seeing the accused get up from the place where the woman claims the crime was committed as"ed @#hat's thisN@ The accused made no explanation of his conduct or his presence there and left. Doctrine& The better rule is that the silence of an accused under custody or his failure to deny statements by another implicating him in a crime especially when such accused is neither as"ed to comment or reply to such implications or accusations cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his participation in the commission of the crime. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV P>APL> v. Ta"e note that one of the accused Limbaco did not participate in the reenactment. 4I' =A/9 #8 Phil 6!# "1#-6$ :h Sam et al were found guilty of homicide. Doctrine& :n innocent man would instantly and indignantly repudiate such a charge and attempt there and then to establish his innocence explaining how he came to be there present with the woman and the conditions under which she had made the false charge."1#1 $ ?e caught hold of her and carried her to the edge of where he threw her on the ground and attempted to have carnal intercourse with her. ?ence the silence of <irasol on the facts asserted by the accused and his witnesses may be safely construed as an admission of the truth of such assertion. /LS0 Law. Such an inference is incompatible with the right of an accused against self*incrimination. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV 4%> D/I4>D S4'4>S v.ing the extra&udicial confessions of )udillan as evidence against appellants in concluding from their alleged @Silence@ when pointed to by )udillan as @his companions@ in the crime and in giving undue credence to the testimony of an inmate of the Pasay )ity (ail that appellants admitted to him their participation. ?e contends that the lower court erred in utili. 'L>9R> # S*R' 1!# "1#+#$ : spinsterDs body was found in her bathroom. QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQ P>APL> v.

9eliciano declared that all he remembers was that he was forcibly made to sign many papers by the police officers who arrested him but @did not "now exactly@ what they were all about and that he was brought to a hotel and to the /etective 'ureau where he was @>rd degreed@. DA*4RI/>& It seems clear that the plea made by the defendant at the preliminary investigation was not intended as a confession of his guilt in the legal sense of the word but was merely an admission that /LS0 Law. The )apt as"ed. They li"ewise executed a waiver of their rights against detention beyond the period while under investigation. RDL> 11! S>*4IA/ 1+.Evidence Case Doctrines police station where he was not informed of his constitutional rights to silence and to counsel. It is the fact that they are voluntarily made by the accused and against his own interest which gives to them their Page =8 III A= 1#8+ 4%> D/I4>D S4'4>S v.arcia and 9eliciano who were brought to the <P/ and signed statements. Doctrine& @There is no provision of law which prescribes that either confessions or admissions are not competent evidence unless made under oath. They did not even allow him to get in touch with his relatives. 'ut with the discovery of a dead man they readily admitted that their previous statements were not true. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV P>APL> v.Phil 616 "1#!6$ The Sol*./o you "now that deserved punishment "ills a personN They replied. /uring the trial they repudiated the extra*&udicial confessions they made and signed. The court below considered as evidence of the guilt of the defendant the fact that he pleaded guilty at the preliminary investigation. :lso oral confessions may be proved by anyone by whom they were hear d the same as any other fact.en as"s this court to ac$uit the defendant 3homicide7 on the ground that the latter acted in self*defense when he inflicted the wounds. :'*'SA 86 Phil 2+2 "1#-!$ )aptain <anialong told the defendants to fix their eyes at the corpse of )enon :lbea. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV P>APL> v. Doctrine& The oral confession of each of the accused is admissible. #hen the complaint was read to him in the )ourt of 9irst Instance he pleaded not guilty and thereafter testified in his own behalf giving a detailed account of the occurrence in the manner above stated. It is not necessary that it is in writing. QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQ *A/=>SSIA/ S>*4IA/ 11. 'R4I*L> *A/S4I4D4IA/ he was the person who had inflicted upon the deceased the wounds in $uestion. Doctrine& %ven before the adoption of the @right to counsel@ rule for custodial interrogations in :rticle II Section 24 of the 5. :lso the police photographer testified that it was indeed Patrolman Palmon who directed the positioning of the people who too" part in the re*enactment.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 . 4ALAS' . There is no legal provision in this &urisdiction that prohibits the admission of an oral confession. +avoa testified that it was Patrolman :ndales who instructed him what to do in the preparation of the materials to be used in the re*enactment and it was Patrolman Tolosa who directed the ta"ing of pictures. =>LI*I'/A Robbery with ?omicide.In$uiries led to the apprehension of .Tamatayan din po. The defendant stated that he confessed to being guilty of having inflicted certain wounds upon the deceased with a weapon which he then exhibited to the court.C> )onstitution this )ourt had already ruled that to be valid a confession must be shown to have proceeded from the 0ree 4ill of the person confessing.

Evidence Case Doctrines evidentiary value.Ouestions as"ed in %nglish translated in Tagalog type* written in %nglish answered in Tagalog translated and type*written in %nglish then accused was told to write in (apanese what he had related the night before Doctrine& The statements of the accused are but the words of the detectives put in the mouth of the accused pursuant to their preconceived theory as to the commission of the crime. Doctrine& )onsidering that the three accused are ignorant and when the evidence for the prosecution was presented they did not have the benefit of an interpreter even if they were assisted by a counsel who does not possess "nowledge of the dialect it is the sense of this )ourt that :tty. >4*.C> )onstitution. Page == . QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQ BIL''/ vs.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 the information is not a confession of the guilt of the crime charged unless the accused further admits that he cohabited with the women without her consent by the use of force or threats QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQ P>APL> vs. Bcampo the new counsel should be given an opportunity to present evidence regarding the circumstances under which the alleged confessions were made if we want that fairness and &ustice be done to the accused. *ARR'L>S 28 Phil 162 "1#1 $ The cler" of court who was charged of misappropriation of the fine paid by the )hinaman since the money was not turned over to the auditor Doctrine& ?is admission to the auditor that he had returned the money to the safe a few hours after the inspection all conclusively establish the fact that he misappropriated these funds and leave no room for doubt the receipt of this substantial sum of money until after the inspection and that it had been lying in the drawer with his personal funds from the time when it was received until the day after the inspection when he reported the matter to the auditor. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV 4%> D/I4>D S4'4>S v.@ <oreover confessions are not even re$uired to be in writing. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVV 4%> D/I4>D S4'4>S v. =LAR>S 26 Phil 262 "1#11$ The 5E*year old who alleged that she was raped during the absence of her husband but the witness testified that the accused was properly clothed and that she did not complain as to the conduct of the accused Doctrine& :n admission by one accused of rape that he had carnal communication with the compliant at the time and place mentioned in /LS0 Law. *DSI. Bf significance too is the fact that the confessions were made in Tagalog a dialect fully within the comprehension of and well*spo"en by the accused they being residents of Tondo <anila. Provided that fact is established it does not matter whether or not they are made under oath.S*R' -1 "1#62$ Three 'ilaans who do not "now %nglish Spanish Tagalog or Iisayan! :mong the pieces of evidence presented were the affidavits or confessions allegedly made by them wherein their guilt was admitted. Primo S. /IS%IS%I:' -+ Phil 26 "1#12$ The (apanese gardener who was forced to admit that he "illed his master. :lso the confessions were made while the accused were under arrest does not render the same inadmissible since the confessions were made and admitted prior to the adoption of the 5. .

#hat was testified to is only what Taylaran told the police why he is surrendering to them. Taylaran was accused for the murder of one $uac" doctor of witchcraft. Doctrine& The rule is well*settled that a confession is presumed to be voluntary and that the confessant who bears the burden of proving otherwise must duly substantiate his claim that the admissions in his affidavit are untrue and unwillingly executed 5 There can be no other conclusion than that %nanoria's extra&udicial statement is admissible as evidence as it sets out in detail his participation in the "idnapping and the eventual murder of <rs. The fact that the alleged confessions were made in a language 3%nglish7 not "nown to the accused nor even to their investigator and the official before whom they allegedly swore to the truth thereof <ayor :daptar and re$uired the reading and translation thereof to the accused in the Iisayan dialect "nown to them and to the mayor*investigator. Doctrine& The )onstitutional provision invo"ed by Taylaran is not applicable in this case because there were no written confession sought to be presented in evidence as a result of formal custodial investigation. 4':PDS #! S*R' 62 "1#8!$ Tampus and :vila prisoners assaulted )elso who died to avenge a member of their gang. >/'/ARI' 2!# S*R' -++ "1##2$ :lthough he claimed that he would still survive inspite of his wound he admitted having been shot because he was involved in the "idnapping of <rs. ?owever %nanoria's extra&udicial confession is not the sole basis for his conviction.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 .J+o person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 'ut even before that they already admitted having committed the crime to the first guard they encountered. /a"udao.L'R'/ 1!8 S*R' 1+8 "1#81$ 9our men accused of <urder and who allegedly executed their confessions signed voluntarily before the <ayor 3double role as investigator and &udge Doctrine& The prosecution could not even establish who actually reduced the confessions to writing and the intrinsic evidence of the language and style of the confessions themselves indicate their prefabrication. They also admitted next to the Bfficer of the day and a prison guard without counsel. It can hardly be said that under such circumstance the Page =G /LS0 Law. 4'. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVV P>APL> v. #here the verbal extra&udicial 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. Taylaran however invo"ed :rticle II Section 24 which states. II of the )onstitution. It is but natural for one who surrenders to the police to give reason or explanation for his act of surrendering. They admitted "illing to the first guard at the &ail. Subse$uently he went to the police and admitted the "illing as an accident. 'efore the confession was ta"en by investigator Tampus was interrogated on the day of the "illing and was not informed as to his rights to have counsel and to remain silent. Doctrine& The confession of Tampus was not ta"en in violation of :rt. /a"udao %nanoria's responsibility has been pinpointed.Evidence Case Doctrines VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV P>APL> vs. DRRA S*R' +1 "1#+2$ VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVV P>APL> v. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV P>APL> v.

ure. Part of <aisugDs extra&udicial confession was that Tado instructed him to stab anyone who disturbs the game. Proof that <aisug fully understood every part of the extra&udicial confession is not convincing. They executed a sworn statement with counsel.ala on his own volition.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 .ala got so angry that he tore one of the cards. Doctrine& The confession of <aisug is not admissible against Tado. Panangin said his extra&udicial confession was obtained by maltreatment and failed to inform him of his constitutional rights as accused.K The inadmissible evidence termed as Jfruit of the poisonous treeK refers to ob&ect not testimonial evidence and to an ob&ect sei. D. QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQ for lac" of evidence. Such multiple process of reading and translating the $uestion and translating and typing that answers and reading and translating again the said answers is naturally pregnant with possibilities of human if unintentional inade$uacies and incompleteness which render the said confession unsafe as basis of conviction for a capital offense unless sufficiently corroborated.ed in the course of an illegal search and sei. <aisug saw . was arrested for selling mari&uana and signed a confession under oath after investigation.Evidence Case Doctrines surrenderee is already Junder investigationK within the meaning of the )onstitutional provision. ?e failed to present evidence that he was Jintimidated or practically forced to execute or sign his sworn statement. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV P>APL> v. 9ernando did spea" of his alleged maltreatment during the trial but no witnesses were presented to corroborate him. :lso waiver must be made with the assistance of counsel.ala was not clearly proven. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV P>APL> v. .ala tore the cards! he got angry and stabbed . In ob&ecting to the extra&udicial confession 9ernando claims it was obtained involuntarily by force.that extra&udicial confession of Panangin was not voluntary and if it is it was obtained by an illegal arrest therefore fruit of poisonous tree. The Trial )ourt ac$uitted both /LS0 Law. The rights guaranteed by the )onstitution were merely communicated but not explained to the suspect <ere recitation of these rights is not enough where it is not shown that the person entitled thereto can "nowingly and intelligently waive them. #hen <aisug was under direct examination he stated that he stabbed . :'ISD9 E 4'DA 2+ S*R' + 2 "1#+1$ : group of men were gambling. The perfunctory and almost mechanical @compliance@ did not follow the prescribed procedure in the investigation of persons suspected of criminal offenses. =>R/'/DA Roger 5. The fact that Tado gave him the signal to stabbed . Doctrine& The extra&udicial confession will still have to be disregarded because of lac" of compliance with the re$uirements of the 'ill of Rights for the protection of the suspect under custodial investigation. Doctrine& The trial court was not correct in ac$uitting the accused. Tado contends that the confession of <aisug is not admissible as against him. : confession is presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved and the declarant bears the burden of proving that his confession is involuntary and untrue. +1 S*R' 668 "2!!-$ Rabel was stabbed and "illed by Panangin and 0y. There was also no physical evidence of the claimed in&uries. ?is confession which was in %nglish had to be read and translated to him.ala which resulted to his death. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV Page =C P>APL> v.

The effort is not to convict the accused of a second offense. Doctrine& The general rule is that the evidence is not admissible which shows or tends to show that the accused in the criminal case has committed a crime wholly independent of the offense for which he is on trial.ed was found to be barium chlorate Doctrine& The lower court did not err in admitting the testimonies of the chemists as to their purchase of potassium chlorate at the drug store of the accused which proved to be barium chlorate.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 . VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV 4es Inter Alios A(ta Rule Sections 28 and 1 . It cannot be used as evidence and are not competent Page =E /LS0 Law. 'L>9R> supra Doctrine& The extra&udicial admission of )udillan cannot be admitted as evidence. PI/>D' 1+ Phil -6 "1#18$ : particular pharmacy gave the wrong drug which caused the death of 2 horses. :s a general rule the evidence of other offenses committed by a defendant is inadmissible. #hile Luvendino was re*enacting the events pictures were ta"en by a photographer brought by the police officers. Luvendino demonstrated how they brought the girl to the vacant lot. +or is there an attempt to draw the mind away from the point at issue and thus to pre&udice defendant's case. #hat appellant is relying on is the maxim res inter alios acta. Doctrine& The re*enactment is inadmissible and was apparently staged promptly upon apprehension of Luvendino and even prior to his formal investigation at the police station. 'SI/'S -8 Phil -# "1#2#$ :sinas 'rothers "illed their father with the help of other people. It has been said that there is no better evidence of negligence than the fre$uency of accidents.Evidence Case Doctrines P>APL> v. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV P>APL> v. :n uncounseled waiver of the right to counsel is not to be given legal effect. The purpose is to ascertain defendant's "nowledge and intent and to fix his negligence. LD3>/DI/A 211 S*R' 16 "1##2$ Luvendino et al were charged with the crime of rape with murder of Rowena. Luvendino allegedly admitted he and )esar 'orca did such acts as charged. If the defendant has on more than one occasion performed similar acts accident in good faith is possibly excluded negligence is intensified and fraudulent intent may even be established. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVV 4%> D/I4>D S4'4>S v. Rule11! P>APL> v. :s witnesses for the prosecution they presented.3Iisitacion7 testified over strenuous ob&ections of the defense that saw the brothers tie the father to a papaya tree 3+a.ario7 testified that > years agom )anuto tried to drown his father in the river 3)irilo7 also testified that 2 years ago in )anutoDs house he held his father wanting to throw him in the pool. ?e also claimed that he signed his extra&udicial confession without counsel. It is not clear from the record that before the re*enactment was staged by Luvendino he had been informed of his constitutional rights including specifically his right to counsel and that he had waived such right before proceeding with the demonstration. Two chemists also went to the drug store of the defendant and bought potassium chlorate which when analy. It is not competent to prove that he committed other crimes of a li"e nature for the purpose of showing that he would li"ely commit the crime charged in the indictment. 'ut appellant has confused this maxim and this rule with certain exceptions thereto.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV /LS0 Law. The &oint contract of the common law is and always has been a Page =.S*R' 2 8 "1##6$ :gapito attended to the person "noc"ing at the bac"door of their "itchen. The husband was &oined as a defendant but denied liability.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 >)ceptions Sections 2#-11. The reason for the rule is that on a principle of good faith and mutual convenience a manDs own acts are binding upon himself and are evidence against him. 1et it would not only be rightly inconvenient but also manifestly un&ust that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthori. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV P>APL> v. FD>RAL 18 Phil +!+ "1#18$ This case defines J&ointK. In the common law system there is no conception of obligation corresponding to the divisible &oint obligation contemplated in :rt. So are his conduct and declarations. The res inter alios rule ordains that the rights of a party cannot be pre&udiced by an act declaration or omission of another.Evidence Case Doctrines proof against appellants Ramiro :legre and (esus <edalla under the principle of @res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet@ there being no independent evidence of conspiracy. SISA/ spouses 8 S*R' +11 "1#61$ : promissory note executed by the wife without the consent or signature of the husband. )ounsel for defendants offered no ob&ection and as"ed that confession of &udgment by the defendants may be entered in this case provided that the corresponding writ of execution thereof should not be issued until (une >4 5. Rule 11! '*>/'S spouses v. .G4 to which counsel for the plaintiffs agreed. :s a general rule the extra&udicial declaration of an accused although deliberately made is not admissible and does not have probative value against his co* accused. <uch to his surprise heavily armed men emerged at the door declared a hold*up and fired their guns at him.ed strangers! and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him. #e held that the compromise of causes and confession of &udgments appear to stand upon the same footing and that since the compromise ma1 not -e e00ected -1 counsel 4it/out special aut/orit1 so may not an agreement to permit 3udgment to -e entered against /is client -e aut/orized e2cept 4it/ t/e kno4ledge and at t/e instance o0 t/e client5 Such &udgment may be set aside or reopened. It is merely hearsay evidence as far as the other accused are concerned. The man who fell an extra&udicial statement Doctrine& The trial court did not err in convicting the Ra$uels of the crime charged despite absence of evidence positively implicating them as the perpetrators of the crime. R'FD>L 26. Doctrine& The counselDs as"ing for confession of &udgment is not valid. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV . :n extra&udicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is not admissible against his co* accused. She saw a man fall beside their water pump while two 327 other men ran away. 55>E of the )ivil )ode. Doctrine& The sense of the word J&ointK would be more properly translated in Spanish by the word JsolidariaK.'D*I'/ v. Lone eyewitness (uliet went out of their room after hearing gunshots and saw her husband lifeless.

. S%D/. /uring trial while the prosecution was $uestioning its witness :tty.a . ?er position so far as the creditor was concerned was exactly the same as if she had been the principal debtor.". 21 S*R' 12+ "1#68$ ?ector )risostomo charged with the apprehension of dollar smugglers was found dead in his 'orgward sedan. Doctrine& The extra&udicial confession is not admissible to convict the defendants. )abrera's inculpatory statements were made by her during the investigation conducted by the Ialen. )abrera was arrested by the police and she executed an extra*&udicial confession. )hua made a written statement confessing that he ordered the "illing of )risostomo because )huaDs partners in ?ong"ong had gotten angry at him when a sum of money amounting to [5>2 444 entrusted to a lady leaving for ?ong"ong was confiscated by the local authorities at the airport. Said statement was not made during the existence of the alleged conspiracy between her and appellant. had something to do with it he was pic"ed up for $uestioning. Doctrine& The lower court should admit the extra*&udicial confession. ?owever the next day :lvare. It was premature to exclude them completely.'. 'esides the prosecution had not yet offered the confessions to prove conspiracy between the two nor as evidence against both of them. ?e was investigated and the investigation was reduced to writing. Doctrine& The statements made cannot be admitted as evidence. QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQ P>APL> v. *'BR>R' -+ S*R' +1. *%'. She pointed to Iillanueva as the mastermind of the robbery and that she merely hired the &eep upon instruction of Iillanueva.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 a general ob&ection on the ground that it was hearsay and therefore incompetent as against him. QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQ P>APL> v. >4 'L. ?e named Rosario )abrera as the person who hired his &eep. executed another statement admitting that he was the only one who shot and "illed )risostomo giving a detailed narration of the participation of one )haw 1aw Shun a. )onspiracy must be proved by independent evidence other than the confession. to be the trigger*man and had promised to pay him for "illing )risostomo.Evidence Case Doctrines solidary obligation so far as the extent of the debtorDs liability is concerned. ?ermenigilda Romero was liable absolutely and unconditionally for the full amount of the obligation without any right to demand the exhaustion of the property of the principal debtor previous to its payment.'4*A #+ Phil # ! "1#--$ )onsun&i Panganiban and an un"nown person were charged with having conspired together in the murder of (ose Ramos. Bn the same day he made another statement in the form of $uestions and answers repeating substantially the facts contained in his handwritten statement. . Section 58 Rule 52> RB) is specific as to the admissibility of the extra&udicial confession of an accused freely and voluntarily made as evidence against him. The admissibility of a confession by one accused against the other in the same case must relate to statements made by one Page G4 . made a tape recorded statement admitting that he alone shot and "illed )risostomo."1#+ $ Luis the victim abandoned and wounded gave an ante mortem statement. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV P>APL> v. :lvare. )hua allegedly had chosen :lvare.uela police two days after the date of the incident in $uestion. Suspecting :lvare. Lavier of the +'I in connection with the ma"ing of a certain extra*&udicial confession by )onsun&i to witness counsel for Panganiban interpose /LS0 Law. 'ut he did not "now the names of the three men who stabbed him and too" his money and &eep. )hua surrendered to the police.eorge )hua.

/I>RR' #6 S*R' 1 "1#8!$ 'ecause of competition in business Paciano decided to "ill her sister*in*law through hiring a gunman <isa. <isa testified in court regarding the plan and the execution of the crime as retaliation for the fact that defendant +ierra did not pay him the amount contracted Doctrine& The argument that the testimony of <isa could be admitted as evidence against appellants +ierra but the alleged conspiracy must first be proven by evidence other than such testimony and that there is no such independent evidence is wrong. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVV P>APL> v.Evidence Case Doctrines conspirator during the pendency of the unlawful enterprise 3or during its existence7 and in furtherance of its ob&ects and not to a confession made as in this case long after the conspiracy had been brought to an end. Two days after she was arrested she made a confession implicating = others in the commission of the crime. It is not supported by section 2C of Rule 5>4 which applies only to extra&udicial acts or declarations but not to testimony given on the /LS0 Law. S>RR'/A. They succeeded in "illing the victim. It has however been held that where extra&udicial confessions had been made by several persons charged with a conspiracy and there could have been collusion with reference to the several confessions the fact that the statements are in all material respects identical is confirmatory of the testimony of an accomplice. :nastacio reyes one of the accused was discharged to be a witness for the prosecution he then testified against the defendants Doctrine& ReyesDs testimony is not admissible against his co* conspirators. B'DILL' 8 Phil +18 "1#26$ : &udge was "illed by a gang because they thought that he was a supporter bac"erK of J<ainawaonK one of the secret societies with whom defendants had a feud with.Phil -11 "1#-#$ 2 persons were "illed because they thought that the victim was planning to tell a Senator regarding the <aliwali massacre. P'S4AR 18 Phil +8. >4 'L. :lthough as a general rule extra&udicial declarations of a coconspirator made before the information of the conspiracy or after the accomplishment of its ob&ect are inadmissible in evidence.K VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVV P>APL> v. will be privies! in short he who by succession is placed in the position of one of those who contracted the &uridical relation and Page G5 . /omingo and )armales confessed that they participated in the crime Doctrine& The extra&udicial declarations of co*conspirators are admissible as evidence. QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQ P>APL> v.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 stand at the trial where the defendant has the opportunity to cross* examine the declarant."1#18$ This case defines the meaning of privy. #here the testimony was given on the stand at trial where the defendant has the opportunity to cross*examine the declarant the rule that re$uires that conspiracy be shown by evidence other than the act or declaration of the conspirator ma"ing the testimony does not apply. Doctrine& The said word denotes the idea of succession not only be right of heirship and testamentary legacy but also that of succession by singular title derived form acts inter vivos and for special purposes! hence an assignee of a credit and one subrogated to it etc. 1!. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVV 'LPD>R4A v. ?e was stabbed in the house of Leocadia /esamparado who said that she stabbed him in defense of her honor.

Pastor the purchaser at the public sale under an execution directed against (uan Llenos must be considered a privy or successor in interest of the execution debtor. 2 S*R' 218 "1#81$ 9acts)atalino %spina E4*years old owner of a small sari*sari store located in his house was found on the second floor of his dwelling wounded on the forehead from which in&ury he died three days later. Patrolman 9uentes as"ed the victim who had hac"ed him and the latter answered that it was @Papu@ Sabio. #here one derives title to real property from another the declaration act or omission of the latter in relation to the property is evidence against the former only when made while the latter holds the title. A= :'/IL' v. It is clear that (ose Pere. D>L RAS'RIA . the governor. v. ?e then had it thumbmar"ed by the victim with the latter's own blood as no in" was available. 11 Phil .1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Section 1+. D.ilNK J+one K I then as"ed him J/id you insult himNK ?e answered J+ot at all.il is charged with the crime of assassination. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVV D(in2 Declaration /LS0 Law. The admission of dying declarations has always been strictly limited to criminal prosecutions for homicide or murder as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of death. Sa5io. ?e fired four shots from a loaded revolver at the said governor.il came in and fired at once. It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of death in point of fact that renders the dying declaration admissible.?e stated that he signed the second document because the President of the <unicipal 'oard advised him to do so in order to avoid litigation with the city.Evidence Case Doctrines executed the private document and appears to be substituting him in his personal rights and obligations is a privy. ?e entered the office of 'enito Lope. Rule 11! People v. ?owever the dying declaration may be admitted to establish PapuDs guilt as to homicide.o del RosarioDs. 9uentes detached a leaf from a calendar and wrote down on it the $uestions he propounded as well as the answers of the victim. The governor had an ante*mortem statement. The right can by no means be regarded as intended to exclude the various general exceptions to the hearsay rule which have always been recogni. /octrineThe dying declaration of the victim cannot be admitted to establish the fact of robbery. 9il.# "1#!#$ 9acts(oa$uin . VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVV *I4.K I then finally as"ed him J?ow did it happenNK ?e answered J.J#as there any provocation on your part against .Phil 22+ "1#!-$ #ho is the owner of the landN Plaintiff introduced both documentary and oral evidence particularly that of Loren. /el Rosario signed the first document before he ac$uired from Roco y Iera the ownership of the land referred to therein.S.ed despite the existence of the Page G2 .ed shall have with regard to those who sign it and their privies the same force as a public instrument. Doctrine& The offer of compromise in civil cases is not an admission of any liability and is not an admission against the offeror.K /octrineThe admission of the dying declaration was not in violation of the inalienable right of the accused to be confronted by the witnesses against him. ?e is therefore undoubtedly bound by the instrument which conveyed the property to %ladio :lpuerto * and this from the date of the execution of that instrument as a private document*unless this result is prohibited by article 522C of the )ivil )ode :rticle 522= declares that a private document legally recogni.

Evidence Case Doctrines

constitutional provisions securing the rights of accused persons to be confronted by and to cross*examine the witnesses for the prosecution. :lso the admission of testimonies of witnesses not experts on the tra&ectory of the bullet may lead to abuses. 'ut the need for such testimony appears to have &ustified its continued use. People v. Ala, L- +1 +, !1 ,ul( 1#8+ 9acts(ose 'ustamante testified that Senen Bla was the one who climbed up and entered the house of Lolita <uhi pregnant with the intention of committing the crime of robbery while he and Rustico <atimtim were stationed behind as guards or loo"outs. Bla was unable to rob <uhi because she was awa"e and tried to as" for help. :s a conse$uence Bla stabbed her which caused her death and the abortion of the foetus in her womb. #itness /iosdado <uhi testified that after he as"ed the dying victim for the identity of her assailant she responded by pointing to the direction which the witness referred to as @Ilaya.@ /octrine'ustamanteDs testimony is suspiciously vague and incriminates himself more. The disadvantage presented by this "ind of evidence is that a simple gesture of the hand unaccompanied by words is open to various interpretations by the witness who testifies to its existence. Thus the evidence comes to the courts couched in the witness' second hand perception and possibly imbued with his personal meanings and biases. This is what ma"es hearsay evidence ob&ectionable. :lso any direction pointed out from inside an enclosure may refer to a place as near as the next*door neighbor's house or to somewhere as far as the next barrio for the obvious reason that both may lie along the general direction indicated. :ll residents of that area lying in the direction of @Ilaya@ are thus e$ually suspect. People v. 'niel, #6 S*R' 1### "1#8!$ 9acts: witness saw (uan Perlada with bloodstains on his clothes pursued by /omingo Ilagan %mesto /atingguinoo and :rcadio :niel. #hen they were in front of his house he saw /omingo Ilagan /LS0 Law- 1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527

stab (uan Perlada once with a small bolo while :niel and /atingguinoo were watching. Perlada made the alleged ante mortem statement- @Talagang pinapatay a"o ni :rcadio :niel /omingo Ilagan at %rnesto /atingguinoo.@ /octrineThe alleged statement appears rather a statement of opinion belief conclusion and suspicion rather than one of fact such ante mortem statement therefore cannot be a sufficient basis to convict the appellant. People v. Adencio, 88 S*R' 1 "1#+#$ 9acts:t about seven o'cloc" in the evening of (une 2; 5;GE while Prowa Talib 3Palua Talib7 a forty*year old farmer was in the yard of his house handing a pot of rice to his wife Setie <amalintao who was near the stairs he was felled down by a volley of shots. #hile Setie was comforting her husband he allegedly told her that he was going to die. ?e directed her to remember what had happened to him and that they had seen ,uiamelon <ama and Poren armed with guns. ?e also executed a dying declaration. 'ut he was not able to sign it. /octrineThe rule is that a dying declaration may be oral or written. If oral the witness who heard it may testify thereto without the necessity of course of reproducing exactly the words of the decedent if he is able to give the substance thereof. :n unsigned dying declaration may be used as a memorandum by the witness who too" it down. Ba(0uen v. *', 2!+ S*R' 11 "1##2$ 9acts'ernadette %stepa 3sister of the deceased7 saw at the stair landing her brother 'ong lying face down. She lifted him up and noticed that he was bleeding. She as"ed him @why@. 'ong answered in Ilocos- They shot and stabbed me. 'ernadette as"ed him who did it and he answered clearly @<ar" 'ay$uen and 'oco@. 'ernadette did not tell anything to the police. :nte*mortem statements were only revealed 58 days after 'ong %stepa's death. Page G>

Evidence Case Doctrines

/octrineStatements made by a witness that are not only in conflict with the experience of common life and of the ordinary instincts and promptings of human nature but are also negative of surrounding circumstances may be and should be disbelieved. :nte mortem statements not admitted. Instead the statements of 'ernadette %stepa uttered immediately after the incident should be given credence 6 she does not "now who did this to her brother. People v. Sara5ia, 12+ S*R' 1!! "1#8 $ 9actsIicente La.o was mending the string of his hoo"s at his home after supper! his wife )onsolatres )arpio was sewing! his daughter 9elicidad La.o was reading the J'annawagK. ?is other three children and a young farm helper were also present. :fter robbing them all the malefactors then stabbed the spouses Iicente and )onsolatres. :s"ed by Pagador who in&ured her )onsolatres saidJ#e were robbed and the robbers stabbed us.K She then mentioned all the appellants and the late 9rancisco 9oronda as the perpetrators. )onsolatres )arpio made two ante*mortem statements. In the first statement )onsolatres said among other things that she Jdo not "now if I will survive.K In the second statement in response to the $uestion Jare you going to dieNK she answered JI do not "now Sir because my wounds are too painful.K /octrineThe variations between the two can be attributed to the fact that they were made when )onsolatres was in a state of agony because her husband had been "illed and she herself had been mortally wounded. :lso for an ante*mortem statement to $ualify as such it is not necessary for the declarant to expressly state that he believes that death is inevitable. : declaration made by the deceased while suffering from serious wounds is admissible as a dying declaration. People v. >)tra, +2 S*R' 1## "1#+6$ 9acts:s they were leaving the yard of :tanacio )pl. Rabanilla heard Saligao shout- @There is ,erardo %xtra@. :ppellant ,erardo %xtra /LS0 Law- 1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527

aimed a carbine at them and sought cover behind a coconut tree. :fter the firing ceased and upon finding that appellant had steady escaped they went to the aid of Leovigildo Saligao who was seriously wounded. It was inside the clinic at about midnight that the ante*mortem statement of Saligao who was already gasping for breath was ta"en by Pat. Tran$uilino Sanche.. Saligao indicated that appellant ,erardo %xtra was the person who shot him with an automatic carbine that night. The ante*mortem statement was thumbmar"ed by Saligao with his blood. /octrine:t the time Saligao executed his declaration he was then convinced that he was going to die. The admissibility of an ante* mortem declaration is not affected by the fact that the declarant died hours or several days after ma"ing his declaration. It is sufficient that he believed himself in imminent danger of death at the time of such declaration. It does not mean that in order to ma"e such declaration admissible the person ma"ing it must be at the time in the act of expiring or in the final death struggle. People v. ,acinto, 9.R. /o. -1#!8, 2# /ov 1#8 9actsBn (une 2C 5;C> at a billiard hall located at the 'agong 'arrio <ar"et place this )ity #enifredo 'antigue was treacherously stabbed on his bac" by the accused who used a "itchen "nife. Immediately after the stabbing the accused had run away. /eceased #enifredo 'antigue executed an ante*mortem statement wherein he named his assailant as one @'oy (uaning.K /octrineThe fact that the deceased died 58 days after the statement was ta"en does not affect its admissibility. It is sufficient that the circumstances are such as to lead inevitably to the conclusion that at the time the statement was made the declarant did not expect to survive the in&ury from which he actually died. Fualified B( Section 2, Rule 11!

Page G8

Evidence Case Doctrines

People v. 9ueron, 121 S*R' 11- "1#81$ 9acts#hen 'ernardo as"ed what happened to him /almacio replied that he and 'onifacio /ayoc were shot the night before by Teodoro ,ueron %milio <agno and (esus <agno. 'ernardo saw 'onifacio about 2= meters away already dead and bathed in his own blood. /octrineThe hearsay rule excludes evidence that cannot be tested by cross* examination. It would normally be classified as hearsay because the one who executed it could not be cross*examined on it during the trial! he was dead. 'ut there are exceptions to the hearsay rule. In this case the ante*mortem statement both $ualifies under the res gestae exception and the dying declaration exception. People v. La0uinon, 11- S*R' #1 "1#8-$ 9acts:t about 55->4 o'cloc" in the evening Samama 'uat barrio captain of )lib ?agonoy /avao del Sur was at his residence when he heard gunshots. ?is brother Leocario 'uat arrived and told him that a man was shouting for help at the ban" of the river and proceeded to the man on the river whose hands were tied and as"ed him of his name he said- JI am Pablo Remonde.K ?e proceeded to ta"e an ante mortem statement and as"ed who shot him to which he said it was ,regorio Li$uanon and then as"ed him if he thin" he would survive and replied that he doesnDt "now. /octrineThe dying declaration of the deceased Pablo Remonde is not admissible as an ante*mortem declaration since the deceased was in doubt as to whether he would die or not. The declaration fails to show that the deceased believed himself in extremist @at the point of death when every hope of recovery is extinct which is the sole basis for admitting this "ind of declarations as an exception to the hearsay rule.@ ?owever it may be admitted as part of the res gestae since the statement was made immediately after the incident and the deceased Pablo Remonde had no sufficient time to concoct a charge against the accused. People v. Lan6a, # S*R' 611 "1#+#$ /LS0 Law- 1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527

9actsThe victim was stabbed. ?is ante*mortem statement was ta"en. #hen as"ed whether he believed he was going to die as a result of his in&uries replied- @It all depends.@ It appears from the records that his condition had progressively improved from the time he was admitted to the time the statement was ta"en by the police so much so that a short time thereafter he was considered strong enough to undergo an operation. /octrineIn order that a dying declaration may be admissible in evidence four 387 re$uisites must concur to wit- 357 it must concern the crime and the surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death! 327 at the time it was made the declarant was under a consciousness of an impending death! 3>7 the declarant was competent as a witness at the time the same was executed! and 387 the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide murder or parricide in which the declarant was the victim. It is imperative for a dying declaration to be admissible that the same had been made under a consciousness of impending death. #here the text of the declaration shows that the deceased himself was in doubt as to whether he would die or not the dying declaration is not admissible. It is nevertheless admissible as part of the res gestae against herein appellant. The spontaneous declaration must have been made while the nervous excitement caused by the startling occurrence was still wor"ing on the declarant's mind. People v. De ,o(a, 2!1 S*R' 1 1 "1##1$ 9acts#hen :lvin reached home he saw his grandmother %ulalia /iamse lying down prostrate and drenched with her own blood. ?e immediately threw his bag and ran towards her. ?e then held her hands and as"ed her- @:po :po what happenedN@%ulalia /iamse held his hand and after which said- @Si Pa$ui@. :fter saying these words she let go of :lvin's hand and passed away. /octrineThe words @Si Pa$ui@ do not constitute by themselves a sensible sentence. Those two words could have been intended to designate Page G=

1! Act 1#8! :ffidavit of co*accused who died during the trial absolving appellant of any part in the &ewelry transaction in $uestion is an admission against interest and should be given weight. The phrase @Si Pa$ui@ must moreover be related to the $uestion as"ed by :lvin. supra The written testimony of ?olgado that during the duel there is no one present but him and the victim <orales is a statement of fact against penal interest. The reason upon which incomplete declarations are generally excluded or if admitted accorded little or no weight is that since the declarant was prevented 3by death or other circumstance7 from saying all that he wished to say what he did say might have been $ualified by the statements which he was prevented from ma"ing.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 . L. :aBuri. To be complete in itself does not mean that the declarant must recite everything that constituted the res gestae of the sub&ect of his statement but that his statement of any given fact should be a full expression of all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect of such fact. *'. Rule 11! Declaration a2ainst interest— >/e declaration made -1 a person deceased# or una-le to testi01# against t/e interest o0 t/e declarant# i0 t/e 0act is asserted in t/e declaration 4as at t/e time it 4as made so 0ar contrar1 to declarant<s o4n interest# t/at a reasona-le man in /is position 4ould not /ave made t/e declaration unless /e -elieved it to -e true# ma1 -e received in evidence against /imsel0 or /is successors in interest and against t/ird persons5 6:9a7 CAS S@ Pp v.@:po :po what happenedN@ :lvin's $uestion was not@:po :po who did this to youN It has been held that a dying declaration to be admissible must be complete in itself. In this case the dying declaration was not complete. Toledo was therefore ac$uitted Page GG /LS0 Law.Evidence Case Doctrines either 3a7 the sub&ect of a sentence or 3b7 the ob&ect of a verb. The general rule is stated to be that the declaration of a person other than accused confessing or tending to show that he committed the crime are not competent for accused on account of the hearsay doctrine. 4oledo.+6+ . That incomplete declaration is not therefore entitled to the presumption of truthfulness which constitutes the basis upon which dying declarations are received. Pp v. ?owever if a man deliberately ac"nowledged himself to be the perpetrator of a crime and exonerated the person charged with the crime and there was other evidence indicative of the truthfulness of the statement the accused man should not be permitted to go to prison or to the electric chair to expiate a crime he never committed. #6 S*R' +2 "1#8!$ =actsA >/is is a parricide case5 +ori3a >5 Mo/amad 4as sta--ed in t/e c/est5 Airol Aling declared t/at /e killed /is 4i0e 64/om /e married according to Muslim rites7 -ecause /e 4as in0ormed in prison -1 /is relatives t/at /is 4i0e 4as living 4it/ anot/er man and 0ooling around 4it/ ot/er men5 DoctrineA >/e testimon1 o0 t/e accused t/at /e 4as married to t/e deceased 4as an admission against /is penal interest5 It 4as a con0irmation o0 t/e ma2im semper praesumitur matrimonio and t/e presumption 't/at a man and 4oman deporting t/emselves as /us-and and 4i0e /ave entered into a la40ul contract o0 marriage' An2 v. Declaration '2ainst Interest Section 18.

*'. 1# Rule 11!. ): case as an authority. It may well be presumed that :gripino would not have made the said declaration unless he believed the same to be true pre&udicial as it is to his children's interests as his heirs with his first wife. The word @pedigree@ includes relationship family genealogy birth marriage death the dates when and the places where these fast occurred and the names of the relatives.@There is no showing that Aoilo is either dead mentally incapacitated or physically incompetent which Sec. 'ct or DeclarationC =a8il( Reputation or 4radition on Pedi2ree Sec.Evidence Case Doctrines =uentes v. *'.A 4ule -0A :amily reputation or tra"ition regar"ing pe"igree.. supra =actsA *ic/ard >5 (itzsimmons 4as t/e president o0 Atlantic# @ul0 and aci0ic Compan1 o0 Manila5 (itzsimmons died# and a special proceeding 4as instituted 0or t/e settlement o0 /is estate5 >/e evidence 0or t/e administrator against t/is claim o0 &:#""" consisted o0 E2/i-it $ and t/e testimon1 o0 Mr5 Marcial 5 )ic/auco e2plaining t/e circumstances under 4/ic/ said document 4as prepared and signed -1 t/e deceased (itzsimmons5 DoctrineA A declaration against t/e interest o0 t/e person making it is admissi-le in evidence# not4it/standing its /earsa1 c/aracter# i0 t/e declaration is relevant and t/e declarant /as died# -ecome insane# or 0or some ot/er reason is not availa-le as a 4itness5 >/e true test in re0erence to t/e relia-ilit1 o0 t/e declaration is not 4/et/er it 4as made ante litem motam# as is t/e case 4it/ re0erence /LS0 Law. 2-1 S*R' 1! "1##6$ =actsPetitioner contends that the lower court erred in not admitting the declaration against penal interest of Aoilo 9uentes that he was the one of "illed the decease :nd he uses the Toledo v. Lichauco v.'ct or declaration a5out pedi2ree. H The act or declaration of a person deceased or unable to testify in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. Rulin2the reason why the admission against penal interest cannot be accepted in the instant case is that the declarant is not @unable to testify. ?is mere absence from the &urisdiction does not ma"e him ipso facto unavailable under this rule. . 3>>a7 Se(. >E obviously contemplates. #+ S*R' 1+1 "1#8!$ The declaration afore$uoted is of the highest evidentiary value being one against the declarant's own interest. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. — >/e reputation or tradition e2isting in a 0amil1 previous to t/e controvers1# in respect to t/e pedigree o0 an1 one o0 its mem-ers# ma1 -e received in evidence i0 t/e 4itness testi01ing t/ereon -e also a mem-er o0 t/e 0amil1# eit/er -1 consanguinit1 or a00init15 Entries in 0amil1 -i-les or ot/er 0amil1 -ooks or c/arts# engravings on rings# 0amil1 portraits and t/e like# ma1 -e received as evidence o0 pedigree5 6:Ba7 CAS S@ Page GC . 'tlantic 9ulf E Pacific *o.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 to some classes o0 /earsa1 evidence# 4/et/er t/e declaration 4as uttered under circumstances 3usti01ing t/e conclusion t/at t/ere 4as no pro-a-le motive to 0alsi015 Del :undo v.

1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Page GE . 5= Records7 La6atin v.The testimony of the petitioner /ucusin Sr.The father and %li.n.C. #2 S*R' 2-1 "1#+#$ =actsA ?r5 Mariano M5 )azatin died intestate survived -1 /is 4i0e# Margarita de Asis# and /is adopted t4in daug/ters# respondent +ora )5 de )eon and Irma )azatin5 Margarita de Asis# also died# leaving a & /olograp/ic 4ill5 etitioner *enato to )azatin alias *enato Sta5 Clara 0iled a motion to intervene in t/e estate o0 Margarita de Asis# as an adopted c/ild# on t/e -asis o0 an a00idavit e2ecuted -1 Ben3amin )azatin# -rot/er o0 t/e deceased ?r5 Mariano M5 )azatin# DoctrineA >/e point in 0avor o0 receiving /earsa1 evidence upon matters o0 0amil1 /istor1 or pedigree is its relia-ilit1# it /as -een set 0ort/ as a condition upon 4/ic/ suc/ evidence is received t/at it emanate 0rom a source 4it/in t/e 0amil15 edigree testimon1 is admitted -ecause it is t/e -est t/at t/e nature o0 t/e case admits and -ecause greater evil mig/t arise 0rom t/e re3ection o0 suc/ proo0 t/an 0rom its admission5 But# in proving an adoption# t/ere is a -etter proo0 availa-le and it s/ould -e produced5 Ducusin v.abeth and her father7. that his son needs the leased premises as he was getting married and did in fact got married for which reason petitioner sent the @+otice to Terminate ?is )ontract@ 3%xh. pp. which may be considered under Rule 5>4 Sec. The lower court denied the petition because it failed to prove the marriage.abeth testified on her age. 122 S*R' 2#! "1#81$ =actsPetitioner wanted the respondent to vacate the apartment because his son who &ust got married is going to the use the place. Rulin2the testimony of :rturo /ucusin a brother of :gapito (r.s.! p. @'@7! the testimony of :rturo /ucusin *that he had an overseas telephone tal" with his brother :gapito (r. sonThe )ourt li"ewise conclude that the intention to use the leased premises as the residence of /ucusin (r. *a8pos. 5> 5C (une = 5. /uring the examination of the witnesses the defense tried to $uestion the probative value of the birth certificate for having been obtained only two days after the complained incident. >> as an act or declaration about pedigree the word @pedigree@ including relationship family genealogy birth marriage death the dates when and the places where these facts occurred and the names of the relatives \\as well as the presentation of the marriage certificate of petitionerDs /LS0 Law.abeth 0ngsod 55 years old 3age testified by the %li. The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy in respect to the pedigree of any of its members may be received in evidence if the witness testifying be also a member of the family either by consanguinity or affinity. Sa8illano. *'. ?ence the testimonies of the victim and her father standing alone could prove the victimDs age.Evidence Case Doctrines Pp v. The court ruled that %ven if the birth certificate is to be disregarded the age of the victim has been established by other admissible evidence such as the public school records and the testimonies of the victim herself and her father. 2!+ S*R' -! "1##2$ Statutory rape was committed by Samson Samillano on %li. informing that the latter was coming home and that he and his wife were preparing their documents and arriving within the month 3t. has been satisfactorily and sufficiently proved by clear strong and substantial evidence found in the records of the case.

ravador a school principal was advised of his separation for having reached the compulsory retirement age of G=.ravador should therefore be reinstated.CG do not constitute hearsay evidence as claimed by the accused*appellant but rather fall under the exceptions to the hearsay rule as provided under sections >. 'le2ado. Rulin2The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses the offended party herself and her maternal grandfather )ornelio Iillarosa as to the fact that the victim was born on September = 5. . Thus /ecember 55 5. D. 2!1 S*R' 16 "1##1$ =actsThe age of the rape victim is put in issue. -# S*R' . :a8i2o. 12 Phil 121 "1#-1$ =actsA At t/e time o0 t/e commission o0 t/e crime Severina 4as a maiden o0 $C 1ears o0 age5 Alt/oug/ Severina testi0ied during t/e /a-eas corpus proceedings 4/ere s/e stated a di00erent age5 DoctrineA >/e kno4ledge a person /as o0 /is age is ac. The grandfather of the victim testify as to the age of the victim /LS0 Law.ravador denied. and 84 of Rule 5>4 of the Revised Rules on %vidence.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Page G. In the case at bar considering that the date of birth of the rape victim is being put in issue! that the declaration of the victim's grandfather relating to tradition 3sending a child to school upon reaching the age of seven7 existed long before the rape case was filed! and that the witness testifying to the said tradition is the maternal grandfather of the rape victim. The word pedigree under Section >. v.Evidence Case Doctrines In re& =lorencio :allare. 9ravador v. of the same Rule includes relationship family genealogy birth marriage death the dates when and the places where these facts occurred and the names of the relatives.S. . .45 is established as the date of birth of the petitioner not only by evidence of family tradition but also by the declaration ante litem motam of a deceased relative. >van2elista. *'. 2! S*R' + 2 "1#6+$ Pedro .ravadorDs %mployeeDs Record )ard stating that he was nearly GC. The court ruled that a statement made ante litem motam by a deceased relative regarding oneDs age is a declaration regarding pedigree.28 to the effect that he was then 2> and was born in /ecember 55 5.uired 0rom 4/at /e is told -1 /is parents# and t/e remarks or statements o0 /is parents 6in regard t/ereto is t/e -est evidence75 Alt/oug/ s/e 6Severina (lores7 testi0ied and stated t/at s/e 4as o0 di00erent age /er testimon1 cannot prevail over /er 0at/erDs5 4ison v. 2+6 S*R' -82 "1##+$ Pp v. 0nli"e that of matters of pedigree general reputation of marriage may proceed from persons who are not members of the family 6 the reason for the distinction is the public interest that is ta"en in the $uestion of the existence of marital relations. To prove he attached the affidavit of his long*time neighbors and the ante litem motam of his deceased brother created way bac" in 5. This was based on pre*war records which included .45."1#+ $ Reputation has been held admissible as evidence of age birth race or race*ancestry and on the $uestion of whether a child was born alive.

The complaint further alleged that a number of said defendants had theretofore been convicted one or more times of a violation of the Bpium Law.K *it( of :anila v. 16 Phil 811 "1#1+$ =actsThe complaint alleged that said defendants did then and there willfully unlawfully feloniously and "nowingly visit and were present /LS0 Law."1#187 The legitimate filiation of a person presupposes the existence of a marriage contracted by the presumed parents in accordance with law and conse$uently a child cannot be declared a legitimate daughter of her mother without at the same time presuming that said child was born during the marriage of her supposed parents. — Common reputation e2isting previous to t/e controvers1# respecting 0acts o0 pu-lic or general interest more t/an t/irt1 1ears old# or respecting marriage or moral c/aracter# ma1 -e given in evidence5 Monuments and inscriptions in pu-lic places ma1 -e received as evidence o0 common reputation5 6:C7 CAS S@ D. =errer v.nchausti.Evidence Case Doctrines #here a claimant see"s recovery against the estate of the declarant himself and not merely to establish a right through his declarations to the property of some other member of the family common to the claimant and the declarant such declaration is admissible in evidence as a declaration about pedigree.:s cited in the case of 0nited States vs. de . Rule 11! Common reputation. : child born 5= years after the death of the alleged father cannot physically and legally be a legitimate daughter of such alleged father. . Rulin2The proof upon the general reputation of the alleged smo"ing &oint shows that a number of people at different times had been arrested in said place for a violation of the Bpium Law! that the doors leading into the rooms where opium was found together with apparatus for in&ecting and smo"ing opium was strongly barricaded! that a large number of )hinamen were in the room at the time the policeman arrived on the occasion of the arrest of the present defendants! that immediately upon receiving notice of the presence of the policemen PI assume the people fleedMescapedQ a great number of times by policemen! that it was understood among the policemen to be an opium &oint! that nearly all of the witnesses who testified for the defense were persons who "new the place and had been convicted from one to five times each for violation of the Bpium Law. Sy Toon.JThat a certain place is @an opium &oint@ can be established by proof of facts and circumstances including evidence of the general reputation of the house. at an opium &oint in said city where opium its derivatives and compounds were smo"ed or otherwise used and unlawfully sold. *hoa *hio?. Del Rosario. v.Phil 22+ "1#!-$ =actsA >/is is an action to recover t/e possession o0 t4o lots located in Calles Clavel and Barcelona# district o0 >ondo5 Juan Eillegas testi0ied t/at t/e land 4as 0ormerl1 included in t/e @ran ?ivisoria# t/at all land included in it -elonged to t/e cit15 Fo4ever t/is testimon1 is /earsa1 as it consisted o0 4/at /e learned 0rom t/e oldest residents o0 t/at section5 *o88on Reputation Section 1.S.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Page C4 . 18 Phil #!.

She too" a wal".ota a =2*year*old widow filed a rape case against )eferinoLungayan.nchausti. + S*R' 111 "1#+6$ =actsTeodulo Panimdim was stabbed in a dancing hall and = days later he died. de.uivalent to universal reputation5 >/e testimon1 o0 t/is 4itness is not su00icient to esta-lis/ t/e presumption re0erred to5 lainti00 itsel0 admits in t/e complaint t/at de0endantDs possession o0 t/e land in Calle Barcelona 4as recorded since Marc/ $!"$# and t/e land in Calle Clavel since (e-ruar1 $!%:5 >/is s/o4s t/at t/e de0endant /ad -een in t/e adverse possession o0 t/e land5 . de . #hen :gripina reached her homeSilveria her daughter as"ed her what happened and she revealed that )eferino abused her. She spent some time thin"ing of what to do. re0erred to in t/e section mentioned5 GCommon reputation. ?er clothes were muddy. Putian. ?er revelation cannot thus be categori. Pp v. Res 9estae Section 2.uent t/ereto 4it/ respect to t/e circumstances t/ereo0# ma1 -e given in evidence as part o0 res gestae5 So# also# statements accompan1ing an e. Rule 11! Part of res 2estae5 — Statements made -1 a person 4/ile a starting occurrence is taking place or immediatel1 prior or su-se.ed as part of the res gestae. Lun2a(an. She had some bruises on her body and bac" because she was lying down on the ground during the sexual intercourse and their passionate interlude. #hen Silveria pressed her for details she replied that she will tell her the following morning which she did. 162 S*R' 1!! "1#88$ :gripina (uan Ida. It must also be made at a time when there was no opportunity for her to concoct or develop her own story.uivocal act material to t/e issue# /LS0 Law.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 . supra =a8il( 4radition& Testimony made by a witness regarding a declaration made by someone deceased when both the witness and the declarant are members of the same family is admissible as evidence of family tradition.Evidence Case Doctrines DoctrineA Suc/ testimon1 /o4ever does not constitute t/e Gcommon reputation.nder article BB% o0 t/e Civil Code /e must -e presumed to /old a 3ust title# unless t/e contrar1 is s/o4n5 and giving it a legal signi0icance# ma1 -e received as part o0 t/e res gestae5 6:&a7 CAS S@ Pp v. :s the )ourt observed 3she7 did not immediately go home after the sexual encounter. Lungayan was ac$uitted.ar. *o88on Reputation& %vidence may be given upon trial of monuments and inscriptions in public places as evidence of common reputation! and entries in family 'ibles or other family boo"s or charts! engravings on rings family portraits and the li"e as evidence of pedigree. :ppellant Putian contends  that Panimdim's statement was not spontaneous because it was @made several hours after the incident@ hence not part of res gestae5 Page C5 =errer v. It is important to stress that 3:gripinaDs7 statement must not only be spontaneous. She had enough time to ma"e a decision on what will be the nature of her story. +o eyewitness was presented to testify on the assault which resulted in the victim's death as to murder proven by circumstantial evidence.# as used in t/at section# is e.

The Supreme )ourt ruled that thestatement is not admissible as part of the res gestae! and considered as an oral confession it is admissible only against Satsoy not against any other person. Pp v.+ot every statement made on the occasion of a startling occurrence is admissible as part of the res gestae! only such are admissible as appear to have been involuntarily and spontaneously wrung from an observer by the shoc" or impact of the occurrence such that as has aptly been said it is the event spea"ing through the witness not the witness spea"ing of the event. 357 that the principal act the res gestae be a startling occurrence! 327 that the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive! and 3>7 that the statements refer to the occurrence in $uestion and its attending circumstances. Pp v.man.K Panimdim's statement was given sometime after the stabbing while he was undergoing treatment at a medical clinic.ue# /e did not ans4er and 3ust made a sign 4it/ /is : 0ingers5 DoctrineA All o0 t/e elements o0 res gestae are presentA 6a7 t/at t/e principal act# t/e res gestae# -e a starling occurrence8 6-7 t/at t/e statements 4ere made -e0ore t/e declarant /ad time to contrive or devise8 and 6c7 t/at t/e statements made must concern t/e occurrence in .uestion and its immediatel1 attending circumstances5 @race aule /ad named t/e accused immediatel1 a0ter t/e occurrence o0 t/e sta--ing incident Pp v.u. 4ula2an. ?e had no time to concoct a falsehood or to fabricate a malicious charge against Putian.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 . > re$uisites of res gestae have been fulfilled. 0landay who gave a sworn statement saying that he saw Satsoy and his companions carrying the cadaver of )atungal from the a. 4olentino. 1 1 S*R' 1!+ "1#86$ )atungal was "illed while attempting to flee from at least two men Tulagan and Satsoy de .Evidence Case Doctrines * that the re$uisite that the declarant gave the statement before he had time to devise or contrive was not present in this case * contends that because the statement is in narrative form it is not the statement contemplated in the rule. Rulin2:lthough a declaration does not appear to have been made by the declarant under the expectation of a sure and impending death and for the reason is not admissible as a dying declaration yet if such declaration was made at the time of or immediately after the commission of the crime or at a time when the exciting influence of the startling occurrence still continued in the declarant's mind it is admissible as a part of the res gestae. 1 ! S*R' 116 "1#8-$ Statements may be regarded as part of res gestae as soon as they were made after a startling occurrence without the opportunity for fabrication or concoction.otea of a house located around ten meters away from the road to 'ayambang. 218 S*R' 11+ "1##1$ =actsA B persons# >olentino# Mata4aran# >ala and a Jo/n ?oe 4ere c/arged o0 *o--er1 4it/ Multiple Fomicide5 >/e victims o0 t/is case are B c/ildren == W/en @race aule came into consciousness s/e 4as asked 4/o 4as responsi-le and s/e responded HBong=BongD5 H>alaD and Mata4aran5 Adelaida also asked Enri. Page C2 /LS0 Law. Siscar. Bn the basis of which the accused was apprehended. Satsoy made a statement admitting the crime thus they were convicted.

*orte6ano.ed )orte.ano was charged with <urder and during his arraignment he pleaded not guilty. This is doubly true when the Page C> . The same declaration may even be considered as part of res gestae.ano. +! S*R' 111 "1#+6$ 0nder the above provision 3Rule 5>2 ]547 the memorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness does not constitute evidence and may not be admitted as such for the simple reason that the witness has &ust the same to testify on the basis of refreshed memory. #ell settled is the rule that delay in reporting the ante mortem declaration does not automatically render the testimony doubtful. Roderic" Ialentin 32= fishpond wor"er7 and his younger brother (erny 35>7 were on their way to fetch fresh water from a well on board a banca when all of a sudden a flashlight beam fell on Roderic" 3then on (erny7 and a gunshot rang out hitting Roderic" on the chest while missing (erny. (erny holding on to his flashlight beamed it on the approaching shooter and recogni. :larmed that he had been recogni.uestion or its immediate attending circumstances5 '6nar v.ano left the scene then (erny started paddling the banca towards the direction of their house to get help. ?e cannot be more credible &ust 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.Evidence Case Doctrines Pp v.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Montinola# on /is -eing captured a0ter t/e gunpla1 4/ere /e 4as 4ounded# it turned out# mortall15 Fe admitted /is participation in t/e killing o0 Maningo and pointed to appellant as one o0 /is companions5 >/at 4as assigned as error -1 appellant<s counsel in vie4 o0 t/e nine /ours t/at /ad elapsed 0rom t/e time o0 t/e killing -e0ore its utterance5 DoctrineA All t/at is re.Bn the way to the hospital 3Roderic" transferred to a rented motori. #hat is more even where this re$uirement has been satisfied the express in&unction of the rule itself is that such evidence must be received with caution if only because it is not very difficult to conceive and fabricate evidence of this nature. Bera8e.uired 0or t/e admissi-ilit1 o0 a given statement as part o0 t/e res gestae# is t/at it -e made under t/e in0luence o0 a startling event 4itnessed -1 t/e person 4/o made t/e declaration -e0ore /e /ad time to t/ink and make up a stor1# or to concoct or contrive a 0alse/ood# or to 0a-ricate an account# and 4it/out an1 undue in0luence in o-taining it# aside 0rom re0erring to t/e event in .S*R' #."2!!2$ =acts& )orte.ed banca7 Roderic" "ept crying from pain and muttering that he was shot by )orte.ano! however Roderic" never reached the hospital alive. 1+. Roderic" made a dying declaration Rulin25. 9ailure to reveal or describe the assailantDs identity at once does not necessarily affect much less impair the credibility of said witnesses. In other words where the witness has testified independently of or after his testimony has been refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative evidence. +2 S*R' 18 "1#+6$ =actsA An assailant suddenl1 s/ot Iuirico Maningo# t/en seated on a c/air 0acing t/e main door o0 t/e sala o0 /is rented /ouse5 >/ere 4as a statement made -1 one o0 t/e co=accused# Anastacio /LS0 Law. • Roderic"Ds declaration was made spontaneously after a startling occurrence • ?is statements were made before he had time to contrive or demise ?is statements concerned his attac"er and the immediately attending circumstances of the attac".ed that it was )orte. Borro8eo. It is self*evident that a witness may not be corroborated by any written statement prepared wholly by him. 2. Pp v.

Rule 11! >ntries in the course of 5usiness. *hap8an v. 6 Phil 618 "1#1+$ =actsA )ouis C/apman 4as one o0 t/e principal partners o0 /ilippine )um-er Co5 4/o later sold all t/is participation in t/e -usiness to @il @arcia and Jesus Sanz5 artners/ip 4as li. The baptisms administered by the church are one of its transactions in the exercise of ecclesiastical duties and recorded in a boo" of the church during the course of its business.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 their appearance details and the fact that they were made at the time of the visits so recorded render them competent corroborative evidence Pp v. R Entries made at# or near t/e time o0 transactions to 4/ic/ t/e1 re0er# -1 a person deceased# or una-le to testi01# 4/o 4as in a position to kno4 t/e 0acts t/erein stated# ma1 -e received as prima 0acie evidence# i0 suc/ person made t/e entries in /is pro0essional capacit1 or in t/e per0ormance o0 dut1 and in t/e ordinar1 or regular course o0 -usiness or dut15 6:Ja7 CAS S@ =i2ueras v. . The writing in the boo"s are ob&ected by Serrano as incompetent since there is no proof that these notes showing such claims were with consent and "nowledge or even presence of deceased Serrano. +either does it appear that such notes were made at the time of the visits and services. The entries made in the Registry 'oo" may be considered as entries made in the course of business under Section 8> of Rule 5>4 which is an exception to the hearsay rule.Evidence Case Doctrines witness stands to gain materially or otherwise from the admission of such evidence .the austrailian was accused of "illing a 5> yr old child by the use of a sexual vibrator. >ntries in the *ourse of Business Section 1. The issue in this case is the age of the decease Rulin2 The defense presented Rosario 'aluyot's baptismal certificate which the trial court re&ected as being hearsay and of no value. .uidation /e /ad stopped /aving transactions and /ad paid t/e entire de-t5 >/e counterclaim o0 de0endant is -ased on t/e de-it and credit accounts appearing on t/e -ooks 6da1-ook and cas/ -ook7 o0 /ilippine )um-er Co5 K inadmissi-le -ecause it 4as not aut/enticated -1 t/e -ookkeeper5 Page C8 . 9arcia. Bnce this is proven they may be admitted to corroborate the testimony of the person who made them : document is competent evidence if in addition to being sufficiently identified by the persons who made them at the time of the visits /LS0 Law. 1# S*R' 6#! "1##1$ =acts. It is absolutely necessary for the admission of such entries to prove that they were made at or about the time of the transaction to which they relate. :s against the oral declarations made by interested witnesses establishing Rosario's age to be less than 52 years old the evidence on record is more convincing and worthy of belief. Such cost consists of his services as well as his transportation fee going to deceased SerranoDs house and bac".uidated5 C/apman admits t/at /e /ad taken lum-er on credit 0rom t/e compan1 -ut alleges t/at : mont/s prior to t/e li. The appearance of the writing in these boo"sdoes not show thatsuch notes were made therein on different occasions considering the noticeable uniformity of the handwriting and of the color of the in" used in almost all the entries notwithstanding the fact that these entries cover a period of over one year. Ritter. Serrano. -2 Phil 28 "1#28$ 9igueras as"s for claims from the estate of Serrano claiming amounts for his professional visits.

Petitioner presented a medical certificate as proof of the allegedly raped Rulin2The S) is not convinced that she was rape through the showing of the medical certificate because the laceration of the wound has already healed. The third re$uisite is not present. *alte) MPhilN. 16 S*R' 8 "1#66$ the performance of a duty specially en&oined by law! and 3c7 that the public officer or other person had sufficient "nowledge of the facts by him stated which must have been ac$uired by him personally or through official information. & The written entries in the clinical case record %xh. In this case some of the sources were not even identified while some came from the driver of the tan" truc" and an employee of the gas station. Inc.Evidence Case Doctrines DoctrineA >/e da1-ook /as not -een kept in accordance 4it/ t/e provisions o0 article :: o0 t/e Code o0 Commerce# in as muc/ as t/e alleged accounts o0 t/e plainti00 4ere not entered da1 -1 da1 -ut some 4ere entered a-out C to $" mont/s a0ter t/e transaction5 >/e -ookkeeper 4/o kept t/e amounts /as not -een presented nor 4as /is deposition taken to testi01 on t/e certaint1 and correctness o0 t/e accounts appearing t/erein5 /olan v.C> her complaint of vaginal bleeding and the diagnosis of @?ealing lacerated wide at 2 o'cloc" and 54 o'cloc" hymen@ are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated the said entries having been made in official records by a public officer of the Philippines in Page C= : fire bro"e out at a )altex service station. Police made an investigation eventually holding )altex liable. The reports in $uestion do not constitute an exception to the hearsay rule! the facts stated therein were not ac$uired by the reporting officers through official information not having been given by the informants pursuant to any duty to do so.. There are three re$uisites for admissibility under entries of official records.3a7 that the entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially en&oined by law to do so! 3b7 that it was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties or by such other person in /LS0 Law. Salas. Leones. + Phil 1 "1#!6$ The writings of a deceased person made at or near the time of the transaction provided for in section >2E of the )ode of Procedure in )ivil :ctions are not admissible in evidence until after the authenticity of the manuscript in $uestion has been first satisfactorily established. Pp v. >ntries in Afficial Records Section . Rule 11! >ntries in official records5 — Entries in o00icial records made in t/e per0ormance o0 /is dut1 -1 a pu-lic o00icer o0 t/e /ilippines# or -1 a person in t/e per0ormance o0 a dut1 speciall1 en3oined -1 la4# are prima 0acie evidence o0 t/e 0acts t/erein stated5 6:%7 CAS S@ 'frica v.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 . @2@ showing the date of her admission in the hospital on :pril 22 5. The circumstances of the fire were not within the personal "nowledge of the officers who prepared the reports. To $ualify their statements as @official information@ ac$uired by the officers who prepared the reports the persons who made the statements not only must have personal "nowledge of the facts stated but must have the duty to give such statements for record. 11+ S*R' 182 "1#82$ =actsPetitioner claim to be raped by the empolyerDs son assisted by sister who allegedly drugged the victim.

. ## Phil +2# "1#-6$ : sheriff's return is an official statement made by a public official in the performance of a duty specially en&oined by the law and forming part of official records and is prima 0acie evidence of the facts stated therein. Ricardo and Ramon then hastened towards <arcos Road but in no time were bac" with bladed weapons. v. Inc. San 9a5riel. ?e was then brought to <ary (ohnston ?ospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.E.uarterl1 reports o0 t/e municipal presidents made pursuant to section 99"9 o0 t/e Administrative Code5 >/e certi0icate issued -1 t/e ?irector o0 Agriculture is admissi-le in evidence as an o00icial document issued -1 a pu-lic o00icer aut/orized -1 la45 Ever1 o00icer /as an implied dut1 or aut/orit1 to prepare and deliver out to an applicant a certi0icate stating an1t/ing 4/ic/ /as -een done or o-served -1 /im or e2ists in /is o00ice -1 virtue o0 some aut/orit1 or dut1# and t/e certi0icate is admissi-le5 :analo v. They approached Tonog surreptitiously surrounded him and simultaneously stabbed him in the stomach and at the bac" after which the assailants ran towards the highway leaving Tonog behind on the ground. *a5uan2. De)ter E *o. Steve )asimiro which did not mention him at all and named only @Ramon /oe@ as the principal suspect. *o. Pp v. . section 55 and Rule 52> section >= Rules of )ourt. Rulin2'**DS>D  leans heavily on the Advance In0ormation S/eet prepared by Pat. Pp v.7 The sheriff's ma"ing the return need not testify in court as to the facts stated in his entry.. 6 Phil 186 "1#2 $ =actsA Salmon# ?e2ter# and Co5 entered into a contract 4it/ Wi3angco 0or t/e purc/ase and sale o0 a tractor and t/res/ing mac/ine upon t/e conditions speci0ied in said contract == price o0 t/e mac/ineries sold is $9#B""#pa1a-le -1 instalments5 Wi3angco denies generall1 and speci0icall1 t/e 0acts alleged in t/e complaint5 Fe alleged t/at t/e tractor and t/res/ing mac/ine# 4/ic/ is t/e su-3ect=matter o0 t/e contract 4as sold -1 t/e plainti00 compan1 to t/e de0endant# does not meet t/e conditions speci0ied and guaranteed in t/e a0oresaid contract o0 sale5 )o4er court rendered 3udgment sentencing t/e Wi3angco 6de0endant7 to pa1 t/e plainti00 rel1ing among ot/er evidence to t/e certi0icate issued -1 t/e ?irector o0 t/e Bureau o0 Agriculture5 DoctrineA >/e statistics prepared -1 t/e Bureau o0 Agriculture is c/ie0l1 -ased on t/e . * a fistfight ensued between (aime Tonog on one hand and the accused Ricardo San . Ro5les 4rans. 2-1 S*R' 8 "1##6$ =acts+ovember 2G 5.RT)  convicted them of murder.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Page CG . /LS0 Law. 3Rule >.Evidence Case Doctrines the performance of his duty especially en&oined by law which is that of a physician in a government hospital Sal8on.abriel together with @Ramon /oe@ on the other."1##1$ %ntries in a police blotter are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries. The fight was eventually bro"en up when onloo"ers pacified the protagonists.iBan2co. 21+ S*R' 6+.

11 Phil 61 "1#1-$ =actsA Santiago# Al0onso and Eduardo Ortiga seek to prove t/at t/e1 are c/ildren o0 Apolonoa *emigio and a-lo Ortiga 6to claim 0rom t/e estate o0 t/e deceased75 >/e1 -ase t/eir claim upon various acts 6positive tolerance and ackno4ledgement o0 0iliation7 and an alleged -aptismal certi0icate5 DoctrineA A -aptismal certi0icate attests t/e 0act 4/ic/ gave rise to its e2ecution as 4ell as t/e date o0 t/e e2ecution5 It is an attestation o0 t/e administration o0 t/e sacrament on t/e date mentioned -ut not t/e veracit1 o0 t/e statements 4it/ respect to t/e relations/ip o0 t/e person -aptized5 >/e one e2/i-ited -1 respondents does not prove t/at /e is a legitimate son o0 *emigio and Ortiga as recorded in t/at document K so muc/ t/at less credence s/ould -e placed in t/e certi0icate 4it/ respect to a particular relations/ip5 Pp v.on Stevedoring )orporation 3LS)7. are onl( prima 'a(ieevidence of the facts therein stated. These are not published in any list register periodical or other compilation on the relevant sub&ect matter. To claim damages del Rosario presented documents reflecting the damaged items and its valuation.  >ntries in official records. D(. Said officer could not have prepared the morning after with promptitude sans investigation the morning after the incident were it not for the appellantDs oral confession.%xhibits mentioned are mere price $uotations issued personally to /el Rosario who re$uested for them from dealers of e$uipment similar to the ones lost at the collision of the two vessels. *o88ercial Lists Section -. v. Rule 11! *o88ercial lists and the li?e. — Evidence o0 statements o0 matters o0 interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list# register# periodical# or ot/er pu-lis/ed compilation is admissi-le as tending to prove t/e trut/ o0 an1 relevant matter so stated i0 t/at compilation is pu-lis/ed 0or use -1 persons engaged in t/at occupation and is generall1 used and relied upon -1 t/em t/erein5 6:!7 CAS @ P/A* Shippin2. 2## S*R' !2 "1###$ MLE Maria E0igenia ME# owned by <aria %figenia 9ishing )orporation was navigating the waters near 9ortune Island in +asugbu 'atangas on its way to +avotas <etro <anila when it collided with the vessel etroparcel which at the time was owned by the Lu. %ntries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer to be admissible in evidence three 3>7 re$uisites must concur.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 J<urder with 0se of 0nlicensed 9irearmK signed by the )hief Police attest to appellantDs confession. 4he( are not conclusive. +either are these @mar"et reports or $uotations@ within the purview of @commercial lists@ as these are not @standard handboo"s or periodicals containing data of everyday professional need and relied upon in the wor" of the Page CC . as in the case of a police 5lotter.Evidence Case Doctrines SDPR>:> *ADR4  this cannot defeat the positive and candid testi8onies of the prosecution @itnesses. 1-8 S*R' 111 "1#88$ )omplaint forms part of the record of the proceedings and is prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. *'. The sworn )omplaint for /LS0 Law.3a7 The entry was made by a police officer or by another person specially en&oined by law to do so! 3b7 It was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties or by such other person in the performance of a duty specially en&oined by law! and 3c7 The public officer or other person had sufficient "nowledge of the facts by him stated which must have been ac$uired by him personally or through official information. Arti2a. Re8i2io v.

The lower courtDs decision. )ertainly they do not come within the legal purview of those una-le to testi01. Bn the same day /aldo subscribed before the cler" of the )9I to an affidavit categorically stating that respondent Tan @is not the father of my said minor children named )armelita and Rodolfo 3herein petitioners7 but another person whose name I cannot divulge@)9I dismissed the case. 2! S*R' . They could have urged the court to have said witnesses arrested punished for contempt.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 =acts& Petitioners thru their mother )elestina /aldo as guardian ad litem sued respondent Tan in the )ourt of 9irst Instance of <anila for ac"nowledgment and support. to recover actual damages the amount of loss must not only be capable of proof but must actually be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof or best evidence obtainable of the actual amount thereof.@?ere the witnesses in $uestion were available. Rule 11! Testimony or "eposition at a 'ormer pro(ee"ing5 — >/e testimon1 or deposition o0 a 4itness deceased or una-le to testi01# given in a 0ormer case or proceeding# 3udicial or administrative# involving t/e same parties and su-3ect matter# ma1 -e given in evidence against t/e adverse part1 4/o /ad t/e opportunit1 to cross=e2amine /im5 6B$a7 CAS S@ 4an v. Rule $:" )earned treatises5 — A pu-lis/ed treatise# periodical or pamp/let on a su-3ect o0 /istor1# la4# science# or art is admissi-le as tending to prove t/e trut/ o0 a matter stated t/erein i0 t/e court takes 3udicial notice# or a 4itness e2pert in t/e su-3ect testi0ies# t/at t/e 4riter o0 t/e statement in t/e treatise# periodical or pamp/let is recognized in /is pro0ession or calling as e2pert in t/e su-3ect5 6B"a7 4esti8on( or Deposition Section +.the present case is res 3udicata! complaint dismissed. Bnly they refused to testify.@ These are simply letters responding to the $ueries of /el Rosario. +o other person that prevented them from testifying is cited. 2>4 2>5! section >C of Rule 52> Rules of )ourt7. 9uevara v. *'. Sauls CC Tex G>4 58 S. Learned 4reaties Section 6.Bne year and eight months after said civil case was dismissed petitioners this time thru their maternal grandfather Servillano /aldo as guardian ad litem commenced the present action before the (uvenile U /omestic Relations )ourt for ac"nowledgment and support involving the same parties cause of action and sub&ect matter. Rulin2& The )ourt of :ppeals construing this term held that @subse$uent failure or refusal to appear thereat Psecond trialQ or hostility since testifying at the first trial does not amount to inability to testify but such inability proceeding from a grave cause almost amounting to death as when the witness is old and has lost the power of speech. 'esides in the situation here presented petitioners are not at all bereft of remedy."1#6+$ /LS0 Law. :fter petitioners had already presented oral and documentary evidence and were about to rest their case /aldo moved to dismiss the foregoing civil case upon the ground that the parties had come to an amicable settlement and prayed that the same be dismissed with pre&udice and without recourse of appeal.#. 'l8ario. 3. -6 Phil +6 "1#12$ Page CE . The claimant is duty*bound to point out specific facts that afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory damages are borne.Evidence Case Doctrines occupation.riffith vs. : court cannot merely rely on speculations con&ectures or guesswor" as to the fact and amount of damages as well as hearsay or uncorroborated testimony whose truth is suspect.

The court declined to consider their testimonies as competent.r. Apinion Rule Sec. #hile the "nowledge of some persons on the sub&ect may be greater than that possessed by others this is true of all other branches of "nowledge and e$ually as true of experts. . L-166!1..uiring special kno4ledge# skill# e2perience or training 4/ic/ /e s/o4n to posses# ma1 -e received in evidence5 6B:a7 /LS0 Law. v. The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion behavior condition or appearance of a person.alian presented before State Insurance )ompany an itemi.ed statement of the goods contained in the house at the time of the fire claiming recovery of the total amount of the losses.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Sec. ?ence information as to their value must necessarily be ac$uired by all such individuals. Pp v. -! Rule 11! Apinion of ordinar( @itnesses5 — >/e opinion o0 a 4itness 0or 4/ic/ proper -asis is given# ma1 -e received in evidence regarding — 3a7 the identity of a person about whom he has ade$uate "nowledge! 3b7 : handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity! and 3c7 The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently ac$uainted. 388a7 CAS S@ 9alian v. . To testify as to the value .. Ltd. Pp. '5riol. # Rule 11! Apinion of e)pert @itness5 — >/e opinion o0 a 4itness on a matter re. <ost of them are articles which persons with a reasonably fair income purchase for their own convenience and comfort. Such articles are on sale in retail shops everywhere and the prices are readily available to anyone see"ing the information.alian and his borther testified.uestion /as to do 4it/ t/e action o0 t/e trial court in admitting evidence# over t/e o-3ection o0 t/e de0endants K o0 t/e proo0 0iled in a previous criminal case5 DoctrineA Evidence ma1 -e received upon a trial o0 t/e testimon1 o0 a 4itness deceased or out o0 t/e 3urisdiction# or una-le to testi01# given in a 0ormer action -et4een t/e same parties# relating to t/e same matter5 rovided t/at t/e court is satis0iedA 6$7 t/at t/e part1 against 4/om t/e evidence is o00ered is priv1# 4as a part1 on t/e 0ormer trial8 697 t/at t/e issue is su-stantiall1 t/e same in t4o cases8 6:7 t/at t/e 4itness 4/o proposes to testi01 to t/e 0ormer evidence is a-le to state it 4it/ satis0actor1 correctness8 and 6B7 t/at a su00icient reason is s/o4n 4/1 t/e original 4itness 4as not produced5 4oledo. 1! Sept 1#+8 The provision of Section 8E Rule 5>4 of the Rules of )ourt on the admissibility of testimony given by a witness out of court must be strictly complied with. Testimony given by a witness at the preliminary investigation even if she were cross*examined there cannot be admitted as evidence in court where she has been served subpoena several times but still failed to appear at the trial. 2# Phil 11 "1#1-$ . Supreme court considered it competent as these are items people of ordinary education and refinement are reasonably familiar. State 'ssurance *o.Evidence Case Doctrines =actsA )a Eanguardia 6a dail1 ne4spaper7 printed t4o articles 4/ic/ mentioned @uillermo B5 @uevara t/e Cit1 (iscal o0 Manila# t/e aut/or 4as *osauro Alamrio5 >/e articles assailed /is integrit15 A ma3or . 8 Rule 11! 9eneral rule5 — >/e opinion o0 4itness is not admissi-le# e2cept as indicated in t/e 0ollo4ing sections5 6B97 Sec. 16+ S*R' 12+ "2!!1$ Page C.

The court said that the genuiness of a handwriting may be proved by 3not mandatory7.#itness who actually saw the person writing the instrument #itness familiar with the handwriting and give his opinion thereto opinion being an exception to the opinion rule )omparison by the court of the $uestioned and admitted genuine specimen Page E4 Pp v. 11# S*R' 218 "1#8-$ #hile the experts testified in a civil case the principles developed in criminal cases involving forgery are applicable. /os. 9orgery cannot be presumed. Turadio then as"ed the then Philippine )onstabulary )rime Laboratory to compare the signature of 'runo on the said deed against specimen signatures of his father. In need of money for his medical expenses 'runo sold the properties to the siblings of Turadio.8= gun and what they have was only .R. 1 12!!-!1.>E gun Rulin2Bn the allegation that PMInspector )aser lac"ed ade$uate training and expertise in ballistics:n expert witness is one who belongs to the profession or calling to which the sub&ect matter of the in$uiry relates and who possesses special "nowledge on $uestions on which he proposes to express an opinion. The $uestion of whether a witness is properly $ualified to give an expert opinion on ballistics rests with the discretion of the trial court.R. /o. :n expert witness need not present comparative microphotographs of test bullets and cartridges to support his findings. 11 'pr 2!!Turadio /omingo is the oldest of the = children of the late 'runo '. 9. They contend that they should be ac$uitted since the wound was cause by a . It is sufficient that the following factors be present training and education!  particular first*hand familiarity with the facts of the case! and  presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based. I'*. Do8in2o v. Bn trial her father argued that her daughter was insane and 9ather presented psychologist who testified on the mental status of the victim.Evidence Case Doctrines =acts:ppellant $uestion the findings of the lower court.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 . /omingo the former owner of the properties in dispute. In an1 event# courts are not -ound -1 t/e opinion o0 e2pert 4itness on suc/ matters# especiall1 4/en t/e1 appear to merel1 speculative and con3ectural# as in t/is case5 Siasat v. !1 'u2 2!!2 /LS0 Law. There is no definite standard of determining the degree of s"ill or "nowledge that a witness must possess in order to testify as an expert. 1-!8#+. Deauna. PMInspector )aser $ualifies as a ballistics expert* ?e is a licensed criminologist trained at the 'allistics )ommand and Laboratory )enter in 9ort 'onifacio in the P+P )rime Laboratory in )amp )rame and in the +ational 'ureau of Investigation. =acts& Bne evening when (osephine 3victim7 was sleeping her father 3accused7 approached her and "issed her nec". 9. The daughter then filed a complaint with the +'I alleging that her father raped her. Turadio eventually received a notice declaring him a s$uatter in that property. Doctrine& :lthough one of the expert witnesses 3psychologist7 testified that the mental illness of the victim could have existed prior to the diagnosis made on her no clear and categorical statement to this effect was presented. ?er father now succeeded having sexual congress with her daughter. * ?e had previously testified as an expert witness in at least twenty*seven 32C7 murder and homicide cases all over the country. Do8in2o. It must be proved.

11!#61. Pp v. (ao and :rlene S.ao v. Pp v. 28 . indicated that (anice could not have been the possible offspring of Perico I. :ccused*appellant-$uestioned the /+: analysis conducted by +'I 9orensic )hemist :ida Iiloria*<agsipoc. .K )ourts are not bound to submit to expert testimony. It has the presumption of regularity in its favor and to contradict all these evidence must be clear convincing and more than merely preponderant. 1!# S*R' 1 "1###$ :doviso was charged with double murder. /o.R. Salgado. ?e offered in evidence the testimony a +'I polygraph examiner who conducted a test on him. 'doviso. v.Evidence Case Doctrines %xpert evidence. 9. :lso the $uestioned /eed is a notari. ?e argues that the prosecution failed to show that all the samples submitted for /+: testing were not contaminated considering that Page E5 . 9aith and credit must not be vested upon the lie detector test which is not conclusive as the polygraph has not yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception. 3alleBo.G. Doctrine& : universal scientific agreement that blood grouping are conclusive as to non*paternity although inconclusive as to paternity Hthat is the fact that the blood type of the child is a possible product /LS0 Law.ed document.ul( 1#8+ =acts& (anice <arie (ao then a minor represented by her mother and guardian*ad*litem :rlene Salgado filed a case for recognition and support against private respondent Perico I.S. D. *'. 4rono. (ao. The examinerDs report revealed that Jthere were no specific reactions indicative of deception to pertinent $uestions relevant to the investigation of the crime. The latter denied paternity so the parties agreed to a blood grouping test which was in due course conducted by the +ational 'ureau of Investigation 3+'I7 upon order of the trial court. 2+ /ov 2!!1 =actsPetitioner contends that he was positive in the parrifin test because he was smo"ing before he was tested Rulin2The result of the paraffin test conducted on accused*appellant in the case at bar still proves that he tested positive for gunpowder nitrates because according to the witness the blue reaction produced by nitrate coming from cigarettes and matches has a different characteristic from the blue reaction produced in gun powder nitrate. Turadio has failed to show that such contradictory evidence exists. Pascua. The result of the blood grouping test held (anuary 25 5.#162. . 182 S*R' 182 "2!!2$ =actsThis is a rape case. The examination by the P)*I+P didnDt conform with standard because the signatures examined where several years apart.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 of the mother and alleged father does not conclusively prove that the child is born by such parents! but if the blood type of the child is not the possible blood type when the blood of the mother and that of the alleged father are cross matched then the child cannot possibly be that of the alleged father. L..r. In order to bring about an accurate comparison and analysis the standards of comparison must be as close as possible in point of time of the suspected signature. 1 Phil 211 "1#! $ %xpert testimony no doubt constitutes evidence worthy of meriting consideration although not exclusive on $uestions of a professional character! the courts of &ustice however are not bound to submit their findings necessarily to such testimony Pp v.

1alar Ti&ing v. :lthough ::: was an unmarried woman 52*5E years of age and of good reputation Rufino contended that she was actually impregnated by her married lover! that her mother only prodded her to accuse him! that he was at home the whole day of (uly 5= 5..F the results of the /+: analysis should be considered as corroborative evidence. : complete match between the /+: profile of the child and the /+: profile of the putative father does not necessarily establish paternity..Evidence Case Doctrines these specimens were already soa"ed in smirchy waters before they were submitted to the laboratory. 3The +ew Rule on /+: %vidence too" effect on Bctober 5= 244C.R. Bn the other hand ::: claimed that she met Rufino only on the day of the rape but later claimed that they were actually friends and later that they were actually close friends. )B<%L%). Pp. %errera v.F or higher then there is refuta5le presumption of paternity sub&ect to the Ialle&o standard. This is because /+: is composed of two copies. Rufino 0manito allegedly raped ::: 3name withheld7 for which he was on Bctober 5= 5. If the value of is . /o.. %eld& Relevant to the determination of RufinoWs guilt is the filiation of :::Ws child who was born out of the alleged rape.one copy from each parent and each /+: configuration is uni$ue to a person. 22 'u2 2!!It is generally held that sound recording is not inadmissible because of its form where a proper foundation has been laid to guarantee the genuineness of the recording. /o. In our &urisdiction it is a rudimentary rule of evidence that before a tape recording is admissible in evidence and given probative value the following re$uisites must first be established to witPage E2 .KThus it is the inade$uacy of the specimens submitted for examination and not the possibility that the samples had been contaminated which accounted for the negative results of their examination. ?ence RufinoWs paternity over the child is "ey to his ac$uittal. S) thus ordered Rufino ::: and child to sub&ect themselves to /+: testing and remanded the case to the RT) for reception of /+: evidence under the +ew Rule on /+: %vidence Sections 8 = C and E.7 'y doing so S) ac"nowledges the strong weight of /+: testing as exculpatory evidence in determining filiation reiterating its rulings in People v. 6! S*R' 1#+ "2!!-$ =acts& Then 5>yo Rosendo :lba represented by his mother :rmi :lba filed a petition for compulsory recognition support and damages against Rosendo ?errera. Iiloria*<agsipoc explainedJ#e found that these specimens were soa"ed in smirchy water before they were submitted to the laboratory. :lba and Tecson v.. 1 822!. 9. D8anito. ?e also denied physical contact with the mother.. Rulin2In the case at bar the bloodstains ta"en from the clothing of the victim and of accused*appellant the smears ta"en from the victim as well as the strands of hair and nails ta"en from her tested negative for the presence of human /+: because as <s. 4orral5a v.. ): ?errera v.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 =acts& Bn (uly 5= 5. 'l5a. wor"ing in their picture frame family business! that he courted ::: but they were not sweethearts. :rmi filed a motion to direct the ta"ing of /+: paternity testing to abbreviate the proceedings Doctrine& It is not enough to state that the child's /+: profile matches that of the putative father. Pp v. If the value of is less than .. 'ut the vaginal swabs ta"en from the victim yielded positive for the presence of human /+:. 0pon analysis by the experts they showed the /+: profile of accused*appellant.C. 26 Act 2!!+ /LS0 Law. 1-16##.E.R.. 9.F as a minimum value of the Probability of paternity inclusions/+: analysis that excludes the putative father from paternity should be conclusive proof of non*paternity..E. ?errera denied that he is the biological father.. The state of the specimens prior to the /+: analysis could have hampered the preservation of any /+: that could have been there before. Trial courts should re$uire at least .

3>7The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. Rule 112. 3c7In the case provided for in Rule 5>2 Section 58 38Ga 8Ca7 Section 11. ?is two horses died Rulin2- Page E> .Evidence Case Doctrines 357 a showing that the recording device was capable of ta"ing testimony! 327 a showing that the operator of the device was competent! 3>7 establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording! 387 a showing that changes additions or deletions have not been made! 3=7 a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording! 3G7 identification of the spea"ers! and 3C7 a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any "ind of inducement. Pineda.S. 0n"nown to him what he bought is a poison. Rule 11! C/aracter evidence not generall1 admissi-le8 e2ceptionsA — 3a7In Criminal CasesA 357The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.I8peach8ent of adverse part(Hs @itness5 — A 4itness ma1 -e impeac/ed -1 t/e part1 against 4/om /e 4as called# -1 contradictor1 evidence# -1 evidence t/at /is general reputation 0or trut/# /onestl1# or integrit1 is -ad# or -1 evidence t/at /e /as made at ot/er times statements inconsistent 4it/ /is present# testimon1# -ut not -1 evidence o0 particular 4rong0ul acts# e2cept t/at it ma1 -e s/o4n -1 t/e e2amination o0 t/e 4itness# or t/e record o0 t/e 3udgment# t/at /e /as -een convicted o0 an o00ense5 6$C7 CAS S@ D.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 3270nless in rebuttal the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. The party see"ing the introduction in evidence of a tape recording bears the burden of going forth with sufficient evidence to show that the recording is an accurate reproduction of the conversation recorded. a witnessD declaration that the sound recording represents a true portrayal of the voices contained therein satisfies the re$uirement of authentication. In this case Shirley who was alleged to have recorded the libelous conversation was not presented to prove its authenticity therefore inadmissible as evidence *haracter >vidence Section -1. v. supra =actsThe petitioner bought a medicine for his two horse from the petitionerDs pharmacy. /LS0 Law. 3b7In Civil CasesA %vidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.

It has been said that there is no better evidence of negligence than the fre$uency of accidents. 'abiera attempted to prove that Severino ?aro was of a $uarrelsome disposition provo"ing irascible and fond of starting $uarrels in the municipality. v.accident in good faith is possibly excluded negligence is intensified and fraudulent intent may even be established. The court said that he may prove the person to have been of a $uarrelsome provo"ing and irascible disposition. Bne night ?aro was attac"ed by 'abiera. ?owever the proof must be of his general reputation in the community and not of isolated and specific acts.ing on his land. D. Soli8an.@ Pp v. %vidence is admissible in a criminal action which tends to show motive although it tends to prove the commission of another offense by the defendant. 6 Phil 28. The effort is not to convict the accused of a second offense. ?aro informend 'abiera of what his cow had done and told him to ta"e better care of it. 'abiera on the other hand contends that Severino ?aro notwithstanding the agreement between himself and 'abiera by which the latter was to indemnify him for the damages caused by his cow wanted to ta"e the animal to town! that in trying to prevent i. Ba5iera. 26 Phil 12+ "1#11$ =acts& did the trial court erred in overruling the ob&ection of the accused to the private prosecutorDs $uestion referring to the character of the witnessN 1%S the following $uestion?ow many times have you been convicted of assault upon other Page E8 . 'abiera struc" right and left with his bolo thus causing the former's wounds.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 #hile good or bad character may be availed of as an aid to determine the probability or improbability of the commission of an offense such is not necessary in crime of murder where the "illing is committed through treachery premeditation. ?aro then unsheathed his revolver and fired several shots. Iran2. The proof of such character may only be allowed in homicide cases to show @that it has produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a &ustifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary.Evidence Case Doctrines :ppellant has confused this maxim and this rule with certain exceptions thereto. -2 Phil #+ "1#28$ 9ermin 'ruces told Severino ?aro that he found )lemente 'abieraDs cow gra. Pp v. 1!1 Phil +6+ "1#-+$ /LS0 Law."1#1+$ =actsA >/is is case o0 a comple2 crime o0 ro--er1 4it/ /omicide committed -1 Ben3amin Irang and ot/ers5 appellants 4it/ 4/ite stripes on t/eir 0aces armed 4it/ gun and -olos 4ent to t/e /ouse o0 t/e victims to ro--ed t/em5In doing so# t/e1 killed er0ecto Melocotones 4/ile Ma2imiana Eicente lost consciousness s/e 4as a-le to identi01 t/e man<s 0ace /aving pockmarks and a scar on /is le0t e1elid5 Juana de la Cruz 4as assaulted s/e notice t/at one o0 t/em /ad pockmarks and scar on t/e le0t e1elid and 4as dressed in a maong=colored suit5 It 4as /e 4/o opened /er trunk5 DoctrineA W/ile evidence o0 anot/er crime is# as a rule# not admissi-le in a prosecution o0 ro--er1# it is admissi-le 4/en it is ot/er4ise relevant# as 4/ere it tends to identi01 de0endant as a perpetrator o0 t/e ro--er1 c/arged# or tends to s/o4 /is presence at t/e scene or in t/e vicinit1 o0 t/e crime at t/e time c/arged# or 4/en it is evidence o0 a circumstance connected 4it/ t/e crime5 Pp v.S. +or is there an attempt to draw the mind away from the point at issue and thus to pre&udice defendant's case. The purpose is to ascertain defendant's "nowledge and intent and to fix his negligence-If the defendant has on more than one occasion performed similar acts. :ercado.

Lloret explained the purpose of his $uestion by sayingI wish to demonstrate that he has a pugnacious disposition. 4adu(o. #hile you cannot impeach the credibility of a witness except by showing that he has made contradictory statements or that his general reputation for truth honesty or integrity is bad Pp v.@ :ppellant.uired -1 la45 6$a# 9a7 CAS S@ Bautista v. Rule 111 Burden of proof5 — Burden o0 proo0 is t/e dut1 o0 a part1 to present evidence on t/e 0acts in issue necessar1 to esta-lis/ /is claim or de0ense -1 t/e amount o0 evidence re.S*R' 1 # "1#8+$ =actsA Margarita Ma/a1ag 4as a-andoned -1 /er /us-and5 >adu1o is -eing c/arged o0 allegedl1 committing rape and 0rustrated /omicide against Margarita8 -ut >adu1o claims t/at /e and t/e victim /LS0 Law.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Burden of Proof Section 1. The $uestion to which the defendant ob&ected neither attempted to show that the witness had made contradictory statements nor that his general reputation for truth honesty or integrity was bad.uate to s/o4 a common la4 marital relations/ip -et4een t/e accused and t/e complainant -ecause it 4as not corro-orated -1 t/e accused5 Even assuming t/at t/e accused and t/e complainant 4ere /us-and and 4i0e no presumption arises t/at a common la4 4i0e 4ill or is 4illing to su-mit to /er common la4 /us-andDs em-races all t/e time5 >/e prior /istor1 o0 common la4 marital relations/ip 4ill not prevail over clear and positive evidence o0 copulation -1 use o0 0orce or intimidation5 Rulin2. <r. The ob&ection is overruled. Sar8iento 5>E S)R: =EC 35.the $uestion had no relation to the $uestion which was being discussed by the court and did not tend to show that the defendants were either guilty or not guilty of the crime charged! that $uestions tending to disclose the character of a witness are immaterial 4ere common la4 /us-and and 4i0e t/us could not /ave raped /er -ecause t/ere 4as no need to5 DoctrineA >/e testimon1 o0 Al0onso Antor# 4as inade.Evidence Case Doctrines personsN To this $uestion the defendant Tomas <ercado ob&ected on the ground that the $uestion was impertinent. 'ut when the trial court denies petitioners' motion to dismiss by way of demurrer to evidence on the ground that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against them they assume a definite burden.E=7 In a criminal case unless the guilt of the accused is established by proof beyond reasonable doubt he is entitled to an ac$uittal. It becomes incumbent upon petitioners to adduce evidence to meet and nullify if not overthrow the prima facie case against Page E= .enerally spea"ing a witness cannot be impeached by the party against whom he has been called except by showing that he has made contradictory statements.or by showing that his general reputation for the truth honesty or integrity is bad. I have had occasion to defend him in various causes for assault. 0pon the $uestion and the ob&ection (udge 'arretto ruled that @the character of the witness has an intimate relation or may have a strong relation with the facts being investigated in the present cause. 1.

Evidence Case Doctrines

them. + This is due to the shift in the burden of evidence and not of the burden of proof as petitioners would seem to believe. #hen a prima facie case is established by the prosecution in a criminal case as in the case at bar the burden of proof does not shift to the defense. It remains throughout the trial with the party upon whom it is imposedHthe prosecution. It is the burden of evidence which shifts from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in the course of the trial. 8 This burden of going forward with the evidence is met by evidence which balances that introduced by the prosecution. Then the burden shifts bac". : prima facie case need not be countered by a preponderance of evidence nor by evidence of greater weight. /efendant's evidence which e$uali.es the weight of plaintiff's evidence or puts the case in e$uipoise is sufficient. :s a result plaintiff will have to go forward with the proof. Should it happen that at the trial the weight of evidence is e$ually balanced or at e$uilibrium and presumptions operate against plaintiff who has the burden of proof he cannot prevail Pornellosa v. L4', L-1 ! !, 11 ,an 1#86 /octrine- : plaintiff is duty bound to prove his allegations in the complaint. ?e must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the wea"ness of that of his opponent. Industrial =inance *orp. v. 4o5ias, +8 S*R' 28 "1#++$ the allegation of petitioner that it had no "nowledge of the accident is a negative allegation and needs no evidence to support it not being an essential part of the statement of the right on which the cause of action is founded. It is therefore the respondent who has the burden of disproving the claim of petitioner that he has no "nowledge of the accident when it made the offer to respondent either to pay the balance on the promissory note or to surrender the truc". Pp v. :acala5a, 9.R. /os. 1 628 -86, 2! ,an 2!!1

#here the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof or where the facts are more immediately within the "nowledge of the accused the onus pro-andi rests upon him. Stated otherwise it is not incu85ent upon the prosecution to adduce positive evidence to support a ne2ative aver8ent the truth of @hich is fairl( indicated 5( esta5lished circu8stances and @hich, if untrue, could readil( 5e disproved by the production of documents or other evidence within the defendants "nowledge or control.

Rule 111 S>*4IA/ 1.Preponderance of evidence, ho@ deter8ined. — In civil cases# t/e part1 /aving -urden o0 proo0 must esta-lis/ /is case -1 a preponderance o0 evidence5 In determining 4/ere t/e preponderance or superior 4eig/t o0 evidence on t/e issues involved lies# t/e court ma1 consider all t/e 0acts and circumstances o0 t/e case# t/e 4itnesses< manner o0 testi01ing# t/eir intelligence# t/eir means and opportunit1 o0 kno4ing t/e 0acts to 4/ic/ t/ere are testi01ing# t/e nature o0 t/e 0acts to 4/ic/ t/e1 testi01# t/e pro-a-ilit1 or impro-a-ilit1 o0 t/eir testimon1# t/eir interest or 4ant o0 interest# and also t/eir personal credi-ilit1 so 0ar as t/e same ma1 legitimatel1 appear upon t/e trial5 >/e court ma1 also consider t/e num-er o0 4itnesses# t/oug/ t/e preponderance is not necessaril1 4it/ t/e greater num-er5 6$a7 Sec. 2. Proof 5e(ond reasona5le dou5t 5 — In a criminal case# t/e accused is entitled to an ac.uittal# unless /is guilt is s/o4n -e1ond reasona-le dou-t5 roo0 -e1ond reasona-le dou-t does not mean suc/ a degree o0 proo0# e2cluding possi-ilit1 o0 error# produces a-solute certainl15 Moral certainl1 onl1 is re.uired# or t/at degree o0 proo0 4/ic/ produces conviction in an unpre3udiced mind5 69a7 Page EG

/LS0 Law- 1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527

Evidence Case Doctrines

Sec. 1.>)traBudicial confession, not sufficient 2round for conviction. — An e2tra3udicial con0ession made -1 an accused# s/all not -e su00icient ground 0or conviction# unless corro-orated -1 evidence o0 corpus delicti5 6:7 Sec. .*ircu8stantial evidence, @hen sufficient5 — Circumstantial evidence is su00icient 0or conviction i0A 3a7There is more than one circumstances! 3b7The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven! and 3c7The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. 3=7 Sec. -.Su5stantial evidence5 — In cases 0iled -e0ore administrative or .uasi=3udicial -odies# a 0act ma1 -e deemed esta-lis/ed i0 it is supported -1 su-stantial evidence# or t/at amount o0 relevant evidence 4/ic/ a reasona-le mind mig/t accept as ade.uate to 3usti01 a conclusion5 6n7 Sec. 6.Po@er of the court to stop further evidence 5 — >/e court ma1 stop t/e introduction o0 0urt/er testimon1 upon an1 particular point 4/en t/e evidence upon it is alread1 so 0ull t/at more 4itnesses to t/e same point cannot -e reasona-l1 e2pected to -e additionall1 persuasive5 But t/is po4er s/ould -e e2ercised 4it/ caution5 6&7 Sec. +.>vidence on 8otion. — W/en a motion is -ased on 0acts not appearing o0 record t/e court ma1 /ear t/e matter on a00idavits or depositions presented -1 t/e respective parties# -ut t/e court ma1 direct t/at t/e matter -e /eard 4/oll1 or partl1 on oral testimon1 or depositions5 6J7 CAS S@ 8.S. v. Claro) 02 Phil ,-0 B-.-CD

0nder such circumstances the court will not interfere with the conclusions of a trial court concerning the credibility of witnesses the latter court having seen them in the act of testifying and having had an opportunity to observe their manner and demeanor as witnesses unless the record discloses that some fact or circumstances of weight or influence has been overloo"ed by the court or its significance misunderstood or facts or circumstances misapplied. In determining where the weight of evidence on the issues involved lies the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case the witnesses' manner of testifying their intelligence their means and opportunity of "nowing the facts to which they are testifying the nature of the facts to which they testify the probability or improbability of their testimony their interest or want of interest and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear on the trial. The court may also consider the number of the witnesses though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greatest number. Pp v. Peruelo, 1!- S*R' 226 "1#81$ >/e guilt o0 t/e accused must -e proved -e1ond reasona-le dou-t5 It is 0undamental t/at an accused is presumed innocent5 And t/is presumption must prevail unless overturned -1 competent and credi-le proo05 %vidence to be believed 8ust 5e credi5le in itself such as the common experience and observation of man"ind can approve as probable under the circumstances. Pp v. :aron2, 11# S*R' 1! "1#82$ The gaps deficiencies and improbabilities in the evidence of the prosecution engender reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. Pp v. La2an6on, 12# S*R' 111 "1#8 $

/LS0 Law- 1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527

Page EC

Evidence Case Doctrines

It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial court relative to the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses as well as the witnesses themselves are entitled to high respect and therefore generally sustained by the appellate court. The only exception arise when it could be shown that the trial &udge has overloo"ed or misinterpreted any fact or circumstance or weight and value as to impeach his findings or call for a different findings Such findings of facts by the lower court should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons because the trial court is in a better position to examine the real evidence. The matter of assigning value to declarations at the witness stand is best and most competently performed by a trial &udge who unli"e appellate magistrates can weigh such testimony in the light of the defendant's demeanor conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate between the true and the false. #% find no reason to depart from the above rulings as the trial &udge too" pains to separate the relevant testimonies from the irrelevant. Pp v. *', 9.R. /o. 12!+!6, 11 ,an 2!!! There are other inconsistencies pointed out by petitioner in the testimonial evidence of private respondents but these are not of such significance as to alter the finding of facts of the lower court. <inor inconsistencies even guarantee truthfulness and candor for they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses with on minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their testimonies. :ondra2on v. *', L-1-#+8 E 16!6#, 26 Dec 1#+ This is an instance where the explanation of the self*contradictions of witnesses shows willful falsehood induced by counsel for the private prosecution. In such situation the evidence from said witnesses cannot as a matter of law be evaluated to determine which of the contradictory material statements is true and both have to be /LS0 Law- 1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527

disregarded.Involving a witness in contradictions during cross examination is one of the recogni.ed modes of impeachment which renders the evidence from his lips worthless for both parties. +either one of his contradictory declarations can be relied upon. D.S. v. Lasada, 18 Phil #! "1#1!$ The law presumes that a defendant is not guilty of any crime and this presumption stands until it is overturned by competent and credible proof. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt and if there remains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt or innocence this doubt must be resolved in his favor and he must be ac$uitted. a. 'y reasonable doubt in not meant that which of possibility may arise but it is doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability after such investigation to let the mind rest easy upon the certainly of guilt. b. :bsolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict of any criminal charge but moral certainty is re$uired and this certainly is re$uired as to every proposition of proof re$uisite to constitute the offense. c. There are several modes of impeaching a witness. i. Bne mode is by close cross*examination to involve the witness in contradictions and discrepancies as to material facts stated by him. Immaterial discrepancies or differences in the statements of witnesses do not affect their credibility unless there is something to show that they originate in willful falsehood. If there are conflicts in the statements of different witnesses it is the duty of the court to reconcile them if it can be done for the law presumes that every witness has sworn the truth. J^the discrepancies in the testimonies of different witnesses should be reconciled whenever possible since all witnesses are presumed to tell the truth but if the conflicts cannot be reconciled the court must adopt that testimony which is believed to be true^ ta"ing into consideration the general character of the witness his manner and demeanor on the stand while testifying the consistency or Page EE

The lower court dismissed the 2 nd >rd and 8th rape complaints against him."1#61$ :s to the alleged inconsistencies or contradictions we find after examining the record that they exist only in minor details and are not of sufficient magnitude so as to denote a deliberate intent to utter falsehoods. Lucia 9ederio claimed to have been raped by the accused who in turn posed the alibi that he was only accused because he had caught her stealing from his store and she wanted to get bac" at him for scolding her. . '2udo =acts.Rape case.:gudo Salvador WTonyD and Salvador W'ertingD were accused in the crime of murder having murdered (onny %spano 3who went to visit his gf +imfa with his friend /anilo7. Baao =acts. Doctrine. The accused wanted to assail the findings of the )ourt for giving credence to conflicting testimonies of the witnesses* the girlfriend +imfa and the victimDs friend /anilo7. ?e invo"ed Wfalsus in uno falsus in omnibus. 1 S*R' 21. /el Prado et al.#hile there were some inconsistencies in the testimonies of the victimDs it does not mean that this should detract the courtDs view that these may be true. Slight /LS0 Law. They were fran" and straightforward in answering $uestion bereft of artificiality and hesitancy that is easily detected in one who tells a concocted story . 5. People v.Evidence Case Doctrines inconsistency of his statements their probability or improbability his ability and willingness to spea" the truth his intelligence and means of "nowledge his motive to spea" the truth or swear a falsehood^K 3Lasada as cited in the <ondragon case7 Pp v. Such inconsistencies by themselves preclude probable coaching and far from detracting anything from the witnesses' credibility only tend to bolster the probative value of their testimony.R. +os. 3da. The respondents allege that the photographs only show that the testatrix did not sign the documents in front of the witnesses. The testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part. Tha maxim of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a positive rule of law.G4. The Supreme )ourt went by the findings of the trial &udge who had the opportunity to observe the witnesses assess their demeanor. . ?e alleges that since this is so then the 5st and =th complaints were also false. In fact complete uniformity in the details is a badge of untruthfulness. If a part of a witnessD testimony is found true it cannot be disregarded entirely. People v. 5>>>=* >G +ovember 2. . . . #itnesses may react differently to what they see and hear depending on their situation and their state of mind.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 contradictions actually strengthen the sincerity of the witnessesD testimonies. +either is it an inflexible one of universal application.D Doctrine. Page E. *' =acts. 'arring slight contradictions which are natural in unrehearsed witnesses there was no act of theirs that betray their candor and which would give rise to doubt their sincerity and veracity. Thus there was no compliance. .This is a case wherein what is being contested is the compliance of the execution of the will and testament and the codicil* whether these are in compliance with the law. De Ra8os v. ?owever the preparation of the documents and the execution were prepared and assisted by 2 lawyers.7 In this connection the trial court which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the complainants on the witness stand said. 3People vs. Selfaison.Iariance in the testimony of the witnesses on minor details would not destroy the effectiveness of their testimony.. /uldulao! People vs.

The witness a brother of the victim reported the incident to the police the day after he claimed it happened. Bnly found out the next day it was his brother. Doctrine. Test of nature of evidence acceptable to render a witnessD testimony credible.9actual findings and conclusions of the trial court should be respected. Doctrine. People v. Tamayo assailed the doubtful credibility of the medical findings of the examining physician 3who had a pending case regarding falsification of public documents7. 4a8a(o =acts. Page .Presumption of regularity in the execution of the will. )aptain7 was charged with "illing :rayta during the elections. who was impeached after turning into a hostile witness cannot outweigh the testimonies of the other 327 principal witnesses. People v. There is no test of the truth of human testimony except its conformity to our "nowledge observation and experience.+epomuceno 3'rgy.: municipal doctor is presumed to have done his official acts legally and regularly. : negative testimony does not en&oy e$ual standing with a positive assertion and faced with the convincing appearance of the will such negative statement must be examined with extra care. %ven assuming that the testimony of the principal eyewitness was not properly corroborated by the other witnesses does not negative culpability. People v. Self*contradictions and inconsistencies on a very material and substantial matter seriously erode the credibility of a witness.Evidence Case Doctrines Doctrine. It must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but the evidence must be credible in itself* such as the common experience and observation of man"ind can approve as probable under the circumstances. ?owever mere deference to the trial courtDs decision does not override the constitutional presumption of innocence and the rule that the guilt of the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. '8on =acts. Doctrine. /epo8uceno =acts.Iictoria <olina 3married woman mar"et vendor7 was raped by Tamayo. ?e claimed to have seen 8 men maul and shoot the victim but did not go up to the body to chec" who it was.Ponciano and <elchor :mon were found guilty of murder. was impeached after turning into a hostile witness.The unwavering statements of the 2 prosecution witnesses though related to the victim remain unimpaired. They /LS0 Law. The accused alleges that the medical findings in the medical report amount to a falsification of the document. Bne of the witnesses /e la )ru. The altered testimony of the prosecution witness /e la )ru.9or evidence to be believed. Pendency of criminal and administrative charges against a government doctor for falsification is not sufficient to overcome this presumption in the face of the doctorDs affirmation that he actually examined the victim. This can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary but not easily by the mere expediency of the negative testimony of the 2 attesting witnesses that they did not see the testatrix sign the will. The appellant assails the credibility given to the testimonies of the 2 witnesses who were relatives of the accused.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 were WeyewitnessesD to the crime and thus their credibility is unimpaired.4 .

The accused assails the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses.Saavedra was alleged to have conspired in the "illing of the victim who was stabbed with a samurai. Doctrine. 3)orpus delicti. 3SaavedraDs acts* thumbs up sign and his presence at the scene of the crime does not conclude conspiracy7.Evidence Case Doctrines People v. ?ere a confession of arson cannot be admitted as a sufficient basis for conviction without proof that the house has in fact been destroyed by fire! but it is not necessary to show by proof independent of the confession that such house as burned by the felonious act of the person ma"ing the confession. . It is generally restricted to situations in malpractice cases where a layman is able to say as a matter of common "nowledge and observation that the conse$uences of professional care were not as such as such as would ordinarily have followed if due care had been exercised. Ala supra People v. :lso trivial inconsistencies among witnesses strengthen rather than diminish the prosecutionDs case as they erase suspicion of a rehearsed testimony and negate any suspicion that the same was merely per&ured. People v. #hen the doctrine of res ipsa lo$uitor is availed by the plaintiff the need for expert testimony is dispensed with because the in&ury itself provides the proof of negligence. Saavedra =acts. Ra8os v.Wthe body of the crime D the fact that a crime /I/ occur7. :ones =acts. P54 million was reduced to P854 444 plus 2 sets of &ewelry.5 . ?e was alleged to have held up a thumbs up sign when his other co*accused stabbed the victim. People v.ara Page .The case of the "idnapping of the > :tenean boys for ransom.Proof of corpus delicti* before a written confession in a homicide case can be admitted as a basis of conviction there must be some proof that the person supposed to have been slain is in fact dead but it is not necessary to prove independently of the confession that the death of the person slain was caused by the felonious act of the author of the confession. *' 9acts. Pp v. : conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Doctrine.The inconsistencies and discrepancies are too minor to warrant the reversal of the &udgment of conviction.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 /octrine. 9eralde =acts.The accused 3all three of them7 were charged with robbery in band with $uadruple homicide wherein a house with 8 people was also burned after the robbery and the "illing of the victims. Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct of the accused disclosing a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense.)onspiracy must be shown to be beyond reasonable doubt. Doctrine. The other accused 3the mastermind* Ouilala remained at large7.The doctrine of Wres ipsa lo$uitorD is not a rigid or ordinary doctrine that is perfunctorily used but a rule to be cautiously applied depending upon the circumstances of the case.The case of %rlinda Ramos who suffered from brain damage because of faulty anesthetic procedures. /LS0 Law.

Doctrine. 'ecause this is a civil forfeiture case then the Republic must establish by a preponderance of evidence that the P?I shares were ill*gotten wealth. 24 9eb 5.2 .. The prosecution must prove with strongly convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the court that the accused wilfully and voluntarily submitted his confession and "nowingly and deliberately manifested that he was not interested in having a lawyer assist him during the ta"ing of the confession.Evidence Case Doctrines =acts..#hen scales shall stand upon an e$uipoise and there is nothing in the evidence which shall incline it to one side or the other the court will find for the defendantDs claim. Doctrine. )ircumstantial evidence* in determining the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to support a conviction each case is to be determined on its own peculiar circumstances and all the facts and circumstances should be considered together as a whole and when so considered may be sufficient to support a conviction although one or more of the facts ta"en separately would not be sufficient for its purpose.Seven witnesses have already testified to the same effect. Some mig/t even argue t/at t/e evidentiar1 re.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 9uinea v. Eth witness was to sought to be presented. Its burden is explained by this court thus%$uiponderance of evidence rule states.C= =act.The presumption is always against the waiver of constitutionally protected rights. 3da.C27 Page .> S)R: >2> 35. Similarl1A We are at a loss to determine 4/ic/ position is correct5 . ?owever the circumstantial evidence pointing to (ara were found to be enough to hold him guilty of the crime of murder.57 Doctrine. 4anco 5. v. De Ra8onal L*>EG=.the accused (ara was convicted of murdering his wife Luisa and her alleged lover :mparo with a hammer and scissors.uipoise or t/ere is an1 dou-t in 4/ic/ t/e evidence preponderates t/e part1 /aving t/e -urden o0 proo0 0alls upon t/at issue# t/at is to sa1# i0 t/e evidence touc/ing on disputed 0acts is e. The trial court is invested with the prerogative of stopping _further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonable expected to be additionally persuasive. %ven if evidence of the plaintiff may be stronger that that of the defendant there is no preponderance of evidence on his side if such evidence is insufficient in itself to establish his cause of action. S)R: 5 3244G7 /LS0 Law. .uchen2co v. Sandi2an5a(an 8C.9indings of administrative officials and agencies who have ac$uired expertise because their &urisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such "ind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as ade$uate to support a conclusion.uirement in civil 0or0eiture cases /as an even /ig/er standard# t/at is# proo0 -e1ond reasona-le dou-t5 (or0eiture o0 propert1 is in su-stance a criminal proceeding# and as suc/ 0or0eiture /as -een /eld to partake o0 t/e nature o0 a penalt15 Bia?-na-Bato :inin2 *o.Justice Sandoval=@utierrezD dissenting opinion 5. 35. Doctrine.iving of merely cumulative as distinguished from corroborative testimony may be stopped by the trial court.nder t/e circumstances 4e are constrained to decide t/e issued under t/e rule o0 -urden o0 proo05 W/ere t/e evidence on an issue o0 0act is in e. This was missing in this case. Sapida v.uall1 -alanced# or i0 it does not produce a 3ust# rational -elie0 o0 its e2istence# or it leaves t/e mind in a state o0 perple2it1 t/e part1 /olding t/e a00irmative as to suc/ 0act must 0ail5 2. De 3illanueva 8E S)R: 5.

4=7 Doctrine.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 .2 contradictory affidavits were submitted to the Trial )ourt to determine when the defeated party received the court order. Doctrine. 35.Disputa5le presu8ptions.In the face of contradictory affidavits both ex*parte neither sub&ected to cross*examination while it is true that under the Rules a )ourt may hear motions solely upon affidavits and counter* affidavits if the affidavits contradict each other on matters of fact a court can practically have no basis to ma"e its finding of fact.one was from the court_s doc"et cler" the other was from the losing party_s cler". 'n2eles 8 Phil G48 35. There is no Page . Rule 111 *onclusive presu8ptions5 — >/e 0ollo4ing are instances o0 conclusive presumptionsA 3a7#henever a party has by his own declaration act or omission intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief he cannot in any litigation arising out of such declaration act or omission be permitted to falsify it3b7The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. Repu5lic Suret( E Insurance *o.4. Inc.> *onclusive Presu8ption Section 2.7 Doctrine. ?e himself recogni.the right to redeem may be forfeited if it is shown by preponderance of evidence that numerous extensions were given but the seller failed to actually redeem the sub&ect property.ed it and it was admitted in evidence during the trial the court stating that it established a fact relating to the $uestion at issue. There is no $uestion that &udges had the right to disbelieve but in doing so they should give reasons. )ourt based its decision on the basis of the affidavit of the court_s doc"et cler". >5 S)R: >2. . 4rillana 5> Phil 5. 3>a7 *'S>S& La6o v..: debt can only be presumed to have been paid and an obligation fulfilled when the proof of their existence has been delivered and debtor not when the documents showing the existence of the debt are still in hands of the creditor.C47 /LS0 Law. Disputa5le Presu8ption Rule 111 Sec. — C/eck codal  too long to include Sec. — >/ere is no presumption o0 legitimac1 o0 a c/ild -orn a0ter t/ree /undred da1s 0ollo4ing t/e dissolution o0 t/e marriage or t/e separation o0 t/e spouses5 W/oever alleges t/e legitimac1 or illegitimac1 o0 suc/ c/ild must prove /is allegation5 6&7 Pascual v. /octrine. The defendant cannot $uestion the genuineness and due execution of the written lease a copy of which appears on page 5= of the bill of exceptions. Ar8achea v. Trial &udges cannot totally ignore one affidavit and believe the other without giving reasons for doing so.Evidence Case Doctrines =act. 1./o presu8ption of le2iti8ac( or ille2iti8ac(.:n admission that a written lease received in evidence is genuine is a bar to a subse$uent allegation tending to defeat its validity or authenticity particularly in view of the fact that a contrat is presumed to have been executed for a good and sufficient consideration.8 35.

E27 Doctrine.The rule is settled that the adverse presumption from a suppression of evidence is not applicable when 357 the suppression is not willful 327 the evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative 3>7 the evidence is at the disposal of both parties and 387 the suppression is an exercise of a privilege. . /avaBa 224 S)R: G28 35. Pp v.Settled is the rule that when a letter duly directed and mailed to a "nown addressee has not been returned to the sender it is presumed that the addressee received the letter =erraren v. Padiernos G. S)R: 8E8 35. #hile a presumption imposes on a party against who it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut such presumption the burden of producing evidence of guilt does not extend to the burden of proving the accused_s innocence of the crime as the burden of persuasion does not shift and remains throughout the trial upon the prosecution.1ear 2 'loc"2 3S1 2455 6 24527 Page . 27 'efore an inference of guilt arising from possession of recently stolen goods can be made however the following basic facts need to be proven by the prosecution.57 nIn criminal cases presumptions should be ta"en with caution especially in light of serious concerns that they might water down the re$uirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. ?ence the defense could have re$uested the court below to issue a subpoena re$uiring the police to produce such statement. S)R: =54 324487 Doctrine. Santos 55> S)R: C4C 35. 357 that the crime was commited! 327 That the crime was committed recently! 3>7 that the stolen property /LS0 Law.8 . :a5un2a v.** L*82=EC 2E 9eb 5.Presumption that suppressed evidence is unfavourable does not apple where the evidence was at disposal of both defense and prosecution. was found in the possession of the accused! 387 that the defendant was unable to explan his possession satisfactorily.>7 Doctrine.. The presumption is that official duty was regularly performed.Evidence Case Doctrines presumption of accomplishment of obligation to pay when the proofs of its existence have been returned to the debtor. Pp 82. In the case at bar the alleged statement of prosecution witness Letty 'asa was in the possession of the police authorities.'etween the denial of a lawyer that he received the first notice of registered mail and the postmaster's certification that said notice was sent the postmaster's claim should be believed because it is his official duty to send notices of registered mail.CE Doctrine.CG7 Doctrine. 'ut as the defense failed to do that they cannot now argue that said statement if produced would have been adverse to the prosecution. Se5astian v. Pp v. 3>7 : presumption cannot be founded on another presumption.