You are on page 1of 30

EVIDENCE PRONOVE LECTURE

OBJECTIONS
Rule 132 Secs. 35, 36, 37 & 38
Your Honor, I object

To the same class of evidence already


objected to, repetition of the same
objection is not necessary.

When to Object
Evidence not objected to is deemed
admitted and becomes the property
of the case. To be excluded, timely
objection to its introduction must be
made when the ground for its
objection become known or should
have been known.

Courts Ruling
It is the duty of the court to rule
immediately on the objection. But if
the court desires to study the matter
further, it must rule at such time
during the trial so as to give the
parties an opportunity to meet the
situation created by the ruling

Testimonial Evidence
Objection to the testimony of a
witness should be made as soon as
the question is asked and before the
answer is given. If the witness has
begun
to
answer
an
improper
question, he should be stopped
immediately and the objection made.
This is so because testimonial
evidence is considered offered right
after being given.

Weight Of Evidence
After evidence is admitted, the court
shall determine its weight while
preparing the decision. Admitted
evidence does not mean that it is
significant or believable. It does not
mean that it is entitled to weight
automatically.

If the question is proper but the


answer is objectionable, e.g., for being
hearsay, the remedy is to strike the
answer off the record. The same
remedy is available if the witness
answers
immediately,
depriving
opposing
counsel
of
sufficient
opportunity to object.
Documentary Evidence
Documents, on the other hand, should
be objected to at the time they are
being offered, not when they are
merely being identified by a witness or
marked as exhibits by counsel.
Documents have to be identified so
that
their
authenticity
can
be
established.
The offer of documentary evidence is
made after the witnesses have
testified and just before a party rests
his case. And the offer is made by
disclosing the purpose for which a
document is being presented.
Grounds For Objection
The ground for objection, whether for
testimonial or documentary evidence,
must be specified always. Once
stated, the objection is good and
effective only for that ground.

INCOMPETENT, IRRELEVANT AND


IMMATERIAL
Rule 128 Secs. 3 & 4
Objection, Your Honor, it is
irrelevant and immaterial to the
issue.
Although there is a distinction
between relevancy and materiality, on
the one hand, and incompetency, on
the other, these three grounds have
been lumped together to become a
common form of objection. They have
been invoked frequently when counsel
cannot think of the appropriate ground
for objecting.
But these grounds should not be used
indiscriminately for they lose their
effectiveness
in
excluding
objectionable evidence.
Irrelevant Evidence
Irrelevant or immaterial evidence are
those which do not shed light on, have
no logical connection to, or are too
remote in time and substance to the
matter in issue. Not of much help to
the case, they are excluded because
they tend to mislead, confuse, unfairly
surprise a party or waste the time of
the court.
Collateral Matters
As a rule, collateral matters are not
admitted for they do not prove directly

the fact in issue. They stand remote


from the point being disputed.
However, they become admissible
when the existence or non-existence
of the fact in dispute may be implied
or deduced from them, as in the case
of circumstantial evidence.
But note that if the inference drawn
from collateral matters is speculative
or conjectural in nature, the offered
evidence is irrelevant. For example,
the presence of blood stain inside a
car, without proof that it is human
blood or that it belongs to the victim,
cannot be admitted, even as part of
the mosaic of circumstantial evidence,
because the inferences that the blood
stain is human and belongs to the
victim are highly speculative and
conjectural.
Determination of Relevancy
Since questions of relevancy are
addressed to reason, logic, common
sense and experience, there are no
hard and fast rules governing them.
Their determination is usually left to
the sound discretion of the court.
As a rule, though, if the evidence has
a tendency in reason to prove a
disputed fact in issue, it is considered
relevant. A good question to ask is:
Would a reasonable mind draw an
inference from the evidence being
offered that the disputed fact exists or
does not exist?
In cross examination, more than in
direct examination, a wider latitude is
sometimes allowed to counsel in
asking questions designed to test the
credibility of witnesses. But this should
not be done at the expense of
relevancy.
When Inadmissible
Although a piece of evidence is
relevant, it may still be inadmissible if
its presentation is forbidden by the
rules or by law.
The introduction of such evidence
may not be allowed by:
(a) A provision of law e.g., bank
accounts under Rep. Act No. 1405 (1955);
(b) A rule of evidence e.g., hearsay rule;
(c) Settled jurisprudence e.g. in
reviewing an administrative case by
certiorari, evidence not presented during
the
administrative
investigation
is
inadmissible in the certiorari proceeding
(Lovina v. Moreno, G.R. No. 17821,

November 29, 1963, 62 O.G. 74/Oct.,


1964/ 118 Phil. 1401, 9 S.C.R.A. 557 /
1963/).
Evidence illegally seized is not admissible
(Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. 19550, June 19,
1967, 20 S.C.R.A. 383 /1967/).
Extrajudicial confession obtained without
the assistance of a lawyer is inadmissible
(People v. Robles, G.R. Nos. 39523 &
39524, May 15, 1981, 104 S.C.R.A 450 /
1981/).

Incompetent Evidence
The term incompetent evidence has
meant evidence whose admission is
prohibited by the rules or by law. But
now, it is the witness and not the
evidence that is properly referred to as
being incompetent.
OPINION OR CONCLUSION OF A
WITNESS
Rule 130 Secs. 30, 42 & 44
Objection, Your Honor, on the
ground that the question calls for
the opinion or conclusion of the
witness.
Actual Knowledge Needed
Our system of proof demands the
most reliable source of information. It
requires actual knowledge of facts
derived from first hand or personal
observation.
Hence, an ordinary witness cannot
testify on facts he has not perceived or
known through his senses, that is,
those which he himself has not seen,
heard, smelled or touched.
Interpretation Prohibited
Because it is the court and not the
witness who will judge and decide the
case, the ordinary witness, who of
course, is not an expert, is not allowed
to interpret the facts. He cannot
attribute meaning to facts, form
opinions or draw conclusions from
them. Answers of a witness which are
mere
guesses,
speculations,
conjectures or suppositions on his part
are banned and excluded.
If a witness is not allowed to interpret
facts, he is with more reason
prohibited from interpreting the law.
His testimony in this regard will be in
the nature of a legal conclusion which
only a court can make.

Opinion
Allowed
On
Certain
Matters
However, there are certain matters
regarding which an ordinary witness
may be permitted to express an
opinion in order to expedite the taking
of testimony. Thus, an ordinary
witness may testify on:
(a)
Physical
dimension
or
measurement size, weight, shape,
height;
(b) Color dark, light, shade;
(c) Physical orientation speed,
motion, time, direction, visibility;
(d) Personality emotion, anger,
happiness, and sadness;
(e) Demeanor or personal reaction
calm, upset, scared, frustrated;
(f) Identity of personal background
age, sex, nationality, language;
(g) Intoxication drunk, sober;
(h) Mental condition good health,
bad health; and
(i) Genuineness of handwriting.
Witnesses sometimes preface their
testimonies with expressions like I
believe or I think so. Such opening
phrases should be considered more as
indicative
of
poor
memory
or
inattentive observation. They can be
grounds for objection only if they are
found to mean that the witness speaks
from conjecture or from hearsay.
EXPERT OPINION
Rule 130 Sections 43 & 45
Objection, Your Honor, because
the question calls for an opinion
of the witness who has not been
qualified to testify as an expert.
Matters that are not within the
common knowledge or understanding
of an average person are the only
ones that require expert opinion. If the
facts to be proved do not require
expert knowledge, there is no reason
for calling an expert.
Qualifications of an Expert
A witness is considered an expert
because of his special skill, knowledge
or experience in some field of science,
art, trade, profession or calling.
Because he is supposed to draw
conclusions from facts, his skill and
knowledge must be such as to
enlighten the court on matters it does
not ordinarily understand. Indeed, an

expert is called more for his opinion on


a given set of facts than his
recollection of events.
Before an expert can express his
opinion, his qualification must first be
established. His education, special
study, work and experience in the
particular field he is going to testify
has to be known. Of course,
considerable time may be saved if the
parties can stipulate on an experts
qualifications.
Subject Requiring Expert Opinion
Some of the subjects on which expert
opinion are usually received are:
(a) Medical: cause of injury or death,
extent of disability, chances and
length of recovery.
(b) Forensic science: identification of
fingerprints,
footprints,
ballistics,
blood chemistry,
handwriting and
questionable documents.
(c)
Property
appraisal:
just
compensation
in
condemnation
proceedings, recovery in fire insurance
cases.
(d)
Mechanical
engineering
and
architectural construction
(e) Other sciences: weather
(f) Unwritten law of foreign countries
The number of experts a party may
call may be limited by the court.
FAILURE TO MAKE CONNECTION
Your Honor, I move that the
testimony or exhibits be stricken
off the record for failure of
counsel to make the necessary
connection.
Conditional
Admissibility
of
Evidence
Involved here is the rule on conditional
admissibility of evidence.
As in the construction of a house, a
case or defense is built step by step.
Only one piece of evidence can be
introduced at a time. At the beginning,
a particular evidence may appear
irrelevant, although it is relevant if
connected to other facts not yet
presented.
To meet this problem, counsel should
move for the admission of the isolated
evidence on the promise that he will
later on tie it up with other facts. After

the court admits it conditionally, it


may be stricken off the record if the
necessary connection is not made
before the case is closed.
INADMISSIBLE FOR PARTICULAR
PURPOSE
Objection, Your Honor, on the
ground that it is inadmissible for
the purpose for which it is being
offered.
Multiple Admissibility of Evidence
This involves the rule on multiple
admissibility. Since a piece of evidence
may be relevant for two or more
purposes, it is necessary that it
satisfies the requirements of the
particular purpose for which it is being
offered. Otherwise, it will be rejected
even if it fulfills the requirements of
the other purposes.
For example, a declaration of a
deceased person may be admitted as
a declaration against interest, a dying
declaration, or as part of the res
gestae.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BEYOND
SCOPE OF DIRECT EXAMINATION
Rule 132 Secs. 8 & 11
Objection, Your Honor, the
question is not within the scope
of direct examination
Scope of Cross Examination
Unlimited cross-examination is not
allowed under our rules. A witness
may be cross-examined only as to
matters within the scope of the direct
examination, that is, to those stated in
the direct examination and connected
therewith.
Note
that
scope
of
direct
examination extends to implied facts
as well as to those stated in the
witnesss testimony. Thus, a crossexamination may cover the entire
transaction and not be limited to the
period about which the witness
testified.
Indeed, when part of an act,
declaration, conversation, or writing is
given in evidence, the whole of the
same subject may be inquired into by
the other party.

Exception
But when attacking the credibility of a
witness, the cross-examiner is not
limited to the scope of direct
examination.
If a party wishes to ask questions
outside the scope of the direct
examination, to establish his cause of
action or defense, he should make the
witness his own when his turn to
present evidence comes.
A witness cannot be cross-examined
about what another witness has said
and which he has not repeated in his
testimony for that will be examining
him outside the scope of his direct
examination.
LEADING QUESTION
Rule 132 Sec. 5
Objection, Your Honor, the
question is leading.
A leading question suggests to the
witness the answer the examining
party wants. It is objectionable
because of the danger that what is
being suggested by the question may
influence the witness in his answer.
Why Objectionable
Although the suggestiveness of the
substance of the question determines
whether a question is leading, the way
the
question
is
framed
may
sometimes indicate whether it is
objectionable. Questions that are
begun with did or didnt or ending
with phrases such as didnt he or
doesnt it are
often
leading.
However, a question that may be
answered by a simple Yes or a
simple No is not necessarily
leading.
When Prohibited, Allowed
Leading questions may be asked:
(a) in cross-examination, but not when
the witness is friendly to the crossexaminer;
(b) to assist a witness who is ignorant,
young, or mentally and physically
handicapped in expressing himself;
(c) to examine an adverse party;
(d) to examine an uncooperative and
prejudiced or hostile witness; and

(e) to identify persons,


exhibits
(f) preliminary questions.

things

or

MISLEADING QUESTION
Objection, Your Honor, the
question is misleading.
This type of question is objectionable
not only for suggesting an answer but
more so for suggesting a wrong or
untruthful answer.
Why Objectionable
It is classified as a trick question, one
that is calculated to make the witness
give a false or inconsistent answer.
While leading questions are allowed in
cross
examination,
misleading
questions are not allowed in both
direct and cross examinations.
An example is: You stated in your last
testimony that you saw A driving the
car, why are you now insisting that A
was not driving, when what the
witness had merely said was that he
had seen A on the front seat of the
vehicle.
COMPOUND QUESTION
Objection, Your Honor, it is a
compound question.
A compound question is objectionable
because it contains two or more
questions. It is identified by the use of
conjunctions, and or or.
Why Not Allowed
It is not allowed because a part of the
question may call for irrelevant and
inadmissible testimony. Also, the court
may find it difficult to determine which
part of the question is being answered
by the witness.
An example of a compound question
is: Does ABC or did ABC produce the
goods that your company was
intending to buy?
GENERAL QUESTION
Objection, Your Honor, the
question is too general.
Why Specific Answers Necessary
When a question elicits from a witness
very general answers such that he can

say almost whatever comes to his


mind, the introduction of irrelevant
and inadmissible evidence cannot be
helped. This wastes the time of the
court and confuses the issues.
As much as possible, the question to a
witness must call for a specific answer
on a particular subject.
An example of a too general question
is: What did you observe about the
couple after they got married?
QUESTION CALLING FOR
NARRATION
Your Honor, the question calls for
a narrative answer.
A question that invites a narration of
facts is objectionable.
Why Narration Objectionable
It deprives the opposing counsel of
opportunity to make a timely objection
to the introduction of inadmissible
testimony.
In a narration, the witness is free to
say almost anything he likes even if it
is not connected or relevant to the
issue. The other danger is that the
witness usually finds it easy to inject
his opinion and perception of the case
if asked to narrate in his own way.
An example is: Tell us in your own
words, what happened?
VAGUE QUESTION
Objection, Your Honor, the
question is vague, ambiguous,
unintelligible.
Why Not Allowed
Truth is easily ascertained from clear
answers which in turn are deprived
from clear questions questions that
are
not
vague,
ambiguous
or
unintelligible.
Definition And Test
Vague or ambiguous questions are
those that cannot be answered
specifically or are capable of double
meaning. An unintelligible question,
on the other hand, is one that cannot
be understood because of the way it is
framed or expressed.

To be free from vagueness and this is


the test the question must call for a
specific answer the relevance of which
is apparent from the question.
Court May Ascertain Clarity
If the court is not sure about the
clarity of the question, it should ask
the witness if he understands it. If the
objection is overruled, the witness
cannot then say, after answering the
question, that he did not understand.

argumentative. This is especially true


when the question tries to point out or
emphasize some real or apparent
inconsistencies
in
a
witnesss
testimony.
Examples
If two statements, for example, are not
reconcilable, asking a witness how he
can
reconcile
two
inconsistent
statements is argumentative. Asking
which of two inconsistent statements
is true, however, may be proper.

HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION
Your Honor, I object because it is
a hypothetical question and the
witness is not presented as an
expert.

Another
argumentative
question:
How is it that you can recollect a date
as long ago as that and you cannot
remember the day of the week?

Hypothetical questions usually begin


with words like if suppose,
assuming or isnt it possible.

EMBARRASSING QUESTION
Rule 132 Sec. 3
I object, Your Honor, because the
question tends to embarrass or
degrade the character of the
witness.

The Court is interested with what


actually happened, not what might
have possibly happened
Why Objectionable
They are not allowed for the same
reasons that questions that assume
facts not in evidence are not allowed.
Moreover, a hypothetical question
usually calls for an opinion which if
given by an ordinary witness has no
weight or probative value.
Exception
Only an expert, who is permitted to
express an opinion, may be asked
hypothetical questions which should
be based on facts that the evidence
tends to prove.
ARGUMENTATIVE OR HARASSING
QUESTION
Objection, Your Honor, the
question is argumentative.
Objection, Your Honor, the
question is harassing the
witness
Purpose of Question Test
Usually, questions that are intended to
bring out new facts or additional
information are not argumentative.
However, when the purpose is to
corner a witness, badger or trick him,
the question is more often than not

Duty To Testify
It is the duty of every citizen to testify
in court when required. But in the
performance of this duty, the citizen
has the right not to be subjected to
embarrassment.
Right Not To Answer
When asked a question the answer to
which will tend to degrade, dishonor,
discredit or humiliate him, the witness
can rightfully refuse to answer and
may not be compelled to do so.
Exception
This rule, however, is subject to an
exception. Even if the question tends
to degrade his character, the witness
must give his answer if it refers to the
very fact in issue or to a fact from
which the fact in issue can be inferred.
In other words, if the witness is asked
the embarrassing question merely for
the purpose of impeaching his
credibility, he can refuse to answer.
When the embarrassing question is
asked to prove the fact in issue, the
witness has no choice but to answer.
UNRESPONSIVE ANSWER
Your Honor, the answer should
be stricken off the record because
it is not responsive.

Remedy
Improper questions can be objected to
but not answers that do not reply to or
address the questions. Since they
cannot be anticipated or known until
given, the remedy is to strike the
unresponsive answer off the record.
Reasons
Unresponsive answers are not allowed
because they are usually irrelevant to
the issues. Apart from injecting
confusion in a case, they also prolong
the trial.
The fact that an answer happens to be
relevant cannot save it from being
stricken off the record. For the sake of
orderly procedure in the presentation
of
evidence,
the
relevant
but
unresponsive answer has to be
expunged.
ASKED AND ANSWERED QUESTION
Your Honor, the witness has
already answered the question.
Your Honor, already answered.
Why Not Allowed
Repeated questions on the same
subject are not allowed because they
are time consuming and may unduly
emphasize testimony on a particular
point.
When Allowed
When the purpose of the question is to
clarify prior testimony it may be
allowed, however.
In cross-examination, a witness may
be asked to repeat what he has said
on a particular point to test his
recollection and to find out if he has
varied his testimony. But he cannot be
made to repeat his entire testimony
given in direct examination, especially
if the purpose is to annoy him.
ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
Objection, Your Honor, the
question assumes facts not in
evidence.
Why Objectionable

A question that assumes a fact that


has not been established by any
evidence is objectionable for:
(a) it brings before the court
something that has not and may never
be proved;
(b) it may mislead the court by
suggesting that the assumed fact has
already been established; and
(c) it is unfair to the witness since any
answer he makes may be taken to
mean that he is affirming the truth of
the assumed fact.
This type of question often begins with
Did you know or Do you know. For
example: Did you know that the
accused had been beating his wife
nightly?, when there is no prior
evidence that such was the case. Or if
the accused is the one asked: When
did you stop beating your wife?,
when there is no evidence that he had
been beating his wife.

LACK OF BASIS OR FOUNDATION


Objection, Your Honor, no basis.
It has not been shown
that . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Your Honor, I object because a
sufficient foundation has not been
laid establishing that . . . . . . . . .
Necessity for Preliminary Fact
Certain types of evidence need a
foundation before they can be
admitted. That foundation is called a
preliminary
fact.
Thus,
before
questions about the contents of a
private document are asked, the
writing must first be authenticated.
The preliminary facts are that the
writing is the same one signed by the
parties and that the signatures
appearing
thereon
are
genuine
signatures.
Instance Where Necessary
Again, before a Xerox copy of a
document can be admitted in place of
the original, the preliminary fact that
the original was lost or is otherwise
unavailable must first be proved.
When a witness is going to
describe an incident, it must first be
shown, as a preliminary fact, that he
has personal knowledge of the
incident because he saw it.
Voluntariness and a showing
that the Miranda warnings have been
given are preliminary facts that should
be established before a confession can
be admitted in criminal cases.
Whether the declarant had
personal knowledge of the cause and
circumstances of his death, and
whether he sensed his impending
death are preliminary facts to the
admission of the declarants dying
declaration.
Finally, the qualifications of an
expert are preliminary facts that
should be proven before the expert is
allowed to express an opinion.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
STATE SECRET
Rule 130 Sec. 21 (e)
Objection, Your Honor, on the
ground that the question calls for
the disclosure of a state secret.
Only State Security Protected
It is essential that governmental
matters or activities that bear on or

involve the security of the state be


kept secret. For this reason, a public
officer or employee cannot be
compelled
to
testify
on
any
communication made to him or
acquired by him in official confidence,
if to disclose such communication will
injure public interest.
SELF-INCRIMINATING QUESTION
Objection, Your Honor, the
question is self-incriminating.
I request that the witness be
advised of his right against selfincrimination.
Involved here is the constitutional
right of a person not to be compelled
to be a witness against himself.
Definition
A question that has a tendency to
expose a witness to a criminal charge
or to any kind of punishment is selfincriminating. Thus, a question that
attempts to establish a link in the
chain of evidence which may lead to
the conviction of a witness, or will call
for the disclosure of the names of
persons upon whose testimony the
witness might be convicted, is
prohibited.
How Right Invoked
The right against self-incrimination
which is strictly personal can be
invoked only by the witness. Not even
his lawyer or the party who called him
to testify can claim the right for him.
Hence, when an incriminating question
is asked, the lawyer should object and
request the Court to advise the
witness of his right against selfincrimination or the lawyer may do the
advising directly with the courts
permission.
Once the right is invoked, the court
shall determine whether the question
is incriminating or not. If it finds that
the danger of self-incrimination is not
imaginary or speculative but is real
and reasonable, considering all the
circumstances, the court will not allow
the question to be answered.
Certainly, the government cannot
compel an accused to testify as a
prosecution witness in a criminal case.
But a confession that was voluntarily

given does not violate


against self-incrimination

the

right

can be convicted solely on the basis of


his confession.

What Right Consists Of


Basically, the right protects the
witness
against
testimonial
compulsion, that is, the giving of oral
declarations against his wish. Upon
proper showing, therefore, a witness
may be asked to show his body for
inspection without violating his right.

Miranda Warning
The ruling in the Morales case makes
it clear that the Miranda warnings, as
they are generally called, have to be
made so that a confession can be
admitted.
Therefore, while under
police custody and investigation, the
accused must be apprised of his:
Right to remain silent with an
explanation that anything he might
say might be used against him;
Right to talk to a lawyer, relative or
friend and have a lawyer, relative or
friend present while he is being
questioned; and
Right to the appointment of a lawyer if
he cannot afford one.

ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE


Objection, Your Honor, to the
introduction of the evidence on
the ground that it was obtained
illegally.
Objection, Your Honor, the
evidence was illegally obtained
through an unreasonable search
and seizure.
All illegally obtained evidence is made
inadmissible in order to enforce the
constitutional
protection
against
unreasonable search and seizure.
In the United States, specifically in
California, the unreasonableness of a
search or seizure of evidence that has
been or will be offered against an
accused can be tested in a motion to
return property or suppress evidence.
This motion has to be filed before the
trial or if allowed during the trial,
before conviction.
There is no reason why we cannot
follow the same procedure since it is
expedient and not violative of any
rule.
DEFECTIVE CONFESSION
Rule 130 Sec. 29 Rule 133 Sec. 3
Objection, Your Honor, to the
admission of the confession
because it was not voluntary or
the accused was not properly
advised of his rights.
When Confession Admissible
A confession, to be admissible, must
be voluntary. In making it, no force,
threat, intimidation or inducement of
any kind must have been employed.
This requirement is very important
because a confession is evidence of
the highest order.
Indeed, with
evidence of corpus delicti, a person

The right to a lawyer may be waived


but the waiver to be valid must be
with assistance of counsel.
PHOTOGRAPHS, X-RAYS, VIDEO
TAPE AND MOTION PICTURES
Rule 130 Sec. 1
Your Honor, I object to the use or
introduction in evidence of the
photograph because it has not
been authenticated or because it
does not accurately represent the
scene that it depicts.
Photographs, x-rays, etc. always give
the court a more detailed and
convincing picture of the situation or
of what had occurred. Their use is,
therefore, encouraged. If availed of,
they are made part of the testimony of
the witness who mentioned or referred
to them.
Authentication Necessary
In order that photographs, etc. may be
used, they must first be authenticated
by showing that they accurately
portray at a particular time the scenes
or events that are shown. Of course,
authentication is best done by the
photographer or person who took the
motion picture or video tape etc., but
other persons can also authenticate
provided they can assure the court
that they know or are familiar with
the scenes or objects shown in the
pictures and that photographs, etc.
accurately depict them.

A photograph that is distorted is


objectionable
for
it
does
not
accurately represent a scene.
SKETCHES, CHARTS, DIAGRAMS
AND MAPS
Rule 130 Sec. 1
Your Honor, I object to the use
or introduction of the sketch
because it does not accurately
represent the scene it purports to
depict.
A sketch, chart, etc. already prepared
may be used provided a witness
testifies that it accurately shows the
scene, situation or thing that it
portrays.
As in the case of
photographs, it may be authenticated
by the person who made them or by
somebody who can confirm their
authenticity.
Considered Testimony of Witness
Of course, if the sketch is prepared in
court by a witness while testifying, no
more authentication is necessary.
That
sketch
is
considered
the
testimony of the witness in graphic
form.
A sketch need not be drawn to scale,
but
if
it
misleads
or
grossly
misrepresents a scene it may be
excluded and rebutted by the other
party.

appreciate the obligation of being a


witness. Of course, his having been
insane greatly affects his credibility;
(b) Children The test is not the age
but the maturity of the child. If found
by the court, after preliminary
examination, that the child has
enough intelligence, understanding
and sense of duty to tell the truth, he
may be allowed to testify.
(c) Deaf-mutes- If of sufficient
intelligence
and
ability
to
communicate their ideas, by sings or
in writing, they are competent to give
testimony; and
(d) Intoxicated persons Persons
who are drunk, as to lose all sense of
reasoning, at the time they are called
to the witness stand cannot testify
because of their inability to recollect
facts accurately.
Although their
intoxication at the time of the incident
does not disqualify them as witnesses,
it affects their credibility, however.
TRANSACTION WITH A DEAD OR
INSANE PERSON
Rule 130 Sec. 20 (a)
Objection, Your Honor, because
the question calls for a
communication, or involves a
transaction, with a dead or insane
person.
This is the rule on survivorship
disqualification.

INCOMPETENT WITNESSES
Rule 130 Sec. 18 & 19
Objection, Your Honor, on the
ground that the witness is
incompetent to testify.
This refers to the competency of a
person
to testify, not to the
competency of his testimony.
Who are Incompetent?
Due to their physical disability, the
following persons cannot testify:
(a) Insane persons The insanity
that will disqualify is that which exists
at the time the witness is called upon
to testify. If the person was insane at
the time the incident occurred, but not
when he is placed on the witness
stand, he may be permitted to testify
if he can recollect the facts and

Who Can Object Cannot Testify?


This objection may be invoked
only by the executor, administrator or
representative of a dead or insane
person, who is the defendant in a case
where a claim of demand is made
against the estate of such person.
Those who cannot testify, and to
whom the objection is directed are:
(a) the plaintiff or defendant in a
counterclaim and their assignors;or
(b) the person on whose behalf the
case is being prosecuted.
Reasons and Instances
These persons cannot testify on any
oral communication or transaction
which was made while the deceased
was still living, or before the insane
lost his mind because the deceased is

no longer alive and the insane is not in


a position to disprove such testimony.
Thus, the party plaintiff claiming
against the estate is prohibited from
testifying on:
- A contract for payment of goods
furnished the deceased or insane
person;
- An agreement to divide property;
- A settlement of an indebtedness or
obligation due to the deceased or
insane person; and
- A contract for payment of goods
given or services rendered to the
deceased or insane person
However, the plaintiff himself is
prohibited from testifying, he is
allowed to present witnesses to prove
his claim since witnesses are not
included in the prohibition.
The
objection may also be waived.
INCOMPETENT SPOUSE AS A
WITNESS
Rule 130 Sec. 20 (b)
Objection, Your Honor, this
person is privileged not to be a
witness for being the spouse of
the accused or of a party in this
case.
The law wants to preserve the mutual
trust and confidence of the marriage
relation.
Who Can Invoke
Therefore, this objection can be
invoked only by the spouse who is a
party or co-party in a case. Without
the consent of such party spouse, the
other spouse cannot testify, or even
produce and identify a document, on
any matter either in favor of or against
him.
In What Cases
Of course, this objection cannot be
used in a civil case filed by one spouse
against the other, as in legal
separation, or in a criminal case where
one
spouse
is
charged
with
committing a crime against each the
other, as in adultery or bigamy. Rape
committed
on
a
daughter
is
considered a crime committed by the
husband against the wife under this
rule.

The party spouse may waive the


disqualification of the other spouse by
giving his consent, calling the other
spouse as a witness, or by failing to
object.
For not permitting a spouse to testify
either for or against, no unfavorable
inference may be drawn.
DESCENDANT AS INCOMPETENT
WITNESS
Rule 130 Sec. 20 ( c )
Objection, Your Honor, on the
ground that the witness may not
be compelled to testify against
his parents or ascendants.
Applicable Only Criminal Case
This objection can be used only in a
criminal case where the parent or
ascendant is charged of an offense.
Actually, the descendant is not
disqualified to become a witness
against his parents or ascendants. But
if he does not like to testify against his
parents or ascendants, he cannot be
compelled to do so. The law wants to
preserve the close relationship among
members of the same family
When a descendant is presented as a
prosecution witness, the defense
counsel should see to it that the
descendant is informed of his privilege
not to give testimony against his
parents or ascendants.
This is to
insure that he knows that he can
refuse to testify if he wants to.
Of course, the descendant is free to
testify in favor of his parents or
ascendants, whether in a criminal or
civil case.

PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
HUSBAND AND WIFE
Rule 130 Sec. 21 (a)
Objection, Your Honor, on the
ground that it is a privileged
communication between husband
and wife.

This rule is different from that


prohibiting the spouses from taking
the witness stand and testifying either
for or against each other.
Matters Covered
What is prohibited here is the
introduction of any communication
which one spouse may have made to
the other during the marriage. Such
communication may be any kind of
oral or written statement made or
given in confidence. It may include an
act, like the exhibition of a secret
disease or physical defect, which may
be
considered
as
silent
communication.
But a third person who overheard the
communication while being made by
the spouses is free to disclose it to the
court.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
DOCTOR AND PATIENT
Rule 130 Sec. 21 ( c )
Objection, Your Honor, on the
ground that it is a privileged
communication between doctor
and patient
An ailment can be treated effectively
only if there is full and complete
information about it.
The doctor
therefore, should be made to feel free
to ask any questions and the patient
to give any answer about the disease.
This is achieved by keeping all the
information strictly confidential.
Matters Covered Civil Cases Only
In civil cases, therefore, the doctor
without the consent of the patient,
cannot testify on:
- Any statement made to him by his
patient;
- Any information which he may have
acquired by examining or observing
the patient and if such
disclosure
would blacken the character of the
patient; and
- Any medical opinion or prescription
which he may have given the patient.
So that the privilege will not be
defeated, the patient cannot be
compelled to testify on the same
matters.
When privileged

To be privileged, the communication


must have been made by the patient
in a confidential manner while seeking
medical advice or treatment. Also, the
information must have been acquired
by the doctor while attending to the
patient either for curing or preventing
the illness.
When Not Privileged
Statements of the patient which are
not necessary for his treatment, like,
as to who injured him or why he was
assaulted, are not included in the
privilege. Dentists, pharmacists and
nurses who overheard the confidential
information are free to disclose it, if
they do not act as agents of the
doctor.
Otherwise, they too are
prohibited.
This privilege can be claimed in civil
cases only. It cannot be invoked in a
criminal case because the privilege
cannot be used as a shield in the
prosecution of crimes.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
PRIEST AND PENITENT
Rule 130 Sec. 21 (d)
Objection, Your Honor, on the
ground that it is a privileged
communication between priest
and penitent.
Why Privileged
Confessions are meant to be secret.
Many people will hesitate to confess if
the priest or minister can be forced to
disclose confessions.
Hence, without the consent of the
person making the confession, the
priest or minister cannot testify on
anything said to him by the penitent
and on any reply, advice or penance
which he may have given.
The penitent in turn cannot be forced
to tell what he has said during his
confession.
Requisites
To be privileged, it is necessary that
the confession be conducted in the
course of discipline enjoined by the
church to which both priest and
penitent belong.
Statements made by a person while
merely seeking the spiritual advice or

assistance of a priest or minister are


not included in the privilege.
As in the case of the other privileged
communications, third persons who
overheard the confession are not
prohibited from testifying about them.

USE OF MEMORANDUM TO AID


MEMORY
Rule 132 Sec. 10
Your Honor, I request that the
witness be allowed to refer to his
memorandum to refresh his
memory.
I have no objection, Your Honor,
but may I examine the notes the
witness is consulting.
Requirements
Before a witness can be allowed to
refer to a memorandum, these two (2)
requirements must be met:
- That the witness cannot fully or
completely
remember
the
facts
without the aid of the memorandum
due to lapse of time; and
- That the witness was the one who
wrote the memorandum or ordered it
to be written at the time the facts
occurred or while they were still
refresh in his memory.
The memorandum which can be used
to stimulate ones memory may be
any kind of note, paper, affidavit or
document. It may even be a book
entry.
If a memorandum is allowed to be
used, it is but fair that the opposing
side is given an opportunity to inspect
and use it for cross-examination
purposes.
Best Evidence Unnecessary
Since it is the recollection of the
witness that is considered evidence
and not the memorandum, the
memorandum need not satisfy the
best evidence the rule. A mere copy
of the memorandum, not necessarily
the original, may be used by a witness
in refreshing his memory.
IMPEACHMENT OF OWN WITNESS
Rule 132 Sec. 7
Objection, Your Honor, on the
ground that the evidence tends to

impeach opposing counsels own


witness.
Your Honor, may I be allowed to
impeach my own witness by
showing that he had made prior
inconsistent statement?
Why Discrediting Not Allowed
If a party is allowed to discredit his
own witness, a dangerous situation is
created whereby the party could
destroy the witness if he spoke against
him and make him a good one if he
testifies favorably. Moreover, when a
party presents a witness, he is
supposed to have investigated him for
truth and honesty. Hence, he cannot
subsequently impeach or question the
credibility of his witness by showing
that he is a liar or a bad person.
When Allowed
Only when a party can show that he
was misled by a witness into calling
him to testify can impeachment be
allowed at the courts discretion. It
would be unfair if a party were to lose
his case just because the witness on
whom he depended had decided to
change his mind and betray him.
Thus, a witness who assured a party
before going to court that he saw the
signing of a document and then while
testifying denied having seen it,
surprising the party who called him,
may be impeached.
How Impeachment is Done
In such case, the witness may be
impeached by showing that he has
made a prior statement inconsistent
with his present testimony. Note that
even in this example, impeachment
cannot be made through evidence of
bad character or reputation tending to
show that the witness lacks credibility.
Another remedy of a party whose
witness has testified against him is to
present other witnesses who will
contradict and correct the testimony
of the treacherous witness, even if in
the process the credibility of the latter
is indirectly attacked. The rule allows
the presentation of contradictory
evidence.
INCONSISTENT STATEMENT-LAYING
OF PREDICATE OR FOUNDATION

Rule 132 Sec. 16


Objection, your Honor, because
the correct predicate or
foundation has not been laid to
show prior inconsistent
statement.
If a witness is to be impeached by
showing that he had made a
statement earlier that is contrary to
what he is now saying, the correct
foundation to discredit him must first
be established.
Impeaching Oral Statement
If the prior inconsistent statement is
oral and made out of court, the
procedure is to ask the witness
whether he has made the statement,
where and when he made it and to
whom. Only when the witness denies
or does not remember having made
the statement can contrary evidence
be presented. This means that any
person who heard the statement may
be presented to prove it. However, if
the witness admits making the
statement, he should be given an
opportunity
to
explain
the
discrepancy, if any
Impeaching Written Statement
If the prior inconsistent statement is in
writing, it is enough that the letter,
affidavit or signed statement is shown
to the witness so he can read or
inspect it.
In this case, detailed
questioning, as in oral statement, is
not necessary. On the other hand, if
the witness admits making the
inconsistent statement, the crossexaminer gains an admission and he
should make the writing his exhibit
and part of his documentary evidence.
Impeaching Court Testimony
In
case
the
prior
inconsistent
statement was made while the witness
was testifying in court, the portion of
the transcript containing it must be
shown or read to the witness before
any questioning can begin. Since the
statement is in an official transcript,
there is no need to ask in detail the
circumstances
under
which
the
statement was made. It is sufficient to
ask the witness if he made the
statement attributed to him.

Effect of Failure To Impeach


On appeal, it is rather late for a party
to take advantage of a prior
inconsistent statement if the witness
who made it was not impeached on
that ground during the trial.
If a prior inconsistent statement is
offered in evidence to impeach a
witness but the foundation for
impeachment has not been laid, that
is, the witness has not been
confronted with his earlier statement
and given a chance to explain any
apparent inconsistency, the offer
should be objected to.
Failure to
object constitutes a waiver.
IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE
PARTYS WITNESS
Rule 132 Sec. 15
Your Honor, the evidence is
admissible for impeachment
purposes to show ..
How to Impeach Adverse Partys
Witness
Ones own witness may be impeached
by contradictory evidence or by prior
inconsistent
statement.
But
an
adverse partys witness can be
impeached by:
- Evidence that in the community
where
he
resides,
his
general
reputation for truth, honesty or
veracity is bad. Here it is the bad
reputation that must be proved, not
the particular instances of immoral or
wrongful acts, nor improper or
unlawful conduct that the witness
might have committed.
- Prior inconsistent statement (Please
see discussion on laying of predicate
or foundation);
- Evidence of prior conviction of an
offense which may be proved by
eliciting and admission from the
witness or by a record of his
conviction; and
- Contradictory evidence, which may
consist of the testimony of another
witness, showing that what the
witness being impeached said is not
true or is different what occurred.
When to Impeach
Impeachment of an adverse partys
witness usually occurs during crossexamination or during the other

partys turn to present evidence.


During
cross-examination
impeachment is accomplished also by:
involving
the
witness
in
contradictions;
showing
the
impossibility
or
improbability of the witness version of
the incident;
- showing the bias, interest or hostile
feeling and attitude of the witness;
and
- proving acts or conduct inconsistent
with his testimony.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Rule 130 Secs. 46 & 47
Objection, Your Honor, this is an
attempt to introduce character
evidence that is inadmissible
because ..
Character of Accused
In criminal cases, the prosecution
cannot prove the bad moral character
of an accused.
Apart from being
presumed innocent, the accused is
entitled to be judged on the basis of
what he did and not on what other
people think or say about his
character.
But once an accused elects to prove
his good character to show that he
could not have committed the crime,
he opens the door for the prosecution
to present contrary evidence.
If an accused does not decide to put
his character in issue, that is, does not
present evidence of god character, no
unfavorable inference may be drawn,
however.
Relevant Character
The character that an accused may
prove must be relate to the traits,
characteristics or elements of the
offense charged.
Hence, evidence
proving honesty is admissible in a
case of theft or estafa, but not in
homicide or assault.
Character of a Victim
The character of a victim or offended
person may be proved if it will help in
determining
the
probability
or
improbability of committing the crime.
Thus, the prosecution may prove the
chastity, while the defense may prove
the unchastity, of a victim of violent
rape to find out whether or not
consent was freely given.
But in

murder, proof of character is not


allowed.
Character In Civil Cases
In civil cases, character evidence is
allowed only if the moral character of
a party is in issue. The rule is that a
business transaction must be judged
by its own circumstances and not by
the character or reputation of the
parties.
An example of a civil case
where character is in issue is an action
for breach of promise of marriage,
where the failure to marry is justified
by the defendant on ground that he
discovered the plaintiff no longer a
virgin, being a woman of unchaste
character.
Whether in a civil or criminal
case, character evidence is limited to
the general reputation a person has in
the community where he lives, has
resided and is best known. It does not
refer to specific acts or conduct which
if allowed, would raise many collateral
issues that may unduly prolong the
trial.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Rule 130 Sec. 2
Objection, Your Honor, this is not
the best evidence to prove the
contents of the writing.
When Rule Applicable
The best evidence rule simply means
that if a party wants to prove the
contents of a writing what the
document says he must present to
the court the original of the writing, if
available. Therefore, what is stated in
the document cannot be proven by a
mere copy of the writing or by the oral
recollection of a witness, unless the
existence and non-production of the
original document are accounted for.
The original is considered preferred
evidence, preferred to a mere copy of
the writing.
Secondary Evidence, Foundation
Required
When the original writing is not
available for one reason or another,
the next best or second best evidence
to prove its contents is a copy of the
writing, the testimony of someone who

has read or knows about it, or another


document reciting its contents.
As noted elsewhere, however, it is
necessary to lay the proper foundation
before
secondary
evidence
is
introduced.
The due execution,
delivery and reason for non-production
of the original writing must first be
established.
Observe that a copy may become
the original in certain cases.
A
carbon copy, leaving no blanks to be
filled up, signed by the person who
executed the original document is
considered a duplicate original.
PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE
Rule 130, Sec. 7
Objection, Your Honor, because it
violates the parol evidence rule.
Your Honor, this is inadmissible
parol evidence.
When to Invoke
Often, lawyers commit the mistake of
invoking the parol evidence rule when
what they have in mind is the best
evidence rule. In proving the contents
of a writing what the document says
the best evidence rule is the one
involved. But when a party contends
that what the document says is not
what was agreed upon by the parties,
it is parol evidence rule that should be
invoked.
When Applicable
The parol evidence rule is applicable
only when the document or writing
contains an agreement or is a will.
Thus, evidence is not allowed that will
change or vary the agreement in a
deed or written contract. But the rule
cannot be invoked when a party tries
to explain that he has not been paid
the money for which he issued a
receipt. In this example, the receipt is
considered not an agreement but
merely a unilateral admission of a
party.
What is Deemed Embodied
Under the rule, evidence of what the
parties said before or at the time the
agreement was made cannot be
presented to alter, contradict, diminish
or enlarge the agreement. The writing
is deemed to have embodied all the

intentions of the parties, that it should


be respected as the final and complete
expression of their agreement.
Exceptions
However, the rule has exceptions and
is not applicable in the following cases
where oral evidence is admissible:
(a)
When what appears in the
document is not a valid and binding
agreement either because of
(aa) want of consideration;
(bb) want of valid consent due to
lack of capacity, fraud or duress;
(cc) illegality of subject matter; and
(dd) illegality of consideration.
(b)Where both parties committed a
mistake of fact in expressing their
agreement in the writing, if pleaded as
an issue. For instance, the parties
committed a mistake in describing the
property being sold in a document of
sale or in stating that the price was to
be paid in dollars when their
agreement was in pesos.
Such
mistakes can be corrected in an action
for reformation of contract;
(c) Where the document or writing
does not perfectly express the
agreement of the parties as where the
lawyer who prepared the document
failed to use accurate language to
describe the agreement; and;
(d)
Where the writing does not
express the true intent and agreement
of the parties, if pleaded as an issue.
Here, the document on its face
perfectly expresses an agreement but
it happens not to be the true and
actual agreement of the parties. Thus,
oral evidence may be presented to
prove that a written instrument,
purporting to transfer absolute title to
property is in truth and in fact
executed by the parties for the
purpose of securing the payment of a
loan.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE
Rule 130, Sec. 30
Objection, Your Honor, the
question calls for hearsay
evidence.
Your Honor, I move that the
testimony be stricken off the
record for being hearsay.
Definition

Hearsay evidence is evidence, either


oral or written, that tries to prove a
fact the existence of which is based on
what someone else has said and not
on what the person testifying has seen
or heard himself. It is not based on
the personal knowledge or observation
of the person testifying.
Why Not Admitted
Hearsay
evidence
is
considered
unreliable. The person who made the
statement, which is being repeated or
recalled by a witness in court, cannot
be questioned about his sincerity,
willingness nor ability to tell the truth.
He cannot be cross-examined about
his opportunity to observe the event,
ability to recall what he has seen or
heard, and to communicate his
observations.
Hearsay evidence is admissible if not
objected to, although courts, as a rule,
do not give it much weight considering
its nature.
Written Hearsay
Examples of written hearsay
evidence are:
(a) A medical certificate issued by a
doctor who has not called to testify;
(b) An affidavit of an accused
implicating another in the commission
of an offense where the accused is not
placed on the witness stand;
(c) A report of a certified public
accountant which was submitted by a
commissioner who was only asked to
examine the record of a case in the
custody of the Anti-Usury Board;
(d) The manifest of a steamship
company showing that only two out of
three cases shipped by the plaintiff
had been received and a letter from
the consignee stating that the cargo in
question had not been received where
neither the person who prepared the
manifest or the consignee were made
to testify; and
(e) Newspaper clippings, a letter and a
telegram to show the cause of death
of an insured in an action on a life
insurance police.
Verbal Hearsay
Examples
of
verbal
hearsay
evidence are:
(a) The testimony of a mother that the
alleged father of her son read to her a

document wherein he acknowledged


her son as his;
(b) To show his innocence, the
testimony of an accused that a third
person had confessed to the crime;
and
(c) Testimony by a witness to a
highway accident that the driver told
him that the automobile belonged to
the defendant.
Not
all
hearsay
evidence
is
inadmissible. Some can be admitted
depending on the purpose for which
they are being offered.
Assertive Purpose
When a statement is presented for the
purpose of proving the truth of the
facts asserted therein, it is hearsay
and inadmissible.
But when the
statement is presented to prove
something else, without reference to
its truth, it is not hearsay and
admissible.
In this case, the
statement is deemed non-assertive of
the truth.
For instance, a witness in a slander
case testified that he heard Juana say
that Pedro was a thief.
If the
testimony is offered to prove that
Pedro is a thief, it will not be admitted
for being hearsay. But if the testimony
is presented to prove that Juana
uttered those words, regardless of
whether her statement is true or not,
the testimony is admissible. In the
latter example, the statement of Juana
that Pedro was a thief is also called by
some authorities as an independently
relevant
statement,
that
is,
a
statement relevant to the case,
regardless or independently of its
truth.
Non-Assertive Purposes
Hearsay evidence can, therefore,
be admitted if offered for the
following non-assertive purposes:
(a) To prove that the statement was
made, as in the example of the libel
case given above;
(b) To show the feelings or state of
mind of the declarant, like his mental
condition, motive, fear, apprehension,
good or bad faith. An example of this
is a statement of a person that he is
the king of the world, which is offered
to prove his insanity, not of course, to

show its truth. Another example is the


testimony of a witness that he heard
the testator say that he cared more for
Peter than his other sons, which may
be offered to show the testators
feelings and special fondness for Peter.
Likewise, threats, regardless of their
truth, are admissible to show which of
two parties is the aggressor and, also,
to show the state of mind of the one
who claims to have acted in selfdefense. The threats may be proved
by anyone who has heard them. Also,
a statement of account which is
offered not to prove such account but
only to show the good faith of the
possessor is admissible.
(c) To establish notice, knowledge,
consciousness or awareness of some
fact or the condition of some fact. For
instance, to prove that the driver knew
of the defective condition of his
brakes, evidence that he stated before
the accident that his brakes were
defective is admissible.
Exceptions, Reasons For
The exceptions to the hearsay rule
refer to those statements which
although made out of court and
cannot
be
subjected
to
crossexamination
are,
nevertheless,
admitted to establish their truth.
They are admitted under the necessity
rule so that the court will not be
deprived of the use of an evidence
considered important and necessary in
deciding a case.
They are also admitted because of the
circumstances
under
which
the
hearsay declarations were made which
more or less guarantee or assure the
court of their trustworthiness.
The
circumstances serve as a substitute
for cross-examination, the lack of
which is the basis for exclusion under
the hearsay rule.
The various exceptions to the
hearsay rule, which shall be
discussed individually, are as
follows:
(a) Dying declaration;
(b)
Declaration
against
interest,
pecuniary or moral;
(c) Act or declaration about pedigree;

(d) Family reputation or tradition


regarding pedigree;
(e)Common reputation;
(f) Part of the res gestae;
(g) Entries in the course of business;
(h) Entries in official records;
(i) Commercial lists and the like;
(j) Learned treatise; and
(k) Testimony at a former trial.
One word about these exceptions:
they are not mutually exclusive. One
statement may meet the admission
requirements of more than one
hearsay exception. For example, a
dying declaration may be considered
part of the res gestae or an admission.
SELF-SERVING EVIDENCE
Rule 130, Sec. 30
Objection, Your Honor, the
evidence is self-serving.
Definition
Self-serving evidence is evidence
made out of court at one time. It is an
extra-judicial declaration, oral or
written, considered favorable to the
interest of the declarant.
Why Not Admissible
It is not admissible as proof of the
facts
asserted
therein
primarily
because of its hearsay character. The
lack of opportunity to cross-examine
the person who made the declaration
renders its objectionable.
Another
reason is that its introduction would
open the door to defraud and perjury.
The testimony of an interested party,
either
as
plaintiff,
defendant,
complainant or accused, no matter
how favorable to his interest, is not
considered self-serving because it can
be subjected to cross-examination.
An example The mother of a
defendant heard her son say to a
prosecution witness: Why did you tell
all those lies? The mother was going
to repeat in court what her son said
which, of course, was favorable to
him. The sons out-of-court statement
is not only self-serving but also
hearsay.
Another example The defendant
was charged with driving under the
influence of liquor.
When his wife

arrived at the hospital several hours


later, she asked the defendant who
was driving. The defendant replied
that his companion did. This out-ofcourt statement of the defendant,
which was favorable to him, is selfserving hearsay, if narrated by the
wife in court.
HEARSAY EXCEPTION DYING
DECLARATION
Rule 130, Sec. 31
Your Honor, the evidence is
admissible as a dying
declaration.
Why Admitted
A dying declaration is admitted
because of the belief that a person
who is about to face his Maker can be
expected to tell the truth.
Because the declarant cannot be
cross-examined, a dying declaration
should be received with caution and
the rules governing its admission
should be followed strictly.
Requisites
(a)The declaration has been made
under a consciousness of impending
death. The belief that death was fairly
imminent may be proved not only by
the seriousness of the wounds but also
by
statements
uttered
by
the
deceased.
The
following
have
been
held
sufficient proof of a sense of
impending death: I am sure to die, I
cannot live and I want to make a dying
declaration, and I believe, I have no
hope.
Likewise, requesting the
presence of a priest in order that the
declarant might receive the last rites
of the
church may be shown as
evidence of a belief in impending
death;
Death, however, need not immediately
follow the declaration. It is enough
that the declarant believed that death
was at hand;
(b)The declaration is used not in a
civil case but in a criminal case where
the death of the declarant is the
subject of inquiry. Where the accused
is on trial for the murder of one
person, the dying declaration of

another person who was killed in the


same incident cannot be admitted;
(c)The declaration is to prove only the
facts and circumstances producing
and attending the death of the
declarant. To the extent that it refers
to past transactions like previous
threats, or to what occurred three
hours before the murder, or to past
quarrels, it is not admissible; and
(d)If the dying declaration has been
reduced to writing, the original of the
written declaration must be produced.
Secondary evidence is allowed only
after the non-production of the original
has been explained.
How to Disprove
A dying declaration is not
inviolable. It may be discredited by
showing that the reputation of the
deceased for truth and veracity is bad;
that the deceased did not believe in
God or in a future state of rewards and
punishment; that it is inconsistent with
a previous statement made by the
deceased; that it is incredible in itself;
or, that it is contradicted by the
testimony of disinterested witnesses.
HEARSAY EXCEPTION
DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
Rule 130, Sec. 32
Your Honor, the evidence may be
received as a statement against
interest.
Why Admitted
Declarations against interest are
admissible, even though hearsay,
because of the belief that a person
shall not make a false statement if
that will be against his pecuniary or
moral interest.
Unlike an admission which is made by
a party to a case, a declaration
against interest is made by a third
person, one who is not directly
involved
in
the
case,
like
a
predecessor-in-interest.
Requirements:
(a) It is made by a person who is
dead, outside the Philippines or unable
to testify. The unavailability to testify
should be due to serious causes, e.g.,
the person is physically incapable or
mentally incompetent. In one foreign

case, a declarant who was present in


court but who refused to testify
because of fear for his and his familys
safety was considered unavailable;
(b) The declaration is not self-serving.
It is against the pecuniary or moral
interest of the declarant. The financial
interest
must
be
actual
and
substantial;
Typical examples are statements like:
I am indebted to Juan de la Cruz; I
am owner of only one half of the
property registered in my name; or, I
have already sold the land to Pedro
even though it is still registered in my
name.
Declaration against penal interest
according to Wigmore may be
considered as declarations against
moral interest; and
(c) The declarant knew the facts and
had no motive to misrepresent or
falsify them.
The declaration may be oral or
written.
It may appear in deeds,
accounts, memoranda, receipts, etc.
And it need not be made in the regular
course
of
business
or
be
contemporaneous
with
the
act
recorded.
HEARSAY EXCEPTION PEDIGREE
(FAMILY HISTORY)
Rule 130, Sec. 33
Your Honor, the evidence is
admissible as a matter of
pedigree.
Coverage
Matters of family history like the
relationship, age, date and place of
birth, marriage or death of a family
member may be proved by the oral
or written declaration of a person.
The declaration may be found in a
family bible, deed, letter, will or other
types of family record.
Requirements
In order that such declaration may be
admitted it is necessary that:
(a)The declarant is dead, outside the
country or otherwise unavailable;

(b)He is a member of the family either


by birth or marriage which must be
proved by independent evidence; and
(c)The declaration is made before the
controversy at a time when the
declarant has no motive to lie.
Declarations about pedigree are
admitted out of necessity and because
people are not prone to lie about their
family history.
HEARSAY EXCEPTION FAMILY
REPUTATION
Rule 130, Sec. 34
Your Honor, the evidence may be
admitted as a matter of family
reputation.
Proof By Living Family Member
Here, a living family member can
testify about the pedigree or lineage of
a relative based on family reputation
or tradition that existed before the
controversy.
The witness need not
prove his relationship by independent
evidence; he can rely on his own
testimony.
Under section 33, pedigree is proven
by what was said by a relative who is
already dead or unavailable.
HEARSAY EXCEPTION COMMON
REPUTATION
Rule 130, Sec. 35
Your Honor, the evidence is
admissible as a matter of common
reputation.
What Can Be Proved
Common reputation is a means of
proving:
(a) Facts of public or general interest
that are more than 30 years old;
(b)Marriage; and
(c) The good or bad moral character of
a person.
Kind of Opinion
Group or community opinion, not
individual opinion, is the basis of
common reputation. If it cannot be
unanimous, such opinion must at least
represent the general consensus of
the community.

An example of a matter of public or


general interest are the boundaries of
towns and provinces and the public
character and location of roads.
Boundaries of private lands cannot be
proved by reputation except when
they affect many people so as to
become a matter of general interest to
them.
At no instance can title to
private lands be proven by common
reputation.
The moral character of a person may
be established by common reputation
existing before the controversy and
prevailing in the place where the
person is well known.
Good character may be implied from
the testimony of a witness who never
heard anything bad being said about a
person.
HEARSAY EXCEPTION RES
GESTAE
Rule 130, Sec. 36
Your Honor, the statement is
admissible as part of the res
gestae.
Res gestae
may either be
a
spontaneous exclamation or a verbal
act.
Spontaneous Exclamation
A spontaneous exclamation is one
caused by the stress and excitement
of some startling external event.
The test of its admissibility is whether
the statement has been uttered
spontaneously so that the declarant
has had no time to deceive or
fabricate a story. Therefore, the lapse
of time between the event and the
utterance is important in determining
whether the declarant had time to
reflect; think and deliberate about the
event.
Depending on the circumstances,
questions addressed to the declarant,
such as what happened, whats the
matter, may or may not indicate
spontaneity.
An answer to such
questions may be considered narrative
instead of instinctive in nature.
The
person
who
made
the
spontaneous statement need not be a
participant in the startling event. He

may be a bystander or observer and


the statement may be reproduced in
court by a witness who heard it.
A statement that fails to qualify as a
dying declaration, because it was not
made under a consciousness of an
impending death, may be admitted as
part of res gestae.
Verbal Act
On the other hand, a verbal act is a
statement
or
declaration
which
accompanies an act and tends to
explain or describe the meaning,
character or nature of the act.
For example, if Pedro hands money to
Juan without saying anything, the act
itself is ambiguous and no one can for
what purpose the money has been
given. But if at the time the money is
handed, Pedro says that it is for
safekeeping, the character or purpose
of the act is explained by the
accompanying statement, which is the
verbal act. The declaration of Pedro,
as later on recounted by a witness, will
be admitted as an exception to the
hearsay rule because it is considered a
part of the transaction, deriving credit
from the act itself.
To be admissible as verbal act, the
statement must
(a) accompany an act, that is, be
contemporaneous with the conduct;
(b) the act is material to the issue;
(c) the act is dumb, ambiguous or
equivocal; and
(d) the statement explains or gives a
legal meaning to the act.
HEARSAY EXCEPTION BOOK
ENTRIES
Rule 130, Sec. 37
Your Honor, the evidence is
admissible as a book entry in the
regular course of business.
Coverage
This exception to the hearsay rule is
called business entries rule. This
description is apt to be misleading,
however, because the exception is not
limited to entries in books of accounts
kept by merchants.
Even entries
made by lawyers, physicians and
others engaged in a different calling or
profession are included.
Requisites

An entry can prove prima facie the


act, condition, event or transaction
that it describes, even if the person
who made it is already dead or
unavailable, provided:
(a)Its custodian authenticates the
entry by testifying on its identity and
the manner it was prepared. It is
necessary that the entry was made
when the event or transaction was
happening, had just happened or right
after.
(b)The entry was made by someone
while exercising his profession or
performing his duty; and
(c)The entry is not an isolated or
sporadic act but is one of many done
regularly in the ordinary course of
business or duty.
An entry may be found in a book of
marriage, report of a public service
inspector or in a book of accounts. It
may take the form of a sales slip
invoice, punch card, purchase order or
daily log. A balance sheet is not so
considered.
HEARSAY EXCEPTION OFFICIAL
RECORD
Rule 130, Sec. 38
Your Honor, the document is
admissible as an official record.
What is important here is that the
entry or record was made because the
law required it to be made. In other
words, the public officer or private
individual was duty-bound to make the
entry or record while performing his
functions.
Authentication Needed
Although the person who made the
entry need not be presented in court,
the entry must be authenticated.
Considered official entries or records
kept by a public officer are entries in
the registry of birth, marriages and
death kept by the local civil registrar;
sheriffs certificate of service of
summons and return of writ of
execution;
certificate
of
acknowledgement of a notary public;
and certificate of correctness of a
court stenographer.
It is necessary that the person who
made the entry knew the facts which
he recorded. Otherwise, the entry will
not be given any probative value and

will not be considered prima facie


evidence of the act, condition or event
that it describes.
Testimony Needed
There are some official records or
entries that are not admitted without
supporting testimony.
Examples of
these are: autopsy report, baptismal
certificate, police blotter and police
investigation report.
HEARSAY EXCEPTION
COMMERCIAL LISTS
Rule 130, Sec. 39
Your Honor, the writing is
admissible as a commercial lists.
How Proven
The market for stocks, machinery and
goods at a particular period of time
may be proved by price quotations
appearing in daily newspapers, trade
journals, or printed circulars and
catalogues issued by manufacturers
and distributors.
Other market and economic data, like
the demand and supply of goods, the
rise and fall of inflation rate, growth or
decline of the gross national product
may be proved by tables and statistics
published in trade or commercial
journals or as reprinted in reputable
newspapers.
Weather and navigational statistics
can also be admitted under this rule
although if compiled by a government
agency, they are admissible also as
public or official records.
Out
of
necessity
and
strong
probability of their trustworthiness,
the authors of the lists, quotations and
statistics need not be called to testify.
HEARSAY EXCEPTION LEARNED
TREATISES
Rule 130, Sec. 40
Your Honor, the writing may be
admitted as a learned treatise.
Competency of Author
Written words published
subject of history, science
admissible if authored by
learned or recognized as an
the subject.

on any
or art is
someone
expert in

Competency of Author
If the competence of the expert is
generally accepted, the court may
take judicial notice of that fact. If not,
an expert in the subject may be called
to show that the author of the treatise
is somebody well known in his field.
Encyclopedias, Dictionaries
Articles in encyclopedias may be
admitted.
Dictionaries,
while
admissible, are admitted only for the
purpose of showing the ordinary
meaning of words.
HEARSAY EXCEPTION FORMER
TESTIMONY
Rule 130, Sec. 41
Your Honor, it may be admitted
as former testimony.
Testimony given in a former case can
be used for two purposes. First, to
impeach the witness who gave the
former testimony and later on testified
in another case. Secondly, to prove a
fact in issue, when the witness in his
former testimony made a damaging
admission proving the disputed fact.
Impeachment of Witness
If the purpose is to impeach, by
showing that the witness had made a
prior inconsistent statement, the
requirements of this rule need not be
observed.
It is enough that the
predicate or foundation for it is laid.
Proving a Fact in Issue
If the purpose is to prove a fact in
issue, it is necessary to show that:
(a)The
witness
who
previously
testified is not available either
because he is dead, outside the
Philippines or unable to testify due to
physical or mental illness.
Mere
refusal to testify is not a valid ground;
(b)He gave his testimony in a former
case involving the same parties and
about the same matters; and
(c)He was cross-examined or could
have been cross-examined by the
opposing party.
The best evidence to prove former
testimony is, of course, the transcript
certified true and correct by the
stenographer who took it. The judges
notes, not being an official part of the
record and not having been made

under the sanction of an oath, are not


evidence of what a witness has said.
EVIDENCE OF CONDUCT SIMILAR
ACTS
Rule 130, Sec. 48
Objection, Your Honor, it is not
admissible as evidence of similar
act.
Your Honor, the evidence may be
admitted to prove specific intent,
plan, etc.
Evidence that one did or failed to do a
particular thing at one time is not
admissible to show that he did or
failed to do a similar thing at another
time.
Purpose, Test
Thus, previous conviction for a crime
cannot be used to prove the
commission of another crime by the
same person. And the fact that an act
could have been done cannot be
considered proof that it was done or
vice versa.
This rule of res inter alios acta is not
absolute, however. If the purpose is
not to show that a person is the author
of an act on the basis of what he did in
the part, evidence of previous conduct
may beadmitted. Indeed, it is allowed
to prove specific intent or knowledge,
identity,
plan,
system,
scheme,
customs or usage.
For example, evidence that the
accused attempted to set fire to a
house one week before it actually
burned is admissible to prove intent to
commit arson.
Admissible also is
evidence that the accused had been
previously
buying
goods
with
counterfeit money to show that he had
knowledge of the moneys illegality.
To prove a plan or scheme, evidence is
admissible to show that in extorting
money, the accused had used the
same threatening method before.
Also, to prove identity, evidence may
be introduced to show that the
accused wore the same clothes when
he assaulted the neighbor of the
victim in a previous incident.
JUDICIAL NOTICE
Rule 129, Sec. 1

Your Honor, I request the court


to take judicial notice of the fact
that. . . . .
When the court takes judicial
notice of a fact, evidence is dispensed
with. Therefore, taking judicial notice
of a fact, evidence is dispensed with.
Therefore, taking judicial notice is a
short-cut in establishing facts that are
well known and do not admit of any
contradiction.
When Judicial Notice Taken
Generally, judicial notice is taken
of the following:
(a) Matters of common and general
knowledge in the community like:
(aa) the political history and
geographical
facts
about
the
Philippines and the world;
(bb) major historical events here and
abroad; and
(cc) the unquestioned laws of nature.
Matters
that
can
easily
be
ascertained and verified from
books,
encyclopedias,
official
reports and documents and other
authoritative sources like:
(aa)standards of weight, measure
and mathematical formulas;
(bb)the contagious nature of certain
diseases; and
(cc)the temperature, humidity and
wind velocity on a given day.
Matters which the court should
know by reason of its judicial
function like:
(aa)
enactment,
repeal
or
amendment of laws and their dates;
(bb) territorial jurisdiction of courts;
and
(cc) its own judicial record.
When Notice Not Taken
However, judicial notice will not
be taken of;
(a) the laws of a foreign country;
(b) local customs; and
(c) the judicial record of other courts
or of another case.
Example of Examination of a
Witness
PROCEEDINGS

CLERK OF COURT:(Calling the Case)


Criminal Case No.395733-SA, People
of the Philippines versus Donald
Valdez y Sta. Ana for Violation of B. P.
6.
FISCAL ENCISO:Good morning Your
Honor for the government. We are
ready Your Honor please.
ATTY. SY JUCO:For the accused Your
Honor.
COURT:Please call your witness Fiscal.
FISCAL ENCISO:May we call on to the
witness stand PO2 Benjamin Blanco
Your Honor.
COURT:Please take the witness stand.
COURT INTERPRETER:Please remain
standing, raise your right hand, do you
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth before this
court?
WITNESS:I do.
COURT INTERPRETER:Please state
your name, age and other personal
circumstances.
WITNESS:I am PO2 Benjamin Blanco,
44 years old, Married, residing at 530
Yangco St., Gagalangin, Tondo, Manila,
Police Officer.
COURT INTERPRETER:Your witness
Fiscal Enciso.
FISCAL ENCISO:We are offering the
testimony of the witness to prove to
this Honorable Court that he is a
bonafide member of the Philippine
National Police; who on June 7, 2012 at
4:40 AM arrested the accused in this
case with SPO3 RobelioAbellera; he
will testify on the incident that led
them to arrest the accused; he will
testify on the recovery of the knife
from the accused; he will testify that
he, together with SPO3 Rogelio
Abellera executed an Affidavit of
Apprehension and he will testify on
some other matters that will support
the information in this case.
COURT:Any comment or objection to
the offer of testimony, Atty. SyJuco?
ATTY. SY JUCO:Subject to crossexamination Your Honor.
COURT:Please proceed, Fiscal.
FISCAL ENCISO:Before I proceed with
my direct examination Your Honor
please may I request for some
stipulations for admission Your Honor
Please?
COURT:Proceed Fiscal.
FISCAL ENCISO:First stipulation Your
Honor please is that the intended
witness is a bonafide member of the

Philippine National Police assigned at


Police Station 3?
ATTY. SY JUCO:Admitted Your Honor.
FISCAL ENCISO:That on June 7, 2012
at around 4:40AM, he, together with
SPO3 Rogelio Abellera, was at the
vicinity of SM San Lazaro, Manila,
conducting patrol?
ATTY. SY JUCO:Admitted Your Honor.
FISCAL ENCISO:May I now proceed
with my direct examination Your Honor
please?
COURT:Please proceed Fiscal.
================
==============
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF PO2
BENJAMIN BLANCO
CONDUCTED BY FISCAL RENATO Z.
ENCISO
================
==============
FISCAL ENCISO:
Q.
Mr. Witness while conducting a
patrol with SPO3 Rogelio Abellera on
June 7, 2012, on or about 4:40AM
within the vicinity of SM San Lazaro,
manila, was there any untoward
incident that happened?
A.
Yes sir.
Q.
And what was it Mr. Witness?
A.
While we were on patrol, we
saw a commotion sir.
Q.
And what is that commotion all
about, if you can still recall?
A.
I saw a man and woman
naghahatakan ng bag.
Q.
Were there any other persons
aside from the man and the woman at
that time?
A.
None sir.
Q.
How far were you from those
persons when you saw them?
A.
About 10 meters sir.
Q.
Mr. Witness tell us the lighting
condition at the place where you saw
those persons at that
time?
A
.There is a light coming from
our mobile car sir.
Q.
Upon seeing the commotion,
what did you do Mr. Witness?
A.
We immediately proceeded at
the scene sir.
Q.
Who are you referring when you
said we Mr. Witness?
A.
My
partner,
SPO3
Rogelio
Abellera sir.

Q.
Were you able to reach the
place where the commotion is
happening at that time Mr. Witness?
A.
Yes sir.
Q.
Upon reaching the place, what
happened Mr. Witness?
A.
He ran away from us when he
noticed our mobile car.
Q.
Tell us the gender of the person
who is running away from you Mr.
Witness?
A.
Male person sir.
Q.
And in what direction Mr.
Witness?
A.
He was running towards Rizal
Avenue sir.
Q.
What relationship does that
person have from the person whom
you saw
involved
in
the
commotion
with
a
female
person at that time?
A.
Siyapoyungkumuha ng bag.
Q.
Upon seeing that person who
was running, is the same person
involved in the commotion,
what did you do?
A.
My partner immediately chased
the suspect and then, I, on-board the
mobile car, assisted the girl,
the victim.
Q.
Were you able to know what
happened when your partner chased
the person who was running
at
that time?
A.
Yes sir.
Q.
What happened Mr. Witness?
A.
We know that it was a hold-up
because he got the bag sir.
Q.
From
whom
is
the
bag
recovered?
A.
From the suspect sir.
Q.
And then what happened next?
A.
My partner searched the body
of the suspect sir.
Q.
While
your
partner
was
searching the body of the suspect,
where were you placed at that time?
A.
I first parked the mobile car and
I followed my partner sir.
Q.
When
your
partner
was
searching the person, how far were
you from
your partner?
A.
About 10 feet sir.
Q.
Were you able to know from
that distance, what happened during
the
search of your partner?
A.
Yes sir.
Q.
What happened Mr. Witness?
A.
He recovered a bag containing
jewelries, watch and a bladed weapon
sir.

Q.
Were you able to know from
what particular part of the body is that
bladed weapon
recovered
from the suspect Mr. Witness?
A.
From his waistline sir.
Q.
How were you able to say that
other than the bag and jewelries, a
bladed weapon was
also
recovered by your partner Mr.
Witness?
A.
I saw it sir.
Q.
What kind of bladed weapon is
that if you can still recall Mr. Witness?
A.
If I could recall, it is a balisong
sir.
Q.
Upon recovery of that bladed
weapon, were you able to know what
your
partner
did
with
that
bladed weapon?
A.
Yes sir he got it from the
suspect.
Q.
After that, what did your partner
do with that bladed weapon if you
know?
A.
He held it sir.
Q.
What else did you do when your
partner was able to recover these
things?
A.
I assisted my partner going to
the mobile car.
Q.
After reaching your mobile car,
what happened next?
A.
We presented the suspect to the
victim sir.
Q.
What
happened
next
Mr.
Witness?
A.
According to the victim, he is
the person who robbed her sir.
Q.
After that what happened next if
there was any?
A.
We proceeded to our office sir.
Q.
What
particular
office
Mr.
Witness?
A.
Police Station 3 sir.
Q.
Who were with you when you
reached the police station 3?
A.
My partner SPO3 Abellera and
my Commander in-chief sir.
Q.
How about the suspect?
A.
The suspect and the victim were
with us sir.
Q.
How about the bag and
jewelries and the bladed weapon
which according to you were
recovered from the suspect at
that time?
A.
We brought it sir.
Q.
You said that you were able to
reach the police station 3 with the
suspect, victim and the recovered

items, were you able to know what


happened to the knife Mr. Witness?
A.
We
presented
it
to
the
investigator and he marked it with the
initials of Donald Valdez sir.
Q.
Who in particular presented the
knife to the Investigator?
A.
SPO3 Rogelio Abellera sir.
Q.
Where were you when he
presented the knife to the Investigator
Mr. Witness?
A.
I was also there sir.
Q.
And after that, what happened
next inside that police station Mr.
Witness?
A.
We prepared our affidavit sir.
Q.
Is that affidavit reduced into
writing Mr. Witness?
A.
Yes sir.
Q.
And what did you do with the
affidavit Mr. Witness?
A.
We affixed our signatures in the
affidavit sir.
Q.
If that affidavit will be shown to
you can you still recognize it?
A.
Yes sir.
Q.
I am showing to you an Affidavit
of Apprehension attached in the record
of this case, kindly tell
us
the
relation of
this document to the
affidavit which
you just mentioned
Mr. Witness?
A.
This is our affidavit sir.
Q.
There appears a name PO2
Benjamin Blanco with signature over
the name of that person, kindly tell us
who is this person and whose
signature appears over the name of
that person?
A.
This is my name and my
signature sir.
Q.
Do you affirm and confirm the
veracity and truthfulness of this
affidavit under
your
present
oath Mr. Witness?
A.
Yes sir.
Q.
Now Mr. Witness, there also
appears a name SPO3 Rogelio Abellera
with signature over the name of that
person, kindly tell us who is this
person and whose signature appears
over the
name of that person?
A.
This is the name of my partner
and this is his signature sir.
Q.
How were you able to know that
this is the signature of SPO3 Abellera?
A.
We are both present when we
signed that affidavit sir.
Q.
After this affidavit was prepared
and you signed this affidavit, what
happened next Mr. Witness?

A.
The accompanied the suspect
and the victim to the hospital for
medical examination sir.
Q.
And after that what happened
next?
A.
We went back to our office and
turn over the suspect to the
Investigator for proper disposition
of the case sir.
Q.
What did you do next Mr.
Witness?
A.
Nothing more sir.
FISCAL ENCISO:No further questions
Your Honor please.
COURT:Cross?
ATTY.
SY
JUCO:With the kind
permission of the Honorable Court?
COURT:Please proceed Atty. SyJuco.

================
==============
CROSS EXAMINATION OF PO2
BENJAMIN BLANCO
CONDUCTED BY ATTY. MARY
ANGELINE SY JUCO
================
=============
ATTY. SY JUCO:
Q.
Mr. Witness, how long have you
been assigned at police station 3?
A.
Six (6) years maam.
Q.
From June 7, 2012 up to this
date, can you recall how many law
violators
were
you
able
to
apprehend Mr. Witness?
A.
About 5-6 maam.
Q.
What is the law that was
violated by the persons you were able
to apprehend?
A.
Only City Ordinances maam.
Q.
You said awhile ago that you
were on a patrol when you chanced
upon a commotion wherein
you
said a man and a woman were
naghahatakan ng bag aside from the
light coming from your
mobile that
you are driving Mr. Witness,
what other source of light of the area
wherein you saw a commotion?
A.
Light coming from the post
maam.
Q.
During that time when you
focused the light of the mobile that
you were driving to those
two
persons, were you able to clearly see
the face of the man who was allegedly
pulling the bag
from a woman?
A.
At that distance, not yet maam.
Q.
Can you recall Mr. Witness, what
is the color of the bag being pulled by
the man?
A.
Dark color maam I am not sure
if it is black or brown.
Q.
Mr. Witness you said awhile ago
that you assisted the woman while
SPO3 Abellera followed that
man
who ran away, is that correct Mr.
Witness?
A.
Yes maam.
Q.
Now Mr. Witness, how far were
you from your partner, SPO3 Abellera
when he was able to
arrest a man
whom you alleged as the one who was
pulling the bag from a woman?
A.
About 20 feet maam.
Q.
Are you still boarding the mobile
when you saw them?
A.
No maam.

Q.
How far were you Mr. Witness
when SPO3 Abellera conducted the
search to the man he was
able
to apprehend Mr. Witness?
A.
I am not sure but I was about 10
feet away maam.
Q.
Did you actually see Mr. Witness
when
SPO3
Abellera
actually
recovered the fan knife from
the
accused?
A.
Yes sir.
Q.
And what was the lighting
condition at that time when SPO3
Abellera was able to recover a knife
from the accused?
A.
It was well-lighted maam.
Q.
Mr. Witness are you aware of
the identity of the person that you
arrested?
A.
Yes maam.
Q.
And what is the name of that
person Mr. Witness?
A.
Donald Valdez maam.
Q.
When signing this Affidavit of
Apprehension Mr. Witness did you not
read the contents of this affidavit
prior to signing Mr. Witness
A.
I read it maam.
Q.
Did you not notice that this
Affidavit of Apprehension does not
state the name of the accused that
you were able to apprehend on June 7,
2012 Mr. Witness?
A.
Yes maam.
Q.
When did you notice that there
was no name of the accused stated in
your Affidavit of
Apprehension Mr.
Witness?
A.
Only when I read my affidavit
sir.
Q.
But prior to the signing after
you have arrested the accused Mr.
Witness, did you not examine
this
affidavit?
A.
Not anymore maam because I
was
so
tired,
panggabi
kami
inumagana kami sapaggawaniyan.
Q.
Who is the person who prepared
this Affidavit of Apprehension Mr.
Witness?
A.
Our
Investigator,
PO3
VirgilioNinon maam.
Q.
Were you present when the
bladed weapon was turned over by
SPO3 Abellera to the
Investigator?
A.
Yes maam.
Q.
When this bladed weapon was
marked as DVS2 where were you Mr.
Witness?
A.
I was also inside the room
maam.

ATTY. SY JUCO:No further questions


Your Honor.
COURT:Redirect?
FISCAL ENCISO:Yes Your Honor.

================
==============
REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF PO2
BENJAMIN BLANCO
CONDUCTED BY FISCAL RENATO
ENCISO
================
=============
FISCAL ENCISO:You said that when
PO3 Abellera searched the suspect,
you were just 10 feet away from them,
kindly illustrate to us the distance if
you can?
A.
From where I am seated up to
the flagpole sir.
COURT:Stipulation?
FISCAL ENCISO:More or less three
(3) meters Your Honor please.
Q.
Since you were just three (3)
meters away from the two (2) persons,
did you see the face of the
suspect?
A.
Yes sir.
Q.
Now if ever you see the face of
the suspect again, can you still
recognize him?
A.
Yes sir.
Q.
Is he inside the court room?
A.
Yes sir.
Q.
Kindly point him to us Mr.
Witness?
A.
The man wearing blue t-shirt sir.
COURT
INTERPRETER:Witness
is
pointing to a man wearing blue t-shirt
when asked his name he answered
Donald Valdez.
FISCAL ENCISO:That is all Your Honor
please.
ATTY. SY JUCO:No re-cross Your
Honor.

COURT:You
Witness.

are

now

excused

Mr.

ORDER
At todays continuation of
presentation
of
prosecutions
evidence, Public Prosecutor RENATO
ENCISO,
Public
Attorney
MARY
ANGELINE SY JUCO, and accused
DONALD VALDEZ and witness, PO2
BENJAMIN BLANCO are in court.
PO2 Blanco took the witness
stand and testified on direct, cross and
redirect examinations. There being no
re-cross examination, his testimony is
now considered complete.
Upon motion of the Public
Prosecutor, let a subpoena be issued
to Investigator VirgilioMion at Police
Station 5 for him to appear during the
next trial date and to testify in this
case, the same to be personally
served by the Process Server of this
court.
Set the continuation of the trial
of this case on August 30, 2012, at
8:30 oclock in the morning, as
previously scheduled.
Let it be of record that the
accused personally waived his right to
be present on August 30, 2012.
SO ORDERED.
Given in open court, August 23,
2012 , Manila, Philippines.