Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Doctrines - EVD
Doctrines - EVD
No. 946 provides that the rules of court shall not be applicable even in a
suppletory character in Agrarian cases.
Doctrine: Relevant evidence is one that has any value in reason as tending to
prove any matter probable in an action. And evidence is said to be material when
it is directed to prove a fact in issue as determine by the particular case.
Doctrine: The remoteness of the flight goes to the weight of the evidence rather
than to its admissibility. The mere possession of a quantity of money is in itself
no indication that the possessor was the taker of money charged as taken,
because in general all money of the same denomination and material is alike,
and the hypothesis that the money found is the same as the money taken is too
forced and extraordinary to be receivable.
Doctrine: Tape recordings made absent the consent of both parties to the
conversation or communication is held inadmissible under Section 4 of the
AntiRWiretapping Law.
Doctrine: All courts must take judicial notice of ordinances falling or applicable
within the parameters of their respective jurisdiction. MTC- ordinance in locality,
RTC depends on the charter of the LGU
Doctrine: Courts may take judicial notice of the previous cases decided with
finality of a judgment in a case previously pending and decided by it. When the
ground of the dismissal motion is, a prior judgment rendered by the same
court a fact known to the court and to the parties as well, as in the case at bar
the taking of judicial notice of said prior judgment by the same court
constitutes the very evidence needed to dispose of the dismissal motion.
Doctrine: The general rule is that courts are not authorized to take judicial notice
in the adjudication 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 judge. - The current law provides that when the parties
would want the court to take judicial notice of matters relevant to the case then
they may announce such intention and be heard thereon. In the case at bar,
there was a failure to request or announce such intention.
PEOPLE v. GODOY Doctrine: The Court takes judicial cognizance of the fact
that in rural areas in the Philippines, young ladies are strictly required to act
with circumspection and prudence. Great caution is observed so that their
reputations shall remain untainted. Any breath of scandal which brings dishonor
to their character humiliates their entire families. lol
AIR FRANCE v. CARRASCOSO Doctrine: When the subject is not the actual
entry in a document but the fact that the entry was made, it does not come
within the prohibition of the Best Evidence Rule and is therefore admissible in
evidence. The subject of the inquiry is not the entry but the ouster incident.
Testimony on the entry does not come within the proscription of the BER.
Testimonial evidence is the crux of the matter here not the contents of the
entry.
MEYERS v. UNITED STATES Doctrine: Best evidence rule would apply in cases
where the contents of a writing needs to be proven. - in this case there was no
attempt to prove the contents of the transcript but the issue was whether
Lamarre made such statements and not what is contained in the transcript.
Statements alleged to perjuries may be proved by any person who heard them,
as well as, by the reporter who recorded them in shorthand.
PEOPLE v. TAN Doctrine: Documents which were produced with the use of
carbon sheets are admissible as evidence. the triplicate copies are considered
duplicate originals.
VILLA REY TRANSIT, INC. v. FERRER Doctrine: the requisites for the
admissibility of secondary evidence when the original is in the custody of the
adverse party: (1) opponents possession of the original, (2) reasonable notice to
the opponent to produce the original, (3) satisfactory proof of existence, (4) failure
or refusal of opponent to produce the original in court. As to the first element, it is
enough that the circumstances are such as to indicate that the original is in the
actual possession of the adversary. -it is not necessary for a party seeking to
introduce secondary evidence to show that the original is in the actual
possession of his adversary. It is enough that the circumstances are such as to
indicate that the writing is in his possession or under his control. Now comes
the other exception with regard to loss.
MICHAEL & CO. v. ENRIQUEZ Doctrine: Trial courts do well in refusing at all
times to permit the introduction of incompetent evidence and particularly
secondary evidence of the contents of written instruments unless the facts
required by the Code of Civil Procedure as the conditions precedent for such
evidence are clearly shown to exist.
ENRIQUEZ v. RAMOS Doctrine: The rule on parol evidence holds true if there
is no allegation that the agreement does not express the true intent of the parties
OPINION RULE