gaanan

The issue is not the admissibility of evidence secured over an extension line of a
telephoire by a third party. The issue is whether or not the person called over the
telephone and his lawyer listening to the conversation on an extension line should
both face prison sentences simply because the extension was used to enable them to
both listen to an alleged attempt at extortion,’ Mere act of listening to a telephone
conversation in an extension line is not punished by AntiWiretappingLaw

Honeycomb
3. While the lower court is not precluded from taking judicial notice of certain facts, it must
exercise this right within the clear boundary provided by Sec 3, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court

The classification of the land is obviously essential to the valuation of the subject property,
which is the very issue in the present case. The parties should thus have been given the
opportunity to present evidence on the nature of the property before the lower court took judicial
notice of the commercial nature of a portion of the subject landholdings.

As we said in Land Bank of the Phils. v. Wycoco:

The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution especially where the
case involves a vast tract of land. Care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and every
reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative. To say that a court
will take judicial notice of a fact is merely another way of saying that the usual form of evidence
will be dispensed with if knowledge of the fact can be otherwise acquired. This is because the
court assumes that the matter is so notorious that it will not be disputed. But judicial notice is not
judicial knowledge.mThe mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of
the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or
professionally known, the basis of his action.

Anzar

The prevailing rule at the time of the promulgation of the RTC Decision is Section 20 of Rule
132 of the Rules of Court. It provides that whenever any private document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either by
(a) anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

Aznar, who testified on the authenticity of Exhibit G did not actually see the document executed
or written, neither was he able to provide evidence on the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of Nubi, who handed to him said computer print-out.

Power Sector
Then, case law is also settled on the rule that contracts should be so construed as to
harmonize and give effect to its different provisions.90 The legal effect of a contract is
not determined alone by any particular provision disconnected from all others, but
from the whole read together.91
Following the above rules and principles, the ERC correctly interpreted the
ambiguity in Schedule W in a way that would render all of the contracts’ provisions
effectual.

Marcos v heirs of Navarro

Specific rules of witness disqualification are provided under Sections 21 to 24, Rule 130 of
the Rules on Evidence. Section 21 disqualifies a witness by reason of mental incapacity or
immaturity. Section 22 disqualifies a witness by reason of marriage. Section 23 disqualifies
a witness by reason of death or insanity of the adverse party. Section 24 disqualifies a
witness by reason of privileged communication
 As a handwriting expert of the PNP, PO2 Alvarez can surely perceive and make known her
perception to others. We have no doubt that she is qualified as a witness. She cannot be
disqualified as a witness since she possesses none of the disqualifications specified under the
Rules.