EVIDENCE (2019) MIDTERM RECITS
TORREGOSA
January 29, 2019 ________________________________ 1
January 31, 2019 ________________________________ 4
J A N U A R Y 2 9 , 2 0 1 9
JUDICIAL ADMISSION
Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or
written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in
the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be
contradicted only by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
SITUATION: Suppose you are the best of friends Ms. Villablanca
and Vallinas. You are both interested in Mr. Sabdullah. But Mr.
Sabdullah played hard to get. So one day you cornered him in one
place and both of you sexually molested him. So he filed a criminal
case for acts of lasciviousness to both of you in conspiracy with
each other. Complainant Sabdullah. In your testimony Vallinas, you
admitted that indeed you and Villablanca did it. Is there admission
conclusive and binding on Villablanca?
(Tine’s answer) No. Under a case, the court mentioned the
principle of multiple admissibility, such admission made by an
accused will not apply to his/her co-conspirator.
Sir: But in that case, that was made extra-judicially. In this case, it
was made in the course of the proceedings in the same case. Extra-
judicial and judicial admissions are governed with different rules.
What is the nature of a judicial admission? It is conclusive and
binding upon the admitter.
Is an admission in court by one conspirator admissible to the other
conspirator? No.
Why is an extra-judicial admission made by of one conspirator not
admissible against the other?
SITUATION: You were both charged with acts of lasciviousness
committed against Mr. Sabdullah. During the pendency of the
case, you had a coffee session with your friends in Starbucks and
boasted to your friends that indeed, you sexually molested
Sabdullah like beast, and that both of you with Vallinas did it.
Suppose that friend of yours who heard your statement during
that coffee session is presented during the coffee session to testify
what you said, your admission to the crime. Is the testimony of that
friend, to whom you admitted during that coffee session, admission
against both of you? No.
Why is it admissible against you but not against the other? It is
considered hearsay.
What do you understand by hearsay? A statement that has no
probative value
When Ms. So (the friend in Starbucks) testified against you in court,
is that hearsay? Yes. It is hearsay. It is not conclusive against me.
Hearsay - when one testifies even though he has no personal
knowledge about something. Chismis ba!
Ms. So’s personal knowledge about is the fact that you told her
about it, but as to the truth of what you told her, she has no
personal knowledge.
Now I’m talking about a situation where the testimony of Ms. So is
offered to prove that indeed both of you did it, not just to prove that
EVIDENCE TEAM | SUAN | KONG | MAKINANO | OMEGA | VELOSO |
JAO | CULABAN | JARAMILLO | BERO | TIU | VELAYO | ATON | BINUYA
ATTY.
you had that conversation. Hearsay or not? Not hearsay because
she has no personal knowledge of the crime.
There are two possible purposes for the testimony of Ms. So.
1) One, it was offered to testify to prove that there was that
conversation between her or you. That’s not hearsay
because she has personal knowledge of that
conversation for she was there when you told her about
it. (Non-legal hearsay)
2) Two, the purpose for offering the testimony is to prove
that what you told her is true, that is hearsay. So it is not
admissible against you. (Legal hearsay)
Is the conversation between you and Ms. So judicial or extra-judicial?
It is extra-judicial.
TWO CONCEPTS OF HEARSAY
There are two concepts of hearsay: legal and non-legal hearsay
1) If the purpose of the testimony is to prove that the
statement was indeed made – non-hearsay and thus
admissible.
2) If the purpose of the testimony is to prove the
truthfulness of the statement – legal hearsay and thus
inadmissible.
What is the nature of the admission that you made to Ms. So in
Starbucks? Extra-judicial. Hearsay.
Should the court admit the testimony of Ms. So that both of you did
it? Are extra-judicial admissions admissible in court? Yes, they are
admissible.
Judicial Admission – admissions made in court
Extra-judicial Admission – admissions made outside the court
[Transcriber’s note: Extra-judicial admissions are admissible in
court. However, they are not conclusive and can be controverted.]
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
RULE 130 Section 3. Original document must be produced;
exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the
original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the
offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of
the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the
latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be examined in court without
great loss of time and the fact sought to be established
from them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office.
Section 4. Original of document. —
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which
are the subject of inquiry.
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or
about the same time, with identical contents, all such
copies are equally regarded as originals.
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of
business, one being copied from another at or near the
time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally
regarded as originals.
RULE 132
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | PAGE 1 OF 5
EVIDENCE (2019) MIDTERM RECITS
Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a
copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of
evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the
copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof,
as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official
seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk
of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
Section 27. Public record of a private document. — An
authorized public record of a private document may be proved
by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the
legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate
that such officer has the custody.
SITUATION: Let’s suppose you got pregnant by your boyfriend.
Your child is Ms. Gloria. Since Gloria has no job, she demanded
from you support. But since you hated her father so much, you
refused to give her support just to piss Sabdullah off. This
constrained Gloria to institute an action for support. Her theory of
the case is that you are obligated to support her because she is
your daughter. During the trial, Ms. Gloria presented the “hilot” to
testify that indeed Gloria came from your womb. Do we have a
problem a problem with Gloria presenting the hilot to testify to
prove the birth?
(Juna’s answer) Generally, a mother cannot really say that a child
did not come from her wound. As supposed to the father, he could
evade by saying the child is not mine. The mother carries the child.
Can you present the “hilot” without presenting the birth certificate?
No. The birth certificate is the best evidence for birth.
You can object to the testimony of the hilot on the ground that the
birth certificate is the best evidence of birth. You can only present
the testimony of the witness if Gloria can account for the loss or
inability or unavailability of the birth certificate. Do you agree with
that? The best evidence rule does not apply.
Why not? Isn’t the birth certificate the best evidence of birth? It is
but the rule of best evidence does not apply here. It only applies if
the issue is the contents of the birth certificate.
Is that in effect disputing the birth certificate? The birth certificate
does not answer the issue at hand.
Student: Since the issue here is whether or not she is my mother,
the answer of that is not really reflected on the birth certificate
alone.
Do you have a birth certificate? What does it show there? Yes.
So why do you say that the issue of whether or not she is your mother
cannot be addressed by the birth certificate as piece of evidence?
Because a birth certificate can be falsified.
That is beside my point which is whether the Best Evidence Rule
applies or not, and why or why not? No, the Best Evidence Rule
does not apply because the issue or controversy does not really
tackle about the content of the document.
Sir: So make it applicable now if you are saying that this is not
applicable in the facts given. Same situation but modify the facts to
solve your answer. It is still an action for support, and the birth
certificate is the evidence involved. Make the best evidence rule
applicable. If one of her allegations is that the name stated in the
birth certificate is not hers. For example, she is Quennie Jao and
the name in the birth certificate is Quennie Jao but she says that
she is not the particular Quennie Jao that is stated in the birth
certificate.
EVIDENCE TEAM | SUAN | KONG | MAKINANO | OMEGA | VELOSO |
JAO | CULABAN | JARAMILLO | BERO | TIU | VELAYO | ATON | BINUYA
ATTY. TORREGOSA
Ah, there is another Quennie Jao. So there is no issue/dispute that
the birth certificate shows the name “Quennie Jao”. Does that call
for the application of the Best Evidence Rule? No.
Make it applicable. In my birth certificate, it has a different name.
Quennie Jao? So she says that she is not your mother and as a matter
of fact, your birth certificate does not show my name as your mother
but it is Quennie Jao. So what do you do now? Best Evidence Rule
already applies.
So you will present the birth certificate? So what happens now? The
best thing to do for her is to present the birth certificate because
it is the best evidence for her to prove that indeed her name is not
stated there.
So this time around she will be the one who will present the original?
Yes.
Can she present the midwife who filled up the birth certificate to
testify that what was stated is Quennie Jao and not her name? The
best evidence in this case is the birth certificate because the issue
here is one of the contents of the said document, the name of the
mother. So the best evidence to present first is the birth
certificate.
Sir: So this time around she could not the testimony of the hilot to
prove the contents of the birth certificate because the best
evidence rule applies, she should present the original birth
certificate.
Suppose the birth certificate is lost, what do you do now? You want
to prove that the birth certificate of Ms. Gloria indicates that her
mother is Quennie Jao but the birth certificate is nowhere to be
found, what do you do? First, I would establish the fact that the
birth certificate is lost to the court.
How? Using other forms of evidence, like testimonial evidence.
So you establish the fact of loss. What else? After I establish the fact
of loss, I would introduce other evidence to prove that I am not
the mother.
Sir: No. We are talking here about proving the contents of the birth
certificate because you claim that the birth certificate states or
shows or indicates Quennie Jao as the mother.
So after establishing the fact of loss of the birth certificate, what else
do you need to establish? In this case, after I’ve established the loss
of the birth certificate…
What else do you need to establish? I could establish that that birth
certificate existed, however, now it is lost. And since it is lost, I
could actually ask for the testimony of for example the civil
registrar.
So you only have to prove the fact of loss? Is that the only thing you
need to prove before you could present the secondary evidence?
First, the existence of the birth certificate. Second, the fact of loss.
How do you prove the execution of the birth certificate? It could be
proven by an affidavit.
Affidavit of whom? Of the person who prepared the birth
certificate.
Meaning the hilot? How do you prove the execution of the original?
Usually it is executed by the midwife or the hilot.
Suppose the hilot is already dead? Then the people who signed the
birth certificate like the father and the mother. So the people who
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | PAGE 2 OF 5
EVIDENCE (2019) MIDTERM RECITS
signed the birth certificate can establish the execution of the birth
certificate.
Suppose the father and mother is nowhere to be found? Who else?
We can resort to the officer who registered it in the civil register.
Will that prove the execution? Maybe the existence. But the
authenticity and execution? As long as there is a person whose
signature is found on the birth certificate.
What if no witness or party to the birth certificate is available to
testify? Who else do you call to the stand? Then that is the time you
can actually present secondary evidence.
Sir: But you can only present secondary evidence if you are able to
comply with the requisites. It’s not automatic that just because the
original is not available, you can already present secondary
evidence.
You need to comply with the requirements – prove the existence,
execution and authenticity; the fact of loss; and absence of bad
faith on the part of the offeror.
My question now is how do you prove execution and authenticity?
Fact of loss, easy. Authenticity and execution? You can probably
resort to the office.
Office? What office? I could file an affidavit of loss.
What affidavit of loss? To state that I could no longer produce the
original copy of the document because it was lost.
Sir: That’s not the issue. Who will attest to the execution and
authenticity of the original, which is now lost?
The hilot is not there, the supposed parents are not there. No one.
The parties who were directly involved in the preparation of the
document cannot be found. Who else?
If the parties are there, then the parties. If there are witnesses,
then the witnesses. But supposed they are gone. In situations
when the document is an old document like 25 years old. It’s
possible that the parties and the witnesses are already gone and
it’s lost. How do you suppose to prove the requisites before you can
present the secondary evidence – a copy, a recital, and testimony of
witnesses? You can present the notary public who notarized the
document.
Sir: That’s already included in the witnesses. He’s gone. Who else?
The ideal is you present the parties and the witnesses who were
present when the original document was executed. But what’s
ideal is not always the real situation.
Imagine you are trying to prove the contents of an old document,
25 years old. Chances are the parties who had personal knowledge
of its execution are all gone. How do you now comply with the
requirements so that you can now resort to the secondary evidence?
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE RULE
Rule 4, Section 1.
Section 1. Original of an electronic document. – An electronic
document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original
document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or
output readable by sight or other means shown to reflect the
data accurately.
What is your understanding about an electronic evidence? So
electronic evidence is in digital form? SO it cannot be in paper-
based form?
So if your evidence consists in electronic document how do you prove
it in court? Let us say that the contents of the electronic document
EVIDENCE TEAM | SUAN | KONG | MAKINANO | OMEGA | VELOSO |
JAO | CULABAN | JARAMILLO | BERO | TIU | VELAYO | ATON | BINUYA
ATTY. TORREGOSA
are in dispute. How do you comply with the best evidence rule? Let
us say that you sued Mr. Culaban for internet libel. How will you
prove that libelous post in the internet? I can print the information.
What is electronic evidence? Archive or saved in a particular device.
You can eventually present it in court you can bring the hard copy.
So the hard copy is electronic? Is it not contradictory in terms? No
because it came from an electronic device.
Books, is it electronic? It came from computer. Do you think it’s
manually done? The hard copy of the book is sourced from the
computer. Originated from the computer and from the author. So
the books now, electronic? How do we now distinguish a paper-
based from electronic if that is the case? It is electronic if the source
is through a device.
That is why my specific example is a book. Will you say that the book
is an electronic element? Newspaper, electronic? Books and
newspaper are not electronic.
So what is your idea about electronic document? These are digitally
generated documents and these documents can be offered as
evidence.
Are books and newspapers electronic evidence? Yes.
What is an electronic evidence? These are computer- generated
document
How do you present it in court?
Do you bring the computer in court?
Suppose the libelous material is in the newspaper? Or the libelous
material is in the contents of the book, do you offer the book in court
or the computer which made the book?
SITUATION: Let’s say I am an author of a novel, I found out that
you plagiarized my work. You also make your novel but I think it is
copied from mine. I applied for a search warrant, the NBI seized
the computer. How can I present it in court? Should I use the print
out or the computer?
If I produce many print out and it is hard bound, Is it electronic?
Are our law books electronic?
Sir: How do you suppose to distinguish whether it is electronic or
paper-based? Because in our time, everything is produced in the
computer, all in original digital form. But you file a pleading in
court, letter printed, all are paper base but are computer made.
It depends if it signed or not.
Where is the demarcation line between the paper-based document
and the electronic document? Whether there is MANUAL
INTERVENTION. If so, like signature of the person affixed in the
document, then it is paper based and not covered anymore under
the Rule on Electronic Evidence.
What about the print out in the computer? Is it electronic or not?
Yes. It is electronic and is considered original.
TN: Considered original under the REE:
A) Original electronic document in its digital form stored in
the computer;
B) A printout readable by sight or other means;
C) An output readable by sight or other means.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | PAGE 3 OF 5
EVIDENCE (2019) MIDTERM RECITS
J A N U A R Y 3 1 , 2 0 1 9
C ONSOLIDATED B ANK V . D EL M ONTE
M OTOR W ORKS
FACTS: Del Monte Motors borrowed 1M from Consolidated Bank
evidenced by a promissory note. Upon failure to pay, an action to
collect a loan obligation initiated by the bank against the
borrower. During trial, the borrower corporation interposed that
the subject promissory note (PN) was issued without
consideration, hence void. On the other hand, the individual
defendants, who were officers of the corporation advanced the
defense that they could not be held liable under the PN or under
their individual capacities because they signed the same as officers
of the corporation. During the trial, the bank presented a
photocopy of the PN signed by the officers. This has been objected
by the Corporation under the Best Evidence Rule which requires
original of the document should be presented.
ISSUE: Whether the photocopy of the PN is admissible under BER.
RULING: YES. The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the
dispute or the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the
document. In this case, the defendants never disputed the
contents of the document. In fact, based on their answer, they
admitted the genuineness and due execution of the PN although
they interposed defenses which are outside its genuineness and
due execution.
When they interposed the defense of lack of consideration, they in
effect admitted that the PN contains exact wordings, terms, and
conditions except that it was issued without consideration. Hence,
the contents of the PN were never subject of inquiry and the BER
does not apply. The argument that they cannot be held liable
under their individual capacities was also one outside the purview
of the promissory notes.
Atty. Is referring to De Vera vs. Aguilar case
*The student recited different facts of the case which I didn’t
include here nalang.)
What’s the dispute about? How did this dispute arise? What’s in
store for us in this case? It was being contested that the land sold
by the mother contains a right to repurchase. It was being claimed
by the children that it was repurchased by the mother while she
was still alive. Then she dies.
It was not redeemed by one of the children? Yes, it was redeemed
by one of the children.
What’s the document in dispute here? The deed of sale or the deed
of redemption? The deed of sale.
Executed by? Anyway, so what’s the principle involved? Why are we
interested in this case? The Best Evidence Rule is the principle
applied here.
How? Since the document evidencing the sale could no longer be
presented. What is shown here is not the original document but
the photocopy.
How did the plaintiff tried to establish the contents of the deed of
sale when the original got lost? He presented a photocopy of the
deed of sale, stating that the original can no longer be found.
Was it allowed? No.
Why not? Because the deed of sale had 5 copies. And only 3 were
deemed to be lost.
EVIDENCE TEAM | SUAN | KONG | MAKINANO | OMEGA | VELOSO |
JAO | CULABAN | JARAMILLO | BERO | TIU | VELAYO | ATON | BINUYA
ATTY. TORREGOSA
What did the SC say? If you are the proponent of secondary evidence,
in lieu of the original what are you supposed to do? The proponent
should show proof that the originals can no longer be found. He
can present testimonies of witnesses…
What are the requisites before you can resort to secondary evidence?
(1) the existence or due execution of the original;
(2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for
its non-production in court; and
(3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to
which the unavailability of the original can be attributed.
How do you prove execution of the document? Through testimonies.
Of whom? In establishing the execution of a document the same
may be established by the person or persons who executed it, by
the person before whom its execution was acknowledged, or by
any person who was present and saw it executed or who, after its
execution, saw it and recognized the signatures; or by a person to
whom the parties to the instrument had previously confessed the
execution thereof.
Atty: Since you love Mr. Polito so much that you would rather go to
jail than disclose that the vehicle came from him. You invoke your
right to remain silent and you did not testify to explain how you
came into possession of the carnapped vehicle. You did not
present any defense but merely remained silent. The trial court
convicted you on the crime, relying on the presumption that one
who is in possession of a stolen item is presumed to be the thief.
NOTE: the prosecution was able to prove that the item was really a
carnapped vehicle.
Is the Trial Court correct? YES.
So a presumption is enough to support a conviction? A presumption
is enough to support a conviction but could be disputable.
Atty: The problem with Ms. Belleza is that she is so in love with you,
she is even willing to take a bullet with you even jail for that
matter.
NOTE: The trial is over We are talking of an appeal, the court
already convicted Ms. Belleza.
Can you argue an appeal to get a reversal of the conviction? YES. The
presumption that I am a thief is not enough to convict me.
Does right to remain silent prevail over such presumption? NO.
What is the rationale on the right to remain silent? So that one will
note be able to incriminate one’s self.
Atty: By speaking up you would have saved yourself although you
may have incriminated Mr. Polito. We are talking here of the right
to remain silent, would not speaking up save you?
Your right to remain silent is a protection against the possibility that
by speaking up, you might incriminate yourself. It is not a
protection against others from being incriminated possibly. All you
have to do is to explain how you came into possession of the stolen
item and that presumption that you are the thief could be easily
rebutted.
You invoke your right to remain silent because you want to protect
yourself not by invoking your right to remain silent by way that you
are shooting at your own foot.
A: It is an disputable presumption, there must be an evidence to
contradict it. Since there was no controverting evidence, it was
right for the court to convict her.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | PAGE 4 OF 5
EVIDENCE (2019) MIDTERM RECITS ATTY. TORREGOSA

Does the presumption of innocence not overcome by the

presumption that you are the thief considering that you were indeed
in possession of a stolen item and that you did not despite the
opportunity given to you explain on how you came into such
possession? You have the presumption of innocence but this is
rebuttable. This could be rebutted by another presumption which
I failed to rebut.

Atty: A presumption is enough to support a conclusion of fact. You

fail to rebut the presumption that you are the thief, then you
would be declared as the thief even if there is no evidence that
you are the one who took such item.

The presumption arises from the fact that you are caught in the
possession of the carnapped vehicle. There is no evidence of the
taking but merely that you are in possession of such stolen vehicle.
That is enough to convict you if you can’t rebut the fact that you
are not in good faith.

You owe it to yourself to explain since you were indeed in good faith,
you did not know that the item is a stolen vehicle. But you squander
your chance because of love. So good luck to you since you will GO
TO JAIL. ☺

LAGMAN CASE

So the Best evidence Rule applies?

Why is there an issue as to the contents of the performance bond?

What was the specific entry in the bond disputed by the parties?

Del Monte Works teaches us that a content of a document is deemed

to be an issue when there is dispute as to the precise wordings,
language, tenor of the entries found therein. Is this the case in
Lagman? Was there a dispute as to the precise word, tenor,
language embodied in that document?

The precise language of the document is disputed when one claims

that the language says this way and the other claims that the
language says the other way? Did this actually happened in Lagman
case? In the case, Sir, a case of falsification, the prosecution
presented evidence a copy, a third copy (triplicate). The defendant
contended that it should be the original that should be presented
(the one written with ink?). But the SC said that since all three
documents were executed at the same time, same occasion, same
manner, it is considered original. Thus, in this case, the Best
Evidence Rule was complied with since what was presented was
once of the triplicate copies which is considered as original. In this
case, all the three copies are considered as an original.

Atty: So, in the context of the best evidence rule, the first copy is
not necessarily the only original because when the document is
executed at or about the same time with similar contents, all of
the copies are considered original. The traditional way, we do it by
inserting a carbon paper in between the copies.

EVIDENCE TEAM | SUAN | KONG | MAKINANO | OMEGA | VELOSO | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | PAGE 5 OF 5
JAO | CULABAN | JARAMILLO | BERO | TIU | VELAYO | ATON | BINUYA