hello okay okay I will start in a few seconds from now good afternoon

everyone welcome to the pulse lecture series we will be

discussing this afternoon evidence

evidence is a very important subject most specially by reason of the recent

amendments which was made effective on May 1 2020 so I would I would
discuss to you the various amendments in the rules on evidence but I would
want you to take into consideration the following parameters or guidelines as
I move along with my discussions

number one I may at every every now Indian we make reference to u.s. rules
but I don't intend to discuss that lengthily to the extent that I will say this
originated from a u.s. rule I think that would suffice okay now I think there
will be a sufficient time for you in your regular classes to discuss at length if
your professor feels that US authorities u.s. knows will have to be discussed
so and when I refer to u.s. rules it means either the uniform or federal rules;
number two discussion will always be put in context what do I mean I will
not just refer to a to a provision and say that there was an amendment on
one word and then I'll move on to another provision no I will endeavour to
explain to you the the essence of the provision and to some extent if it has an
impact on the provision the word change or the change of a phrase;

number three I will highlight the amendments but not or replace it with
actual reading of the law while we will discuss all of these amendments I do
not recommend that you will refrain from reading the law well you should
read three three the most specially the student because as you read you will
have better insights of the probations;

number four have an open mind and I'm addressing the - the students have
an open mind because sometimes concepts can be very complex and
complicated I recall when I was in second year I was in second year in law
school about to take up evidence either stealing that the evidence should be
complex and complicated and if it is something that I will be able to
understand maybe there's something wrong with me but that should not
always be the case because the rules are passed to address real-life situations
the rules are there - to be able to apply to actual problems and controversies
and the next

number five I hope that this if there are practitioners listening listening right
now or watching this lecture series on evidence on remedial law of course I
hope that this will in some way help the practitioners refresh the things that
they still remember when they were students or those cases that they have
been recently handling pertaining to certain provisions of law I hope that
this will assist you in better understanding the provisions of the law now for
purposes of time for purposes of time if you would note the original notice
or advertisement for the lecture was for two hours if you would know it was
for two hours however kindly take note that I've requested that we may need
to extend so I may need three hours I mean in three hours I will give you a
break after an hour and a half or an hour and 15 minutes depending on my
progress I will give you that and I know I would want to like to inform you
that every now and then I might be looking at the the phone because I am
alert that if my connection is not clear that is the reason that I am I'm looking
at that that maybe I I don't want you to be surprised I no longer there at the
screen and I keep on speaking in here and I am not aware I don't want to
waste your time and and please before I start there is an outline for those of
you who received that advance copy of the outline that is how I tend to
discuss the amendments in evidence you will see that it will be flipped as
I move on I don't know if students have already a copy at this time so please
be 17:57
guided with my outline and finally
18:00
should you feel because I know that
18:02
there are some people there students or
18:04
even practitioner so feel I would really
18:06
want to read what is discussing you know
18:10
if if you are interested more specially
18:13
for tomorrow's discussion I learn
18:15
discussion in a column manila standard
18:18
tomorrow on privileged communications I
18:21
will discuss that but I will also
18:22
discuss it now
18:23
in the past issue I discussed the
18:26
documentary evidence an object evidence
18:29
ok so in the future I will also discuss
18:32
that in writing now let me now start in
18:34
order to save time okay now let me start
18:38
with rule 128 and I will be tell my
18:43
students that this provision section 3
18:46
section 3 of rule 128 to me is for me is
18:51
the heart of evidence because it speaks
18:53
of admissibility evidence is admissible
18:57
if it is relevant and not excluded by
19:01
the law or these rules that was the
19:04
original provision okay you know
19:06
original provision you look at that if
19:07
you have a copy of the 19 of the of the
19:10
rules of evidence before this amendment
19:11
you will see that now the amendment was
19:14
the insertion of the word Constitution
19:17
Union poet now so the insertion of the
19:20
word Constitution but for those of you
19:22
have been teaching evidence for the
19:23
longest time and those who have studied
19:26
evidence you know that we discuss this
19:29
exclusions under the Constitution
19:31
because when we talk of admissibility we
19:33
talk of one relevancy and number two
19:36
competency meaning it is not excluded by
19:39
the rules now let me call your attention
19:41
for your guidance all the pertinent
19:43
provisions of the constitutions that
19:45
were affected by the insertion there is
19:49
article three section two three one and
19:53
two and article 12 one and two and three
19:58
and 17 now sir numeral at the end I will
20:02
give you an idea of what it is
20:04
okay though the item that is to be that
20:08
is relevant for a particular case an
20:12
item is relevant for a particular case
20:14
but the manner of its seizure is an
20:17
authorized or a violation of the Mandate
20:19
of the Constitution that there is no
20:22
probable cause then it is excluded by
20:25
the rules let's say you were placed
20:27
under custody of law enforcement
20:28
officers you're under custodial
20:31
investigation and you made admissions
20:33
but that missions were not made in
20:35
writing and not assist even not assisted
20:39
by counsel why do you tell me or
20:43
confession is very different it is one
20:46
excluded by the route because it's
20:49
excluded by the Constitution's provided
20:52
now another example would be no person
20:57
could be compelled to be a witness
20:58
against himself while the testimony of
21:01
the point of the case may be are else
21:02
now my last point would be the privacy
21:05
of communication if it violates the
21:06
right on the private safe communication
21:08
even if the information is valid or
21:11
relevant relevant then it excluded by
21:13
the rules now before I leave this matter
21:16
on admissibility of English let me just
21:18
add one classic example let's say for
21:21
example there is an information was
21:24
obtained by reason of a wired
21:26
communication okay there was a wiretap
21:28
communication and he overheard a
21:30
relevant matter and the relevant matter
21:32
pertains to the killing of mr. X the
21:36
information is relevant but if it was
21:39
not with it but if it is without the
21:41
court order that is excluded by others
21:43
so that is a miscibility of evidence now
21:46
let us now move on to judicial notice
21:50
new nobody will notice this rule 129
22:02
you
23:07
you are aware yeah you are aware
23:13
okay you are aware okay hang on
23:18
uh-huh okay I hope I'm still with you
23:23
okay am i with you
23:26
I hope I'm still with you because they
23:29
said I I froze I hope that I'm still
23:32
with you okay so I will proceed unless I
23:37
give an I receive another notice so as I
23:39
was discussing rule 129 okay rule 129
23:43
the first section is mandatory judicial
23:46
notice and for those of you have studied
23:48
the evidence you will record that
23:50
mandatory judicial notice are mandatory
23:54
because it is readily verifiable it is
23:57
established its recently accessible that
24:00
is why what you will find there is laws
24:04
of nation history of nations political
24:08
history of the Philippines measure of
24:10
time because it is readily verifiable
24:13
and established so the courts are
24:15
expected to take mandatory judicial
24:17
notice and the courts are likewise
24:19
expected judicial notice of official
24:21
acts of the legislative executive and
24:24
the Judicial Department it has been
24:26
there for the longest time of the
24:28
Philippines except that they inserted
24:29
the drafters in certain national
24:32
government national government now what
24:35
is the reason for the insertion to be
24:37
massaged answer if I underline if I earn
24:40
money while in the month yes it is clear
24:43
however let me give you a little
24:45
background on this you know that there
24:48
is has always been an issue as to the
24:51
court taking judicial notice of an
24:53
ordinance you remember that the court
24:55
taking judicial notice of an ordinance
24:58
so if you recall the case of SJS society
25:01
clear involving the City of Manila the
25:04
Supreme Court was confronted with the
25:07
question and whether or not it could
25:08
take judicial notice of an ordinance on
25:10
the city of Manila and the Supreme Court
25:13
said we cannot take judicial notice of
25:16
the ordinance of Manila although there
25:18
have been repeated jurisprudence
25:21
all jurisprudence that says courts can
25:23
take judicial notice of an ordinance so
25:26
where where do we stand I would want to
25:28
be very clear that with the insert with
25:30
the insertion
25:32
our courts are not expected to take
25:34
judicial notice of these ordinances
25:36
however we local or trial courts within
25:41
certain jurisdictions and when their
25:43
charters provide it to be they are
25:45
expected to take judicial notice of
25:48
ordinances within their jurisdiction now
25:51
let us now proceed section 2 there is no
25:54
amendment I will attach to that section
25:56
3 there is an amendment now if you would
25:59
recall such students would would ignore
26:03
section 3 they would always remember
26:05
mandatory and discretionary but they at
26:08
times forget section number 3 section
26:12
number fails important because section
26:14
number 3 tells us please take note of
26:17
this that any matter could be subject of
26:20
judicial notice guide I know we take
26:22
judicial notice now before they
26:24
discussed video many parents are
26:26
concerned they said a new class I
26:28
remember owning GU Niang so what we mean
26:32
any matter
26:32
for example enjoy if I'm not mistaken in
26:36
2009 you could ask the court to take
26:38
judicial notice of the fact now based on
26:42
the provision of the law
26:43
you could call the attention of the
26:44
court during pretrial desist Amendment
26:46
during pretrial and trial okay and the
26:50
next amendment is the word request okay
26:54
direct the intention or request the
26:57
request was replaced with a motion to be
27:00
very clear because now the court could
27:03
take judicial notice of any matter upon
27:05
its own initiative or upon motion of the
27:07
party Amina so sir in America yes during
27:10
try during pretrial during trial yes any
27:14
matter sir there is there a need to
27:18
present evidence now the purpose of the
27:20
hearing is solely to ascertain and this
27:22
was another insertion to determine the
27:26
propriety of the matter subject of
27:28
traditional so you will have to justify
27:29
the report that is explain to the court
27:31
why the court could take judicial notice
27:33
is the same now there is a second
27:36
paragraph the second paragraph
27:38
basically the was not changed except for
27:42
the insertion of the word motion just
27:45
the first paragraph the court in its own
27:47
initiative on upon motion of the party
27:50
now the court upon its own initiative
27:52
remains but the word request was
27:55
replaced by emotion so how it works
27:58
remains to be the same it Odin DragonCon
28:00
Ilana indeed to amend men indeed
28:02
amendment just to see the difference
28:04
negative during pretrial any matter
28:07
after trial or on appeal or on appeal
28:12
you are while you could ask the court to
28:15
take judicial notice but you have to be
28:18
limited only on what on matters which
28:20
are decisive of the outcome of the case
28:22
or to be very specific decisive of the
28:25
material issue in the case now let me
28:29
now proceed to judicial admission
28:32
judicial admission is under item section
28:35
number four sir banal go beyond the
28:38
concept remains to be the same judicial
28:40
admission and
28:49
you
30:37
because you did not contest a provision
30:40
then it is deemed as an admission as you
30:43
know that you know that
30:45
okay am i let me just I know I let me
30:50
just check I will just pause very
30:53
briefly I will expose it very bit
31:02
you
31:25
I'm AK because they say I'm good now
31:29
back as I said judicial admission could
31:33
be at any stage of the Pacific's when
31:36
you have a judicial admission but the
31:38
only provision that was changed there
31:40
was or imputed admission was that in
31:43
fact maybe this was a replacement on the
31:46
phrase no such admission was made now
31:49
would be a bad is it better worded I
31:52
believe so because lawyers have the
31:54
tendency to make implications in a
31:57
pleading they would say oh you filed an
32:00
answer you did not specifically deny and
32:02
therefore you have admitted it that's an
32:05
imputation so this I think is a better
32:09
wording okay when it says the imputed
32:12
admission was not in fact made there is
32:14
no such admission so that gives a
32:16
certain leeway to be able to attest
32:19
implications of admissions now let us
32:22
now proceed with documentary evidence
32:25
let us now proceed with documentary
32:28
evidence now some of you may be
32:30
surprised at Lima self parenting
32:32
complexed parent whom abide oh okay as
32:36
you know before I start we are now on
32:38
route 130 there are three basic
32:41
classifications we have object we have
32:44
documentary and we have testimonial we
32:47
will take much a great time okay to
32:50
discuss documentary and testimonial
32:53
evidence object evidence was remained
32:55
unchanged it is subject to the census of
32:59
the court so I will not proceed to
33:01
documentary evidence which is found in
33:03
section 2 of rule 130 now okay as you
33:08
know in the past this is the wording of
33:11
of Delano when it comes to documentary
33:13
evidence it consists of writings okay or
33:17
any material containing what letters
33:19
words numbers figures and symbols or
33:23
their equivalent so Union however kindly
33:27
take note that the times have really
33:28
changed that is why the amendment
33:31
considered number one recording is now
33:34
part of definition of document what else
33:37
for
33:38
the grafts are now included now what's
33:41
the basis there is jurisprudential basis
33:43
in considering it as one documentary
33:45
evidence this is by reason of the case
33:48
of people versus Zepa it's the May 27
33:52
2008 case yes
33:54
and what's the third sounds great sounds
33:58
so now you have addition additional
34:03
additional types of documentary evidence
34:05
number one recording photographs and
34:08
sounds but you have to take note that
34:10
this should be offered as proof of their
34:13
contents I would like to be very clear
34:14
with us so that the the recording the
34:18
photograph and the sound should be
34:20
offered as proof of that but then stare
34:23
off now
34:25
the provision the photograph photograph
34:27
has now been one just define okay what
34:32
it includes that is a new provision that
34:35
was taken from Mueller versus
34:37
Kirkpatrick a long-established
34:40
authority in evidence and what does
34:42
photograph include it includes still
34:44
pictures drawings stored images x-ray
34:49
films motion pictures or videos now let
34:53
me highlight for you drawings
34:55
Noreen's so but in droving cusamano yes
34:58
that was this starts in the case not a
35:01
Philippine case a US case sailor versus
35:06
lucasfilm's
35:07
that is why drawings are drawings is
35:10
included in the definition of a
35:12
photograph but please take note and I
35:14
would like to be very clear with this
35:15
based on US authority that the
35:18
enumeration I mentioned is not exclusive
35:20
I will repeat the definition I gave you
35:23
based on the provision of the law is not
35:25
exclusive therefore if at some future
35:28
time the supreme court feels that there
35:30
are other items that may be included by
35:32
jurisprudence then it may be included
35:35
now some of you may be a bit puzzled
35:40
[Music]
35:42
Parrinello bruna bin abbas aho you x-ray
35:46
photograph video audio recording these
35:49
are object evidence yes but now it has
35:53
been covered now covered by documentary
35:55
evidence but be very careful for a
35:58
slowness the photograph the recording
36:01
the sound or the drawing are offered for
36:04
one as proof of its good like to be very
36:08
clear with that because for example it
36:10
will remain to be an object come come be
36:13
an appealing Pompeo JQ object I didn't
36:16
you were hurt because of me using it to
36:18
hit you okay
36:20
so but this remains okay if you use that
36:24
in good context that's object but if you
36:27
use it to what to prove what it contains
36:32
then it is documentary evidence and
36:33
kindly take note wherever it may be
36:36
found
36:37
okay whatever it may be found let us
36:39
maybe on a shirt yes maybe on the wall
36:42
for as long as the contents thereof are
36:45
the subject of the truth now let us now
36:48
proceed ok let us now proceed I hope
36:52
that path that's clear now let us now
36:53
proceed with origins and the original
36:56
document coolie
36:57
ok the origin services in the lead me
37:00
the best Evidence Rule and yes that was
37:03
originally the best evidence room and it
37:07
has now been replaced the title is
37:09
orange equipment rule service the rule
37:12
still the same the answer is yes ok I
37:15
will expand the discussion the answer
37:16
sir what we need when the contents of
37:19
the document is the subject of their
37:20
inquiry you will have to present the
37:23
green channel that is the rule that is
37:25
the best Evidence Rule the title has
37:27
been repealed
37:35
you
37:40
okay I hope I'm back I hope I'm back
37:45
I was lost there for a while okay
37:48
I was lost for a while just tell me if
37:51
I'm back okay so I will continue now I
37:54
will repeat from where I was are
37:56
interrupted by the connection
37:58
kindly take note that under the old rule
38:01
it was the best Evidence Rule under the
38:04
present rule it is now the original
38:06
document room is there a change in the
38:09
manner of the appreciation of the rule
38:11
the answer is no and let me recite this
38:14
for you when the subject of the inquiry
38:16
is the contents of the document you will
38:20
have to present the original document
38:22
that is the rule it is now the real
38:25
document rule except that Pan Daniel
38:28
originally it was only limited to
38:30
documents are limited logins and
38:32
document oh but now it extends to write
38:35
things as I mentioned to you a while ago
38:37
writings recording photographs or other
38:41
records before okay so that in domain
38:46
colony or some riping recording okay
38:49
photographs or other records please take
38:53
note of that
38:53
now according to the drafters that was
38:56
really a misnomer yeah I know agreeable
38:59
don't complete I completely agree bucket
39:01
I say I'm lawyer
39:03
I see the practitioners making
39:05
objections of this manner when there is
39:08
a question pertaining to the document
39:10
and it anything about the document the
39:13
other party will object he will say
39:14
objection or not the document is the
39:17
best evidence he's he is just testing
39:21
the ability of the witness to remember
39:24
what it was it's not even a violation
39:26
the parole Evidence Rule that he tries
39:28
to introduce something else the question
39:29
is just could you please tell us and
39:31
this is a question it could actually be
39:32
the document could you please tell us
39:34
what the compensation is objection you
39:36
don't know the document is the best
39:37
evidence so read this I think this is
39:42
more accurate now that if the document
39:45
the contents of the document is the
39:47
subject of the inquiry now includes
39:48
recording photographs or writing and
39:51
here you will have to present the origin
39:54
I hope that's clear now I will now move
39:56
on to the exceptions now Maha bite oh he
40:00
Niko I don't intend to discuss point of
40:02
those but of course I will give you a
40:04
rundown para McEachern have been
40:06
consigned by penis oh okay
40:08
the exceptions are more or less attack
40:13
but there are two new concepts
40:16
introduced let me start let me give you
40:18
a rundown of the exceptions number one
40:20
the document has been lost or destroyed
40:21
so you cannot expect to present the
40:24
original number two the original is in
40:26
the custody of the others party that
40:27
despite noticed he refuses to present it
40:31
okay and this is where one amendment was
40:34
inserted in this item be anyone or the
40:37
original cannot be obtained by local
40:41
judicial processes or procedure so don't
40:44
live in ASEAN soul meaning there is the
40:47
court may have issued the processes a
40:49
subpoena duces tecum but despite
40:52
issuance of the process what the
40:55
original cannot be obtained can you
40:57
present can you present secondary
41:00
evidence of course you could present one
41:03
if I follow this concept of subsection B
41:06
you could present a copy recital in some
41:10
attended documents or testimony but if
41:13
you will look at the provision secondary
41:16
evidence the subsequent revision there
41:18
is nothing that expressly applies to
41:20
this so I would say because it falls
41:22
under B okay how to prove document in
41:27
the custody of the undressed party will
41:28
be the same manner as you will prove it
41:30
or to lay the basis for presentation of
41:33
secondary evidence you will have the
41:34
established execution okay existence and
41:38
the fact that one there was a there was
41:41
a application foreign tradition
41:44
processes but the original was not
41:46
obtained now you could present a copy
41:48
recital it's an authentic documents and
41:50
testimony okay na system in yourselves
41:53
and backing away and the ASA Colombian
41:54
and rafters no that was based on the
41:57
case of P and B versus or Leela
42:00
that is a 1956 case 98 fail - OH - okay
42:05
now let us now proceed
42:08
with the rest of the exception yeah of
42:10
course you know that when the documents
42:12
are so numerous okay numerous accounts
42:15
and it will entail a great weight and
42:18
great great loss of time it will be a
42:21
great loss of time if the same will be
42:23
presented and when you in what you
42:25
intend to produce is only to establish
42:27
is only the general result you learn
42:30
this mr. Bishop we in general resorts on
42:33
let's say no that's Illustrated Danny
42:34
Kohana ball and Demento Sonoma two feet
42:38
Maggie no nothing Bella 150 on at all
42:41
you need to establish would be the
42:42
profit and loss of the company for the
42:46
last fifteen years do you need to
42:48
present all of this if your intention is
42:51
to establish the profit and loss you
42:53
don't need to present all of this all
42:55
that the court requires Eastman general
42:58
result of the whole now in the past as a
43:02
big in Armenian Oh summary chart graph
43:05
the no necessity nominal charge summary
43:08
calculation but that was not in the
43:11
provision of the law that was in u.s.
43:14
rules on evidence so we had to some
43:17
extent adopted it but now it is now
43:19
introduced it is now part of our
43:22
provision and for those of you holding
43:24
on to the new provision you will find a
43:26
provision on summaries so this is the
43:30
mandate by which you present secondary
43:32
evidence because the documents are so
43:34
numerous and it will entail great loss
43:36
of time to present it and all you need
43:38
to establish is the general result this
43:40
is the provision that will apply so what
43:43
will you present not all of those
43:45
voluminous or luminous document but I
43:47
will present the chart a calculation or
43:50
a summary that would suffice and that
43:53
was also repeatedly declared
43:56
since the case of companion marítima
43:59
versus allied free workers and 1977 case
44:03
so young was marijuana that day well
44:05
irony but again that's not that we are
44:07
nothing to worry because it is
44:10
consistent with prevailing jurisprudence
44:13
then the next one is one when the
44:17
original is in the custody of a public
44:20
officer or recorded
44:22
in a public office remains to be the
44:23
same this an embargo Ito and Bernardo
44:26
and Ito medalist in anonymity god oh hey
44:30
Sabrina when the original is not closely
44:32
related to the controlling issue
44:35
I will admit when the original is not
44:37
closely related to the controlling issue
44:39
named serene Olympics be human
44:42
controlling issue so I will need to give
44:45
you some background based on the
44:47
discussion of foreign authorities and
44:49
this is true Mueller versus Kirkpatrick
44:53
this provision is truly an exception for
44:57
collateral matter let me give you a
44:58
little background as you know I see
45:00
because you've studied evidence in rule
45:02
1:28 section for what does it say a a
45:07
collateral matter is that which is no
45:09
relation to the fact omission so well
45:11
I'm elements god it is no relation to
45:13
the fact in issue but the court may
45:15
consider this if it would tend to
45:17
establish to a reasonable degree
45:19
TEKsystems of the fact initial okay so
45:22
palatable matter generally well I am
45:23
however this according to the court is
45:27
an exception
45:28
okay why you don't need to present me
45:30
you don't need to present the original
45:32
an exception for collateral matter
45:34
according to Mueller
45:36
examples are street names license plates
45:40
billboards newspaper headlines
45:43
commercial establishments and brand
45:45
names now don't be worried anymore
45:48
apparently Machado money made you us I
45:51
think for our purposes this is not far
45:55
from our jurisprudence because we have
45:58
numerous jurisprudence that says this
46:00
when the contents of the document is not
46:02
the subject of the inquiry she not
46:04
belong in unusual example I mean did one
46:07
should save independent a balloon and co
46:09
are known as elude indeed of absence L
46:11
what are the stipulations there is i
46:12
photocopied the video option sale will
46:14
suffice because the contents of the same
46:16
is not the controlling issue indicates
46:18
so did i may another in today because
46:21
the contents in the document are not the
46:24
controlling issue it's not a controlling
46:27
issue in the case let me give you also
46:28
another example for example a plane take
46:31
care okay a plane ticket all i need to
46:34
establish is that i more than the plane
46:35
okay that plane ticket would be enough
46:38
to I need to present the original a
46:40
photocopy would be enough why I am not
46:42
contesting that fine terms of the plane
46:44
ticket the whole tension which is not
46:46
the subject of the inquiry okay another
46:49
example will be a billboard on Santa
46:51
Monica I figured in an accident cuz he
46:53
nothing in the pond and then once are so
46:54
billboard
46:56
okay it's are the words or the contents
47:01
of the Billboard for it no well what is
47:03
important is it out there wasn't
47:05
important now let us now proceed to what
47:08
is an original it Arendt and I'm putting
47:10
you it all Island Bango ok natbag we
47:14
talk I keep any oh if you're holding on
47:16
to the new provision damning who hit
47:17
move it go ahead and this was taken from
47:20
the Federal Rule of Evidence okay anyone
47:23
okay Omega no became worried okay i'ma
47:25
go any deeper now what is an original on
47:29
what is the oil drilling on a tire an
47:30
old rule an original it's when the
47:33
contents of the document is the subject
47:34
of the inquiry number two when the
47:37
document is accepted are or about the
47:40
same time and those the rest are
47:43
considered as duplicate you remember
47:45
that a number three entries except I
47:48
entered entries make a corny on the time
47:51
with the transaction young major attempt
47:54
a banana England all right I mean am I
47:56
on this is the one original of a
47:59
document is the document itself so the
48:01
original is the original document itself
48:04
or its what counterpart hold on there is
48:08
a specific definition of a counterpart
48:10
and whether it be an original or a
48:14
counterpart it is intended to have the
48:17
same effect by the person executive
48:21
executive information so k-11 the
48:23
whether it be an original or original or
48:27
one in a part the effect isn't the same
48:31
and that is the intention of the one who
48:34
issued now and considering that we have
48:37
expanded or the drafters have expanded
48:39
the definition of a document okay now
48:43
the question is what is an original of a
48:45
photograph what is an original it
48:48
includes kind
48:49
note that negative or any print
48:52
therefore all right so any print from
48:55
the same a printout yes that is an
48:58
original of at photograph how about if
49:00
it is a computer data okay or that which
49:04
is an output of a similar device as a
49:07
computer what is considered as the
49:09
original okay
49:11
any print out or other output readable
49:16
by side civilian sir pardon for me in
49:18
the arena pattern in our anatomy and yes
49:20
not in the rules of court not in the
49:22
rules of evidence but that is found you
49:24
could check that out in rule 4 section 2
49:26
on the rules on electronics heavy that
49:29
chasm in your familiy that so but if
49:31
it's if it's a data instead if it's a a
49:34
a an output or a printout of a computer
49:37
or a similar device that is considered
49:40
as original okay I'll put readable by
49:43
side now let us now define what is a
49:46
duplicate because a while ago we said
49:48
that an original is the document itself
49:51
right or in counterpart okay now what is
49:55
a countertop a duplicate is a
49:58
counterpart erasable no and duplicate
50:02
now is a counterpart and infer yet to be
50:05
considered for a duplicate to be
50:07
considered and a counterpart it should
50:09
be any of the following number one it
50:12
has the same impression as the original
50:14
same impressionist original number two
50:17
that duplicate to be considered as a
50:19
counterpart it is from the same matrix
50:22
and number three if it's my photography
50:25
it could have been an enlargement it
50:27
could be a miniature or it could be a
50:29
chemical reproduction on electronic rare
50:32
recording okay electronic rerecord it
50:36
again this is a bit familiar to some you
50:39
recall this is a bit familiar yes
50:42
because in what the electronic Evidence
50:46
Rule now let us now proceed to still on
50:50
the provision region I hope that's clear
50:52
we have explained or what is an original
50:55
are the regions a document itself and
50:56
it's one and its counterpart and we have
51:00
defined what accounting part is it
51:03
Rickett is a counterpart now can the
51:06
duplicate Diana
51:07
duplicate pwetty by noting a contest
51:09
yeah yeah no good can that be contested
51:12
yes a duplicate could be contested if it
51:18
is one a question of its genuineness is
51:21
raised the genuineness and authenticity
51:23
document of the duplicate discrimination
51:27
severe it is not the same as the
51:28
original I would want to contest it then
51:30
you can test it yes let's found in
51:32
section 4c of rule 130 and the second
51:36
the second way to do it is if based on
51:40
the circumstances it is unjust or
51:42
inequitable to admit the duplicate okay
51:46
so based on circumstances it is
51:47
inequitable Orang just to admit it again
51:50
in Sabina
51:51
sir pardon familiar the end yes that was
51:54
from the electronic Evidence Rule taken
51:57
that portion section to rule 4
52:00
okay now let us now proceed ok canina
52:05
didn't get clear on secondary evidence I
52:07
mentioned is the secondary evidence now
52:11
about summaries but that is not
52:15
completely Nabila nothing if what is the
52:18
document are numerous document and to
52:21
present that will entail great loss of
52:23
time and all you need establish is the
52:25
general assault and one's ability to
52:27
present a calculation to present a chart
52:29
or to present to somebody
52:31
however Hindi pop will be long the gun
52:33
hood the other because the other party
52:36
can copy or examine the same and this is
52:38
the procedure this is the second part
52:41
this is section 7 of rule 130 don't miss
52:44
this out while the other party
52:46
presenting who who is not obligated to
52:48
present the region can only present a
52:50
chart can only present a summary the
52:53
other party or even the court can
52:55
require examination or copying or both
52:58
by the matrix a minion or champion by
53:01
the adverse party the court may allow it
53:03
okay
53:04
I will allow it within a reasonable time
53:07
and place so the court may issue an
53:11
order that they may produce in court
53:13
okay
53:13
below Epona possibly upon request the
53:17
what may see the reason for a copycat
53:19
examination and the court may designate
53:21
the time in place or the court may
53:23
requiring that the documents okay the
53:26
doctor regional spit presented in court
53:29
produced in court the answer is yes now
53:31
let me now just give you some insight of
53:35
an experience that I have that hopefully
53:37
this my product summary will be very
53:40
helpful to you you don't and an emu and
53:42
get somebody a move and Ohio no master
53:45
Johnny Godwin Kaka pal and Demento if
53:50
every document if the contents of every
53:54
document is the subject of the inquiry
53:56
you will have to go through the process
53:58
of presenting every single document I
54:01
have at least three cases of what large
54:04
scale estava prosecution it took me
54:10
numerous hearing dates to identify to
54:14
have my witness identify it to have it
54:16
authenticated by the person who accepted
54:19
it and I know India program in numerous
54:22
takuna Hindi paper idea you can do that
54:24
the only instance that you could do away
54:27
with the with the original if the
54:29
documents are humorous if it will entail
54:31
great loss of time and all you need to
54:33
establish is a general result okay so
54:35
what I discussed as to matters of
54:37
procedure what in the adverse party
54:39
could ask for a copy and examination is
54:41
a safety net for the law that is a
54:43
safety net of the law now let us now
54:46
proceed okay let us now proceed with a
54:51
role Evidence Rule evidence it is
54:54
outlined on a Makita no evidence of
54:57
written agreement perry any Lagoona
55:00
parable evidentially Bundaberg was a
55:02
parole Evidence Rule if you have a copy
55:04
is some word okay now let me lead to you
55:08
the let me make to you the rule okay
55:11
that relate to the rule or aside the
55:13
venom okay I'm back okay let me lead to
55:18
you the rule parole Evidence what is in
55:20
the four corners on the document the
55:24
terms in the four corners of the
55:26
document it's director Satori of what
55:28
the participant we need apart therefore
55:30
we cannot
55:31
outside of the terms that off therefore
55:33
if the compensations I finally found
55:35
some you cannot my extraneous evidence
55:36
or what you call parol evidence suggests
55:39
the always have Indian upon generation
55:40
not know if the term is only for two
55:43
years as reflected in the agreement
55:45
you cannot insist I Hindi ho sample
55:47
because that will be in violation of the
55:49
pro- sure but again the law the rules
55:52
and the drafters thereof knew not eleven
55:56
and because there are instances foreign
55:57
they were agreement subsequent to yes
56:00
the original document says two years but
56:02
we had a subsequent amendment of that
56:04
agreement an agreement subsequent
56:06
thereto that says ten years term as you
56:09
could present extraneous evidence as to
56:11
the validity or index if it does not
56:14
reflect the true agreement of the
56:15
parties which is the most common or
56:17
there is imperfection ambiguity
56:21
intrinsic ambiguity or mistake okay and
56:24
that mistake should be a mistake of a
56:26
mistake of fact not a mistake of law
56:29
now him be and a background we don't it
56:31
will impair my own time understanding
56:34
young for the students what was insert
56:36
what was inserted was to work verified
56:39
now why was it verified for those of you
56:41
who've taken up an evidence you will
56:43
recall that for you to present all of
56:45
those that I've enumerated the
56:46
exceptions you will have to put it in
56:51
issue in the pleadings thamma you have
56:53
to put it in issue in the pleadings and
56:55
once you've put it in the peelings you
56:58
could modify explain and I get the moon
57:00
but denying something small you are they
57:03
gonna Molly who young documento layer
57:04
believe me personally and there was a
57:06
subsequent document or the document was
57:09
actually different from what the part is
57:11
intended you could explain to the court
57:12
but you have to put it in issue in the
57:14
pleadings
57:15
what was inserted set up time in good
57:17
cinema pero is a word of it possible it
57:20
should be verified you be something some
57:23
Palmore you see that before you should
57:26
not be more in the stuff reflect the
57:27
true intent of the parties if you're
57:29
there is subsequent so we go be near
57:33
almost automatic demand aa map Angelica
57:36
John oh hey so please bear that in mind
57:38
that's the only insertion and when you
57:41
talk verified it should be under oath
57:43
okay there is an affidavit
57:45
in support of your contentions now let
57:47
us now proceed okay let us now proceed
57:50
are we on time or were based
57:52
particularly we're good very good
57:54
they're not but BBK appoint no no I will
57:56
give you a break after an hour and a
58:00
half or so and then we'll proceed again
58:02
now we will now continue with the if you
58:06
will see you will notice in my draft I
58:08
will on my all time there is no
58:10
testimonial evidence and you will
58:12
likewise notice that there is a deleted
58:14
probation now attorney I believe that
58:18
provisioning on new original section 21
58:21
young disqualification by
58:31
you
58:48
you
58:56
ah there were
59:05
you
60:44
you
60:47
you
60:48
you
60:57
you
61:08
okay I'm back I have to be we have to be
61:12
very patient I'm sorry about that it
61:16
happens every now and then so let's
61:19
continue I was discussing or I was
61:22
elaborating on the deleted permission
61:25
that was section 21 that was the
61:28
original section 21 of rule 130 and what
61:31
is that permission that referred to or
61:33
pertain to mental incapacity or mental
61:39
immaturity if you would record a while
61:42
anion it doesn't mean though that it's
61:45
no longer a disqualification I would
61:48
want to be very clear with this it
61:50
doesn't mean that there is it's no
61:51
longer a disqualification because if the
61:54
person is insane definitely he is
61:56
disqualified to testify but that is
61:59
consistent with now the present section
62:02
21 on qualification of the test has this
62:05
been changed no it was not changed
62:06
remains to be the rule and it's a good
62:09
rule that the person to be a witness is
62:11
able to perceive in perceiving can make
62:14
known as perception to another I will
62:16
repeat the person is able to perceive
62:18
with his senses and perceiving could
62:21
make known as perception when I'm the
62:23
time of course--it of his production
62:25
record but at the entry may be
62:27
immediately after the event took place
62:28
or the conduct took place he narrated it
62:31
that's a different story that made
62:33
following other exceptions to the
62:35
hearsay rule but for our purposes a
62:37
person is qualified to be a witness if
62:40
it's able to perceive and perceiving
62:42
could make known his perception to
62:44
another so therefore even with the
62:46
deletion of that it doesn't change the
62:49
fact that if the person is so fine and
62:51
sound mind he is disqualified or if a
62:55
child is a child of ten thirty years
62:57
okay they say don't they testify in
63:01
moment in deep way they own in fact you
63:04
would recall a Kiley take note of this
63:06
for students the child witness
63:08
examination rule remains to be a good
63:10
rule of the Supreme Court and what does
63:12
it say it is the duty of the court if
63:14
confronted or presented with a a child
63:18
with
63:18
- are to conduct a competency
63:22
examination if the child knows what's
63:24
right and what's wrong
63:25
a competency examination and that is
63:28
covered by the child with this
63:29
examination rule that applies to a child
63:32
witness a child victim in a child
63:35
accused person is thinking about that
63:37
over there so therefore it is still a
63:40
child okay but still be allowed to
63:43
testify for as long as one is able to
63:47
perceive and make known his perception
63:49
to another and therefore is competent to
63:51
testify now let me just give you another
63:54
example on mental incapacity before I
63:58
leave this item completely there are
64:00
numerous jurisprudence that has allowed
64:03
okay that has allowed one that has
64:07
allowed a person of slight mental
64:09
retardation to testify
64:11
marami and I keep an eye on maybe he has
64:13
a man he has a physical age of 48 but a
64:17
mental age of 16 can he testify yes he
64:21
could testify this is where the court
64:23
will have to ascertain the ability of
64:26
the witness though he may have some
64:28
strep radiation only slight to be able
64:30
to perceive and make known his
64:31
perception to another okay now let us
64:35
now proceed to another interesting
64:39
change of number a Makita you sound
64:42
playing gonna make it and again
64:43
testimony confined to personal knowledge
64:46
okay so this was this is if I'm not
64:50
mistaken presently section 22 the paper
64:52
this is now section 22 but originally
64:55
this was 36 so my numerator um provision
64:59
Karimi encode the menu 36 CD discussing
65:01
: I only but none so 22 know if you look
65:05
at the old rule might eat them all on
65:07
person on the top some personal
65:09
knowledge exceptions to hearsay regarded
65:11
them are bands in here but now later on
65:13
you would note that there is a full
65:16
definition of hearsay that we will
65:18
discuss the power make it on your full
65:20
definition but for now let's focus on
65:22
this you don't have to worry because
65:24
this is consistent with okay this is
65:28
consistent with the qualification of the
65:30
witness and what is that that he has
65:31
personal knowledge
65:32
but for a person to testify he has
65:34
personal knowledge what if you would
65:37
want us sir concepts in jurisprudence
65:39
you would say first-hand knowledge okay
65:42
he has personal knowledge and he was
65:45
able to have the personal knowledge of
65:46
the facts and circumstances that he's
65:50
testifying one because he was able to
65:51
want to proceed so that is consistent
65:54
the person twenty-two is consistent with
65:57
section twenty one qualification
65:59
now who can I hire the map and pinnacle
66:03
Island to say classic qualification
66:05
discussed and then we have
66:06
disqualification you remember and one of
66:09
the disqualifications that is very
66:12
popular among students is the
66:14
disqualification by reason of marriage
66:16
this has been asked a number of times in
66:18
the bar exams may on just be more
66:20
certain about buying the bar go one
66:23
Pilon you read a novel and about go it
66:25
on major London tomorrow
66:27
in the past if you look at the whole
66:29
tradition it says for and against
66:32
therefore the prohibition to testify is
66:35
what for or against so if you will
66:39
support the declaration of your spouse
66:42
let us say a pasando or participants oh
66:45
wait onion bowel you for your own bowel
66:50
you in support of the spouse to the
66:52
point they can see it says for or
66:54
against okay but now but now the
67:00
preposition for was drop by drop so what
67:03
was the pain was only a testimony
67:05
against the spouse Unilever and
67:07
disqualification right so we must say
67:10
the wife or the husband cannot testify
67:12
in favor of the others
67:14
yes in the Macedonian that will be
67:17
self-serving or such a being a lobby in
67:19
support of the drafters were aware of
67:21
that but again we have judges or
67:23
expected to scrutinize every testimony
67:27
to judiciously understand the evidence
67:31
presented so one time already done so
67:33
for was dropped okay now so it is now
67:37
clearly limited to what adverse powell
67:41
testimony concerning the man and
67:42
jurisprudence see rossabi adverse
67:45
spousal testimony
67:46
okay but the original provision says for
67:49
and against so the four was dropped and
67:53
the reason for this why do you have this
67:56
disqualification it is to promote the
67:58
harmony of the marriage Demma that is
68:00
the reason and if you will recall the
68:03
case of Alvarez lettuce Ramirez a 2005
68:05
case a human testable testify Sabino
68:10
mr. Paulo Lippert testify in the lucky
68:12
misawa number by say this is criminal
68:16
case and then the she wanted to testify
68:21
against the husband in a criminal case
68:24
Diana Payne combating me on a tsunami
68:26
okay Dunning area in a law banning whole
68:30
shame premier a stimuli against me
68:33
something you cannot testify against me
68:35
though it's an address spousal no
68:37
testimony because we remain to be
68:39
married and that marriage is a valid
68:42
that exist in marriage Sabina
68:43
they are Papa clink ooh no no no it's a
68:46
supreme court and Superior Court yes
68:49
why you remain to be married you have
68:53
been separated in fact for quite some
68:55
time and strain the polygon relationship
68:58
you know and there is no harmony of
69:00
marriage to promote tribunal court
69:02
so therefore he needed a plain young
69:04
Andrus Powell testimony I hope that I
69:07
explained that to you now passed by you
69:10
detour by Reid oh no this will be
69:14
interesting for you this will be
69:16
interesting and I hope you will bear
69:18
with me let us walk through this no we
69:21
will walk through this and sanam Adam
69:24
Benitez in your privileged
69:25
communications this is covered by
69:28
section 24 still in section 24 of rule
69:31
113 the same number
69:41
you
70:47
you
70:53
I think I'm back okay
70:58
my screen was frozen again but I think
71:01
I'm back now so I will continue so as I
71:05
said section 24 covers privileged
71:07
communications the same number as the
71:09
old rule you have the same room
71:11
privileged communications but there are
71:12
a lot of amendments ok section 1a
71:16
subsection a pertaining to one
71:19
pertaining to marital privilege
71:22
unchanged all right little diagram but
71:24
before I proceed I would want you most
71:26
specially students to take note of this
71:28
what I want you to to take note number
71:30
one as we discuss privileged
71:33
communication remember that saluted on
71:34
relationships relationships may be
71:37
fillion relationship may be husband and
71:39
wife may be professional relationship
71:41
doctor-patient attorney-client okay or a
71:44
relationship with a public officer in
71:47
relation to the state relationship and
71:49
the second one is that in discussing all
71:52
of these privileged communications
71:53
please take note that we're talking of
71:55
what in discussing this privileged
71:57
communication we're talking of
71:59
confidential information not just any
72:01
other information but confidential
72:03
information I would want you to take the
72:05
flag before I proceed now let me start
72:08
with privileged communication which is
72:10
attorney-client now even similar paisa
72:12
per nickel-iron ok now why do you want
72:17
attorney-client atomic Bango number one
72:21
not only is this attorney-client
72:24
privilege limited to an attorney
72:26
but now extends to who someone who is
72:30
reasonably believed by the client to be
72:32
licensed to engage in the practice of
72:35
law so some of the links Alita unit
72:37
popping up in the pretend abogado and
72:40
because of this representation the
72:43
client believing that he is a lawyer
72:45
shared vital information confidential
72:47
information
72:49
is the person pretending to be a lawyer
72:52
covered by the privilege should he keep
72:54
the information confidential and should
72:57
he be prevented from testifying should
73:00
he want to testify the answer is yes our
73:04
way now it extends beyond that
73:06
so all those who pretends or those who
73:09
is recently believed by the client to be
73:12
licensed to practice law are also
73:15
covered by the turn reflects now you
73:17
will tell me I parry need upon opening
73:19
this Marion dear Manabu guard oh not a
73:21
chill about the mission I believe you
73:24
could sue him similarly if you suffered
73:25
damages by reason of his actions you
73:27
could even sue him criminally there was
73:29
fraud that he committed or any other
73:31
offense that he committed so waiting
73:34
operation its demand a simile or
73:36
creminis number one recently believed to
73:39
be a lawyer
73:39
number two the coverage of the agency is
73:45
now expanded Cecily because last before
73:49
the amendment
73:50
this is attorney-client privilege is the
73:53
only privilege that extends its
73:56
privilege to a secretary
73:59
stenographer original provision uniindia
74:02
in Bangor secretary stenographer and
74:04
clerk and let me give you some insight
74:06
on this though let me give you some
74:08
insight on this market alhamdulillah
74:11
unaware I'm relationally some secret
74:13
area sai-san st. clair de la lune Azhar
74:17
under Clinton to Gondo most of the time
74:20
Boogedy aisle in Africa medium sized
74:23
human being small or single petitioners
74:26
appearing in Olympus and nagging
74:27
continued secret area and most of the
74:30
time the secretary hears
74:32
confidential information from this
74:33
client again it was a mandatory area
74:37
hundred mahara things he a tour me if
74:41
you would not it extends to secretary
74:42
stenographer conferred but based on the
74:44
amendment it now extends to those
74:46
assisting the attorney and who are those
74:48
assisting the attorney paralegal
74:52
apprenticed how about associate employer
74:54
yes
74:55
extends to him or her now how about the
74:59
private investigator actually in some
75:01
states in the u.s. extended yawn but
75:04
star system the lawyer but I think I do
75:06
and they don't want to venture on giving
75:08
an opinion at this because I would want
75:10
to wait for the Supreme Court this is a
75:12
minimum pilot began to come on down with
75:14
a private investigator
75:15
okay and the next amendment on
75:18
attorney-client privilege it is a
75:19
rundown
75:21
the next important no the next important
75:23
amendment would be a rundown of the
75:25
exceptions there are a number of
75:27
exceptions there are five exceptions
75:30
okay
75:30
the first one is one if the information
75:36
received by the lawyer and shared by the
75:38
client is in the meaning to me so you
76:02
cannot use this as a shield not to
76:04
testify okay
76:06
if someone are subpoenaed by the court
76:08
or even required to testify next the
76:11
next exception is claimants through the
76:15
same deceased client and I think this is
76:17
a very good oh no no this is a very good
76:20
amendment and for your guidance and for
76:23
some professors who are with us this was
76:25
taken from the Federal Rule of Evidence
76:28
503 okay and I recall in some of my in
76:33
most of my lecture reviews in evidence
76:35
in the past I've been discussing this
76:37
but kindly take note claims through the
76:40
same deceased client as to
76:42
communications what relevant to an issue
76:46
between the parties and I would want to
76:48
be very clear in this claims through the
76:50
same this is classic classic a sonido
76:55
humor wills contest
77:03
again
77:07
am I still uh my video
77:14
I hope that pie was not interrupted
77:20
again okay so I was referring to
77:23
claimants to the same deceased liar
77:25
so when can you use this in cases of
77:28
real contest because to the mind of the
77:30
court and the authorities in the u.s.
77:32
submitting ugly the lawyer will be in a
77:36
better position if there are dispute
77:38
there's you know if there is a real
77:40
contest and this will be a way to share
77:43
to the court what is in the mind of the
77:45
dissident during its lifetime so a good
77:48
example of this is a will contest so
77:50
that if you will complete the provision
77:52
of the law and let me go the portion who
77:54
claims whose claims are by the estate I
77:57
by a state or interstate or by inter
78:00
vivos transactions now let me backtrack
78:02
a little I was referring to one
78:04
furtherance of crime or throne we have a
78:06
jurisprudence in that it is the case of
78:09
people versus and began buying okay it
78:12
is the case of people versus
78:14
Sandiganbayan is three for one
78:15
philippine philippines 1997 okay now
78:20
that is still that let us continue let
78:23
us continue with the exception the
78:25
breach of duty by lawyer-client as you
78:28
know the attorney in the client have
78:30
what you qualify to share the
78:31
relationship it's a a trust relationship
78:33
therefore I'd be enriched in a little
78:35
gaudy toe
78:36
Boogaard own property not clear an
78:39
apparent cleared or indeed in Hawaiian
78:41
Jupe abogado negligence a 20 she'd
78:44
Amanda that is what a disciplinary
78:46
action the lawyer cannot evokes in the
78:49
attorney-client privilege nor in the
78:52
same manner if the client breached that
78:55
relationship by the client then the
78:57
lawyer was forced to sue the client for
79:00
professional services then the client
79:03
cannot invoke the privilege the fourth
79:05
the fourth is a document attested by the
79:08
lawyer and please bear in mind don't
79:10
even attested by the lawyer please bear
79:13
in mind that here the lawyer is not
79:15
really a lawyer in a strict sense lawyer
79:18
in the course of or in view to a
79:21
professional engagement indeed allah his
79:24
his engagement here or his participation
79:27
to
79:28
be very specific is only to attest to
79:31
the document okay and therefore he is
79:33
just an attesting witness in spewing
79:37
simple words he is not acting as a
79:40
lawyer but asana testing with this there
79:42
for the privilege of attorney-client
79:45
will not be applied he cannot use that
79:47
shield and finally the last exception is
79:51
the joint client okay and this is very
79:54
common today as to communications
79:57
relevant to a matter of common interest
79:59
between two or more clients for example
80:02
abogado
80:03
they are anaconda map ito one long
80:05
client enemy Rousillon common interests
80:07
superga hartaum but definitely they will
80:09
also have their own separate in the bid
80:11
individual meters but in that particular
80:13
instance because this in one cases they
80:15
have a common interest there is a free
80:17
flow of information and information that
80:20
they share is to their knowledge not
80:22
intended to be confidential among
80:24
themselves right okay however when they
80:27
have a suit among themselves involving
80:28
the same matter okay
80:31
they say back that they have consulted
80:34
the lawyer okay that is an exception
80:37
okay that is an exception they cannot
80:40
they cannot the lawyer cannot be booked
80:42
in the open where there that is an
80:44
exception but you could safeguard that
80:47
information okay for practitioners
80:49
listen you could safeguard that
80:50
information if it was stipulated if it
80:54
was agreed otherwise so maraming only
80:56
and then the game would engage in a
80:59
capacitive Scylla or Hindi Malayalam now
81:05
let us now proceed to the next
81:07
privileged communication okay I will now
81:10
proceed to the doctor-patient privilege
81:14
doctor-patient privilege what were the
81:16
amendments dan you talk in the past
81:18
about Doctor of Medicine you let me on
81:21
pinning then you old rule Doctor of
81:23
Medicine now it has been extended to a
81:25
not only a doctor of medicine but a
81:28
psychotherapist a psychotherapist and
81:31
number three person reasonably believed
81:34
to be licensed to what to practice
81:37
medicine or psychotherapy are you do
81:41
yawn so
81:42
in DeLand on you I don't know Hindi
81:43
lament or doctors medicine including
81:46
psychotherapist and those who are one
81:49
recently believed to be either a doctor
81:51
or psychotherapist or Enoch dr. silly
81:56
alright and kindly take not okay kindly
82:00
take note that the application of the
82:02
privilege remains to be limited to civil
82:05
cases okay there the privilege cannot be
82:08
involved in criminal it's still the same
82:10
route well I mean babbled on I'm gonna
82:12
mean magazine I'll be going inclusion
82:13
and psychotherapists inclusion recently
82:16
believed to be a doctor or a
82:18
psychotherapist now kindly take note
82:21
also but to some extent the DD D the in
82:27
communication or the information
82:28
received by the doctor and now
82:30
psychotherapist was in the book was a
82:32
bit expanded because Tim in the past
82:34
advice okay or three it meant the
82:38
communication received by the doctor in
82:39
confidence to give one advice but now it
82:43
is what to diagnose okay for purposes of
82:46
diagnosis or treatment so while I'm a
82:50
Yuman oh no I'm price then a diagnosis
82:54
or treatment was diagnosis was inserted
82:57
and now it's no longer limited as in the
83:01
past to physical physical illness an
83:04
abaya or information obtained by reason
83:06
of what physical condition what else
83:08
physical mental emotional and now even
83:12
includes one drug addiction or alcohol
83:17
addiction so much mala and what do you
83:19
think is the reason for this I think
83:20
most of you listening to me right now
83:23
will agree not a potato because in the
83:25
past when the old law was drafted was
83:29
was the wordings were framed in the late
83:32
80s maybe pessoa see an old dually
83:35
nación
83:36
yeah in the who Peter goes up and means
83:38
and amend no on a mental condition are
83:40
empowered a here in the US it has long
83:43
been there that is why if you would vote
83:45
on genomic Mitra psychotherapists which
83:47
is very well psychotherapists and later
83:50
on I will give you the definition of
83:52
psychotherapists okay so now it's
83:55
physical
83:56
the coverage of the privilege extensive
83:57
physical mental emotional and even drug
84:01
or alcohol addiction
84:03
okay now kindly take note okay kindly
84:07
take note now of its application now
84:12
your marination agency partners at or me
84:14
in the past valid occupation
84:16
doctor-patient but today finally take
84:19
not a on a new net okay now on it only
84:26
applies also to members of the family so
84:29
it now includes members of the family
84:31
who were there in the diagnosis or
84:33
treatment okay
84:35
diagnosis or treatment of the patient or
84:38
all other individuals may be assisting
84:41
the doctors under his direction on the
84:43
physician or psychotherapy state i would
84:46
want to highlight the word the phrase
84:48
under the direction okay under the
84:51
direction of the doctor in the physician
84:55
or the psychotherapist now let me give
84:57
you an example later okay i'm to example
85:01
it or number one your mother's okay you
85:05
medical resident that was my clinical
85:08
assistant begin ongoing process okay now
85:12
the last important amendment in
85:14
doctor-patient privilege
85:16
it's now the definition of a
85:18
psychotherapist again as I said this is
85:20
very American but I think this really
85:22
applies to us also because a a person
85:26
who is licensed to practice medicine
85:28
okay take note and engage in the
85:31
diagnosis or treatment of mental or
85:33
emotional condition now in the
85:37
Philippines kindly take no action on its
85:43
Apogee said psychiatrist but if you will
85:46
read the provision of the law it does
85:47
not limit itself to psychiatrist because
85:50
it says a person licensed to practice
85:52
medicine and engage in one diagnosis or
85:56
treatment of mental or emotional
85:57
condition now you will tell me Sameer
85:59
Baba Yaga
86:00
yes my family doctors well there so that
86:03
is why to some extent we will have to
86:05
wait until new jurisprudence will be
86:07
touched on by the Supreme Court in this
86:09
matter
86:09
will it just be limited to sake I this
86:11
but how about our the doctors of
86:13
Medicine who to some extent give one
86:15
diagnosis of a mental condition or
86:18
emotional condition and the second one
86:20
is which is really not one to us also
86:23
that falls within the definition of a
86:24
psychotherapist
86:25
it's a psychologist who is licensed by
86:29
the government okay
86:30
so I hope that that was and finally
86:34
cinema Kalimantan documentation it all
86:37
Ilana okay
86:39
the phrase that which would blacken the
86:42
reputation of the patient has been
86:45
dropped okay
86:46
that which would blacken the reputation
86:48
has been dropped
86:51
now let us now proceed to penitent and
86:54
priest
86:55
anti-sub penitent and priests and what
86:57
about the penitent increase now let me
86:59
give you a general idea of what it is
87:02
this privilege is used to jump in it is
87:10
of a penitent
87:13
penitential character okay and if you
87:16
will look at the old provision I mean
87:18
you're making no I'm not only don't
87:20
purchase on making confession so it was
87:23
very limited to making penance to making
87:26
a confession and that is why this is
87:28
based on us so far it is in the opposite
87:30
habit or philosophy do own my us
87:32
Authority but this favors the Roman
87:35
Catholic Church if Roman Catholics and
87:38
sure enough because they have a
87:40
sacrament they have it a sacrament and
87:43
their rule in the matter the religious
87:45
rule in the matter is very clear but it
87:47
but now with the amendment it is now
87:50
expanded in terms of its application now
87:53
it includes non penitential
87:56
communication it includes non
87:58
penitential communication pay attention
88:02
as a spiritual adviser but kindly take
88:05
note in all of this as I told you it
88:07
should be in a confidential nature the
88:10
communication should be in a
88:12
confidential nature okay so spiritual
88:15
adviser palette or uni cusamano
88:17
yes spiritual adviser is a mana
88:25
spiritual advisor said the Leland part
88:28
in anything and : cool oh yeah I don't
88:31
know I thought I'm a reminder sake no no
88:34
allow over okay so I will continue so
88:37
now it extends to a spiritual advisor
88:39
but I would want to tell you this I
88:41
would want to remind you should you
88:43
handle a case of this nature always
88:45
remember this face and which was part of
88:47
the old and the new unchanged in the
88:50
course of the discipline to which in the
88:53
course of the discipline enjoined by the
88:55
church to which it belongs so the
88:57
current I in internal internal not
88:59
indeed a enjoying by the discipline to
89:03
which okay you belong so we have to look
89:08
at internal jenny 2000 by or else in a
89:10
bee that is a practice in our church or
89:12
in our denomination that's one that's an
89:15
important question second
89:16
should it be a written rule of the
89:19
religious group because based on the
89:21
provision of the rule in the course of
89:23
the discipline and joined by the church
89:25
to which the minister in belongs so this
89:28
is another I don't want to say problem
89:30
here but a point of concern that the
89:33
Supreme Court may give some
89:34
enlightenment in the future because I've
89:37
been having fun enough judge turned up
89:41
in coulombs and cumali one examiner who
89:43
once SB must have in DC now be going to
89:45
hide among sanitarium I mean priest I
89:47
administered pastor Cosima I know
89:50
confidential sambito confidential no the
89:52
qualification is it should be enjoined
89:54
by the discipline to which he belongs
89:56
and of course they should be removed
89:58
okay now let us now proceed to the next
90:01
so the opposite is a benefit then please
90:04
put on a tie you say no public officer
90:07
and the state is in a separate say no in
90:10
fact this is the only privilege among
90:13
those privileged that I discuss it
90:15
section 24 when the partner is not an
90:17
individual it's public always have in
90:19
relation to the state mama the change
90:22
here is not really it's not really
90:24
material indeed among ganeun Hokkien
90:27
from the banco pocket and benevolent man
90:29
assume phrase originally it was during
90:32
his turn a public officer cannot be
90:34
examined it william original during
90:37
storm or afterwards okay for
90:40
communications that he hasn't seen in
90:42
confidence in that during his storm or
90:45
afterwards his honor has now been
90:47
replaced with a more accurate worthy
90:50
during or after his tenure on PA
90:53
parapara lyrics during or after his
90:56
tenure if the disclosure okay so that is
90:59
a privilege and will not be allowed the
91:01
public officer will not be allowed to
91:03
disclose if the public interest will
91:05
suffer now and before I need the section
91:09
24 I would want to call your attention
91:11
on the last paragraph ting and good yang
91:14
Hindi Linea Negra play some provision
91:18
baba who union okay therefore it applies
91:22
to all the privileged communications
91:24
under section 24 now before I proceed
91:27
kindly take note that in the piece in
91:29
the mindset of the drafters would be to
91:31
protect the confidentiality even if
91:34
there is a spill over if it passes on to
91:36
the hands of third persons in the only
91:39
requirement of the rule or the standard
91:41
laid down by the rule is that the
91:43
original parties to the communication to
91:46
work reasonable precaution and I would
91:48
want to highlight the trace
91:49
they took reasonable precaution I will
91:52
repeat the radial part is to reasonable
91:54
precaution to maintain its or protect
91:58
its confidentiality so that in your
92:00
gonna mail don't Sabinas cusco the gap
92:03
layer so if by chance that spill ovarian
92:06
if the intention is it's confidential
92:09
okay it's confidential and there was
92:11
reasonable precaution then it is treated
92:14
as confidential
92:15
dadandan of I don't want example Bob
92:17
Mollica is a mugger Sawa okay doing some
92:20
bogus alibi Billiken gone let's say Papa
92:24
and Ramona Google SERPs Allah an
92:26
agnostic has a very common subpoena
92:28
penis in the Gaza Akashi come up in the
92:30
bathtub in dimension upon you something
92:32
country boy I knew it you know hold up
92:36
non-bank we're not even near if we
92:40
follow the provision of the law if the
92:43
two crystal ball precocial palicky Tama
92:45
based on the facts and circumstances to
92:47
what to protect the confidentiality then
92:50
it may be
92:51
okay so take note of the class parent
92:54
graph and that is a new prediction okay
92:57
let us now proceed to the next filial
93:00
privilege Heba female privilege still
93:04
privileged but again it's a different
93:06
category meaning what does it what is
93:08
the amendment okay
93:10
the amendment is just on the exception I
93:12
don't want this to say just just no
93:15
that's immaterial Unni yeah
93:17
the exceptions but the the rules still
93:20
the same I let's say cannot be compared
93:24
to testify against my father I cannot be
93:26
compelled to testify against my son okay
93:28
unless but that testimony is
93:31
indispensable okay in a crime committed
93:34
by my father against me all right or a
93:37
crime committed by my father against my
93:40
mother
93:41
so Kylie take note but there's one thing
93:44
I would want you to remember very
93:45
clearly now what Philippine
93:46
jurisprudence the world the use of the
93:48
word cannot be compelled therefore in a
93:51
case decided by the supreme court come
93:53
up in the whole merinov apo combat in
93:56
cuba by knocking send that in invoked an
94:01
ascendant no you cannot testify you're
94:03
my son yeah but okay in the case decided
94:07
by the Supreme Court I was allowed to
94:08
testify for my sister who was the victim
94:11
why because it was voluntary okay now
94:15
and please take note you could make a
94:17
small notation the exceptions will take
94:20
an article to 1/5 of the family code now
94:23
let us now proceed to the next the next
94:27
is the next is privileged relating to
94:32
trade secrets okay privilege relating
94:37
outlining your NASA next page now an
94:40
outline more privileged relating to
94:43
trade secret okay
94:45
a person cannot be compelled to testify
94:48
or not about anything secret compel him
94:53
to testify to testify but please take
94:55
note this is not absolute this is based
94:58
on you also for this is not absolute and
95:00
kindly take note that the route on this
95:02
case is a jurisprudence
95:04
a u.s. jurisprudence with the title of
95:07
flora bean versus Acapulco
95:09
clay and pullulan case John okay so this
95:13
is not the lab this is not an absolute
95:14
privilege and and although you cannot be
95:18
compelled to disclose our trade secret
95:20
except it is used to conceal a fraud
95:24
number one number two if to hide it or
95:28
not to disclose will work in justice can
95:31
the court issue an order yes the court
95:33
may direct a threat the court may direct
95:38
the disclosure can it so the court may
95:41
order the disclosure for as long as the
95:44
court should take protective measures I
95:46
will repeat the court will have to take
95:48
protective measures to protect the
95:52
interests of the owner and the parties
95:54
so measures should be taken to protect
95:58
or measures taken to protect the
96:00
interests of the parties or the owner
96:03
and number two in the furtherance of
96:05
justice so let me very clear now before
96:11
I proceed and this is the last point say
96:13
observe may be equal to you and enjoying
96:16
the list it's worse in fact in one of my
96:18
lectures I made that short of that and
96:19
the jumble was really brought about by
96:23
be a matrix moving around in schools
96:26
that's amass to jump in as my professors
96:29
all of that we will discuss here I don't
96:31
accept that there is journalists in
96:33
stores but I would want to be very clear
96:35
than the journalists and source was that
96:38
part of the improved version of the
96:41
Supreme Court in bank so indicia asama
96:43
people
96:45
Gustavo Tom again the PO use a new way
96:53
on ok McGorry because you have are a
96:57
1145 a 75 a 53 in 53 or you know wrote
97:02
conceding and evolved into a and
97:05
significantly down economically are 853
97:08
so you assess an AHA pyramid on Senate
97:11
President Michelle that was in 2019 11
97:14
45 86 senator Soto is a trivial
97:19
you uh put any I put Abigail put on I do
97:22
not know but you will see the evolution
97:25
from 53 or if it's 15 in 1477 big 11:45
97:31
now very briefly the publisher the
97:35
editor or the columnist the report there
97:37
cannot be compelled to disclose the
97:39
source of information or media Hunger
97:42
Dominion in cinema Jenin broadcast of a
97:45
cinema general originally print lamian
97:48
the give broadcast then wild service
97:51
electronic mass media even cable are now
97:54
included TV and its variants so today
97:58
covenant and there is no you cannot be
98:02
they cannot be compelled to disclose it
98:04
unless the court that's exception and
98:06
there are a 11:45 unless it happens you
98:09
are doing this goes well or should I be
98:10
the House of Representative than senado
98:12
or any of its commitments now let us now
98:17
proceed now before I leave this item
98:19
that was a privileged not do I have okay
98:22
in a while I will give you a break I'll
98:24
give you a break go in : come privileged
98:27
communication and then as you know there
98:30
are some privileged communications which
98:32
are might even under the provision of
98:33
the law if you would know right but in
98:36
jurisprudence judicial privilege there
98:39
is executive privilege universally
98:41
recognized ok executive privilege that
98:44
is diplomatic privilege
98:45
yeah there is also what you call bank
98:49
secrecy law privilege are a 1405 and the
98:53
foreign currency deposit at can what
98:56
privilege shall now even if they are not
98:58
in the provisions of their recognized
99:00
non-disclosure of who you voted for
99:02
non-disclosure of the results of the
99:04
census all of this are well recognized
99:06
privileged
99:08
let us now start with a pelagic od2 who
99:11
Akuma Lebanon the government may break
99:14
the discussing come on an offer of
99:17
evidence and after I discuss offer of
99:19
evidence or often an offer of evidence
99:21
often of compromised then I will give
99:23
you single item slide nato okay so that
99:26
when I give you a break will see similar
99:28
and attire we will be starting on
99:30
hearsay and that will be a good
99:32
to strive for the second part okay now
99:35
let us start with let us continue with
99:37
offer of compromise as you know every
99:41
single law student and every lawyer
99:43
would know that an altar of compromise
99:45
in a civil case cannot be considered as
99:48
an admission of what of liability on it
99:53
is not even the offer itself is not
99:55
admissible in evidence
99:56
that's the wording of the law Angra
99:57
means to be the the world all in you and
100:02
neither is the conduct you can't ignore
100:04
or even your statement towards the
100:06
compromise author of compromise will be
100:08
considered by the world accept it along
100:11
rely on by exception who lay on and it
100:14
don't bug me pinko exception eviction
100:16
behan kind a civil case ito kind of a
100:19
guru satire on on a compromise my
100:22
conduct my statements towards a
100:23
compromise in that simple case another
100:25
the following will be allowed a the
100:29
following Allah will be allowed
100:31
admission number one the evidence is
100:34
otherwise discomfortable okay but offer
100:37
it for another purpose meaning if you if
100:39
you find a way you could still get that
100:43
evidence not through the conduct or the
100:45
discussion another one is it is offered
100:48
for another purpose such as proving bias
100:51
or prejudice
100:52
number three the conduct or the
100:55
statement may be the course of the
100:56
exchange will negate what claims of
101:01
delay contention of a new delay and
101:03
that's good that that's good
101:05
it will negate any claims of delay and
101:08
three proving an effort top strap
101:11
proving an effort obstruct a criminal
101:14
investigation or prosecution and I
101:17
received a question on this point from a
101:19
lawyer
101:20
Sabina sock in it or something here
101:22
Hindi but because of this provision
101:24
dddd some of the parties may be hesitant
101:27
in talking of a compromise in a civil
101:31
case more specially in a commercial
101:32
transaction if there is one is there is
101:35
there appears to have been some effort
101:37
on stop a criminal investigation
101:40
assuming or prosecution
101:41
assuming that need talks for compromise
101:44
fails some bhiku
101:46
so you have to be very careful also but
101:49
you do not give so much information that
101:51
it would reflect okay or prove criminal
101:54
investigate meaning that you will
101:56
obstruct criminal investigation I'm not
101:58
saying that you should stop what I'm
101:59
saying is lawyers should know the
102:01
information that they had to disclose
102:03
but you should not have stopped
102:05
investigation or prostitution now I
102:08
think wait this is my last point okay
102:12
last two points before I give you a
102:14
break how about the criminal case just
102:16
about going there it means to be the
102:18
same an offer of compromise in a
102:19
criminal case is an implied admission of
102:21
liability now let there is no change
102:24
here there is a change after of
102:26
compromise okay when there is a plea of
102:29
guilt withdrawn on an accepted offer so
102:33
there is an amendment on that point that
102:36
which relates to statements in the
102:37
course in the course statement made in
102:39
the course of a plea bargaining
102:40
amendment plea bargaining a meaning on a
102:42
long death drop the real demand Amoy
102:44
stuff
102:46
yes murder homicide so is that something
102:53
that could be taken against a few snow
102:54
if the plea bargaining was unsuccessful
102:57
or it did not resolve to a plea deal it
103:00
cannot be used against them it will not
103:02
be considered as an admission or even if
103:05
there is already a plea of guilt but
103:07
it'll be Appeals realize I would want to
103:09
be drawn it cannot be used against him
103:12
as an admission and that is followed
103:15
from the view of Muller vs. Kirkpatrick
103:19
hey now I will give you a short 15
103:24
minute break
103:34
you
118:02
I'm back Tina Paco Molly at we will
118:06
continue with the second part of our
118:08
presentation and discussion on the
118:10
amendments on the rules on evidence okay
118:15
it's a good break say uh we will be
118:19
discussing something which is really new
118:21
and to some this you may have some
118:24
resistance on this even to lawyers they
118:27
may have some resistance because the the
118:29
old probation on personal knowledge as I
118:32
mentioned in 36 was transferred out of
118:34
22 and hearsay it has its own definition
118:37
okay now how is hearsay we find now
118:41
based on the provision in the law
118:43
hearsay is a statement
118:45
kindly take note other than that made by
118:48
the deck neuron while testifying at the
118:51
trial so obviously it's a statement
118:53
other than that which that person the
118:55
witness is testifying in court
118:57
Cimino reversible pioneer i think to be
119:02
able to help you understand it is an
119:05
out-of-court statement okay it is an
119:09
out-of-court statement made by a witness
119:12
because it's a foreign jurisprudence
119:14
Gilligan Midler at an out-of-court
119:17
statement by an actor I'll witness so
119:20
just to simplify it an out-of-court
119:23
statement made by a witness who is now
119:26
in court out-of-court statement okay if
119:30
it is hearsay if it is offered or what
119:33
to prove the truth of the facts assert
119:36
and again I think I need to give you
119:37
some background for a better
119:39
understanding
119:40
okay I don't know the prevailing
119:43
practice and this is the practice before
119:46
this amendment of course that we adopted
119:49
from us is this all out of court
119:54
statement okay
119:56
meaning the established practice treats
120:00
all prior statements of a witness on the
120:02
stand exempted from hearsay so high
120:05
columns are being in window and for as
120:06
long as you're subject to
120:07
cross-examination blue suit Leone all
120:10
right that was the prevailing practice
120:12
KCM here manaman yes sir tenure but of
120:15
course it does
120:16
mean that we will not assert and what is
120:19
hearsay and what is first-hand knowledge
120:20
okay and we will discuss that later
120:23
so the prevailing rule before them it so
120:28
everything that no witness will testify
120:29
in court even if it's out of court
120:32
statement it's extended from your saying
120:34
now the person definition now means one
120:38
makes an out-of-court statement by a
120:41
witness he'll say okay not admissible as
120:46
to the substance okay
120:48
evidence as to the substantive evidence
120:51
for the truth of the matter asserted
120:53
so Hindi national leadership wedding
120:55
canopy out-of-court statement an
120:57
assertion on the witness stand of
120:59
substantive evidence of a fact upon
121:02
which it is offering now this definition
121:05
likewise now defines what is hearsay it
121:07
is or I'll or read an assertion and even
121:11
a conduct even if just the conduct it is
121:14
also treated as he'd say if it is
121:16
intended to be water an assertion now in
121:21
the effort to make it more
121:23
understandable let us look at the type
121:26
of hearsay okay it is that which focuses
121:30
on the type of the statement and the
121:32
purpose for which it is offered and I
121:35
hope that with this example I hope that
121:37
made this example we will have a good
121:39
sense of what is hearsay and what is
121:42
first-hand knowledge all right now
121:45
Julie let's state the fact an example
121:48
Joey was in a year three on October 10
121:52
2019 at 4 p.m. let's look at the
121:56
variation the first first variation if
121:59
Joey tells me that he was in the year 3
122:03
or October 10 2019 at 4 p.m. and the
122:07
purpose on the testimony is that he
122:10
communicated that to me ok can I sit on
122:14
the witness stand if my purpose is to
122:16
show the jury communicating that to me
122:18
yes then I perceive yes I actually
122:20
perceived I had first-hand knowledge
122:24
that he communicated to me that he told
122:27
me that he was in the year 3 on
122:30
then 2019 at 4:00 p.m. in nothing but a
122:34
suit fulness of whether or not he is
122:37
there is another matter
122:39
Hindi columns have been a unique okay
122:41
and I think a great number of us would
122:44
know there's been aa ya know independent
122:46
relevant statement than the truthfulness
122:50
of his being present there will have to
122:51
be prove it
122:52
independent be okay but to not extend
122:55
his communication to me and in the
122:57
purpose of my testifying that I see now
122:59
being a South in Munich on the camellias
123:01
in albia is what his first-hand
123:04
knowledge let us look at another
123:07
variation okay I am in quite the same
123:11
witness who will testify and I assert
123:13
Joey to her Joey was in the year 3 on
123:17
October 10 2019 that is an assertion at
123:21
4:00 p.m. that should lead that is
123:24
objectionable because that is one I
123:26
don't have personal knowledge at that
123:28
and one could even object it only at us
123:32
oh you say well I need more ammo poppin
123:35
ironing and that is the the slippery
123:37
slope when it comes to insane first-hand
123:39
knowledge I don't intend to go on deeply
123:42
on this because of our time but should I
123:44
know that for those of you are really
123:46
interested you have to look at it in the
123:48
light of first-hand knowledge and here
123:50
sir but I hope my example could give you
123:53
some guidance now if there is a
123:55
definition of here saying then is also
123:57
that which is not hearsay okay or that
124:01
would fall outside of the same
124:03
exceptions statement is not hearsay in
124:06
the declarant testifies in court
124:07
candidate note of the requirement
124:09
testifies in court any subject to
124:12
cross-examination okay
124:14
testifies in court in subject to
124:15
cross-examination it's a minimal mo I
124:17
don't where you get them come on tell
124:18
again and which is the practical way of
124:20
doing it
124:20
what's the most of it this done oh wait
124:23
supplier subject to cross-examination
124:25
carolina nearly midnight because of the
124:28
definition of the first paragraph and
124:29
you are only limited to the items which
124:34
are enumerated here three items which
124:36
are allowable exceptions and what is
124:38
that inconsistent to the Deadlands
124:41
testimony and Parramatta and
124:43
it is very simple inconsistent testimony
124:47
into assistant with the deadness
124:49
testimony which is under oath could be
124:52
subject of perjury what is that
124:53
in it is a prior inconsistent statement
124:57
so the purpose of which is to impeach on
124:59
a prior inconsistent statement so the
125:02
detriment now is making an assertion in
125:05
court okay the the witness make
125:07
insertion in court and then on
125:09
cross-examination he's been confronted
125:11
on a prior inconsistent statement is
125:13
that allowed
125:14
that is enough that's not yet sir but
125:16
considering that it is a prior
125:18
inconsistent statement kindly take note
125:21
that you know today the basis of time
125:23
place and persons based on the provision
125:25
of the law second another except another
125:29
exception is that which is consistent we
125:31
can't acknowledge testimony to the man
125:33
indeed among going to stick we need my
125:36
lab bundles I mean all right you penny
125:38
presenta out-of-court state but in the
125:41
inconsistence I mean the first one is
125:42
consistent now it's consistent why is it
125:45
allowed all right it is allowed based on
125:48
the valuing Nardo requirement the
125:51
purpose of putting this an exam as an
125:53
exam exception is to prevent or to cut
125:57
the practice of some inducing like
126:00
affidavit Sabina no no no authorities
126:03
England I mean affidavit now post a
126:05
puppet st on DVD a position that papacy
126:08
pop artist you know for all intents and
126:11
purposes that's an out-of-court
126:12
statement the hill have been recent and
126:15
subject to cross-examination podna
126:17
so on Sabina have been an authority in
126:20
Dina paper deal all the way up so maybe
126:22
your experience of that consistent with
126:25
the declarants testimony and is offered
126:28
to rebut all right
126:29
so it makes me a new good percent
126:31
consistent testimony for as long as it
126:34
is to rebut a charge against the person
126:38
against it that back if there is a
126:39
charge express or implied charge against
126:41
that you could present consistent
126:43
statement number two or a reason to
126:47
rebut a recent publication on improper
126:49
influence or motive and to help you
126:53
remember this according to authorities
126:55
coated coat this is
126:57
cumulative proof sometimes it can be
127:00
superfluous they say but it is a
127:01
cumulative proof it is one an evidence
127:05
of the same kind or character establish
127:08
the same fact the next and the last one
127:11
of this exception is one of
127:13
identification of a person made after
127:17
perceiving the same so what do you have
127:19
here is that an in-court identification
127:21
if I owned this is that subject means it
127:23
across it's not a bit more subject was
127:25
in there what is contemplated it is an
127:27
out-of-court identification but why is
127:30
it why is it accepted here as an
127:32
exception because they say that the
127:34
out-of-court identification is closer to
127:38
the incident and the identifying party
127:42
should be if possible available for
127:45
cross-examination
127:46
toko available say cross-examination so
127:48
this is an out-of-court identification
127:50
closer and why is it reliable because it
127:53
is closer in time to the event in
127:56
question now let us now look at the
128:00
exceptions to the hearsay rule all right
128:03
we keep and you know hindi naman lana
128:05
Bongo ok Hindi laptop algo dying
128:07
declaration a loose up Andy - you NASA
128:13
section 39 this is all together new rule
128:16
130 section 39 what is that statement of
128:19
the dissident or person often sound mind
128:21
no why first and foremost Marguerite IO
128:24
why is it hearsay because what is
128:27
presented to the court if the declarants
128:29
is the statement of the person of
128:32
unsound mind or the deceased wife and
128:34
there is someone who may have received
128:36
that declaration correct by its nature
128:38
it is hearsay but why is it trustworthy
128:41
and reliable
128:42
why is it trustworthy reliable I will
128:45
tell you okay
128:47
now I will tell you why it's reliable it
128:50
is reliable because it was made that
128:53
statement was made at the time okay
128:57
when he has personal knowledge upon
129:00
personal knowledge of the deceased or
129:01
the person events online and when the
129:04
matter was recent recently perceived and
129:07
while his recollection is still clear
129:10
now for
129:11
understanding let me discuss this
129:13
further para Makita not dead as I said
129:15
this was originally section 23 angry
129:17
chunk on the same by section 23 which
129:20
was transferred here in section 39 it
129:24
was originally a disqualification
129:27
Deadman statute and on May 1 under natal
129:30
rayon this is now an exception to the
129:33
hearsay rule back in because the clayman
129:36
okay
129:38
the claimant the part no claim on the
129:40
parties who claimed okay on the
129:43
assignors of parties to an estate of a
129:45
deceased person or a person of unsound
129:48
binding can now testify a union huh
129:54
no you played in a Scylla although he'll
129:57
say insa Sabiha Nina in fact I received
130:00
this question from a student of mine
130:02
Samia Frank doesn't make sense to me
130:05
pocket can own it conducting his
130:07
qualification here no you didn't say
130:09
laminate here sayin it we didn't submit
130:12
everything that favors it because it's
130:14
the claim to the estate but again the
130:17
court sees that the provision of law
130:19
gives this a certain level of
130:20
reliability if the statement was made by
130:24
the deceased or the person with an ounce
130:26
on mind at the time that and personal
130:28
knowledge when it has been recently
130:30
perceived and while his recollection is
130:33
clear now of course this is where thus
130:35
the wisdom of our judges will have to
130:38
come in the judicious test in
130:39
determining in assessing the kind of
130:41
evidence because there is a provision in
130:43
the law that says such statements
130:45
whoever is inadmissible if under Maine
130:48
is it made under circumstances
130:50
indicating lack of trustworthiness
130:52
so that is where our judges
130:54
determination will have to come here
130:56
they are nobody wants to be more lenient
130:59
direction direction to give him a chance
131:02
to testify beside need my Lafayette
131:05
magician Oh believe me besides where mr.
131:08
case of Sampson in 2003 Eames but if a
131:11
claimant raises a claim he will have to
131:14
support it with documents like contract
131:17
checks he will have to support it in
131:19
hindi naman Champlain judgment a
131:21
realization declaration and if again
131:23
according to the provision
131:24
that it is not appear to be trustworthy
131:27
then the court didn't check the next
131:30
declaration against interest this is
131:33
very interesting
131:34
okay a declaration of against interest
131:38
is reliable and trustworthy as an
131:40
exception because the mindset of the of
131:42
the rule is that if it will not true he
131:45
would not have made that statement
131:46
because it's a bit variation again it
131:48
just interests my genitals at now our
131:51
Miguel de Ajo Maru sang kumbaya my
131:56
unique nature and power so the provision
131:59
of the law as an exception knows she not
132:01
been windy say Baha Mar into tow because
132:03
she would not have said that if it were
132:05
not true
132:05
I am the money in my bank account
132:11
that's the money of my brother who is an
132:13
obvious Filipino word okay turn me on so
132:18
that's why he's given a certain level of
132:20
reliability besides the person who made
132:22
the declaration is already dead or
132:24
unavailable today okay number one
132:27
concept to him day and what I've
132:29
explained so far is declaration against
132:31
proprietary interest declaration against
132:34
pecuniary interest and if in a stock's a
132:37
provision veto which was taken from the
132:39
case of people versus Toledo in 1928
132:43
case is what declaration against penal
132:45
interest Himalayan or unavailable that's
132:52
why this is this is taken with one
132:54
should should be taken with care I mean
132:57
the muscle and back on the pin can be
132:58
stand during the mini-game of us why the
133:01
statement tending to expose the
133:03
declarant no the person who is dead or
133:05
unavailable to testify that exposes him
133:09
to criminal liability can only be
133:11
offered to exculpate duck used if it is
133:14
one with corroborating evidence so if
133:17
it's just a single on statement
133:18
television criminy
133:20
the person is dead or unavailable to
133:22
testify the country learned accept that
133:24
because the requirement of the law is
133:26
not only that he declares it not only
133:29
purpose is to exculpate that is from his
133:31
liability but there should be one
133:34
corroborating edit circumstance clearly
133:37
indicating one
133:38
worthiness and at this point in time I
133:41
would want to highlight the word
133:42
trustworthiness and for students who are
133:45
listening to me right now those who are
133:47
in third year or those who are in the
133:49
underclassmen always remember that an
133:52
exception to the hearsay rule is
133:54
important could be a certain in the
133:57
light of the trustworthiness and
133:58
reliability now let us now proceed to
134:03
another exception the next is an app or
134:06
declaration as to pedigree an AK or
134:11
declaration about pedigree now
134:15
Bangu Kasabian cosima keep I mean bindi
134:19
to Delaware and your adoption in the
134:22
second one is that she is intimately
134:25
related associated has to be likely to
134:29
have accurate information as to his
134:31
pedigree so he should be intimately
134:33
related to the family associated with
134:36
the family as to give accurate
134:38
information as to pedigree but in any
134:41
one engine okay he did get it tailored
134:46
for us to have a good grasp or handle of
134:49
this we will have to understand what how
134:52
does the probation work okay the person
134:54
who made the declaration that he's
134:56
related for example to mr. X by birth or
135:00
marriage this is the original provision
135:02
is already dead declare an ejection or
135:05
I'm related to him by birth or marriage
135:07
and that declaration is a given to that
135:10
person the declaration is given to
135:12
another one who are some later time
135:15
because of lack of available evidence
135:17
will attest to my declaration during the
135:20
time the time while alive and during the
135:22
time that I was still available Al and
135:24
Enoch available to testify so here he
135:28
will testify by its nature it is he
135:30
shall be cool I know you need and he did
135:34
not be the witness need not be related
135:35
to me now that was look at this
135:38
EULA and II think they got related to me
135:40
the declarer by birth by marriage by
135:44
adoption and therefore that includes
135:46
legal adoption or in the absence of this
135:49
birth marriage or adoption or or wha we
135:52
this far
135:52
I am intimately associated as to give an
135:56
accurate information as to pedigree yon
135:59
an amendment and that's how it operates
136:01
now if you would not I did not include
136:04
in our outline your family reputation or
136:09
condition as to pedigree because it only
136:11
amended one word adoption but unlike the
136:14
previous provision
136:15
I like the previous provision that there
136:18
is a declaration and there is a witness
136:20
who receive the declaration who will
136:21
testify a court okay in family
136:25
reputation the source of the information
136:27
is unknown it has been moving moving
136:30
moving around the members of the family
136:33
may have been passed on from generation
136:34
to generation but it is reliable because
136:38
it's a story information moving around
136:40
the family and who will testify here
136:42
here who will testify on family
136:44
reputation or position as to pedigree
136:46
he should be a member of the as
136:50
distinguished from the previous
136:52
probation okay now let us now I hope
136:56
that that is clear that's clear let us
136:58
now proceed with common reputation okay
137:02
let us now proceed with common
137:04
reputation I hope you're still with me
137:06
we still have a fool over and I long
137:12
cussing smiley Italian but espero you
137:15
pass pass on for the benefit of some
137:19
students who are taking time to listen
137:20
and I hope I'm able to help you in your
137:23
understanding of the new provisions and
137:25
to this extent I could tell you that
137:26
around 95% to 97% we have we're trying
137:30
to cover okay now let us now look at
137:33
common reputation now common reputation
137:36
is we know reputation is how people
137:37
perceive it to be
137:38
that's reputation as distinguished from
137:40
character who you really are but your
137:42
reputation could be bad but that's not
137:44
what you're who you are in terms of your
137:46
character
137:47
Jeremy it is how people perceive you to
137:50
be
137:51
and now that is again an exception the
137:53
source of the information
138:02
you
138:33
okay malignant
138:35
I wanna I'm weepin cement along now well
138:38
that I am okay I was reminded I was this
138:44
Quebec connector but I think I'm back I
138:46
think I'm back I hope I'm back so I will
138:49
just have to repeat them out my
138:50
statement of common reputation the
138:52
source of the information is that no it
138:53
has been moving around in the community
138:55
and based on the old rule and it's
138:57
Abaddon of public regional interests for
138:59
more than 30 years well an appoint oh it
139:01
don't penal pan of public or general
139:03
interest because based on US authorities
139:05
because this was taken from Federal Rule
139:08
on evidence happy Mina it's very hard to
139:10
unknown to prove its there's a there's a
139:12
dearth of examples of this so that of
139:16
public and general interests for more
139:18
than 30 years which is actually ancient
139:20
has been replaced it has been replaced
139:23
by one as to boundaries of customs of
139:27
our customs affecting land in the
139:30
community and the reputation as the
139:32
events of general history important to
139:35
the community now why did was it
139:38
replaced with boundaries or customs
139:40
affecting lands in the community because
139:43
according to authorities US authorities
139:45
is that the in common reputation as to
139:48
land as to boundaries okay is one
139:51
subject to scrutiny in the community
139:54
that was subject to scrutiny in the
139:56
community and there and it is one
139:58
reliable because it was subject to
140:00
scrutiny and
140:04
the purpose of this is there is there is
140:06
really no likelihood that you will
140:08
obtain a mother so you rely on one
140:10
common reputation and as a final
140:13
statement in the Papadopoulou de bois as
140:16
a final statement
140:16
it represents because it's subject to
140:18
scrutiny of the community in a subject
140:20
to the consensus of the community let me
140:22
give you an example train station of
140:27
Vienna okay or Italy to buy in a Vito
140:31
cooling next to my yeoman really ugly
140:33
man in a man in Alabama it said we may
140:38
see a mirror no okay
140:39
general history important to the
140:41
community and that's known has been
140:42
passed on from person to person
140:44
kindly take note of that okay no and
140:47
besides if it is something that is
140:50
settled read it is verifiable not sooner
140:53
that is subject to what should this
140:55
again as to marriage
140:57
astha moral character comedy reputation
140:59
has not been changed so I will not
141:01
discuss that anymore
141:02
the next item is rest should stay a rest
141:06
to stay you recall that rest just a it
141:08
this is also an exception to the hearsay
141:09
rule there are two kinds what identifies
141:11
those which are arising from a startling
141:14
currents we were startled we were
141:15
excited and because of that there was no
141:18
room to reflect there was no room to
141:20
contemplate and for that reason there's
141:22
no room to fabricate in the operating
141:24
one and when to be startled by oh that's
141:27
the first time and the second one is
141:29
equivocal act but the equivocal had
141:32
escaped and legal significance by the
141:34
statement there is a statement that
141:36
gives legal significance to the
141:38
equivocal app need an Appaloosa opinion
141:40
upon whose opponent in is the bestest
141:42
day of the first time because the
141:44
amendment is on that point and based on
141:47
the original provision Sabiha statements
141:50
made while starting occurrence was
141:52
taking place
141:52
well that startling occurrence was
141:54
taking place immediately prior it is on
141:58
the end subsequent
141:59
Union and provisions pyridine octagon
142:02
sub n been under the stress of
142:05
excitement cost by the Kurds I will
142:08
repeat under the stress of excitement in
142:11
only highlights one I already mentioned
142:13
to you because if you are under the
142:15
stress of an excitement
142:16
you cannot fabricate
142:18
you cannot make up a story for example I
142:20
went out of my house
142:21
I want my house I went out of my
142:23
classroom the top was staying classical
142:25
let's see there is a student stood at
142:31
heating another student with a pipe and
142:33
I saw that the Guanche are so and then
142:37
police came authorities at the school
142:38
but when I went oh I just I was just one
142:41
let's say walking distance from the
142:43
school that was my thinking
142:48
that was from a statement arising from a
142:51
start being occurrence I mean can we go
142:54
well are you well on tawa well I miss
142:59
mr. Bouie cuento de toluca for kumar in
143:03
a coup after 4-5 hours that we couldn't
143:06
open dude that was too much insulin
143:08
cuento ho
143:09
I am no longer under the stress of an
143:11
excitement okay
143:13
now you tell me sir does it mean
143:15
therefore that it should be immediately
143:16
no because there are numerous Jewish
143:19
students in the Philippines that does
143:21
not that allows register even after two
143:24
three four hours for as long as he is
143:26
under that state of excitement and under
143:29
stress for as long as there is no room
143:31
to fabricate and make up a story in the
143:34
map on deck settle down a bit not window
143:36
Daniel Yan Yan appeal protect the hand
143:39
and let us now proceed to the next
143:42
exception and this next exception will
143:45
be very interesting for you kindly take
143:48
not now kindly take not eaten records of
143:51
regularly
143:52
conducted business activity records of
143:55
regular conducted business activity if
143:57
you would recall for those of you have
143:59
taken up evidence mala and your this is
144:02
the end twist in the regular course of
144:04
business a linear increase in the
144:06
regular course of business and why
144:08
although monetary or why is it reliable
144:10
why is it trustworthy because the person
144:13
is dead unavailable to testify number
144:15
two that the entry was made in the
144:18
regular course of business at or near
144:21
the time of the transaction and number
144:23
four in the performance of one of his
144:27
professional responsibilities in the
144:29
performance of his official function no
144:31
profession
144:31
Tashia reliable period provision in each
144:34
Manabu to me TV l'avion and it's not
144:38
properly explained the students will not
144:40
understand that it is an exception to
144:42
the hearsay rule not because of the
144:44
witness who will later testify but
144:46
because of the document and the
144:47
circumstances of the entry okay I got a
144:50
problem at dawn but now and this is why
144:53
I'm very happy with the amendment with
144:56
the amendment it practically covers and
144:59
memorandum report record data
145:02
compilation okay
145:04
made by writing I ping electronic or
145:10
optical or other similar means and kinda
145:13
take note narrating palin parademon in
145:15
expanded one day at or near the time of
145:18
one of the transmission or supply of
145:21
information which the person is not a
145:24
leash so before or about at or near the
145:26
time at or near array the time of or
145:30
transmission or supply of information
145:33
under wait by which the person has
145:36
knowledge and and kinetic note that the
145:39
data information documented memorandum
145:41
that I'm referring to compilation which
145:43
was made in the regular course for
145:46
conduct of the business meaning and such
145:49
was the regular practice so dito no no
145:52
novella dead or a degree in the one all
145:55
right Noel under immune signals have
145:57
been adapted in the performance of his
145:59
function of alarm a yawn okay no this
146:02
sharing being a reliable way you will
146:05
see that here the memorandum report or
146:08
data compilation they whether electronic
146:11
optical or under similar means are shown
146:14
by testimony by whom that was toward the
146:17
end or number two by qualified witnesses
146:21
okay Kylie big no to Alliance adapting
146:23
but as we said that being rude well I
146:25
and it is a lot better
146:27
why because nobody wanted custodial my
146:29
dinner or someone who is qualified
146:31
maybe a substitute maybe the assistant
146:34
can testify an assistant controller if
146:36
it was financial document pero no one
146:39
actually no one believe me to are under
146:42
the old rule and I've had instances
146:43
wherein my opponent will object
146:45
if my witness who is the person who
146:49
prepared the documents I presented
146:50
available no competent I had some such a
146:56
case 50 documents Latino chicken it was
146:59
just who the pit was overruled bucket
147:02
I'm thinking Adela Musa but now it's
147:06
fairly clear data the data chronic
147:10
optical recording with a must at or near
147:14
the time of the transmission of the
147:16
information and under which the person
147:19
is knowledge and in the regular course
147:21
of business so you know I don't testify
147:23
um custodian or clan qualified witnesses
147:26
I hope that's little and for
147:28
practitioners listening to me this would
147:29
be very helpful something in DiMatteo
147:31
Machado may happen every time or an
147:34
authentic objection believe in you and
147:38
idea alright the next testimony which
147:41
should have been the last exception I'll
147:44
wrap it on last exception repair Romero
147:47
none last it to you second because this
147:49
is the penultimate landed on the
147:51
exception testimony or the deposition
147:54
taken or given in another proceeding now
147:57
so do we have the same rule operate the
147:59
same application yes and penal Oakland
148:02
divided alligator a person is dead okay
148:05
witness is dead deceased or unhappy or
148:07
unable to testify or unavailable to
148:10
testify that was the old rule but now
148:12
the unavailable has been expanded
148:15
Chrissy ox in a baton I am in a business
148:18
meeting unavailable alone if I'm not
148:20
conflict of schedule unavailable or no
148:23
now it's very clear when when you talk
148:25
of you're not available
148:27
you are outside of the Philippines or
148:30
you cannot with due diligence be brought
148:33
to court or be found in the Philippines
148:34
on an available to testify so the
148:38
podmobile Paquita with exercise of due
148:40
diligence he disappeared a appreciably
148:43
me Perihan up in motion need me to I
148:44
configure that's a brutal on oh all
148:47
right so now they made it clearer what
148:51
do you mean by unavailable to testify
148:53
and this was taken from rule one rule
148:57
115
148:59
rights of the accused section one
149:01
subsection subpoena explained p-value
149:04
anyone mainland money talk now so the
149:07
same room sir yes a testimony in the
149:10
position given in another proceeding if
149:12
there was one it involves the same
149:14
subject matter the same issue and there
149:16
was the most important thing the most
149:18
important phrase and opportunity to
149:21
cross-examine even if there is no actual
149:23
cross-examination first there's an
149:25
opportunity to cross the tuna boat are
149:29
you supposed opposed the middle applies
149:35
the last exception
149:36
none hearsay rule and we on residual
149:40
exception now alumni are meaning to say
149:43
no to students known about the pattern
149:46
and I say I'm more of a conservative
149:50
when it comes to the roots this Imagi
149:53
liberal on approached it on and even the
149:55
congressional intent of the US lawmakers
149:57
because we pattering this from a us rule
150:00
are they from
150:03
rule 8 0 3 and H 0 4 of the Federal Rule
150:07
in evidence at a long Sabine de Barra
150:10
Stoney research must maintain the anemia
150:13
okay so the general the international
150:17
intent there was really to make it a
150:19
catch-all exception that's one though
150:23
it's a cultural exception the intent was
150:25
so that it will only be rarely used and
150:28
only in exceptional circumstances with
150:32
conditions designed to make it only less
150:35
accessible to practice citing Lampard
150:39
Lampert and Salisbury
150:41
you know I can only intention on now
150:43
give us an idea of the route make the
150:46
residual exception in the u.s. let me
150:48
give you the case of Dallas County
150:49
versus Union of 1961 it all started with
150:53
a newspaper account a newspaper article
150:55
let me mention of a fire that occurred
150:58
in a certain place and it was given a
151:00
certain level of trans worthiness and
151:01
because it wouldn't fall in any of the
151:03
exceptions having a residual exception
151:06
because Sabine unquote the exceptions in
151:09
the US they said the exception should
151:10
that hamper the search for the truth
151:12
all right Carolyn and I mean fake news
151:16
maybe either been given but again it
151:18
does not prevent us from using they said
151:20
well except Sean but there's one thing I
151:23
would want you to take not to share with
151:25
you so see now be more turn to be him
151:28
means I mean am i you are son
151:31
however there are now two views evolving
151:34
in the u.s. that is the street view that
151:36
I mentioned to you and there is the more
151:38
open view but in some states have now
151:42
been adhering to now kumigar gommage and
151:46
commit inian in the search for the truth
151:47
okay
151:48
now I think this is what we have to
151:51
expect from our judges
151:53
what is required is a careful sensitive
151:58
and judicial examination of the offered
152:00
evidence ended the justifications for
152:03
admitting the same so the burden on my
152:06
Europe Elega some melaka named in
152:09
abolition allah even the Civil Procedure
152:11
Malala fund the pinky toe masala here so
152:14
Callaghan penis open Celina residual
152:15
exception they really have to use their
152:17
judicial examination but please take
152:20
note of this there is a procedure that
152:22
is to be followed so if I intend to use
152:25
the residual exception I will have to
152:26
give notice to that the party at which
152:28
party a home prop or enjoy I will use
152:30
residual residual exception but I will
152:34
have to raise that notice or put that
152:36
notice to the other adverse party when
152:38
during pretrial or in advance of a
152:41
hearing during pretrial or in advance of
152:45
the hearing to provide the adverse party
152:47
marine Cameco will have a fair
152:49
opportunity to meet and needs my duty as
152:52
the proponent to state my intention the
152:55
particulars are the same the name in
152:57
address and address of the data one para
153:00
Allah was not the intention in the
153:05
particulars the name and address so that
153:06
the adverse party is well aware that I
153:09
will use or a veil of residual infection
153:12
I hope that that helpful for us know the
153:16
next opinion rule opinion rule and what
153:21
about the pinyin rule class II to
153:24
opinion rule
153:27
I've been agreed to you section 52 to
153:30
130 in depth definition not seen on
153:34
pointing my beginning opinion opinion of
153:37
a witness on matters involving special
153:39
knowledge skill expertise training I
153:44
didn't do no education you landed and
153:47
done but the same every every every
153:51
expert will have to be qualified because
153:54
no expert to be percent a dacoit unless
153:57
he passes the qualification now let me
154:00
just discuss a little bit education
154:02
because the drafters were well aware
154:04
that there are some expertise that would
154:07
require education before they attain
154:11
that expertise like for example doctors
154:13
they will have to finish their degree
154:15
medicine okay before they be presented
154:18
as an expert but education alone would
154:22
not suffice their experience they and
154:24
then the years of experience and
154:25
training will help them be qualified as
154:29
an expert in fact in one case decided by
154:31
the court it involved a dengue death no
154:34
mean I'm a trained about say some public
154:36
hospital dialing I said wrong wrong
154:38
diagnosis tomorrow doctor so being in
154:40
mind in public hospital dr. Zook in
154:42
question you know I've only just uni
154:49
Serbia is not even a pediatrician by
154:52
paracetamol so Sabina Supreme Court well
154:55
although that is ideal but the
154:57
experience special skill knowledge and
155:00
experience on dengue cases which run to
155:02
almost I think 40 cases that's what the
155:05
Supreme Court said we will qualify the
155:07
person as an okay or the doctor as an
155:10
expert now let us now proceed to
155:12
character evidence and but oppose the
155:15
final rule 130 character evidence I'll
155:18
walk you through this will be my last
155:20
discussion on rule 130 then I will now
155:23
move on to our I will move on to rule
155:27
121 burden of proof first of all a
155:30
person opinion character at word then
155:33
buried in Miami time Machado Jim
155:36
presumption I would like to discuss with
155:38
you but that is not what once we're done
155:40
with
155:40
were more or less about the finish we
155:44
have sufficient time okay now let us
155:46
look at character evidence if you will
155:49
look at the original provision of cards
155:51
you will not find a profit or if I make
155:55
it up more on character evidence Etonian
155:59
criminal a la criminal Steven but now
156:05
there is a profit or a paragraph that
156:07
says a person's character cannot be
156:11
present it is not admissible to
156:13
establish one to prove an action or even
156:16
a particular location
156:18
by European language but you look a
156:22
little immune character cannot be used
156:26
as evidence to establish an offense a
156:28
crime a host of action on a defend why
156:34
because it will confuse issues and
156:37
practice for prejudice if you are
156:40
prosecuting a person on a criminal case
156:43
you can have you can present this bad
156:44
character to prove the case that facts
156:48
and circumstances on how he committed a
156:50
crime that is first and foremost for the
156:53
court to know all right so you'll immune
156:55
well I'm going to be done it's only a
156:57
restatement of what we already know
156:59
now let us look at character evidence in
157:02
criminal cases tobacco by I'm I won't
157:04
take much of our time here the answer is
157:06
no what was changed was the presentation
157:08
I you never know offended party that is
157:13
a bottom offended party away affected
157:15
party the same rule years the defendant
157:17
part is good and bad character could be
157:19
presented if it will work established or
157:21
it's reasonable degree the probability
157:24
or in probability of the effects charged
157:25
are you all right now para Cooper in
157:29
Pasadena and prosecution in the paper
157:31
element present and bad character
157:33
accused
157:33
yes except upon the bottle yes sir Perry
157:36
Hooper in BA the Yongsan Ossa sunup you
157:41
spidah-man percent and good character if
157:43
there is some a character played
157:45
involved in the offense charged yes yes
157:48
now let us now okay let us now proceed
157:52
to us
157:54
okay this is just like I did not
157:57
transfer of provisions Lam can you take
158:00
note that that the provision on
158:02
character M in character of a witness
158:04
there was just taken from section four
158:07
team rule 132 so that's just a
158:09
transformation on meaning you could only
158:12
present the good character the witness
158:14
once it is the beach
158:17
good or bad character my self-esteem or
158:19
the purpose of a witness testifying in
158:21
court is only to attest to what the
158:23
matters that is person and proceeding
158:25
can make known as perception to another
158:27
but the very moment is character is what
158:29
beach I am where develop written about
158:31
in Talia now let us now proceed to proof
158:36
of character evidence embargo it all
158:40
together Bible proof of character
158:43
evidence in civil and criminal
158:47
I will reveal that in civil and in
158:50
criminal cases laughs pardon oppa to
158:55
denying in all cases in which evidence
158:57
of character or trait of character is
158:59
admissible what is the proof and I will
159:02
tell you I'm very happy with this and I
159:04
think practitioners are happy because
159:05
for the longest time we've been asking
159:07
pardon oh no you see we just rely on
159:09
foreign authorities when it comes to
159:11
this but now it is enumerated number one
159:14
testimony as to reputation as how people
159:17
perceive you to be
159:18
he's a violent person he's a dishonest
159:21
person next by testimony off but in the
159:26
form of opinion I will repeat it should
159:29
be a phrase in the form of an opinion
159:31
not an opinion because only an expert
159:34
can give an opinion in the form of an
159:36
opinion right now
159:38
reputation can you take known according
159:42
to authorities is that reputation is
159:44
more than an opinion in this guy's tutto
159:47
nominee
159:47
conceal you have a something it becomes
159:51
a reputation so again they say that an
159:54
opinion is what reputation is more of an
159:57
opinion in this life but what is the
159:59
working on the low I will repeat so that
160:00
we will not be confused by testimony in
160:03
the form of an opinion but let me just
160:06
make a side note all right
160:08
total abuse upon opinion they began when
160:10
a sidenote champ reasonably the only an
160:12
expert can give an opinion but an
160:14
ordinary witness can give an opinion and
160:16
ordinary witness can either give an
160:18
opinion on what mental sanity identity
160:23
and under anything now let us now
160:26
proceed and and and and after on the
160:30
last point on this proof of character
160:32
evidence on cross-examination inquiry is
160:35
allowed so on cross-examination so there
160:39
is a reputation right there is it forms
160:41
an opinion in the form of an opinion
160:44
which is reputation also on
160:46
cross-examination specific instances of
160:48
conduct will be allowed a little bit
160:50
specific instances of Conda like for
160:52
example you see me smilin the maximun
160:56
sari-sari store highness tiara that are
160:59
what specific instances and could be
161:01
presented on cross-examination however
161:03
let me tell you this according to US
161:05
authorities it is not just like a
161:08
free-for-all away the cross-examination
161:11
should only be limited to conduct
161:13
pertinent to the truth or character
161:16
that's according to McCormick on
161:18
evidence to disappear cane and lung you
161:21
cannot go you cannot stray away and
161:23
introduce extrinsic evidence and finally
161:26
on proof of character evidence still on
161:30
proof of character evidence but unlike
161:31
the first in civil and criminal ok cases
161:34
here when essential element of the
161:37
charge meaning women character is the
161:41
essential element of charge claim or
161:44
defense so in that case it's essential
161:48
element of crime a charge or a defense
161:50
proof is by reputation no proof is by
161:54
specific instances like for example in a
161:56
civil case I'll give you say believes a
161:58
claims have been yeah he did fraud did
162:01
me in lohanya into it open up in an
162:04
intervening you pull a Menendez I did
162:05
not take kuru substandard that's fraud
162:08
and the character trait there is honesty
162:11
all right honesty you could present
162:14
specific instances on this particular
162:17
label no more into in the past and they
162:19
did a transaction with a intent to talk
162:21
shall we
162:22
vodka okay now let us now proceed to
162:26
rule 131 are we still on schedule
162:29
Oh am i now connected
162:34
I think I'm connected okay to mean it's
162:38
a go honey
162:39
okay a while ago I was disconnected okay
162:46
I will end don't worry I will end at
162:49
five o'clock okay I will end at five
162:51
o'clock
162:52
that is our scan show okay now burden of
162:55
proof what is the in rule one thirty one
162:59
this is a rule 131 burden of proof
163:02
definition is still the same and can you
163:05
take note it never shifts so what was
163:07
inserted by the framers there is
163:09
long-established rule that the burden of
163:12
proof if in a prosecution of a criminal
163:14
case elements of the crime you will have
163:16
to prove it it cannot shift it remains
163:19
within the burden of proof of that use
163:21
is his defenses British troops never
163:23
ships it's based on the case of Bautista
163:25
versus Sarmiento and 1985 games now how
163:29
about the burden of evidence this is an
163:31
altogether new provision okay an
163:34
altogether new provision is it a good
163:37
amendment it's a very good amendment
163:38
because now with a burden of evidence it
163:41
shows that you will have to reach the
163:43
prima facie case in the case of the case
163:45
you should be able to attain prima facie
163:48
evidence of the case whether to
163:51
establish or to the bottom okay
163:54
whether established now what is prima
163:56
facie that which sufficiently
163:58
establishes a fartist evidence to
164:00
justify a favorable judgment and unlike
164:03
burden of proof on burden of evidence
164:05
shifts from one side to another
164:07
after I present I presented prima facie
164:09
evidence that establishes murder le
164:11
petomane dito alibi in their alibi yeah
164:14
I do a rebuttal okay and that is one
164:17
another word for burden of evidence is
164:19
burden of production or burden of going
164:22
forward with evidence now we are now on
164:27
presumptions okay we are now on
164:30
presumptions
164:31
on presumptions okay now I'm back now
164:36
just a time check I have 30 minutes I
164:39
have 30 minutes and we're okay okay on
164:43
presumptions we have a presumptions in
164:46
civil actions in civil actions kindly
164:49
take note that we apply here the
164:51
bursting bubble I just discussed burden
164:54
of evidence it's more or less the same
164:56
as the burden the burden of evidence in
164:59
presumptions once the presumption Rises
165:02
like presumption of regularity he is a
165:05
public officer it was in the performance
165:07
of his function presumption of
165:08
regularity
165:09
once it is establish you could rebut it
165:11
or he could meet it okay be under
165:13
evidence to destroy there's no
165:17
presumption of regularity and therefore
165:19
that is the bursting bubble that was
165:21
taken from us jurisprudence meaning you
165:23
have to smoke out okay with counterproof
165:27
the presumption that was taken from a
165:30
Kovich versus Kansas City a 1906 case
165:34
now another very interesting method on
165:38
presumption is inconsistent presumptions
165:40
and to be very brief baguette or
165:44
function robinia when there are two
165:46
inconsistent presumption inconsistent
165:48
presumptions that which is one which is
165:51
a policy consideration which standpoint
165:53
that wanyan like Bellagio Mesa that is
165:55
not of a the same policy consideration
165:57
for example where some should not be in
165:59
a sense and people versus Buddha ito and
166:02
presumption that Filipina will not
166:03
institute an action a Filipina will not
166:05
institute an action for a if it were not
166:07
true which would prevail for assumption
166:10
of innocence okay good answer Clancy L
166:12
makes sample pharmacy in the Napa vero
166:14
eterna presumption in criminal cases
166:18
okay
166:19
how about that is what my discussion is
166:22
inconsistent presumption but sumption in
166:24
civil actions and now presumption in
166:27
criminal cases not in criminal cases you
166:33
have to remember this and for students
166:34
huh
166:35
this is a bit damaged the home be kind
166:37
of complex but I know that you will
166:38
understand this was taken from the
166:41
Federal Rule and evidence 303 Ruth
166:43
filthy so that if you want to read it be
166:46
section 6 okay
166:48
here
166:49
this is a restatement that the
166:51
presumption the basis of guilt cannot
166:54
just be a presumption of it and let me
166:57
read if a presumed fact that establishes
166:59
the guilt is an element of the offense
167:01
charged or negates the defense the
167:04
existence of the basic fact must be
167:06
proved beyond reasonable doubt and the
167:09
presumed fact follows from the basic
167:12
fact being unreasonable
167:13
so this is purely a presumption in
167:17
criminal cases
167:18
therefore there is a presumed fact that
167:21
is the result of the basic fact there is
167:24
a basic fact that leads to the
167:26
presumption for example let me give you
167:28
this a simple example of math let's say
167:32
in a criminal case a libel presumption
167:34
of values while you will have to
167:37
establish that in my prove that he was
167:39
that they are to a thermal issues and it
167:42
was indeed libelous you will have to
167:44
establish beyond reasonable doubt the
167:46
basic fact of a publication about the
167:49
statements there in that it was one an
167:51
imputation a malicious imputation you
167:55
will have to stand wish that beyond
167:56
reasonable doubt naturally the result of
167:59
it is a presumed fact we likewise have
168:01
to establish beyond reasonable doubt
168:03
because according to according to
168:07
authorities but core Kornet every one
168:11
evidence presumptive presumption to
168:13
establish guilt or the element of the
168:15
crime and that any other evidence should
168:18
be established clearly okay not only
168:21
must the person fact flow beyond
168:24
reasonable doubt from basic facts the
168:26
court must find basic facts beyond
168:28
reasonable doubt now let's look at
168:31
impeachment we are now on rule 132 a
168:34
rule 132 section 12 sir
168:38
I know but I'll keep an eye over one
168:41
time and I believe that we will be able
168:44
to cover everything okay now let us look
168:48
at impeachment this is interesting
168:50
because this is an impeachment of a
168:52
prior conviction is some some misty go
168:55
in impeach as his - his prior conviction
168:57
he's not allowed by the present rule yes
169:00
that is allowed this is pressed
169:02
amendment is found in section 12 but
169:04
section 11 tells you how to impeach
169:06
contrary evidence prior inconsistent
169:09
statement your general reputation for
169:11
truth honesty or integrity is bad and
169:14
what prior conviction you will find that
169:16
in Section 11 last night you will also
169:18
find that in section 3 of rule 132
169:22
subsection F I think or in that tells
169:24
you at the bottom but the witness cannot
169:27
refuse to answer about this prior
169:29
conviction so now this provision gives
169:32
the parameters that standards by which
169:36
you are to present to impeach on a prior
169:39
conviction boy didn't give me the new
169:41
point omission question and if number
169:42
one the crime the prior conviction was
169:45
what was punishable by a penalty in
169:47
excess of one year of it or if it
169:50
involves a crime involving involving
169:52
moral turpitude the penalty is not
169:56
important okay
169:57
now again that was taken from the
170:00
federal rule on evidence now the G
170:04
tournament is a cross-examination
170:06
section 6 of rule 132 gonna want a we
170:10
still have a a Coulomb to bidam get it
170:13
sir alumni an Arminian I would want you
170:16
to share with you that a material trace
170:19
was drop or a material line was dropped
170:22
from the original predation what was
170:23
dropped it on any matter stated in the
170:27
direct examination and connected that
170:29
with for practitioners listening to me
170:31
right now you know for a fact alumni
170:34
alumni and for a fact that for
170:37
practitioners alumni opinion is being
170:39
added were conducting cross I'm
170:41
conducting cross the other part you
170:44
presented the red Oh Your Honor that was
170:46
the covered by the direct examination he
170:48
cannot ask not on cross then I will say
170:50
your honor I should be given sufficient
170:52
fullness and freedom to test the
170:54
truthfulness and accuracy of the
170:56
statement and feed them from bias and
170:59
interest and vice versa okay you know
171:02
that's a being gone now the Sabine it is
171:04
okay I will allow you but please kindly
171:07
take no there has been a wrong notion of
171:10
what is our rule on cross-examination
171:11
this is according to justice Regalado
171:13
I'm since regarded a is the
171:16
English rule Kayaba malignant eye or the
171:19
English rule means the wide open rule
171:21
you have the freedom to test the
171:23
truthfulness and accuracy of the take
171:25
statement and freedom from bias and
171:28
interests
171:29
hey casino one part of we not covered by
171:32
director now you're open clearly open
171:35
wide the rule wide open door now let us
171:38
now okay let us now I am already discuss
171:41
evidence of good character which is
171:43
nearly transferred to another position
171:45
now exclusion of witnesses okay let's
171:49
exclusion of witnesses what about
171:51
exclusion of witnesses committee on
171:53
chambray you don't want the witnesses of
171:56
the other party to listen to what you're
171:59
talking about - what - what the other
172:01
you don't want the witnesses to just get
172:03
to listen and action their statements
172:05
with their common sense right la Luna
172:07
Sala but more okay now what is the
172:09
provision say the court Motu Proprio
172:11
or upon motion okay may exclude
172:15
witnesses so that they can appeal the
172:18
testimony of the witnesses they retain
172:20
my exception a party to the case whether
172:23
civil criminal with criminal with more
172:25
recent because sister keeps he should be
172:27
confronted with the evidence against him
172:28
number to save a pop on you milano
172:31
corporation juridical entities their
172:33
officers and representatives they are
172:35
allowed to be present also in parity to
172:38
that exception the third when his
172:40
presence is essential to the
172:43
presentation of the path of the parties
172:45
evidence like one an agent was the one
172:47
who implemented the instructions of the
172:50
principle his presence is allowed and
172:52
there is a last and according to
172:55
authorities this is just like an open
172:57
window because if there should be future
172:59
statutes okay that would allow it then
173:02
this is the window this is let us now
173:06
move on to the second paragraph of that
173:08
permission of section 15 computer goes
173:10
up an eyepin exclusion eternal man
173:12
alright let you lay over you what is T
173:14
goes separate you have to be separated
173:17
why
173:17
so that you cannot converse even
173:20
directly
173:21
AO or through intermediaries the purpose
173:25
of the provision is in order not to
173:27
thwart the provision
173:29
not being not cool the witness is not
173:31
conversant that's why it covers
173:34
intermediaries let us now proceed to
173:36
public documents okay yo you don't
173:40
material it on okay I am now in Section
173:43
nineteen and for purposes of guidance
173:46
kindly take note that now there are four
173:49
subsections I will not discuss all the
173:52
four because we don't have time but I
173:54
will discuss the amendment the amendment
173:56
now covers what documents that are
173:59
considered public documents public
174:02
documents okay under treaties or
174:05
conventions which are enforced between
174:08
the Philippines and the country of
174:10
source and here this was brought about
174:13
by the apostille Convention which was
174:16
effective in the Philippines on May 14
174:19
29 t deaconess is a being Michaela and
174:22
died in a cutscene May 14 29 teen by
174:25
reason of a special convention that is
174:27
why it was inserted and I think I have
174:30
to discuss this new article 1 and
174:33
Convention Cassie you know Kino cover
174:35
meeting documents refer to in the
174:36
amendment
174:37
what are those if you're interested look
174:40
at the article of the convention episode
174:42
number 1 documents emanating from quartz
174:44
or tribunals including Public
174:47
Prosecutor's clerks or Process Servers
174:51
next administrative documents notarial
174:54
Acts number 3 and the next official
174:57
certificate signed by persons in their
175:00
private capacity so in key no cover no
175:03
anime on new kinds of documents and an
175:06
example it's the epistle convention when
175:08
the Philippines is a party to the
175:11
convention or where the source of the
175:14
document is like by supporting to the
175:15
convention now let us look at this how
175:19
to prove okay now how to prove the
175:23
amendment section 24 remains in fact the
175:26
first paragraph Galentine and a gondola
175:29
paragraph now when you're talking of act
175:32
of sovereign Authority which is the
175:34
first kind of public document you will
175:36
have to prove it by one very simple by
175:38
publication in a newspaper channel
175:40
circulation or you below center
175:42
publication number
175:43
- or a certified copy into non Suzuno
175:47
and he taught our main man and this is
175:51
how to prove the insertion you amendment
175:54
the pillows are nothing new by
175:56
conventions okay or treaties which the
175:58
Philippines is a party now if the
176:01
document is originated or is kept in a
176:05
foreign country to which it is a part
176:08
and it is a party to a treaty or a
176:10
convention and the Philippines is also a
176:13
party to the same what will be presented
176:15
the certificate that is required by the
176:18
treaty or convention in that form
176:21
prescribed by the treaty or convention
176:22
so at postilion and pound on a launch
176:25
and there isn't be a title in French
176:28
title apostille in the next what if the
176:33
source of all the document is in the
176:36
course it's in the custody of a foreign
176:38
country which is not a party to a treaty
176:40
or convention though the Philippines may
176:43
be a party but then the soldier is not a
176:44
party to the convention we follow what
176:47
we have been using before and what is
176:49
that
176:50
consular ice document that which is
176:53
certified and authenticated by the
176:55
secretary or the embassy consumed
176:58
vice-consul okay or consular agent yarn
177:03
now can we take note that any document
177:06
today that is presented in court that
177:08
comes with a certificate okay
177:11
requires no proof requires no proof
177:13
because it is prima facie evidence of
177:16
its jus execution and Jen - all right
177:20
but there are times that we are that the
177:22
treaty may have removed the formality
177:24
then no formality will be required let
177:27
us now look at objection to offer no we
177:31
have the time all right we have that 16
177:34
minutes we have just a few more to go to
177:37
my five points and then we're done
177:38
objection to offer or lack of offer of
177:42
the stable delivers let's look at this
177:44
Shara LM not if it's an offer objection
177:48
to offer of evidence and I own today it
177:52
should be oral okay because in the past
177:54
before the amendment we are
177:57
offer mask can be made objection could
178:00
be made in writing so on iron it should
178:03
it should always be or else now you will
178:06
some practitioners listening and if a
178:09
Panamanian government well we will have
178:11
to leave that the discretion of the
178:13
judge but what the law says now if you
178:14
have not checked or formal affair of
178:16
evidence or exhibit the same you will
178:19
have to offer it
178:20
exhibit a purpose then the other party
178:23
will object or you he'll have a run down
178:25
and you will object and then the court
178:26
will have crystal
178:27
now how about objection to testimony
178:30
because as you know the author of
178:31
testimonial evidence is before no
178:33
witness testifies your honor the purpose
178:35
of presenting the witness are the
178:37
following
178:37
all right or establish the finally now
178:40
the framing more minute it becomes
178:42
apparent that there is no author of
178:44
testimonial evidence you will have to
178:45
object okay sir
178:48
is there way there may jurisprudence
178:50
Pooja
178:51
but this requirement of immediate
178:53
objection when it comes to often of
178:55
testimonial evidence is in the case of
178:57
Katrina versus Court of Appeals and 1995
179:00
cakes and as I mentioned sir Papa I know
179:03
Indian Mutiny Hollywood the
179:06
cross-examine there was no author of the
179:08
jurisprudence on that point it was
179:11
allowed by the Supreme Court
179:12
okay now objection to a question there
179:17
was no change okay objection to a
179:20
question or change the duty of the judge
179:22
if there is an objection to question to
179:25
rule whether to overrule or to sustain
179:27
it to learn it I think that the
179:29
knowledge someone has to jump them if
179:31
they have a multiple objection
179:32
this is not an amendment still the rule
179:34
if there are multiple grounds for an
179:36
objection it is the duty of the judge to
179:39
give the research put objection
179:41
objection or compound and Bay you will
179:44
have to give the reason for its ruling
179:45
the next is striking out of an answer
179:50
voila I know well undergraduate and law
179:54
school a indeed tuna to do not may
179:56
banika practice court may be a moot
179:58
court and we have practitioners now and
180:00
maybe some judges comply meaning a re
180:03
buoy to service card to make it or not
180:04
it when there is a question striking out
180:07
of an answer this is section 39 of rule
180:10
132
180:11
an Iran people man go back on oh I was
180:15
supposed to objecting them as an
180:16
objectionable question but the witness
180:18
was so quick he answering the question I
180:20
will move to strike out the dancer
180:23
second the question is not objectionable
180:27
but the response is not what the answer
180:30
is not responsive you know not my
180:32
question is his duties as a president he
180:36
was telling me about his functions as a
180:39
controller that is why I will move to I
180:42
will move to one to strike that out the
180:46
next is if the witness makes animation I
180:51
will move to strike out your honor or
180:54
whether we're a witness it's a type of
180:58
witness who wants to volunteer and since
180:59
every now and then that animation in
181:01
there there being no question you could
181:04
move to strike it out hey you could move
181:06
to strike now and finally this will be
181:11
our last slide okay
181:13
wait of expert just in time wait of
181:18
expert witness opinion it to you more
181:21
than that for those of you who have been
181:23
constantly or repeatedly asking I'd
181:25
master giant ego battery set up and
181:27
evaluate and evidence Nandini pika
181:29
what's the weight of evidence came in to
181:30
a an expert opinion in the past I will
181:33
tell them that is within the sound
181:35
discretion of the court that's within
181:36
the sound judgment of the court and it's
181:38
good that we have it now and it is it
181:40
says the court has wide latitude of
181:43
discretion in determining the weight
181:45
given to such an opinion it is the
181:49
courts judicial determination and
181:51
according to the case of dog Daubert
181:53
versus Mariel okay in enumerate it to
181:56
domina factors they to anyone there
181:59
should be sufficient facts or data and
182:01
the opinion should be based on one
182:03
reliable principles and methods and
182:05
number three and the same was applied
182:08
okay the witness applied the principles
182:11
and methods reliably to the facts
182:13
meaning there's an application of the
182:15
principles and methods to the fact and
182:16
for other factors as the court may deem
182:20
what helpful now in the case of no bird
182:23
this is very helpful no
182:25
this will guide us the Declaration of
182:27
the court it says considerable leeway in
182:30
the matter and listing of particular
182:33
factors was meant the listing was meant
182:37
to be one helpful and not definitive so
182:41
we are not limited to this it is the
182:44
listing that I mentioned to you and now
182:46
part of the rule in Doon 133 is what
182:48
should only be helpful but not
182:50
definitely and finally by inner
182:55
provisions that I hope will add to your
182:57
knowledge about killing satin there are
183:02
minor prevail amendment in rule 133
183:04
section 4 in a palomino circumstantial
183:07
evidence that there should be more than
183:08
one circumstance and the circumstances
183:11
taken together should be established and
183:13
proven beyond reasonable doubt about and
183:16
there is a line that an inference cannot
183:20
be based on another inference Lippitt
183:22
with circumstantial an embassy and by
183:25
circumstantial how can that be reliable
183:27
evidence that's the penis the case of
183:29
people vs. Austria which says conviction
183:32
should be based on strong clear and
183:35
compelling evidence and finally I will
183:39
discuss this together the provision our
183:42
personal quante is rule 130 section 31
183:46
and 32 this is admission by a third
183:51
party as a rule a third party cannot
183:53
make an admission for me I can make a
183:56
declaration admission of a kind of my
183:59
kinda ordination but not for another
184:02
person but there are exceptions
184:04
exception of a partner or an agent but
184:08
kindly take note mainly it 'no amendment
184:11
because under that for the admission of
184:15
a third party to apply it should be
184:17
within the scope of the authority while
184:19
the the partnership or the agency was in
184:22
existence and the relationship was
184:24
established other than by the admission
184:26
there was an assertion of one authorized
184:29
after agent authorized by the party to
184:32
make a statement concerning the subject
184:35
which is only a rhetorician
184:37
to make it very clear that the person
184:39
should have acted within his authority
184:41
okay that's why there is not the word
184:43
authorized and finally another exception
184:47
to the third-party admission okay this
184:51
one in conspiracy the insertion of the
184:54
word furtherance okay formally saying
184:58
relating to conspiracy but now it is in
185:02
furtherance of this is to show what
185:05
motivating the notion of conspiracy this
185:08
is to draw us to draw our attention that
185:11
it should be upon downstairs so I think
185:15
I have covered what we have covered we
185:19
still have I think seven minutes thank
185:23
you very much for your time and I hope
185:27
that the discussion has been very
185:30
fruitful to some extent I hope that I
185:33
was able to help the students please
185:36
continue the study study study and read
185:38
if there are some things that are not to
185:40
you please try to be searched and to
185:43
check it out for petitioners I hope that
185:45
this is just some guideposts and
185:47
highlights in your further study of law
185:50
and I know that with your experience you
185:52
will have greater insights thank you
185:54
very much