EVIDENCE

FINAL EXAMINATIONS
(June 5, 2020)

RONALD ARVIN C. CUSI

1. The Supreme Court in Tan v. Susana, defined evidence as “...

the means of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a
matter of fact, sanctioned by the Rules of Court.53 The purpose of
introducing documentary evidence is to ascertain the truthfulness of a
matter at issue, which can be the entire content or a specific
provision/term in the document.” The admissibility of evidence depends
on its relevance and competence, while the weight of evidence pertains to
evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.”
(Mancol v. DBP). While in Gumabon v. PNB, it was stated that the
relevance of an evidence is when “it has a relation to the fact in issue as
to induce a belief in its existence or nonexistence.34 On the other hand,
evidence is competent if it is not excluded by the law or by the Rules of
Court.”

The General Classes of evidence are; (1) Object (Real) Evidence, (2)
Documentary Evidence and (3) Testimonial Evidence. Real Evidence are
evidence which are addressed to the senses of the court – can be seen,
heard, feel and smell. While the documentary evidence are evidence that
are written or demonstrated such as photographs etc. Testimonial
evidence are evidence adduced from the testimonies of witnesses
presented in court.

2. Yes the court may take judicial notice upon the instance of the
prosecutor who wants to prove that X is a recidivist. In Degayo v.
Magbanua-Dinglasan, the Supreme Court states that: “...judicial notice
will be taken of the record, pleadings or judgment of a case in another
court between the same parties or involving one of the same parties, as
well as of the record of another case between different parties in the same
court. "

3. According to Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, Judicial

admission is an admission verbal or written, made by a party in the course
of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. As the
allegation of the plaintiff was properly denied in the answer, it shall fall
under Section 3, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, which specifically states:
 Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the trial,
the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce
its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties
to be heard thereon.

After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on
its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of
any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is
decisive of a material issue in the case.

Moreover, the Court will rule on the matter depending on the weight of
evidence presented by the adverse parties.
4. As counsel for M, I will advise him to produce secondary evidence. A
secondary evidence is admissible on circumstances stated by the Supreme
Court in its decision in Dantis v. Maghinang as “A secondary evidence is
admissible only upon compliance with Rule 130, Section 5, which states
that: when the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced
in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause
of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents
by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by
the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. Accordingly, the offeror of
the secondary evidence is burdened to satisfactorily prove the predicates
thereof, namely: (1) the execution or existence of the original; (2) the loss
and destruction of the original or its non-production in court; and (3) the
unavailability of the original is not due to bad faith on the part of the
proponent/offeror. Proof of the due execution of the document and its
subsequent loss would constitute the basis for the introduction of
secondary evidence.
However, if no secondary evidence could be produced by M which
means the document that was lost has no existing copy, then I will adapt
the Supreme Court’s decision on Lee v. People which states:

“The proponent is also burdened to prove the due execution or

existence of the original as provided in Rule 130, Section 5 of the
Revised Rules of Court:

When the original document is unavailable. – When the original

document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its
unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by
a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or
by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.

Rule 132, Section 20 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the

procedure on how the authenticity and due execution of a private
document which is offered as authentic may be proved:
 Proof of private document. – Before any private document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity
must be proved either:

(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of

the maker.

Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is

claimed to be.

The testimony of an eyewitness as to the execution of a private

document must be positive. He must state that the document was
actually executed by the person whose name is subscribed thereto. The
admission of that party against whom the document is offered, of the
authenticity and due execution thereof, is admissible in evidence to
prove the existence, authenticity and due execution of such document.”

I will present testimonial evidence in accordance to the above

provision to prove the existence and content of such document.

5. No. The first oral agreement stipulating the conditions of loan was
novated by the second written agreement of loan, it should be considered
that the written agreement or the promissory note controlling on both loan
as it was stipulated on the promissory note that the debtor will also pay the
first oral loan. And as the two (2) transactions is now covered by the
promissory note through novation, Parol Evidence Rule will now be
applicable. In Norton v. All Asia Bank, Supreme Court defines “The
"parol evidence rule" forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms
of a written instrument by testimony or other evidence purporting to show
that, at or before the execution of the parties' written agreement, other or
different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of
the written contract. When an agreement has been reduced to writing, the
parties cannot be permitted to adduce evidence to prove alleged practices
which, to all purposes, would alter the terms of the written agreement.
Whatever is not found in the writing is understood to have been waived
and abandoned.” For reason of the aforementioned rule, the plaintiff is
barred to prove the terms of contract outside the promissory note.

6. A. Yes. Joey is a competent witness as his testimony shall be governed

by Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which states: Dying
declaration. — The declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case
wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and
surrounding circumstances of such death. (31a)

B. The nature of the testimony of Joey would be considered as Res

Gestae evidence. In People v. Umapas, the Supreme Court states: “While
 witnesses in general can only testify to facts derived from their own
perception, a report in open court of a dying person's declaration is
recognized as an exception to the rule against hearsay if it is "made under
the consciousness of an impending death that is the subject of inquiry in
the case." It is considered as "evidence of the highest order and is entitled
to utmost credence since no person aware of his impending death would
make a careless and false accusation.”

7. Section 24 of Rule 129 mainly refers on the communication or

correspondences received or sent by the husband and wife during or after
their marriage, that cannot be examined without the consent of the other
as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other
during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a
criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's
direct descendants or ascendants. While in Section 22, the husband nor the
wife cannot testify for any other matters except correspondences for or
against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a
civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or
ascendants.

8. A. I will question the credibility of the witness as he has presented

conflicting claims as to his testimonies in court and at the police station.
In Medina v. People, the Supreme Court states that credibility “...is
determined by the conformity of the conflicting claims and recollections
of the witnesses to common experience and to the observation of mankind
as probable under the circumstances.”

B. I will point out to the court during the presentation of Vic in the
witness stand that he has conflicting, inconsistent and improbable
testimonies which impair the credibility of the witness. I will give
emphasis that the discrepancy of the testimony of Vic at the police
station is major inconsistency and material to the tenor that will tend to
diminish the probative value of the testimony. I will question the
credibility of the witness and diminish the value of Vic’s testimony for
the consideration of the Court in its decision.

9. A. Yes. Willie is could also be presented in the Criminal Case. As an

accountable officer, he shall be presented as an expert witness under
Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. His testimony shall matter as
he has special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he shown to
posses on the matter.

B. No. The testimony in administrative case could not be adopted

without the presentation of witness Willie as the said testimony shall not
be accepted in evidence. The rule is no evidence will be accepted unless
the same is identified by the witness during trial. Only testimonies during
judicial proceedings could be adopted in the same.
10.According to Section 3, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the obligation of
the witness is to answer all questions although his answer may tend to
establish a claim against him. It is however, the right of a witness; (1) To
be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from
harsh or insulting demeanor; (2) Not to be detained longer than the
interests of justice require; (3) Not to be examined except only as to
matters pertinent to the issue; (4) Not to give an answer which will tend to
subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law;
or (5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation,
unless it to be the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in
issue would be presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his
previous final conviction for an offense.

Thanks po Judge!