Evid

In the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution cannot prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
3
Dana Marie Reyes sent January 17
Once the court determines that the evidence being offered is both relevant and competent, it has
no choice but to give it probative value.
3
The court cannot determine the weight of evidence without first determining its admissibility.
3
A party who has admitted the due execution and authenticity of a document during the pre-trial
may no longer object to the formal offer of a photocopy thereof.
3
In the trial of a case, the court may not take judicial notice of the contents of the record of another
case pending before it.
4
In deciding an action for judicial recognition of a divorce granted in Osaka, the court may take
cognizance of the Japanese law on divorce.
3
A fax transmission is admissible as electronic evidence, it being a functional equivalent of an
original under the original document rule.
3
In a criminal action, a text message is admissible in evidence provided it is testified to by the
recipient thereof.
3
A defamatory text message sent by the accused to the wife of the complainant may constitute
evidence of publication in a prosecution for libel.
3
An admission made by Mr. X in the course of the proceedings of a case between him and Mr. Y
may be considered without proof by a different court in another case between Mr. X and Mr. Y.
3
In action for some of money, the rejected offer by the defendant to pay his obligation in twelve
monthly installments may be given in evidence against the defendant as an admission of liability.
3
In a prosecution for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, an offer of compromise made by
the accused may not be given in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
3
Although later withdrawn, a plea of guilty made by the accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt.
3
If a general provision in a written instrument is inconsistent with a particular one, the former
should prevail.
3
In the interpretation of a document, an interpretation that favors a natural right shall always give
way to one that disfavors it.
3
As a rule, the terms in a written instrument shall be given their common and general meaning.
3
If there is inconsistency between written words and printed words in a document, the former shall
prevail.
3
The only qualifications required of a witness are the ability to use his senses and the ability to
convey to the court what he has perceived through his senses.
3
If after his interview with the prospective client the lawyer refused to handle the case for the
client, the rule on privileged communication between lawyer and client will not apply to him.
3
The in-house counsel of a company engaged in illegal recruitment may not be examined as to any
information he learned in the course of his professional employment.
3
In a prosecution for libel, the doctor who treated the complainant for AIDS may, without the
latter’s consent, be examined as to any information he learned in treating his patient.
3
The Catholic priest in whom the accused confided as a friend that it was true he shot and killed
the victim, may, without the consent of the accused, be examined as a prosecution witness
regarding any communication made to him by the accused.
3
The accused may object to the testimony of his son as a prosecution witness by invoking the
parental and filial privileged rule
3
In the prosecution for parricide against the accused for killing his wife, his son may be compelled
to testify against his father in the absence of any other prosecution witness.
3
The testimony of a conspirator is admissible in evidence against his co-conspirator as an
exception to the res inter alios acta rule.
2
The accused’s failure to say anything when the victim accused him of raping her when they
confronted each other at the police station may be given in evidence against the accused.
3
The admission made by the accused to his friend that he killed the victim may, by itself, be
deemed a confession in the prosecution for homicide against him.
3
In the prosecution of the accused for raping Ms. X, the prosecution may also prove that the
accused had earlier raped Ms. Y and Ms. Z.
2
There is no instance when an unrecorded ephemeral electronic communication may be admitted in
evidence.
1
The court may disqualify as a witness a so-called handwriting expert if it is shown by the adverse
party that he does not have the required special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education
in such field.
3
At no instance may a mental retardate or a feebleminded person qualify as a witness
3
Unlike an extrajudicial admission, a judicial admission need not be given in evidence to be
considered by the court
3
The wife may testify against her husband charged with arson for setting on fire the house owned
by her sister but where she and her sister live.
3
The extrajudicial confession made by the accused immediately after he was arrested and informed
by the arresting officers of his right to remain silent and to a counsel of his own choice is
admissible in evidence
2
In the prosecution of the accused for oral defamation, the testimony of the witness that he heard
the accused publicly call the complainant a prostitute is inadmissible for being hearsay evidence
2
Under the amended rules, the testimony of a witness on a fact of which has no personal
knowledge may be objected to on the ground the it is hearsay evidence.
2
For the purpose of the original document rule, the printout from data stored in a computer is an
original document.
2
The original document rule prescribes not the best but the only evidence that may be admitted if
the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document
Dana Marie Reyes

Dana Marie Reyes unsent a message
Dana Marie Reyes

A video recording is covered by the original document rule.
3
The declaration made by the victim who thought he was about to die that it was the accused who
stabbed him ten times may be received in evidence in the case for frustrated murder against the
accused
3
Like an extrajudicial admission, a declaration against interest may only be given in evidence
against the declarant.
2
The testimony against the respondent given during the preliminary investigation by a witness who
died shortly thereafter may be given in evidence against the accused in the criminal action against
him
2
A duplicate is not admissible in evidence as it violates the original document rule
3
X’s declaration before he died that his first cousin Y was the illegitimate child of Z is admissible
in evidence in a paternity suit subsequently filed by Y against Z
2
The testimony of the rape victim’s barely educated mother regarding the mental retardation of her
daughter is inadmissible in evidence for being a mere opinion of an ordinary witness
2
The party who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of evidence
3
Burden of proof shifts from one party to another depending on the exigencies of the trial
3
The equipoise doctrine provides that the party asserting the affirmative of the issue must produce
superior weight of evidence to prevail in the case
3
In a civil action, a party must always produce preponderance of evidence to prevail in the case.
3
The accused may properly be acquitted even without producing any amount of evidence
1
It is the failure of the plaintiff after he rests his case to prove his cause of action by preponderance
of evidence that will warrant the dismissal of his case upon a demurrer to evidence
2
After the preliminary investigation, the filing of an information against the respondent is proper if
the complainant was able to prove that the crime charged was probably committed and that the
respondent is probably guilty thereof
2
In a civil action, the defendant must always prove his affirmative defenses by superior weight of
credible evidence.
3
In a civil action, the party asserting the negative of the issue need not produce preponderance of
evidence to prevail in the case
3
To warrant the grant of bail in an extradition proceeding, the potential extraditee must prove by
clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk and that he will abide with all the orders
of the extradition court.
2
Clear and convincing evidence is a quantum of evidence that is lower than preponderance of
evidence but higher than substantial evidence
3
For the court to appreciate self-defense in a prosecution for murder, the accused must prove to the
level of moral certainty the essential elements thereof
2
A presumption is disputable because the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, disregard it
3
One way of contradicting a conclusive presumption is by presenting sufficient contrary evidence
3
If uncontradicted, prima facie evidence is that amount of evidence which sufficient to prove a fact
or a set of facts
3
To cause the dismissal of the ejectment suit filed against him, the lessee may prove that the lessor
was no longer the owner of the leased premises at the time they signed the lease contract
2
To justify his act in mortgaging property owned by the corporation to secure a personal debt, the
corporation’s president may invoke the established rule that corporate acts are presumed to be
valid
1
The failure of the opponent to cross-examine the witness leaves the court with no choice but to
give full credence to the witness’s testimony.
3
There is no instance when the proponent may impeach his own witness.
3
The proponent of an unwilling witness may impeach him by evidence that he has previously made
a statement inconsistent with his present testimony
2
Without qualification, the opponent may impeach the witness by evidence that he has been
convicted by final judgment of an offense
3
In impeaching a hostile witness, the proponent may prove that the witness’s reputation for truth,
honesty and integrity is bad
3
In the probate of the testator’s holographic will, the latter’s personal secretary for ten years before
his death may testify that, in her opinion, the handwriting and signature appearing on the
holographic will are those of the testator
3
A person may testify as an expert witness if he is declared as such by the proponent
2
A witness who testifies that he saw with his own two eyes that the rape victim was very pretty is
testifying on his opinion.
3
As a rule, evidence on moral character is inadmissible
3
In an action for sum of money, the plaintiff may prove the bad moral character of the defendant
3
The opponent may, at any time, prove the bad character of the witness
1
Only if the prosecution has proved his bad moral character may the accused prove his good moral
character
2
During its initial presentation of its evidence, the prosecution may prove the bad moral character
of the accused which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged
2
The accused may prove the bad moral character of the offended party only in rebuttal
3
Without exception, before a private document may be admitted in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must first be proved.
3
Private documents that are notarized become public documents.
2
A notarized affidavit may be admitted in evidence without proof of its due execution and
authenticity
2
As a rule, a document with alterations is not admissible in evidence
3
Despite its relevancy and competency, the court may not consider evidence in deciding the case if
it was not formally offered
3
The formal offer of documentary and object evidence as well as the objection thereto must be in
writing
3
Excluded evidence is tendered so that the trial court may consider it in deciding the case
3
The formal offer of evidence may be objected to only on the ground that it is irrelevant or
incompetent or both
3
The court may admit irrelevant or incompetent evidence if it is not seasonably objected to.
3
As a rule, the court must always state the ground for sustaining or overruling an objection to the
formal offer of evidence.

Evid

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution cannot prove the guilt of the accused beyond

Dana Marie Reyes

Dana Marie Reyes

You might also like