IMPEACHMENT VIA ANOTHER WITNESS
- A denial can open the door towards the reception of another witness to
prove that such statement has in fact been made.
- The additional witness can be utilized to impeach the previous witness by
evidence of bad character.
- To prove the bad character of one witness by another, the latter must first be
questioned to ascertain whether he is competent to give testimony upon the
subject (Note: Basically, competent ba siya mag testify regarding the
reputation; i.e. kilala ba niya? Kapitbahay ba niya? Ano reputation nung tao
sa neighborhood? etc.)
IMPEACHMENT OF THE WITNESS’ CHARACTER
- Proof of a witness’ character and reputation is a recognized means of
impeaching him or discrediting his testimony.
- A “direct attack upon the credibility”
- It is necessary to show that the impeaching witness knows the general
character of the person to be impeached or his reputation for truth and
veracity in the community in which he resided.
- Evidence of good character of the witness can be introduced if the character
of the witness is assailed during cross-examination.
EXCLUSION AND SEPARATION OF WITNESS
- It has been the practice of courts, on motion of either counsel and
sometimes on their own motion, to bar from the courtroom all witnesses
except the witness on the stand.
- Ratio: to prevent one perspective witness form being influenced by the
testimony of another.
Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. - The court, motu
proprio or upon motion, shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot
hear the testimony of other witnesses. This rule does not authorize exclusion
of (a) a party who is a natural person, (b) a duly designated
representative of a juridical entity which is a party to the case, (c) a
person whose presence is essential to the presentation of the party's
cause, or (d) a person authorized by a statute to be present.
The court may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented
from conversing with one another, directly or through intermediaries, until
all shall have been examined.
- The power of exclusion applies only to witnesses and not to the parties in a
civil case.
- The right against exclusion also applies to the accused in a criminal case
since he has the right to be present and defend in person and by counsel at
every stage of the proceedings, unless he expressly or impliedly waived his
presence.
- The express prohibition on witnesses from conversing with one another
“directly or through intermediaries” is simply designed to emphasize that an
indirect circumvention of the rule is not allowed.
- This separation allows for the exposure of inconsistencies in their
testimony.
- The rule was also designed to prevent witnesses form shaping their
testimony to conform with that of another.
SCOPE
- Applies only to a witness who is not a party to the suit or criminal action.
- XPNs:
 a defendant who defaulted, though a party in the suit may be deprived
of involvement in the proceedings.
 The defendant/s in a crim. Case who expressly or impliedly waived his
right to be present.
 The judge excludes the defendant if his presence or conduct caused fear
to a child who is testifying as a witness or as a victim.
VIOLATION OF A SEPARATION ORDER
- The court may forbid the witness’s testimony, assign less weight to his
evidence, or cite the defiant witness for contempt.
REVITALIZING THE WITNESS’S MEMORY
- A witness may be permitted to refresh his memory or to stimulate his power
of recollection by reference to a written matter, mindful of the frailty of
human memory.
Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. - A witness may be
allowed to refresh his or her memory respecting a fact by anything written
or recorded by himself or herself, or under his or her direction, at the time
when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when
the fact was fresh in his or her memory and he or she knew that the same
was correctly written or recorded; but in such case, the writing or record
must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if
he or she chooses, cross-examine the witness upon it and may read it in
evidence. A witness may also testify from such a writing or record, though
he or she retains no recollection of the particular facts, if he or she is able to
swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made;
but such evidence must be received with caution.
MEDIA OTHER THAN WRITINGS
- Anything that will refresh the memory of the witness may be resorted to
(i.e. pictorial preservation of facts).
- The court may also allow verbal inquiry as to statements or circumstances
which may tend to enable the witness to recollect more clearly the fact
which is sought to be proved,

PRECONDITION TO THE USE OF MEMORANDA
- When it is shown ahead of time as to the fading memory of the witness
whose recollection therefore needs to be refreshed by the memorandum.
Borromeo v. Court of Appeals
As may be observed, this provision applies only when it is shown beforehand that
there is need to refresh the memory of the witness, which is not the case here.
Nowhere in the record is there any indication that Alcantara needed during her
testimony the aid of any memorandum in respect to the matters contained in the
notes in dispute. Besides, under the above witness does not constitute evidence, and
may not be admitted as such, for the simple reason that the witness has just the same
to testify on the basis of refreshed memory. In other words, where the witness has
testified independently of or after his testimony has been refreshed by a
memorandum of the events in dispute, such memorandum is not admissible as
corroborative evidence. It is self-evident that a witness may not be corroborated
by any written statement prepared wholly by him. He cannot be more credible
just because he support his open-court declaration with written statements of
the same facts even if he did prepare them during the occasion in dispute, unless
the proper predicate of his failing memory is priorly laid down. What is more, even
where this requirement has been satisfied, the express injunction of the rule itself is
that such evidence must be received with caution, if only because it is not very
difficult to conceive and fabricate evidence of this nature. This is doubly true when
the witness stands to gain materially or otherwise from the admission of such
evidence, which is exactly the case of Crispina Alcantara.
- Recollection is treated as an exception to the hearsay evidence rule.
TYPES OF REJUVENATION FOR THE WITNESS’S MEMORY
- “revival of present memory”  the witness recalls the facts relative to his
entries and is entitled to greater weight
- “revival of past recollection”  the witness does not remember the facts
involved; received with caution or prudence.
- The memorandum need not be the original when used to refresh present
recollection (regarded only as secondary evidence)
CROSS-EXAMINATION
- The memorandum need not be brought into court. Nonetheless, the witness
may be asked as to any means he used to refresh his memory, and the
absence of the writing may have a discrediting effect on his testimony.
- Where it appears that the witness has no independent recollection of either
the memorandum or the facts which it recites, and his memory is not
refreshed thereby, the writing may not be used as a basis for testimony.
THEORY OF COMPLETENESS
- Piecemeal introduction of evidence by any party will authorize inquiry by
the adverse party on the remainder thereof.
Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence,
the remainder admissible. - When part of an act, declaration, conversation,
writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same
subject may be inquired into by the other, and when a detached act,
declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence, any other
act, declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary to its
understanding may also be given in evidence.
- Under the doctrine of curative admissibility, where the court has improperly
admitted evidence of a party regarding a conversation or writing, the
adverse party should be permitted to introduce the whole thereof.
People v. Regular
We have gone over thoroughly the extrajudicial confessions of the two accused. In
these extrajudicial confessions, nothing is said on how the crimes were committed.
The only thing that these extrajudicial confessions had brought out of the two
accused is the fact that they had participated in the stabbing spree. In open court, the
accused de Lara made explanatory statements on how he became involved in the
case, while the accused Regular completely repudiated his confession. 
It is true, of course, that under the Rules and in the spirit of fair play, the whole
of the confession must be put in evidence. An extrajudicial confession may be
accepted in its entirety or only a part thereof. 6 To accept fragments of the
confession which limits or modifies the criminality of the accused and
suppresses others which aggravates such behavior is utterly inconsistent with
justice. 
Nevertheless, the aforecited rule admits of certain exceptions, for it is not absolute.
There are instances, occasions and circumstances which can make it justifiably
imperative to believe or accept only a part of the confession and reject the rest.
One such instance is when an accused, in his testimony, makes some explanatory
statements tending to mitigate his participation in the crimes committed and the
prosecution fails to rebut such testimony. 
RIGHT TO INSPECT A WRITING PRESENTED TO A WITNESS
- Entwined with the theory of completeness
Section 18. Right to inspect writing shown to witness. - Whenever a writing
is shown to a witness, it may be inspected by the adverse party.
- While a person who calls for the production of a document and inspects the
same is not obliged to offer it, a scrutiny by the adverse party of the whole
document as presented to the witness is warranted precisely on account of
the theory of completeness.
 - Where a document is produced on request, it may be inspected by the party
requesting it without first being placed in evidence.
B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENT
- Any substance having any matter expressed or described upon it by marks
capable of being read.
- It includes all material substances on which the thoughts of mean are
represented by writing, or any other person species of conventional mark or
symbol.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
- Legal evidence is not confined to the human voice or oral testimony.
- In documentary evidence, the witness is the thing that speaks.
- 2 principal classes
1) Public writings
2) Private writings
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
Section 19. Classes of documents. - For the purpose of their presentation in
evidence, documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the sovereign authority, official
bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a
foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and
testaments;
(c) Documents that are considered public documents under treaties and
conventions which are in force between the Philippines and the country of
source; and
- Documents being inanimate things, necessarily come to the cognizance of
tribunals though human testimony
- Dead proofs (probation mortua)
STAGES
MARKING
- The instrument must be:
1. Marked
2. Identified
3. Authenticated
4. Formally offered and subjected to
5. Tender of excluded evidence, if rejected by the court
- Authentication of the document serves as the initial segment to unveil
documentary evidence prior to identification, marking, and formal offer.
- The marking and identification of the document occupy the primordial
aspect in the birth of documentary evidence.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
- Assessment as to whether it is a priv or pub document is essential to address
the question of necessity for authentication
Republic v. Gimenez
The nature of documents as either public or private determines how the documents
may be presented as evidence in court. A public document, by virtue of its official
or sovereign character, or because it has been acknowledged before a notary public
(except a notarial will) or a competent public official with the formalities required by
law, or because it is a public record of a private writing authorized by law,  is self-
authenticating and requires no further authentication in order to be presented as
evidence in court. In contrast, a private document is any other writing, deed, or
instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary or other
person legally authorized by which some disposition or agreement is proved or set
forth. Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public document, or the
solemnities prescribed by law, a private document requires authentication in the
manner allowed by law or the Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence in
court.137 (Emphasis supplied)

(d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by PUBLIC DOCUMENT
law to be entered therein. - Any instrument authorized by a notary public or a competent public official
All other writings are private. with the solemnities required by law.
- Two classifications:
PRESENTATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1) Executed by private individuals which are authenticated by notaries
public
PROCUREMENT 2) Issued by competent public officials by reason of their office.
- May be classified as judicial or nonjudicial.
 - Judicial and nonjudicial public documents may be again divided into
domestic and foreign documents.
PRIVATE DOCUMENT
- Every deed or instrument executed by a private person, without the
intervention of a public notary or of other person legally authorized, by
which the document some disposition or agreement is proved, evidence or
set forth.
- Document that is defective by reason of incompetency of the notary is
considered as a private instruments.
PROPOSITIONS ON AUTHENTICATION AND ADMISSIBILITY
- General Rule: a public document does not require authentication for
admissibility, unlike a private document.
- A public document is admissible even against a third person insofar as due
execution and the date of the document.
- A private document is admissible only between the parties thereto.
from official sources. Were there no exception for official statements, hosts of
officials would be found devoting the greater part of their time to attending as
witnesses in the court or delivering their depositions before an officer. The work
of administration of government and the interest of the public having business
with officials would alike suffer in consequence. For these reasons, and for many
others, a certain verity is accorded such document, which is not extended to private
documents. (3 Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 1631.) 
The law reposes a particular confidence in public officers that it presumes they
will discharge their several trusts with accuracy and fidelity; and, therefore,
whatever acts they do in discharge of their public duty may be given in evidence and
shall be taken to be true under such a degree of caution as the nature and
circumstances of each case may appear to require.

Cavile v. Heirs of Clarita Cavile

The document speaks for itself. The foregoing document was acknowledged before
Notary Public Iluminado Golez and recorded in his notarial book as "Reg. Not. No.
41; Pag. 100; Lib. II, Serie de 1937." Documents acknowledged before notaries
public are public documents which are admissible in evidence without necessity
of preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due execution. They enjoy the
presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.
To overcome the presumption, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing
and more than merely preponderant. Absent such evidence, the presumption
must be upheld.

Antillon v. Barcelona
The rule is well established that before private documents may be admitted in
evidence as proof, their due execution and delivery must be proved. (Sec. 321,
Act No. 190.) Their due execution and delivery may be proved (a) by any one
who saw the document executed, or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the
handwriting of the maker, or (c) by a subscribing witness. (Sec. 324, Act No.
190.) There are certain statutory exceptions to the foregoing rule in this jurisdiction.
(Sec. 326, Act No. 190.) 

To the foregoing rules with reference to the method of proving private documents an
exception is made with reference to the method of proving public documents
executed before and certified to, under the hand and seal of certain public
officials. The courts and legislatures have recognized the valid reason for such an
exception. The litigation is unlimited in which testimony by officials is daily
needed; the occasions in which the officials would be summoned from his
ordinary duties to declare as a witness are numberless. The public officers are
few in whose daily work something is not done in which testimony is not needed