EVIDENCE the marital disqualification rule.

Alibaba lawyer with

There is no vested right in the rules of evidence. Because
the rules of evidence are subject to change by the Supreme
Court pursuant to its powers to promulgate rules
concerning pleading practice and procedure. The change in
the rules of evidence or however, subject to the
constitutional limitation on the enactment of ex post facto
laws. an ex post facto law includes that which alters the
rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony
than that required at the time of the Commission of the
offense in order to convict the accused.
The rules on evidence may be waived. When otherwise
objectionable evidence is not objected to the evidence
becomes admissible because of waiver. Thus, a hearsay
evidence, if not objected to becomes admissible. The
benefit of parole evidence rule and the original evidence
rule may be waived in the same manner.
respect to player young lawyer maybe some qualification to
become a witness because he can perceive and can make
known their perception to others testify against the client
that's it keeping a bowl rules of war didn't marital
disqualification and you know your player privilege pool
grace and beneficent rule or you think about understand
you privilege marital privilege communication rule and i
section 1.
ACTUAL TRUTH is what actually happened but insofar as
the court is concerned it does not concern itself with the
actual truth it concerns itself with the judicial truth and the
judicial truth is found out or established by evidence
Evidence to be admissible must be sanctioned by the Rules
of court. If an evidence has a tendency to prove a fact but
such evidence is excluded by the rules then it will not be
admitted.

A party may stipulate waiving the rules on evidence as long EVIDENCE is only necessary when there is an issue of
as: fact. If there is no issue of fact, there is no need to present
evidence.
1. no law or principle of morality, good customs
and public policy are transgressed or There are only two issues in a case whether it is civil case
2. no right of third persons is violated, the rules of or a criminal case:
evidence may be waived by the parties.
1. issue of fact
Article 6 of the new Civil Code of the Philippines provides 2. the issue of law
that rights may be waived unless the waiver is contrary to
Insofar as issue of law is concerned, presentment of
law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or
evidence is not needed. you need to present evidence
prejudicial to a third person with the right recognized by
only when there is an issue of fact.
law.

two cases the civil case and the criminal case when
Rule 128 gives us the odal definition of evidence So what
will there be an issue of fact in a criminal case by the
is evidence it is a means sanctioned by these rules of
way when will there be
ascertaining in judicial proceeding the truth respecting a
matter of fact.

Section 1. Evidence AN ISSUE OF FACT IN A CIVIL CASE when the

 the means,
 sanctioned by these rules,
 of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact.
It is a means sanctioned by these rules to prove something,
to establish an assertion, proposition, a judicial truth.
It is a means to arrive at a judicial truth.
Judicial truth is
 the truth that is established in court
 by evidence
example a spouse who has the capacity to perceive and
perceiving can make known his perception to others is
qualified to become a witness but cannot testify because of
allegations in the complaint are specifically denied in
the answer of the defendant.
GR: In denying the allegations in the complaint, the
defendant must specifically deny all the material
averments in the complaint. Those not so specifically
denied results in an implied admission of the material
allegations in the complaint. Because of the implied
admission there plaintiff need not present evidence to
prove such because it is already admitted. there is no
issue of fact.
IN THE CRIMINAL CASE you don't file answer in a tribunal has jurisdiction while insofar as the president is
criminal case. There is an issue of fact when the accused concerned it's the presidential electoral tribunal.
entered a plea of not guilty. If there is an issue of fact you
need evidence. so

When the accused entered the plea of not guilty,

prosecution is mandated to present evidence for each and
every element of the crime as alleged in the information to
prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime charge.

Ex. The SC ruled: Formal offer of evidence: in so far as

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE the rules of evidence shall be the
same in all courts, trials, hearings except as otherwise
provided by these rules.
Section 4 of rule 1 provides that the rule is rule OK
pertaining to the rules of court which includes the rules and
evidence does not apply to:
election cases filed in the MTC and RTC is concerned the
rules on evidence do not apply except by analogy or
suppletory character whenever practicable or convenient.
The formal offer of evidence is not applicable to petition
for naturalization unless applied by analogy or
investigatory or character whenever practicable or
convenient.

 election cases
 land registration cases
 cadastral cases
 naturalization cases and
 insolvency proceedings

Please take note that these cases are ALSO filed in court.

the rules on evidence do not apply to ELECTION CASES

filed in court.

1. Election protest of barangay elective officials and

2. election protest of municipal elected officials.
MTC has jurisdiction insofar as election protest
of barangay elected officials are concerned

The regional trial court has jurisdiction over cases

concerning election protests of municipal elected officials.

Technical rules provided in the rules of court are only

applicable in a suppletory character whenever practicable
and convenient.
Evidence outside the agreement. It is evidence aliunde. GR
The COMELEC has jurisdiction insofar as the election,
Parties cannot present evidence other than or even contrary
returns and qualifications are concerned With respect to:
to the written agreement itself and exception is parole
 city government elected officials,
 provincial elective officials and
 regional elective officials like autonomous
region of Muslim Mindanao

election cases involving election returns and qualifications

of the members of Congress or the members of the Senate
insofar as are concerned, the House of Representatives or
Senate the House of Representatives / Senate electoral

2
evidence.
Although the trial courts are enjoined to observe the strict
enforcement of the rules and evidence the same does not
hold true for administrative bodies the court has
consistently held that technical rules on evidence is only
applicable to judicial proceedings. they are not exact
replicas of those in administrative investigations reports to
discovery procedures as sanctioned by the rules of court is
not mandatory in administrative cases we cannot subscribe
to no lindus tenacious insistence for the bank to central
office of the general counsel to strictly adhere to the rules
of court so as not to purportedly defeat its cause.
(The content requirement in sec 6 rule 7 have to stated and
alleged and attached to a complaint or other pleadings do
not apply to land registration petitions because court
submission filed in court IN LAND REGISTRATION
CASES and any incidents thereto are not pleadings. the
content requirement in section 6 of rule 7 that mandating
that the content requirement is applicable only in pleadings
and land registration petition is technically not considered a
pleading which is states claims and defenses.
rules on evidence electronic evidence is applicable to
criminal cases because when the Supreme Court amended
the provision that says the rule on E-evi applies only I n
civil pro thus the rules on electronic evidence is already
applicable in criminal cases and as held a text message
which is considered to be covered by the rules of e-
evidence. the RTC admitted them in conformity with the
courts earlier resolutions applying the rules on electronic
evidence to criminal action.
DID the RTC violated in a Naturalization case section 34 of
rule 132 which provides that evidence which is not
formally offered should not be considered? under the rules
of evidence section4 rule 1 that technical rules and
evidence do not apply to naturalization proceedings.
Therefore, the court can consider evidence which is not
formally offered because the technical rules and evidence
do not apply to naturalization proceedings.
In administrative proceedings the technical rules on
evidence do not apply in administrative proceedings. it also
does not apply to labor cases where you cannot demand the
3
right to cross examination. the labor arbiter can decide a
labor case on the basis of affidavit on the basis of position
paper the original document rule is not applicable in labor
cases because you can even attach a xerox copy of the
document without being objected because the technical
rules in evidence
DOCTRINE: Technical rules and evidence do not apply to
administrative cases
WHEN IS EVIDENCE NECESSARY? when there is an
issue of fact.
when will there be an issue of fact?
it will depend on whether it is a criminal case or a civil
case. In criminal case, when the accused enter of his plea
of not guilty during an arraignment, after info is filed,
1. Civil Procedure- when the defendant specifically
denied the allegations in the complaint or when the
answer in the complaint failed to tender an issue, rule
8 section 10.
there will be no trial, the court can motu proprio
declare to render judgment on the pleading or on
motion of a party the court can render judgment on a
pleading.
2. when the parties’ stipulated on certain facts.
3. when the fact is subject to judicial notice.
4. when the fact is judicially admitted in the pleadings
for example, the defendant failed to deny under oath
the due execution and genuineness of an actionable
document which results to the implied admission of
the due execution in genuineness of an actionable
document.
5. when the law, order, rules presume the truth of a fac.
for example: in a violation of the contract of carriage
the law presumes that the common carrier is liable
because of the nature of their business they are
mandated to exercise EXTRAORDINARY
DILIGENCE such that it is not required on the part of
the plaintiff to prove the negligence of the defendant
because THE LAW ALREADY PRESUMES THAT
THE COMMON CARRIER IS NEGLIGENT SO
THE PLAINTIFF don't need to present evidence
anymore.
 In a civil case for ex ample there is a breach of contract
because of action.

Factum Probandum:

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROOF & EVIDENCE  the elements of the cause of action by which are
denied the defendant
proof evidence
 the ultimate fact established
product of evidence medium of proof
proof needs evidence. Evidenceis needed in  negligence of the defendant that caused damage
order to have proof to the property of the plaintiff
proof is the end resultof Evidence is the visible
evidence. proof factum probans:

 fact or material evidencing the fact or proposition

In a criminal case what is the factum probandum- The guilt to be established.
of the accused is the fact which is in issue in the case and  evidence that is introduced to establish the
to which evidence is directed. proposition that is the factual probandum.
 the evidence whether it be object testimonial
Factum probandum and factum probans
documentary to prove the negligence of the
factum probandum factum probans defendant.
Ultimate fact or the fact or material  the act or omission in violation of the right of the
proposition to be evidencing the fact to be plaintiff is the factum probans.
established established or in issue
ultimate fact to be Evidence itself Section 3 of rule 128 admissibility of evidence. Evidence is
proved admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
In civil cases is the factum probans --the
excluded by law or these rules.
elements of the cause evidence whether it be
of action by which are object testimonial 1. The evidence is relevant (when it has relations to the fact in issue)
denied the defendant documentary to prove
2. the evidence is not excluded by the Constitution,
the negligence of the
defendant law, ROC
Effect of evidence material evidencing the
fact or proposition to be
established
Probative effect of Medium or means by
evidence which proof is
established.

Section 3 of article three of the constitution whether it

provide evidence of being in violation of Section 3 and
section two of article three is in admissible in evidence
right what rule is that rules on evidence which is provided
for by the constitution right another thing section 12
paragraph three in relation to section 14 in relation to
Section 4 of Article 3 what is section 12 Article 3 what is
section 12 the right of the accused to be informed of his

4
right to remain silent and of counsel during was two year
investigation and
should there be violation of Miranda rights during custodial
investigation whatever admission made by the accused to
the authorities shall be inadmissible in evidence. (forced
admission)
Therefore article three is applicable only against the
government.
General rule: the provision of Article 3 of the constitution
are invokable only against the government because they are
considered to be limitations on the awesome power of the
government.
EXCEPTION: when it is a private individual that arrested
someone without warrant and with the fall under Section 5
of good 130 or when it is a private individual which
conducted an illegal search evidence obtained as a result
thereof, the evidence obtained thereof is admissible and can
be used against the accused. because Section 3 section two
of Article 3 can only be used against the government but
not to private individuals.
This case of Zulueta is an obiter and therefore not a binding
precedent.
A private individual committed the violation to privacy by
destroying the lock of a steel cabinet, getting all the
pictures, binoculars and all incriminating evidence against
her doctor husband, the SC ruled that all the evidence are
inadmissible for it is a a violation of the husbands right to
privacy and is therefore, in violation of SECTION 3 of
Article 3 of the Constitution,
GENERAL RULE the provision of Article 3 of the
constitution are invokable only against the government
because they are considered to be limitations on the
awesome power of the government. that's why when it is a
private individual that arrested someone without warrant
and with the fall under ROC or when it is a private
individual which conducted an illegal search evidence
obtained as a result thereof is admissible in evidence why
because Section 3 section two of Article 3 can only be used
against the government but not to private individuals but
there is one exception zulueta vs CA. but in a recent case of
cadajas vs people
1. none but facts having rationale probative value
are admissible
2. all facts having rationale probative value are
admissible.
Any evidence obtained in violation of Section 2 and
Section 3 is inadmissible in evidence if you have section 12
paragraph three in relation to section 17 this is admission
during custodial investigation which is
 in violation of the right of the accused against
self-incrimination and
 violation of Miranda right of the accused any
admission obtained therein is inadmissible in
evidence.
the constitution also provides for the rules on exclusion.
****evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue
and is not excluded by the constitution the law and this
ROC.
Evidence is relevant if the evidence has the tendency to
prove the fact in issue. then it is irrelevant if it has no
tendency to prove the fact in issue.
Irrelevant if there is no connect between the evidenece and
the fact in issue. You can only prove facts which is only
alleged. If you introduce evidence to prove a fact which is
not alleged, therefore you evidence is immaterial and
irrelevant.
If evidence has nothing to do with the fact in issue, that is
irrelevant so therefore if that is the case relevancy is not a
matter of law. it is a matter of logic.
Under Section 4 of rule 128 evidence must have such
relation to the fact in issue as to believe in its existence or
nonexistence. Relevant evidence must relate to an issue of
fact. if not then it is irrelevant. If you introduce evidence
for a fact not alleged in the pleading, then the introduction
of such evidence may be objected for being irrelevant.

Corresponds with the Wigmore’s axiom of admissibility

namely,

5
aggravating and qualifying circumstances must be alleged
in the information otherwise they cannot be considered by
the court even if they are established by evidence.
In antihazin law, disguise is an aggravating circumstance.
Failure to state that the participants used masks in the
information, even if proved, the court is not allowed to
appreciate it.
1. evidence of the good moral character of the
accused is admissible when said character is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charge.
2. In civil cases evidence of good moral character of
a party is admissible only when pertinent to the
issue of character involved in the case. Also.
evidence of good moral character of a witness is
admissible if his character has been previously
impeached.
Collateral matters ARE NOT DIRECT EVIDENCE.

What if uh what is alleged only aggravating and qualifying
but the ultimate facts constituting the aggravating and the
qualifying circumstance are not allegedly information
would you consider the information defective the answer is
yes. But such is only a formal defect. if you don't file a
motion to quash you waives it.
If that is the case what are the two remedies of the accused
the remedy of the accused is:
1. you may either file a motion to pass on the ground that
the information does not transform with a prescribed form
or
2. you can file in motion to pass on the ground ball uh
motion for bill of particulars.
 are those evidence that has the tendency in any
reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.
 has a tendency to prove the fact in issue therefore
it is relevant not direct evidence. It dt may not
bear directly on the issue, it will be admitted if it
has tendency to corroborate or supplement facts
established previously by direct evidence or to
induce belief as to the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.
3. it is just additional auxiliary evidence to the fact
in issue but so long as it has the tendency in any
reasonable degree to

establish the probability or improbability of the fact in

issue.

Collateral Matters as a rule are not allowed except Section 4 of

rule 128

 when you were able to connect these collateral

matters to the fact in issue.
 when it tends in any reasonable degree establish
the probability or improbability of the fact in
issue.
 it's just a matter of logic and since it is just a
matter of logic.

(N.B. issues not raised in the pleading/ complaint must

not be proved.)

In admissibility of character evidence. character evidence

is generally inadmissible and irrelevant in determining a
controversy because the evidence of a person's character or
trait is not admissible to prove that a person acted in
conformity with such character or trait in a particular
occasion.
Relevancy
If the complaint alleges that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff, the amount of 500,000 the
plaintiff if presenting is presenting evidence that the indebtedness is 750,000 pesos it can be objected
because as to 250,000 pesos it is irrelevant because that is not alleged you cannot prove what you did
not allege.

Exception:

6
If treachery is not alleged but here is the prosecution trying to prove treachery. ANSWER: I will object
Admissibility of opinion evidence. As a rule, the opinion of
to the presentation of evidence of treachery on the ground of relevancy. A qualified circumstance was
a witness is inadmissible. Except:
not put as issue. under Section 8 of rule 110 it is required that the qualifying and aggravating

circumstance must be specified in the information. For failure to allege the same in the information,
1. when the opinion is that of an expert, opinion of a
they are not allowed to prove such.
witness requiring special knowledge, skill,
expertise or training which he is shown to
possess, may be received in evidence.
2. When the opinion is that of an ordinary witness
Section 8 rule10 that the qualifying and aggravating
provided that the proper basis of the opinion is
circumstance must be alleged in the information otherwise
given and subject to the of the opinion in any of
they will not be considered by the court because it will
the following matters:
violate the constitutional right of the accused to be
 The identity of a person about whom
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
the witness has adequate knowledge
him.
 the handwriting of a person of which
the witness’s adequate knowledge
Collateral matters collateral matters general rule should not  the mental sanity of a person with
be allowed that is based on Section 4 of rule 128. An whom he has sufficiently acquainted
evidence has a tendency to prove the fact in issue therefore  the impressions of the witness on the
it is relevant but if that evidence though relevant is emotion, behavior, condition or
incompetent it would still not be admitted by the court. If appearance of a person (sec 50, rule
this evidence is incompetent, then it will not be admitted. 130, ROC)

An evidence is competent when it is not excluded by the

rules the law and the constitution, if relevancy is a matter of
logic competency is a matter of law and in this regard you
have to know the rules on evidence and the different law
that excludes evidence and the different provision of the
constitution that excludes evidence because it's the law
which will determine whether a particular evidence is
admissible or not.

Proof of bad moral character of the accused in criminal

case the prosecution cannot prove the bad moral character
of the accused in its evidence in chip. It can only do so in
rebuttal. This means that the prosecution may not offer
evidence of character of the accused unless the accused
himself has offered evidence of his good moral character.
The prosecution therefore must wait until the accused has
put his character in issue during the proceedings. Where the
accused prove his good moral character pertinent to the
moral traits involved in the offense charge, though he opens
the door to the prosecution to prove that his character is in
fact bad period then and only then maybe the prosecution
proved the bad moral character of the accused.

Evidence of good moral character of a witness is not

admissible until such character has been impeached. It is
error for council to offer evidence of good moral character
of his witness who is present in court for the first time since
he could not have been previously impeached.

7

CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED EVIDENCE IF NOT
PROVED WILL BE STRICKEN OUT OF THE
RECORD.
Admissibility of previous conduct or similar access
evidence. evidence that one did or did not do a certain
things at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or
did not do the same thing or similar thing at to another
time. (not admissible for the purpose for which it was
offered).
Evidence that Russell was cleared of a previous charge of
robbery is not admissible to prove that he could not have
committed the robbery for which he is presently charged.
The evidence that he did or did not commit an act because
he did not or did a similar thing in the past is non sequitur.
However similar acts or previous conduct is admissible for
any of the following purposes: to show:
 Specific intent knowledge identity plan system
scheme habit custom usage and the like.
 Said previous similar acts showed the signature
or had work of the accused because of similar
identical modus operandi. In other words the
similar act may be offered to show that they have
share distinctive features as the offense for which
the accused is charged.
Admissible evidence versus credible evidence
Admissible evidence credible evidence
means that evidence is refers to wordiness of
such of character that the belief
court pursuant to the rules
of court is bound to
receive it or to allow it to
be introduced at the trial
does not guarantee that quality which render a
credibility witness worthy of belief
means believability
Falsus in Uno falsus in omnibus means false in one thing,
falls in everything. It means that if the testimony of a
witness on a material issue is willfully false and given with
the intention to deceive the jury may disregard all the
witness testimony. It is particularly applied to the testimony
of a witness which may be considered unworthy of belief as
8
to all of the rest of his evidence if he is shown to have
falsely sworn in one detail.
it is not strictly applied in this jurisdiction it deals only with
the weight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law.
As the between negative evidence and positive evidence,
the court gives more weight in the positive evidence.
Alibi as a defense. the defense of alibi must show:
1. the presence of the accused in another place at
the time of the Commission of the offense
2. the physical impossibility for him to be at the
scene at the crime at the time of its Commission.
Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the
place where the accused was when the crime transpired and
the place where it was committed as well as the facility of
access between the two places.
it is evidence negative in character self-serving and cannot
attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence. It
cannot prevail over the positive identification of the
accused perpetrator of the crime. In the face of positive
identification of the accused by the prosecution witness
such alibi crumbles like a sand fortress.
Like alibi, the defense of frame up is viewed with this favor
as it can easily be concocted and is commonly used as a
defense in most prosecutions arising from the violation of
dangerous drug act. The legal presumption that official
duty has been regularly performed exist.
Basically, the rule on evidence is just rules of inclusion and
exclusion.
Multiple admissibility of evidence means when evidence is
offered and admissible for two or more or purposes. for example,
a dying declaration a declaration of a dying person maybe admitted for different purposes. it can be
admitted as part of res gestae it can be admitted as dying declaration it can be admitted as declaration
against interest as to what dress Jeff state is or dying declaration or declaration against interest.
conditional admissibility of evidence. Evidence offered
whose relevancy is not immediately apparent to the fact in
issue may be offered subject to its relevancy and
competency to be later on established. The relevance of
which may be seen when connected to other pieces of
evidence not yet offered in which case such evidence may
be admitted conditionally let us give an example what is the
fact in issue. To illustrate:
Berto killed Juan. stab from --- one by the use of the kitchen knife. The first witness for the prosecution
is offered to prove the fact that he saw Roberto bought a chicken knife gate two days before the
stabbing incident objection your honor that is irrelevant it would not prove the fact in issue that it was
Roberto who stopped who won OK so if you are the prosecution your honor may we request that this
evidence be conditionally admitted because we are going to connect it later on because by subsequent
testimony we'll be able to prove that this night that was bought by Roberto two days before the
stabbing incident is the same knife that was used in stabbing 1 so the court will admit this evidence on
CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE refers to evidence of the
a conditional manner but if there is failure on the part of the prosecution to connect then this evidence
same kind and character that tends to prove the same
which was conditionally admitted they will be expounded from the record it will not be admitted
facts.
anymore.
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE tends to confirm,
validate or strengthen evidence of already presented. The
corroborative evidence may be of the same kind as that
Doctrine of curative admissibility. When incompetent
already proffered. for instance, the testimony of ex that he so Y hack the victim
evidence was erroneously received by the court despite corroborates the previous testimony of Zee that indeed he also saw why strike the victim with the
objection from the other party. Where the objection was bloodied weapon here the previous testimony is corroborated by evidence of the same kind I dot E dot,
incorrectly overruled, the court must allow the other party
Evidence may also be of different
testimonial evidence from eyewitnesses.
to introduce evidence to contradict the evidence improperly
type from the previous proferred, but which tends to prove the same facts. For
admitted. This is for reasons of fairness. instance, a witness claims that he saw Mr. X signed a document subject of the action. Mr. X neither

example in a collection sold filed by against B 8 introduced evidence that he borrowed from CD&E but authenticity of his signature. Evidenced by a handwriting expert that the signature is indeed that of Mr.

did not pay. So what is the relation of such factor the fact be objects on the ground that PC material and X is corroborative evidence. Here we have testimonial evidence from an eyewitness and a testimony

constitutes character assassination nevertheless the court allowed now here we can introduce from expert who did not personally witness the signing of the document.

evidence that he is already paid that he has already paid his debt to see D&E there is no relation to the

fact in issue but that's curative no to cure the impression of the portal to see 8 a buyer or CB indeed.

example 2. In an action for damages arising from a car accident, the plaintiff introduce evidence to cumulative evidence corroborative
show that on several occasions the defendant in the past had injured pedestrians because of his to evidence of the same tends to confirm validate
negligence period of course under the rules of court this kind of evidence is inadmissible because
kind and character as that or strengthen evidence of
already given which tend already presented.
evidence that the person did a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did the same
to prove the same
or similar thing. Under the concept of curative admissibility, the court must give the party against proposition.
whom the evidence was admitted the chance to contradict or explain the alleged past acts he committed additional evidence of may be of the same kind
to counteract the prejudice which the improperly admitted evidence may have caused. different character for as that already proferred.
example Evidence may also be of
different type from the
previous offered
DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE
Negative evidence may be admitted but as between
Direct evidence- when it proves a fact without the need to negative evidence and positive evidence OK which should
make an inference from other facts. In direct no need for an the court give more weight it is the positive evidence right
inference for example eyewitness account that is direct
Evidence is said to be positive when the witness affirms
evidence.
that a certain fact does exists or a certain event happened.

Negative when the witness states that he didn't that the

Circumstantial- when you have to infer from the event, didn't occur or he doesn’t know. Therefore, denial is
established fact. a negative evidence. example of a negative defense is the
defense of ALIBI.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE- evidence which
indirectly proves the fact t in issue through an inference the court is inclined and should give more weight to
from a previously established fact. positive evidence than negative.

three requisites for conviction by circumstantial evidence:

1. there is more than one circumstance Ground for objection: evidence is irrelevant. Relevancy
2. the facts from which the inferences are derived or is a matter of logic.
proven and
Competency
3. the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

CUMULATIVE AND CORROBORATIVE

EVIDENCE

9
 BURDEN OF PROOF onus probandi. Refers to the
obligation of a party to the litigation to persuade the court
that he is entitled to relief. It is the duty of a party to
present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish
his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by
law.

Ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat-he who

asserts, not he who denies, must prove. If the defendant
admits that debt paid then it will be his duty to prove that it
was already been paid waive or otherwise extinguished.

In an eminent domain case the local government that seeks

to expropriate private property has the burden of proving to
show the existence of compliance with the elements for a
valid exercise of right of eminent domain. This is because
the burden of proof is on the party making allegations.

10
The burden of proof is fixed by the pleadings. The claim of
the plaintiff which he must prove is spelled out in the
complaint. Burdens of proof both parties do not shift during
the course of trial the burden of proof to establish the
defendant owes the plaintiff remains with the plaintiff the
burden of proof to establish that the loan has been paid
remains with the defendant throughout the litigation.
In criminal cases the burden lies with the prosecution to
establish each and every element of a crime as alleged in
the information by proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is
not the burden of the defense to prove his innocence
because innocence is presumed by the constitution.
BURDEN OF PROOF never ships. One who has the
burden will always have the burden.
IN CIVIL CASES - PREPONDERANCE OF
EVIDENCE in civil cases, the party having the burden of
proof must establish his case by a preponderance of
evidence or an evidence of greater or superior weight that is
more convincing and more credible than the one offered by
the adverse party. It means that the evidence as a whole,
adjuiced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has
greater weight that of the other.
In determining whether or not there is preponderance
of evidence, the court may consider the following all
facts and circumstances of the case the witness manner
testifying their intelligence their means and opportunity
of knowing the facts to which they are testifying the
nature of facts to which they testify the probability or
improbability of their testimony the witnesses interest
or want of interest and also their personal credibility so
far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial the
number of witnesses although it does not mean that the
preponderance is not with greater number period to
persuade by the preponderance of evidence is not to
take the evidence quantitatively but qualitatively.
Equipoise or equip ponderance doctrine
When the evidence of both parties are equally balanced
the scale of justice shall be tilted against the party with
the burden of proof. The equipoise doctrine is based on
the principle that no one shall be deprived of life liberty or
property without true process of law.
The doctrine refers to a situation where the evidence of the
parties are equally valid balance or there is doubt on which
the evidence preponderates in this case the decision should
be against the party with the burden of proof.
In labor cases, if doubt exists between the evidence
presented by the employer and the employee, the scale of
justice must be tilted in favor of the employee.
11
Proof beyond reasonable doubt-conviction requires a
proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. Proof
beyond reasonable doubt is degree of proof which produces
convection in unknown unprejudiced mind. This kind of
proof does not mean such degree of proof that exclude all
possibility of errors. Only moral certainty is required.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required in order to
overcome the cardinal rule that the accused must always be
presumed innocent until proven guilty. In the presumption
applies regardless of the enormity of the crime for which he
is charged and remains until verdict is finally rendered.
Reasonable doubt does not refer to any doubt or mere
possible doubt because everything in human experience is
subject to possible doubt. Reasonable doubt is that state of
the case which after comparison of all the evidence does
not lead the judge to have in his mind a moral certainty of
the truth of the charge. Where there is reasonable doubt as
to the guilt of the accused there must be acquittal. Thus if
the facts and circumstances are susceptible of two
interpretation one of which is consistent with the innocence
of the accused and the other interpretation is consistent
with guilt then therefore there is no compliance with the
moral certainty required and there is no basis for
conviction.
Substantial evidence this degree of proof applies to cases
filed before administrative or quasi judicial bodies and
which requires that in order to establish a fact the evidence
should constitute that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. Surprisingly, although that administrative cases
against judges are administrative it is highly penal in nature
and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The law presumes a fact from this set of facts:
1. possession of a stolen article- possessor is
presumped to have stolen
2. prior rents or installments had been paid- when a
receipt for later installment is produced.
3. common carrier is presumed to be negligent for
the injuries sustained suffered by the passenger in
a contract of carriage
4. money paid by one to another was due to the
latter
5. official duty has been regularly performed
THE EFFECT OF THE PRESUMPTION A PARTY IN
WHOSE FAVOR THE LEGAL PRESUMPTION
EXISTS MAY RELY ON AND INVOKE SUCH
LEGAL PRESUMPTION TO ESTABLISH
EFFECTIVE ISSUE ONE NEED NOT INTRODUCE
EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE FACT FOR A
PRESUMPTION IS A PRIMA FACIE PROOF OF
THE FACT. Pressure that is the effect of presumption.

There are two kinds of presumption

1. conclusive presumption this is something which

is a rebuttable. no a conclusive presumption
indeed OK at your evidence in order to rebut the
conclusive presumption will not anywhere be
admitted but
2. disputable it may be contradicted by other
evidence OK that's the evidentiary value of a
conclusive presumption and a disputable
presumption OK now what are examples of

12
 EXAMPLE OF PRESUMPTIONS:

EFFECT OF PRESUMPTION

KINDS OF PRSSUMPTION:

13
14
 WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENECE

EVIDENCE IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES:

15
 parties OK but what about ordinance ordinance hello
ordinance issued by the city of muntinlupa city the city of
multi lupa and artistic Manila mandatory judicial notice of
the ordinance passed in multi loop city and vice versa the
answer is no impact that is the issue in the case of social
justice society versus a pmsa the issue one of the issues in
this case is that can the court take mandatory judicial notice
of the ordinance passed by a certain local government unit
the Supreme Court said no while courts are required to take
judicial notice of loss enacted by Congress the role with
MORE THAN PREOPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
respect to local ordinances is different ordinances are not
BUT LOWER THAN PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE
included in the enumeration of matters covered by
DOUBT
mandatory judicial notice under section one of rule 129
because that is not the official act of the national
government only local government OK

The IRR issued by each department of the government the

answer is no why because they are official acts of the
In our TC Manila they mandatory judicial notice of the
executive department of the how about loss the board can
ordinance fast and vice versa the answer is no .
take judicial notice of them because that is the official app
of both executive and judicial department of the
government decisions of the court decisions of the Supreme
Court may be subject to mandatory initial notice because
they are officials official acts of the judicial department of
the government what about decision Court of Appeals since
they are published before can take judicial notice of each
decision of sandiganbayan which are published the court
can take judicial notice because some authors are of the
view that they are not subject to mandatory traditional

16
NOT AN OFFICIAL ACT OF NATIONAL GOVT BUT
ONLY MUNICIPAL GOVT.
Public knowledge-there must be some element of notoriety
what do I mean April I Adam but in the unpredictability in
one of public public OK and example of which is the path
that BLM is the president of the Philippines PBM is the
president of the Philippines OK that is 1 which is of public
knowledge which is known from appari to Hulu OK now
what if how about the fact that the traffic in edsa from 7:00
o'clock in the morning so 9:00 o'clock in the morning is
terrible no get this subject to public knowledge the answer
is no because it may be known in manila but it is not
known in visayas or it may be known in in in mahati but it
is not known in some parts of the country so there is no
element of notoriety therefore it cannot be subject of
discretionary judicial notice
Capable of unquestionable and at the beginning of Gaston
Ave. Very subtle that is maybe subject to discretionary
judicial notice because that is capable of unquestionable
demonstration or one which is ought to be known to judges
because of their official function right let's take this
problem
17
Now please take note that any other fact may be subject to
judicial notice so long as the procedure in Section 3 of
good 129 expandable feeding effect which is not included
in section one of rule 129 or Section 2 of rule 129 may be
considered the subject of judicial notice in Section 3 of rule
159 provided that the procedure in Section 3 Arvada let me
give you an example the court would like to take judicial
notice of the fact that the traffic in edsa from 7 to 9 are
terrible is terrible OK what would I do if I would like to
take additional notice of which I will inform the parties I
will declare that the board would like to take judicial notice
of that fact and I will hear from the parties their comment
on the propriety of the court can be different notice if they
don't object that the court will take judicial notice of Sasha
and the taking judicial notice by the court of Sasha will be
binding to the parties but if one of them objects then the
court cannot take judicial notice of such product support
will require the presentation of evidence to prove such it's
fear in Section 3 during the pretrial and trial report Moto
proprio upon motion shall hear the parties on the propriety
of taking judicial notice of any Microsoft OK before the
judgment or appeal the court not appropriate in motion they
take judicial notice of any matter enjoy the parties they'll
give such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case
OK now let's go to judicial

If that is the case what kind of admission is that that is a
judicial admission and you know the implication of a
judicial admission a party who judicially admitted in a
particular part shall not be permitted to present evidence
contrary to what the judiciary admitted question can he
present evidence to prove that the liability of the plaintiff is
only 45,000 4.5 million the answer is no why because he
failed during underoath the two execution in genuineness of
the actionable document which is tantamount to implied
admission of its two execution in general therefore the
defendant here cannot present evidence that would be
contrary to what the judiciary admitted so therefore we
cannot present evidence that the liability of the plaintiff is
only 45,045,000 and not 4.5 billion OK that's an example
of the impact the effect of judicial admission all right
Then it will be classified as object when you file a motion
for examination of document examination of the document
you're actually offering and object evidence because you
want the court to see the document that is object evidence
not documentary evidence when you file a motion for
ocular inspection you're actually offering an object
evidence because you want the court to see the subject
matter of oh the ocular inspection for example the subject
matter of the case is Lund wherein the defendant let's say
the case is recovering possession wherein the defendant is
trying to collect from the plaintiff the amount of
improvement that we introduced and the court would like
to see the improvement that we're introduced that is the
reason why the plaintiff filed a motion for ocular inspection
for the court to quantify the supposed improvement alleged
by the defendant then what evidence is actually being
introduced object evidence because that is subject
addressed to the senses of the word which in this case is the
sense of seeing now
object evidence must be authenticated by the witness to be
admitted.

IMPORTANT TOPIC: RULE 130

Grounds for objection.

1. object evidence

18

The right to self incrimination doe not lie against the
introduction of an object evidence. The motion for ocular
inspection for the 4th quantify the supposed improvement
alleged by the defendant then what evidence is actually
being introduced object evidence because that is subject
addressed to the census of the board which in this case is
the sense of seeing.
and then example gloves gloves that were found at the
scene of the crime the prosecution asked the accused to fit
in the gloves objection your honor it will violate the right
of my client against self determination so therefore can the
right against self incrimination be invoked against object
evidence the answer is no the answer is NO.
The right against self- incrimination
cannot be invoked against the
introduction of object evidence.
From the lips of the accused an
admission of guilt it does not apply
where the evidence of the excluded is
not an incrimination but as part of
object edivence.
The point is no we cannot use the
right against self incrimination in
order to parry the introduction of an
object evidence OK the right against
ain't gonna nation is simply a
19
prohibition against the process of
extracting from the lips of the abused
and admission of guilt it does not
apply to the instant case where the
evidence ought to be excluded is not
an incriminating statement but an
object evidence.
Purely mechanical and does not
involve the lips of the accused.
Signature: objection your honor that is
violative of the right of my client
against self incrimination the
prosecution countered that your honor
writing is a purely mechanical so the
right against incrimination is
invokable only against testimonial
compulsion what I am asking from
the witness is a purely mechanical
action honor which does not involve
admission from the accused OK if
you are the judge how would you rule
on the objection of the accused in the
case of Beltran versus Samson in the
case of Beltran versus Samson the
Supreme Court ruled that writing is
not a purely mechanical act writing is
something more than the movement
of the body or the hand or the fingers
OK right thing requires the why is it necessary for us to know the categories of
evidence between unique object object with unique or
application of intelligence and object with no identifying what what's the importance
attention. of knowing the difference or the categories of object
evidence class please take note that when the object
when the evidence when the object evidence is an
object with no identifying mark there is a necessity to
establish the chain of posterity if the object evidence
is a unique object or object made unique there is no
need to establish the chain of custody it is only when
the object evidence is an object with no identifying
marks but the prosecution needs to establish the chain
of custody for example drugs in drugs material is
based punishment of the chain of custody so what are
the links in the chain of custody in drug cases.

Really identifiable marks or unique object

an example of a unique object is a car with plate The chain of possible such that all persons all persons
number that car assuming that the plate number is who in one way or another was able to come into
correct is segregated from the rest of the car so that possession of the dangerous drugs must be accounted
car is specific a firearm a licensed firearm it is a meaning they must testify on the degree of their
unique object in a sense that that file or this possession over the drugs otherwise if they were not
segregated from the rest of the firearm by its serial able to testify there will be a break in the links in the
number so that is a unique object there are objects chain of custody which might leave if it's still not
that are made identifiable or objects made unique explain might lead to the acquittal of the accused.
example knife knife is stuck is specific no it's a
generic thing let's say a knife was found at the scene
of the crime it was recovered by social and the social
officer marked this night and he put the marking on
the on the on the handle of the knife that is an object
made identifiable or object made unique what made it
unique is the marking that was put by disobey officer
the other the third type of object evidence is object
with no identifying mark example shabu that's the
object of saying is if they should say objects such say
no but they should go inside they should say so it is
object with no activity fiber and that example wine
that was stolen and the wine is inside the barrel it's at
the barrel which was stolen it's actually the wine so
the line has no identifying but now the question is

20
Non-compliance with sec 21 quality
of the four posterity and each we
noted that in criminal cases the corpus
directly is the ground itself miss
Moore I am corpus delicti section 21
in the next asabi put on evidence
unhappy actually 21 weight of the
evidence the corpus delicti itself and
Daniel Cameron and Doug support
was directly it may lead to the
dismissal of the case but for purposes
of evidence no will it made if there is
non compliance with section 21 or
9165 will it make the evidence
inadmissible the answer is no the only
effect is that it will be evidentiary
value of the drug itself which is the
corpus director of the crime will be
affected OK take note of that.
21
In case of unavailability, absent actual serious
attempts to contact the required witnesses are
unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance
so for those of you who are not yet aware of section
21 this is section 21 now during the inventory.
2nd 21 the apprehending team having initial custody
and control of dangerous drugs controlled portions
etcetera shall immediately after seizure and
confiscation conduct physical inventory of diseased
items and photographs the same in the presence of
the abuse and who else representative uh it's OK
representative for council elected public officials and
representatives from the national prosecution service
or ninja who shall be required to sign the inventory
and be given their own so program a OK or
representative of the DOJ or the national prosecution
service and elected public official so my own
unconnected bubba no no affect the evidentiary value
of the corpus delicti explain more absence to the
satisfaction of the port Indiana affect ohan and
evidentiary value we discussed indeed sufficient and
explanation yeah my non compliance no just like in
this case of p
eople versus Santos the court held that nearly
statements of unavailability absent actual serious
attempt to contact the required witnesses are
unacceptable as justified grounds for non compliance
in the punata the court explained that these consider
that the court explained that these considerations and
then witness requirement arise from the fact that
police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time
beginning from the moment they have received the
information about the activities of accused until the
time of his arrest to prepare for a bypass operation
and consequently make the necessary arrangement
beforehand knowing fully well that they would have
to strictly comply with the changing of course to the
road now what are considered justifiable deviation
number one their attendance was impossible because
of the place of as

Epitaph- if used to prove the content or what is

inscripted inthe epitha is used as a documentary
evidence. If it is used to prove the existence of the
epitha, the epitha is used as object evidence.
The epitaph is an object evidence when offered to
prove/establish the death of the lawyer. When epitaph
is offered to prove what is inscripted on the epitaph
then it will be offered as documentary evidence.
Clearly our object evidence are now considered
documentary evidence if they are offered to prove the
truth of its contents the truth of their contents when
offered to prove the content of the said thing.

22
To prove the content or what is written in the
document you have to present the original
document. Because when the subject of the
inquiry is the contents of the document, writing,
recording, photograph or other record, no
evidence is admissible other than the original
document itself.
is used in buying shabu from the question is that an
object evidence or a documentary evidence but if the
purpose of the offer is to prove the fact of safe to
prove the fact of sale is the money offered as
documentary evidence or object evidence answer it is
offered as object candidate on the other hand if what
is offered is that this document that this money is
marked and the issue is the market and and and and
the object is the marking that was placed on the
money OK are you offering it as object evidence or
documentary documentary market the issue is the
contents of the dock OK so it would really depend on
the offer now assume that what you are offering is a
documentary evidence we have to abide with the
original document to question what constitutes the
original what is the meaning of the original document
but what is meant by original we refer to Section 4 of
rule 1:30 so please take note of the definition
document that evidence OK under section 3 and
please take note also under section 2 i mean and
please take note also of the original the meaning of
original document under section 4 rule 130.
23
are you definition and duplicated under the new rule
definition Papa classify Xerox copy of the document
how are we going to classify the Xerox copy of a
document is it original but the answer is no is it a
duplicate it exclusive excuse me it may be classified
as a duplicate why because the 0X copy is produced
by chemical means change so you see looks copy
more Xerox copy the original documento duplication
now Alibaba they don't come documento photograph
of that document and have the photograph printed
and you have now the printed copy of the original
document how are you going to classify the printed
copy of the original or the document that is a
duplicate OK So what if it is a duplicate what is the
evidentiary value of are graphic and duplicate it will
be admitted to the same extent as that of original.
Admissible to the extent as that of original to the
same extent as that of original. Paragraphs C
duplicate copy will be admitted to the same extent as
that of original.
Exception: please have genuine question on the
authenticity of the original or it is unjust and
inequitable to admit the duplicate instead of the
original then the operator will be mandated to
produce the original for example you zero copy and
terminal ratio and banning interpolations as
representation of the original in there because it is
unjust and inequitable to admit this or you pose a
genuine question on the authenticity of the original
then the overall will be required to produce the
original OK so take note of that i am pretty much
sure that there will be based on
OBJECT vs Documentary. When the contents are put
in issue or if the inquiry is about the contents of the
object, it is documentary.

Requisites:
1. when the original is lost or destroyed and cannot
be produced in court without bad faith or fault on the
part offeror.

(Lost, destroyed unavailable) you may prove it by:

Custody of the adverse party

24
 EVIDENCE ALIUNDE
GENERAL RULE: parties to written agreement shall
not be permitted to present evidence that would
modify alter or add to the written agreement. The
parole eviidence rule applies when the terms and
conditions where put into writing.
Exception:

25
 In the introduction of parole evidence. pleading must
be under oath (Verified pleading). In relation with sec
8 rule 8 actionable document. Under oath specific.

26
 if the document is already apostilised, it is prima
facie evidence of its due execution and genuiness of
the document.

Execution but not guaranteed as to its validity or true

nature of transaction.

27

Interest in the outcome of the case is not a
disqualification.
Become a witness the answer is no why interest in
the outcome of the case is not a disqualification how
about conviction of a crime the answer is no unless
there is a law prohibiting you to testify if one is
convicted.
28
anything that is based on his personal
knowledge that is which derived from
his or her own perception not from the
perception of others.
NEW RULE: the presumption is child
is qualified to become a business
those who are suffering from mental
incapacity are also qualified to
become available why because we are
governed by rules on examination of
child witness rules on examination of
child witness under the rules and
examination of child witness every
child is presumed qualified to be a
witness every child is qualified to
become a witness and a chunk witness
is any person who at the time of
giving testimony is below 18 but in
case of child abuse it may include
person above 18 but I'm able to fully
take care of himself or protect himself
from abuse because of the click
cruelty exploitation or physical or
mental disability or condition.
available what disqualifies one from
testifying against the other is the back
of their marriage.
2. Since their marriage had already
been severed, my answer would be
different because there is no more bar
so testify one against the other
because marriage has already been
dissolved the bar has already been
solved so therefore the wife W can
already testify against age after their
marriage had been annulled.

What means spouses disqualified to

testify against each other is the fact of
their marriage is the fact of their
marriage it is provided in section 23
that during their marriage the husband
or the wife cannot testify against the
other without the consent of the
affected spouse except in a similar
case by one against the other or in a
criminal case for a crime committed
by one against the other or the lappers
direct descendants or ascendance

1. W over the objection of the

husband cannot testify against the
husband because of the marital
disqualification both as I have said

29

of marital disqualification then
marriage to protect marriage OK since
in this particular case the parties are
already strange from each other there
there is no more reason to strengthen
marriage there is no more reason to
protect marriage because of the fact
that they are already strange for which
reason the reason for the law has
ceased to exist people said that under
situation the wife for any one of them
for that matter can testify against each
other.
answered number one who are
prohibited to testify #2 again soon are
they prohibited to testify #3 in what
cases are they not allowed to test so
who are prohibited to testify.
NEW RULE:
Those not allowed to testify under the
dead Man’s statute can now testify
under exception to the hearsay
evidence rule against the adim,
executor. Those who are to testify
against the executor, testator or
administrator and then the next one is
factual are now allowed to testify as
an exception to the hearsay rule for
someone to section 39 of rule 130

There are in a deadband spectrum

there are persons who are this is
qualified to testify OK who are those
the parties or assigner of parties locals
or person in whose behalf the cases
prosecuted under the deadlines packet
there are three questions that will be

30
If the confidential communication
was received during the marriage 2
grounds: marital disqualification rule
and marital privilege communication
rule.
This privilege is in favor of the client
and not the attorneys.

Driver and janitor is not covered. In

the discharge of the lawyers fiunction.
Assisting the attorney in the discharge
of his function.

After the marriage_ marital

Crime About to be committed

privilege communication because it

last even after the marriage.

31
The lawyer is both lawyer of the DOCTOR- Patient PRIVILEGE
deceased and the heir to expedite the RULE IS ONLY APPLICABLE IN
case. CIVIL CASES ONLY AND NOT IN
CRIMINAL CASE against a patient.

Self-defense rule:

(no atty -client established) bec the

lawyer is just to attest as a witness

32
33

The privilege belongs to the
witness!!!!
An act, declaration or admission by
any person against himself maybe
admitted as evidence against him.
I bumped it up was driving my SUV
and bump a smaller one people are
heavily damaged then approach the
owner of the smaller vehicle and
asking him how we could enter into
an acceptable compromise
programming may it be used as
evidence of my liability the answers
let's say that we were trying to settle
this OK so we had a compromise
negotiation where in I made a
statement like this I'm sorry pardon
kasalanan ko people is that statement
admissible in evidence the answer is
no can it be presented can it be the
subject matter of the testimony of a
person who was able to hear it during
the compromise negotiation the
answer is no because there was very
clear neither is evidence of contact
nor statements made in the
compromise negotiation admissible
OK now are there exceptions are there
exceptions to the truth meaning the
statements or conduct made during
compromise negotiations be
admissible in evidence yes if let's say
I admitted something during the
compromise negotiations that is not
admissible in evidence but if I did it
elsewhere outside of the compromise
negotiation same statement it's my
fault during the compromise
stabilization same statement it's my
fault you bank statement for it's my
fault outside of the compromise

34
negotiations admissible in evidence
the answer is yes why because they
are discoverable other than that
evidence of conduct or statements it
may be offered for a different purpose
not actually to prove liability it may
be offered to prove an effort to
obstruct a criminal investigation or
prosecution it may be offered to prove
bias and prejudice of a witness or
negativing of undue delay OK so for a
different purpose.

Admission of a crime to a reporter,

conspiracy, the act or omission by a
person cannot bind the others. Res
inter alios acta rule is applicable only
in extrajudicial admissions.
We'll be Testified to buy another
person not the one who made the
admission you know it's good
example statement before the meeting
his participation in the murder of his
statement is admissible against him
also what perception 27 of those 1:30
if he made a statement indicating
deeper you saying it's not admissible
against lead and Carlos applying the
principle of rest in the values now is
this applicable for judicial addition

35
the answer is no unrest in her eyes
after Indian applicable extrajudicial
attention I'm sorry on rest intervals at
the Indian applicable judicial
admission applicable extra judicial
admission buffet sabaka but let's say
example mapping that is one of the
open spiracles

36
 Admission by silence

37
Actual commission of the crime is the
corpus delicti.

38
39
 Example no. c

Example a

Ex b If he dies, the statement may be

offered as dying declaration because it
concerns the cause and surrounding
circumstances of the declarant’s
impending death and it was made
when the death appears to be
imminent and the declarant is under a
consciousness of declarant’s

40
impending death.

41
Common reputation can only prove
marriage. Used to establish marriage
it may be used established moral
character. It cannot prove pedigree
except marriage.
Kagimbal gimbal and ung statement
must pertain to the kagimbal gimbal
na occurrence!

42
43
 In presenting under the residual
exemption, you should inform the
lawyer of the adverse party that you
are presenting residual exemptions.
Ex newspapeer accounts na author is
very reliable, world known and very
thruthful and reliable very
trushtworthy and procedural
requirements have been observe
(inform the other party of Rule 130)
44
Termination the answer is no a
witness may be cross examined on
any relevant matter despite the fact
that that matter was not stressed out
during the recontamination but there
is an exception if the witness is the
accused the cross examination must
be limited two mothers the rest out
during the direct examination of
ordinary witness musta relevant to the
subject matter then it may be the
subject of cross examination but the
papers not cross redirect examination
direct examination recross
examination and non cooperation and
redirect examination during the
redirect examination during cross
examination during redirect
examination my discussion apparently
allowed by finding the touch during
cross examination the same is true
with recross examination no no I don't
get it you're gonna press out during
redirect examination but of course my
residual power and court to allow
questions even if they are not touched
during redirect examination they go
into witness

Those which suggest the witness the

answer are leading questions and
those is answerable by yes or no.

45
46
If That is the line of questioning of
opposing counsel I register my
continuing objection.

47