Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • IV. Rule 130 Part 1 - Bathan

    Uploaded by

    Marti N Baccay
    13 views22 pages

    Original Title

    IV. Rule 130 part 1 - Bathan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    13 views22 pages

    IV. Rule 130 Part 1 - Bathan

    Uploaded by

    Marti N Baccay

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 22
    peveco RUES OF EvOENCE « en. 908 fen en gn nb eS cage ae SI, Pg ane ab no proof, and became mercy’ Wig would have Tea ne admissibility of which, qo 2% weal Mon, the AY of which gy ea sue yer terete uerded Can ky ei er regarded as aby Pl sees es an Seem ocean eo RULE 130 RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY |. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE ait caer» evince, — ous se ie om ranead to the socal ee ea jon relent oa a Ny be ellie toy cram seco) spl onto opie ll rears Lo oe st cp. 38 Der ae 8 C06 SESE SPE ln 0 se mT C31 SRA 241964, sng he vital senses of human being. These are the senses sant asd, sel ening Condo), and of toh Fe a oat ped Se ee see Tea ce See gouty ee Se th inal oe caret ae wich he cee ein Sal ary Clon py of ie ea ear el pc rm ee sae ee ee ee peer fare react il com ee rece oe ple vs Olarte, GR. No. 233209, March 11,2019, cas sed the object evidence into ovo (2) clasiiensons, Shee ae: (@) actual, physical or “autoptic™* evidence: ‘hose which have a direct relation or part im the ‘bea mpc Pee S56 77 Beam Pp ng Pale gu 8 Pa sm in 4 46 MD hl campo gle on Rae ea nai 37 hn oO 98 (ie POF Oc Pale RNa Ist, ane 208 ‘sees Atelno eG No 2198 Nene, seo ma «bea Seton fp aa me ee ovato RES ON EvOENCE eo indent S048 BE Proven ang hoe" Pesona erage veamesdling magistrate; oe is subdivided int tne qn eden i SEE 10 thee eng i) net hare ely Ken (taigue object 9 et ae de ony © eects made untgue) iy fo those with m0 identiying, may (nique object). Cao, ale dnesintin edocs thous wag seat weal oie or ‘Den pleres or videos) being offered ost cea an ference oF to aid in compen PR oe ny avs o ny, ig he al sg of evidence bt aie eto ctl ee we et ma eee ae eae ca i ne nd, aniwe peas a ec ee aval piel eae et vat ihe soe eal sa mio reac) he ead te ssc il mbar ta SSC tice ten on te coe hoe ig mo HPN 8,37 a "ph Sm OMY ei Oe pa ig Rano, WI DENCE te Sih tp Teg 98 me, OT Noresano cases 6 care ko a a, dl en rc tae Sor eas eon naa yee rete rceach emmeeysnecer Bo steruyeunge seep enee ieee nines enka eae a tin be teed inset one on lace a ae elevance Nate, tha fan object evidence is an objct made unique be an undetonated grenade, the chain of custody fle does te apply fori is not amorphous and its form is relatively ‘Msn to change. A witness ofthe prosecution need only to Henly the hand grenade, a structured objec, based’ on [sonal Knowledge that the same contraband or article te ‘at it purports to be—thar it came from the person Of sewed appellant at Je of object or physleal evidence. tn People vs. Guan, GR. Nos. 83497-28, July 17,1996, the presence of several fatal gunshot wounds on the body of the deceased is physical evidence, The bolo and the kale tse nln the victim are physical evidence. le Oe, pra, treo No 106: The gy teh ge pe ey fn per bene ins iy 1 omy a ron aS Pa eves RULES ON EvDENCE pon GR No. 10812 7 rch ay esti te vc te a ey cn SS ty he ih Co aro rete * 8 ht DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN GENE Ray oat be a 2 oa al et lee cen on ard presentation a evidence a Lo = nen ‘on admissbity of documents as evidence; ee words, sounds, numbers, gure, symbols, of tee salen % other mates of written expression offered asp tenants "* Sintec Sabi GX Ne L368, 28 ne 1974 975 Nores mocases o Under the new rules, photographs include sil pits, droning, sored Images, 1 Ans, mation peso Seon Nowe furthermore, thatthe exceptions to the general rue equting the production ofthe orginal of the doce ‘Bens ate: (1) when the original is lost or destoyedy or ‘lnotbe produced sn eour, without bad fathom the pat of the offre, (2) when the original i in the custody or under {He contol ofthe party agains whom the evidence seer, ns the ner falls 0 preduce i after reasonable notice or ‘Se onginal cannot be obtained by local judicial process oe procedures; (3) when the original consist of numerous fronts or other documents which canner be examined in four without great loss of time and the face sought fo be ‘sabised fom them is ony the general result ofthe whole ‘Ghwhen the original is 4 public record inthe custody of lc afier oti recorded in a public affice; and (8) when {eval sno elosely-eated to a contoling sue" Note furthermore that an “original” ofa document isthe ocument self or any counterpart imtended vo have the same feet By person executing or isting I An “orginal of a Dhotopraph includes the negative or any print thereto I das sored ina computer or siniiae deve, any printout oF evseo RULES ON EvcENce ® fe by sight oF other mea aig enable by si ches ose Tecurtely, an “riginal"e Soy, os ete dt shat pine is cou se ate : a ‘apes 2 the ogi ne acl yeas Of phtogany” HEM sr ad tres 0 by Recon ct ec Sod ereehve tem set a lg cng fee puoses of presentation, Section 19 of Rule chs eae eden Into 0 (2), namely sie documents at evidence, and (b) private documeey iene on presentation of publi documents as evidence bene dt anode o ved aden od at provided by lai, may be. presented in eden, Wu futher prot, the certificate of acknowledges eine pina fase evidence of the execution ofthe Instn edaen ised." ten ofl acts, or records ofthe sovereign au ig, eal bois and wibunals, and public officers wa ieee 2 Seen Nore anocases a een eee er ate ts acme a se ts aan ar esa tne ma a deen eens cs cee rs fe ee errs ceva nae lc nig rt dens ured oe ey cat ene Rak me re ecg a tr man a et ena al es aime ce se eaecrnceaes 26d Ren, oe fe preteen acl ele se any Saal SS er of ere Seto ee cae ene 2 sel ay meas oes Sa CTS ar waa ene ane ce ean el Rr San rere arte a ee SS ee ec a eee hs come, se main ry et on oe ee re sea ef ey or men che er Seatac Se serene ree ne Sec eae erst RUES ON Evoence vorsa perso sy val co ene Syren a Si ene freee cue rane te inne he A Tele Sit company he | but the eis of mistransmission of ertcal facts, fraud, fd mileading inferences arse only when the issue {elites tothe terms of the writing. Hence, the Best Ev dence Role applies only when the terms of a writing fe in sue, When the evidence sought to be intro: ‘iced concerns external fact, such as the existence, fexeution or delivery ofthe seiing, without reference to is tems, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be in ang Leger and Saar A Modern Agpronch so Edens, ens RULES ON Evoence och a ese, secondary eviden, vote" ny centaur oY nop rodn Hes of WOR, (cpr ee em fines fh jae The pina se slew 0 1 Pont the decd of sale wary fn et elf aha seein the couse of the tal a queages SS al Jn ato fad signed ree epounded to Pr jected to based on epee tte eae bd on nate ‘eed con does vs tauing the High Goo, the re ec ete cbeton ‘beers tr aed y he eed tenimoy del nt stems Sidhe High Cos me wre oni ene Sas en eae othe requses forthe admission of set se ee ty sponge cil ttc ine sen ET in me ‘teem i eit Siar eat ire oa spine al tl Sree Notes m0 Cases a sigs rests ye a ‘considering that the Best Evidence Rule was not ap pleabe Because the terms of the deed of sale with Fight to repurchase were not the se, the CA dion Five to address and determine whether the exsoree {recution, and los, a8 prerequisites for the presen Shon of secondary evidence, had been established by Irodo's evidence. Te should have simply addres snd determined whether or ot the “ewanee! ned “ection” of the deed ar the fcts in tse Had been rowed by preponderance of evidence Indeed, fr Prodon who had the burden to prove the tristence and due execution ofthe deed of ale with Fight to repurchase, the presentation of evidence other than the original document, like the testimonies of Frodon and Jose Carilon, the Notaril Register of No tay Hlsco Raton, and the Primary Eney Book of the Reginer of Deeds, would have suffced even without fist posing the los or unavailability ofthe oxgial of the deed” In Bsa Shangri-La Hotel and Resort Inc, eal vs. BE Gor portion, GR. No, 145842; Roxas Del Casto v=. BF Corpora- fon GR No. 145873, June 27, 2008, admisblity of pho tenis of Progzes Bling Nos. 14 1019, Pils and WWOs were tusained bythe High Court on the ground that BF could not nt the orginal of the documents since they were in the Fosesion of ESHRI which refused to hand them over to BE teste requests, and junked petitioners argument that BF, bet being allowed to adduce in evidence the photocopies sreaed 1, ought to have laid the basis forthe presentation ‘the photocopies ak secondary evidence, conformably tothe ovata RUES ON EvoENCE xe High Court explained je. The High Court explained they et 5 se etn em “est eidence” denoy sel OO ial of 8 Wing Mt ay sons OL ceed and Secondary evident = estimable except wehere the orgingy ces ean e produced if the sat i ead Tice contol OF SE ary ain pe Be cscs fd te ater fal topo

    You might also like