COURSE GUIDE FOR EVIDENCE

Section/Schedule,
2nd SEMESTER OF A.Y 2022-2023

Professor: MARIO R.L. LUNA

Email address: mariolozadaluna@yahoo.com
No. of Units: 4
Book Preference/s: (1) Luna, Disquisition and Jurisprudence on Remedial Law, Volume 3, 2020 Edition, published by Central Book Supply, Inc., (2) Revised Rules
of Court [Codal], Latest Edition, published by Central Book Supply, Inc. or Rex Book Store (3) and others related books.
Platform/s: (ex. Zoom/Google Classroom/Google Meet)
Methodology: (ex. Recitation/Quiz/Lecture/Group Discussion)

I. GRADING SYSTEM

A. Recitation/Quizzes/Attendance/Other Activities- 30%

B. Mid Term Examinations 30%
C. Final Examinations 40%

TOTAL: 100%

II. COVERAGE FOR MIDTERM EXAMINATIONS (8 weeks)

 Week Topic/s Resources, Provisions and Cases
A. General Principles  Rule 128, Rules of Court
B. Kinds of Evidence  People v. Elisio D. Villamor, G.R. No. 202187, February 10, 2016
C. General Rules on  Republic v. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 159275, August 25, 2010
Evidence  Antonio Planteras, Jr. v. People, G.R No. 238889, October 3, 2018
G. D. Admissibility of  Philippine Trust Company v. Redentor Gabinete, et al., G.R. No. 216120, March 29, 2017
Evidence in General
A. Constitutional
Provision Excluding  Tomas Tan v. Jose Hasana, G.R. No. 190846, February 3, 2016
Evidence  Jose Dabon v. People, G.R. No. 208775, January 22, 2018
B. Statutory Provisions  Sections 16 and 23, R.A. No. 11479, The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020
Excluding Evidence  Sections 1, 3 and 4 of R.A. No. 4200, The Anti-Wire Tapping Act
1 C. Rights of Person  Section 2, R.A. No. 7438, Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigtion
Arrested, Detained or  Tomas Tan v. Jose Hosana, G.R. No. 190846, February 3, 2016
Under Custodial
 MVRS Publications, Inc. et al., v. Islamic Da’Wah Council of the Philippines, Inc., et al., G.R. No.
Investigation
135306, January 28, 2003
D. Jurisprudence on
 Rico Rommel Atienza v. Board of Medicine, et al., G.R. No. 177407, February 9, 2011
Admissibility of
Evidence  Dela Llana v. Rebecca Biong, G.R. No. 182356, December 4, 2013
E. Relevant Evidence
C. 

D. 

A. What Need Not To Be  Rule 129 Rules of Court

Proved  Judicial Notice
 Judicial Notice, when mandatory
 Judicial Notice, when discretionary
2  The function of judicial notice
 Judicial admissions
B. Judicial Notice 
C. Judicial Admissions 


A. Judicial Notice
B. Rules of Admissibility
C. Object Evidence
D. Documentary Evidence
3 D. Original Document Rule
E. Secondary Evidence
A. Parol Evidence Rule
B. Interpretation of

 Rule 130, Rules of Court
 Capistrano Daayata, et al., v. People, G.R. No. 205745, Mach 8, 2017
 Capistrano Daayata, et al., v. People, G.R. No. 205745, Mach 8, 2017
 People v. Jimboy Suico, G.R. No. 229940, September 10, 2018
 Roberto Otero v. Roger Tan, G.R. No. 200134, April 15, 2015
 Salunat Marquez, et al., v. Eloisa Espeio, et al., G.R. No. 168387, August 25, 2010
 Peregrina Macua Vda. De Avenido v. Tecla Hoybia Avenido, G.R. No. 173540, January 22,
2014
 Rule 130, Rules of Court
 Rafael Ortnaez v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 107372, January 23, 1997
III. COVERAGE FOR FINAL EXAMINATIONS (8 weeks)
Week Topic/s Provisions and Cases
A. Opinion rule.  Rule 130, Rules of Court
 Teodoro C. Tortona, et al., Julian Gregorio, et al., G.R. No. 202612, January 17, 2018
Rule 130, Section 49 of the Revised Rules on Evidence specifies that courts may admit the
testimonies of expert witnesses or of individuals possessing "special knowledge, skill,
experience or training":
Section 49. Opinion of expert witness. � The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring
special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess, may be
received in evidence.
Testimonies of expert witnesses are not absolutely binding on courts. However, courts
exercise a wide latitude of discretion in giving weight to expert testimonies, taking into
consideration the factual circumstances of the case:

Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may place whatever
weight they choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The
relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the
trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon
the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his
opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid
witness, the relative opportunities for study or observation of the matters about which he
testifies, and any other matters which serve to illuminate his statements. The opinion of the
expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all the
facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert
opinion may be given controlling effect (20 Am. Jur., 1056-1058). The problem of the
credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion
of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of
that discretion.37 (Emphasis supplied)

This analysis applies in the examination of forged documents:

Due to the technicality of the procedure involved in the examination of forged documents,
the expertise of questioned document examiners is usually helpful. These handwriting
experts can help determine fundamental, significant differences in writing characteristics
between the questioned and the standard or sample specimen signatures, as well as the
movement and manner of execution strokes.38
Respondents here assail the qualification of National Bureau of Investigation fingerprint
examiner Gomez, pejoratively branding him as "just an ordinary employee." 39 In support of
this dismissive casting of Gomez, respondents noted that he performed such functions as
securing fingerprints from applicants for National Bureau of Investigation clearances and
1 taking fingerprints of people involved in crimes

 Dela Llana v. Rebecca Biong, G.R. No. 182356, December 4, 2013

Interestingly, the present case is peculiar in the sense that Dra. dela Llana, as the plaintiff
in this quasi-delict case, was the lone physician-witness during trial. Significantly, she
merely testified as an ordinary witness before the trial court. Dra. dela Llana essentially
claimed in her testimony that Joel’s reckless driving caused her whiplash injury. Despite the