6.

EVIDENCE is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial

proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
7. EVIDENCE IS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO ITS NATURE AND FORM:
DOCUMENTARY – WRITINGS OR ANY MATERIALS OFFERED AS PROOF OF THEIR
CONTENT
OBJECT/REAL – EVI W/C IS DIRECTLY ADDRESSED TO THE COURT’S SENSES.
TESTIMONIAL – STATEMENT OF A WITNESS OFFERED TO THE COURT, MAYBE ORAL OR
BY J.A.
8. SO WHEN IS EVI ADMISSIBLE?
- EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE when it is RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE and NOT
EXCLUDED BY THE CONSTITUTION, THE LAW OR THESE RULES.
RELEVANCY + COMPETENCY = ADMISSIBILITY
EVI IS RELEVANT WHEN IT HAS A RELATION TO THE FACT IN ISSUE AS TO INDUCE
BELIEF IN ITS EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE.
EVEN IF THE EVI IS RELEVANT, BUT IT IS EXCLUDED BY THE CONTI, LAW OR RULES OF
COURT, THAT EVI WOULD BE INADMISSIBLE.
SAMPLE NITO: X SUED Y AND Z FOR ELECTION OFFENSE, X OFFERED IN EVIDENCE
AUDIO RECORDINGS FROM THEIR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION. SAID RECORDINGS
WERE OBTAINED BY TAPPING X’ TELEPHONE LINE W/O Y AND Z CONSENT. THE COURT
ADMITTED THE AUDIO RECORDINGS AND RULED THAT THE SAME IS RELEVANT TO
THE ISSUE.
QUESTION: IS THE COURT CORRECT IN ADMITTING THE SAID RECORDINGS IN EVI?
ANS: NO, THE COURT WAS NOT CORRECT IN ADMITTING THE SAID CONVERSATION OR
RECORING IN EVI. EVI IN ORDER TO BE ADMISSIBLE MUST BE RELEVANT AND
COMPETENT. IN THIS CASE, THE RECORDINGS ALTHOUGH RELEVANT BUT IT IS NOT
COMPETENT SINCE THESE ARE EXCLUDED UNDER THE ANTI-WIRE TAPPING LAW
(AWTL).
UNDER AWTL, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON NOT BEING AUTHORIZED BY
ALL PARTIES TO ANY PRIVATE COMMUNICATION, TO TAP, INTERCEPT OR RECORD.
9. EVI IS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO ITS RELATION TO THE FACT IN ISSUE:
DIRECT EVI – THAT W/C PROVE FACTS IN ISSUE W/O THE AID OF ANY INTERFERENCE
OR PRESUMPTION.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVI - THAT W/C PROVE FACTS IN ISSUE BY WAY OF INTERFERENCE
OR PRESUMPTION.
10. READ SLIDE 10
11. PRIMA FACIE EVI MAY BE REBUTTED BY CONTRARY EVI. WHILE CONCLUSIVE
EVI MAY NNOT BE REBUTTED OR CONTRADICTED.
13. UNDER THE PRESENT AMENDMENTS THE BEST EVI RULE IS RENAMED AS
ORIG DOC RULE.
ORIG DOC RULE PROVIDES THAT when the subject of inquiry is the CONTENTS OF A
DOCUMENT, WRITING, RECORDING, PHOTOGRAPH OR OTHER RECORD, no
evidence is admissible other than the original document itself.
SAMPLE:
YUNG PROSECUTION WITNESS NAG TESTIFY SA COURT NA NAKITA NYA SI ACCUSED
SA CCTV NA SINASAKSAK YUNG VICTIM. YUNG DEFENSE COUNSEL NAG OBJECT ON
THE GROUND OF ODR. YUNG PROSECUTOR/FISCAL NA YUN DW CCTV FOOTAGE AY
NDI DOCUMENT DAHIL NDI NAMAN DW WRITING YUN. ANG TANONG D2, TAMA BA YUNG
OBJECTION NG DEFENSE?
ANS: YES, YUNG PHOTOGRAPHS (NOT PHOTOCOPY), MOTION PICTURES AND VIDEOS
ARE EXPRESSLY INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF DOCU EVI AND ODR UNDER THE
2020 RULES ON EVI. SO THEREFORE, YUNG PROSECUTION SHOULD PROVIDE THE
CCTV FOOTAGES, OTHERWISE KUNG YUNG STATEMENT LANG NUNG WITNESS AY W/O
MERIT UNDER THE ODR.
Except in the following cases:

(a) When the ORIGINAL IS LOST OR DESTROYED, OR CANNOT BE PRODUCED IN

COURT, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;

SO DITO I OOFER NATIN YUNG TINATAWAG NA “SECONDARY EVI”, PERO YUNG

OFFEROR D2 MUST SHOW (1) PROOF OF ITS EXECUTION OR EXISTENCE OF
THE DOCS and (2) PROOF OF THE CAUSE OF ITS UNAVAILABILITY WITHOUT BAD
FAITH ON HIS OR HER PART, AT REASONABLE DILIGENCE AND GOOD FAITH ON
THE PART OF THE OFFEROR IN SEARCHING OR ATTEMPTING TO PRODUCE
THE ORIG.

PAG NA ESTABLISH NI OFFEROR YUNG TATLONG YAN, PWEDE NA NYA I-prove

YUNG contents SA PAMAMAGITAN copy, or by recital of its contents in some authentic
document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.

14. (b) When the original is in the CUSTODY OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE PARTY
AGAINST WHOM THE EVIDENCE IS OFFERED, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice, or the original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or
procedures;

D2 NAMAN ANG KELANGAN I PROVE NI OFFEROR AY (1) EXISTENCE OF THE

DOCS AT (2) REASONABLE NOTICE TO PRODUCE BY THE ADVERSE PARTY BUT
FAILED TO PRODUCE.
 or the original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures – IBIG
SABIHIN DESPITE SUBPOENA AY NDI PA DIN MAKUHA YUNG DOCS NA
KAILANGAN SA HOLDER.

(c) When the original CONSISTS OF NUMEROUS ACCOUNTS or other documents

which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of the whole;

WHEN THE CONTENTS OF DOCUMENTS, RECORDS, PHOTOGRAPHS, OR

NUMEROUS ACCOUNTS ARE VOLUMINOUS AND CANNOT BE EXAMINED IN
COURT WITHOUT GREAT LOSS OF TIME, AND THE FACT SOUGHT TO BE
ESTABLISHED IS ONLY THE GENERAL RESULT OF THE WHOLE, THE CONTENTS
OF SUCH EVIDENCE MAY BE PRESENTED IN THE FORM OF A CHART,
SUMMARY OF VOLUMNOUS ORIG DOCS, OR CALCULATION.

THE ORIGINALS SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION OR COPYING, OR

BOTH, BY THE ADVERSE PARTY AT A REASONABLE TIME AND PLACE. THE
COURT MAY ORDER THAT THEY BE PRODUCED IN COURT.

(d) When the ORIGINAL IS A PUBLIC RECORD IN THE CUSTODY OF A PUBLIC

OFFICER or is recorded in a public office; and

CONTENTS OF THE PUBLIC RECORD MAY BE PROVED BY A CERTIFIED TRUE

COPY ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC OFFICER IN CUSTODY OF SUCH RECORD.

(e) When the ORIGINAL IS NOT CLOSELY-RELATED TO A CONTROLLING ISSUE.

- THIS ESSENTIALLY REFERS TO THE SITUATION WHEREIN THE CONTENTS
OF THE DOCS ARE NOT THE SUBJ OF THE INQUIRY.

15. PAROLE EVI RULE – IT IS THE RULE W/C PROVIDES THAT ONCE terms of an
agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed
upon and there can be, as between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of
such terms other than the contents of the written agreement (WRITTEN CONTRACT).

PAROL EVI – IS ANY EVI, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, OUTSIDE OF THE WRITTEN
AGREEMENT, W/C IS OFFERRED TO MODIFY, EXPLAIN OR ADD TO THE TERMS OF THE
WRITTEN AGREEMENT.

AS TO PURPOSE – IN PER, THE PURPOSE IS TO BAR PE TO MODIFY, EXLAIN OR ADD

TO THE TERMS OF WRITTEN AGREEMENT.
EXEMPTION TO PER: S10R130 A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the
terms of the written agreement if he or she puts in issue in a verified pleading:

(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;

(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the
parties thereto;
 (c) The validity of the written agreement; or

(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest
after the execution of the written agreement.

16. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES

S21R130 WITNESSES; THEIR QUALIFICATIONS. - All persons who can perceive, and
perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.
WHO ARE DISQUALIFIED TO BE A WITNESS:
S23R130 DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MARRIAGE (MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION
RULE) - During their marriage, the HUSBAND OR THE WIFE CANNOT TESTIFY AGAINST
THE OTHER without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against
the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's
direct descendants or ascendants.

S24 R130. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS - The

following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:

(a) MARITAL COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGE - The husband or the wife, during or after the
marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication
received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one
against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the
latter's direct descendants or ascendants.

(b) ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE - An attorney or person reasonably believed bv the client

to be licensed to engage in the practice of law cannot, without the consent of the client, be
examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given
thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney's
secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or other persons assisting the attorney be examined without
the consent of the client and his or her employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which
has been acquired in such capacity, except in the following cases

(i) Furtherance of crime or fraud.

(ii) Claimants through same deceased client.

(iii) Breach of duty by lawyer or client.

(iv) Document attested by the lawyer; or

(v) Joint clients. As to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest

between two or more clients if the communication was made by any of them to a
lawyer retained or consulted in common, when offered in an action between any
of the clients, unless they have expressly agreed otherwise.

(c) PHYSICIAN, PSYCHOTHERAPIST-PATIENT PRIVILEGE A physician, psychotherapist or

person reasonably believed by the patient to be authorized to practice medicine or
psychotherapy cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any
confidential communication made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient's
physical, mental or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction, between the patient
and his or her physician or psychotherapist. This privilege also applies to persons, including
members of the patient's family, who have participated in the diagnosis or treatment of the
patient under the direction of the physician or psychotherapist.

A "psychotherapist" is:

(a) A person licensed to practice medicine engaged in the diagnosis or treatment of a

mental or emotional condition, or

(b) A person licensed as a psychologist by the government while similarly engaged.

(d) PRIENT/MINISTER-CONFESSANT PRIVOLEGE - A minister, priest or person reasonably

believed to be so cannot, without the consent of the affected person, be examined as to any
communication or confession made to or any advice given by him or her, in his or her
professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or
priest belongs.

(e) PUBLIC INTEREST PRIVILEGE - A public officer cannot be examined during or after his or
her tenure as to communications made to him or her in official confidence, when the court finds
that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
17. PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE. - No person shall be compelled to testify against
his or her parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants, except when
such testimony is indispensable in a crime against that person or by one parent against the
other.
THE PRIVILEGE BELONGS TO THE WITNESS NOT TO THE PARTY IN THE CASE.
SAMPLE: SI WIFE NAG FILE NG CASE OF CONCUBINAGE AGAINST HER HUSBAND AND
PARAMOUR. TAPOS YUNG PROSECUTION PRINESENT YUNG NANAY NI HUSBAND AS
WITNESS DAHIL GALIT YUNG NANAY NI HUSBAND SA ANAK NYA FOR HIS IMMORAL
BEHAVIOR.
QUES: MAY THE COURT ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF THE HUSBAND’S MOTHER
AGAINST HER SON?
YES, THE COURT MAY ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF HIS MOTHER.
UNDER THE RULE ON EVI, THE PARENTAL OR FILIAL PRIVILEGE BELONGS TO THE
WITNESS, NOT TO THE PARTY IN THE CASE.
IBIG SABIHIN YUNG NANAY NI HUSBAND ANG MAY PRIVILEGE WHETHER HE WILL
TESTIFY OF NOT, IF NOT, HE CANNOT BE COMPELLED, IF YES HE CANNOT BE BARRED
FROM TESTIFYING.
E PANO KUNG YUNG STEPFATHER WAS COMPELLED TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIS
STEPSON, CAN THE FORMER INVOKED THE SAID PRIVILEGE?
NO, PARENTAL PRIVILEGE DOES NOT APPLY SINCE IT COVERS ONLY DIRECT
DESCENDANT. IN THIS CASE, A STEPSON IS NOT A DIRECT DESCENDANT.
18. ADMISSION – ALSO CALLED PARTY ADMISSION OR ADMISSION BY PARTY
OPPONENT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE MERE FACT THAT THE ADO IS BEING OFFERED
AGAINST THE PARTY WHO MADE IT WOULD ALREADY CONSTITUTE A PARTY
ADMISSION.
KAILANGAN YUNG ADO BEING OFFERED IS AGAINST THE PARTY WHO MADE IT,
OTHERWISE IF THE ADO BEING OFFERED IS IN FAVOR OF THE PARTY WHO MADE IT,
THE SAME WOULD BE INADMISSIBLE IN EVI BEING A SELF-SERVING AND HEARSAY.
(1)(2) JA VS EJA, JA IS MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND NEED NOT
BE OFFERED IN EVI SINCE THEY ALREADY FORM PART OF THE RECORDS, WHILE EJA
MADE OUTSIDE THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDING AND MUST BE OFFERED IN EVI TO
BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT.
(4) OFFER OF COMPROMISE
QUESTION: YUNG OFFER OF COMPROMISE BA AY CONSIDERED AS ADMISSION BY THE
OFFEROR?
DEPENDE PO, IN CIVIL CASE, AN OFFER OF COMPROMISE IS NOT ADMISSION OF
LIABILITY AND NOT ADMISSIBLE IN EVI AGAINST THE OFFEROR.
WHEREAS IN CRIM CASE, AN OFFER OF COMPROMISE BY THE ACCUSED MAY BE
RECEIVED IN EVI AS AN IMPLIED ADMISSIO OF GUILT, EXCEPT OFFER OF
COMPROMISE INVOLVING QUASI-OFFESE OR THOSE ALLOWED BY THE LAW TO BE
COMPROMISED.
SAMPLE:
OFFER TO MARRY THE RAPE VICTIM A IMPLED ADMISSION OF GUILT. PP VS BULOS,
2001 CASE LAW.
PP VS ESPAÑOL, 2009 CASE, YUNG ACCUSED MURDERED HIS WIFE.NUNG MAKITA NYA
YUNG SISTER-IN-LAW OR KAPATID NUNG WIFE NYA, AY HUMINGI SYA NG
KAPATAWARAN, ACCDG TO SC, THE ACCUSED ACT OF PLEADING FOR FORGIVENNESS
IS ANALOGOUS TO OFFER TO COMPROMISE, W/C CAN BE RECEIVED IN EVI AS AN
IMPLIED ADMISSION OF GUILT.
PP VS YPARRAGUIRRE, YUNG WIFE NI ACCUSED SA RAPE CASE NAG OFFER SA
NANAY NG BIKTIMA N 25K PRA NDI NA MAGFILE NG KASO, ALTHOUGH AWARE SI WIFE
NA MAY NI RAPE YUNG ASAWA NYA.
QUESTION, MAY THE WIFE’S OFFER, EVENTHOUGH NO CASE WAS INITIATED, BE
RECEIVED IN EVI AGAINST HER HUSBAND AS AN IMPLIED ADMISSION OF GUILT?
YES, ACCRDG TO THE SC, AN OFFER TO COMPROMISE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT A
CRIM COMPLAINT BE FIRST FILED BEFORE THE OFFER CAN BE RECEIVED IN EVI
AGAINST THE OFFEROR.
WHAT IS REQUIRED IS AFTER COMMITING THE CRIME, THE ACCUSED OR HIS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MAKES AN OFFER TO COMPRO AND SUCH OFFER IS
PROVED.
SO PAG HINDI AUTHORIZED NI ACCUSED OR WALA SYANG ALAM SA GINAWA NUNG
NAG OFFER AY NDI MASASABI NA YUNG OFFER AY TANTAMOUNT TO AN IMPLIED
ADMISSION OF GUILT.
(5) ADMISSION BY A 3RD PARTY OR RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE
MEANS THAT The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of
another.
RIAAR APPLIES ONLY TO ADO W/C ARE EXTRAJUDICIAL.
(6) ADMISSION BY CONSPIRATOR. - The act or declaration of a conspirator IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY AND DURING ITS EXISTENCE may be given in
evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such
act of declaration.
KELANGAN EXISTING PA YUNG CONSPIRACY NA SINASABI NG ISA SA MGA SUSPECT,
PAG NO LONGER EXIST NA YUNG CONSPIRACY AMONG THE SUSPECTS, AY
INADMISSIBLE NA YUNG STATEMENT NITO, D2 THE RULE ON RES INTER ALIOS ACTA
APPLY, HOWEVER PAGKA IN COURT TESTIMONY NA NG ISA SA ACCUSED, RIAA DOES
NOT APPLY. THE REASON IS THAT THE OPPONENT WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS.
(7) ADMISSION BY SILENCE – S33R130. ADMISSION BY SILENCE. - An act or declaration
made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who DOES OR SAYS
NOTHING when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not
true, and when proper and possible for him or her to do so, may be given in evidence against
him or her.
HOWEVER, ADMISSION BY SILENCE DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE SUSPECT WAS
UNDER CUSTODIAL INVEST. (GIVE EXAMPLE-TINURO NUNG VICTIM YUNG SUSPECT SA
RAPE DURING POLICE INVESTIGATION)
19. CONFESSION - The declaration of an accused acknowledging his or her guilt of the
offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence
against him or her.
ANG TINUTUKOY NA CONFESSION D2 AY EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION. HOWEVER,
EJC MADE BY THE ACCUSED IS NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR HIS CONVICTION,
UNLESS IT IS CORROBORATED BY EVI OF CORPUS DELICTI.
KZ KUNG MATATANDAAN NATIN MERON TAYONG TINATAWAG NG RIGHTS OF THE
ACCUSED DURING CUSTODIAL INVEST, AMONG SUCH RIGHT IS YUNG RIGHT TO
REMAIN SILENT AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, THEREFORE ANY CONFESSION OR
ADMISSION OBTAINED IN VIO OF SAID RIGHTS OF A PERS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVEST
SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE IN EVI AGAINST HIM
SAMPLE:
PCPT GUIYAB ARRESTED QUIHANA FOR ROBBERY, THE LATTER WAS PUT UNDER
CUSTODIAL INVEST AND WAS APPRISED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. HOWEVER,
QUIHANA WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND OPT AND PROCEEDED TO GIVE
STATEMENT TO PCPT GUIYAB ADMITTING CONFESSION OF ROBBERY. IN THE SSAID
STATEMENT HE IMPLICATED MAYO AS HIS CO CONSPIRATOR IN THE ROBBERY.
IS QUIHANA’S STATEMENT ADMISSIBLE IN EVI AGAINST HIM?
- NOT ADMISSIBLE,
UNDER THE CONSTI, S12 ARTIII. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent
and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services
of counsel, he must be provided with one. THESE RIGHTS CANNOT BE WAIVED EXCEPT IN
WRITING AND IN THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL.
HERE, THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE WAIVER IS IN WRITING AND WAS MADE IN
THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL. SO, QUIHANA STATEMENT GIVEN TO PCPT GUIYAB IS
INADMISSIBLE AGAINST HIM.
HOW ABOUT THE STATEMENT OF QUIHANA IMPLICATING MAYO?
SAME, NOT ADIMSSIBLE AGAINST MAYO.
SABI NGA NATIN KANINA, ADMISSION BY CONSPIRATOR. - The act or declaration of a
conspirator IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY AND DURING ITS EXISTENCE may
be given in evidence against the co-conspirator. D2 NDI NA EXISTING YUNG CONSPIRACY
NUNG INIMPLICATE NYA SI MAYO. THUS, INADMISSBLE NA YUNG STATEMENT NYA.
20. UNA ALAMIN MUNA PO NATIN KUNG ANO YUNG HEARSAY, UNDER THE RULES
ON EVI,
HEARSAY is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing,
offered TO PROVE THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS ASSERTED therein.

A statement is

(1) an oral or written assertion or

(2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him or her as an assertion.

Hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

(MEANING AN OUT OF COURT STATEMENT MADE BY THE DECLARANT W/C IS OFFERED TO

PROVE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED IN THE STATEMENT)

ON THE OTHER HAND,

A STATEMENT IS NOT HEARSAY if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to
cross-examination concerning the statement,

and the statement is

(a) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of
perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition;
(b) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge
against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive; or

(c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her.

EXCEPTIONS:

PART OF THE RES GESTAE. — Statements made by a person while a STARTLING

OCCURRENCE is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto, UNDER THE STRESS
OF EXCITEMENT CAUSED BY THE OCCURRENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES
thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae.

21. OPINION RULE, AS A GR, THE OPINION OF A WITNESS IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN EVI,
BUT IT IS SUBJ TO CERTAIN EXCEPTION:

(1) EXPERT OPINION – WHO IS A WITNESS ON A MATTER REQUIRING SPCL

KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, EXPERIENCE OR TRAINING OR EDUCATION W/C IS HE IS SHOWN TO
POSSESS. EXPERT OPINION MAY BE RECEIVED IN EVI.

UNDER SC ADMIN MATTER 12-11-2, (YUNG TAGA CRIMELAB PO, MAM PLEASE CORRRECT
ME IF I AM WRONG) YUNG CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT OF A GOVT MEDICAL,
CHEMICAL OR LABORATORY EXPERT RELATING TO CRIM CASE SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE AS
PRIMA FACIE EVI OF THE TRUTH OF ITS CONTENTS.

YUNG PERSONAL APPERANCE DW PO IN COURT OF A WITNESS WHO PREPARED THE

REPORT SHALL BE UNNECESSARY UNLESS DEMANDED BY THE ACCUSED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CROSS EXAMINATION.

(2) ANOTHER EXCEPTION TO THE OPINION RULE IS THE OPINION OF AN ORDINARY

WITNESS, MAY BE RECEIVED IN EVI PROVIDED THAT:

A. HE KNOW/ FAMILIAR W/ THE IDENTITY OF A PERSON WHOM HE HAS

ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE;

B. W/ SUFFICIENT FAMILLIARITY AS TO THE HANDWRITING;

C. HE KNOW/ FAMILIAR W/ THE MENTAL SANITY OF A PERSON.

AN ORDINARY WITNESS MAY ALSO TESTIFY ON HIS OR HER IMPRESSIONS OF THE

EMOTION, BEHAVIOR, CONDITION OR APPEARANCE OF A PERSON.

(DISCUSS ROBBERY WITH RAPE AND THE POLICE TESTIFY THAT HE NOTICED THE VICTIM
TO BE HYSTERICAL AND ON THE VERGE OF COLLAPSE. IT IS AN OPINION BUT ADMISSIBLE
AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE OPINION RULE.)

22. PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. - In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an
acquittal, unless his or her guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.

23. WHAT IS BURDEN OF PROOF?

BURDEN OF PROOF is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
establish his or her claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. BURDEN OF
PROOF NEVER SHIFTS. (AND READ SLIDES 23)

ON THE OTHER HAND,

BURDEN OF EVIDENCE is the duty of a party to present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut a
fact in issue to establish a prima facie case.

BURDEN OF EVIDENCE MAY SHIFT FROM ONE PARTY TO THE OTHER in the course of the
proceedings, depending on the exigencies of the case.

24. READ SLIDE 24

25. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Any evidence
obtained in violation of said right shall thus be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AGAINST UNLAWFUL SEARCHES

AND SEIZURES is to prevent violations of private security in person and property, and unlawful
invasion of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the law acting under legislative or judicial
sanction, and to give remedy against such usurpations when attempted.25

Additionally, UNDER THE Rules on Criminal Procedure provide for the requisites for the
issuance of a search warrant:

UNANG REQUISITE, A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in
connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the things to be seized.

PANGALAWA, The judge must, before issuing the warrant, PERSONALLY EXAMINE IN THE
FORM OF SEARCHING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, IN WRITING AND UNDER OATH,
THE COMPLAINANT AND THE WITNESSES.

26. The RIGHT TO PRIVACY is a fundamental right, with the Constitution providing explicit
limitations on unwarranted State intrusion into personal affairs.
ℒαwρhi ৷

To deter potential abuse of the State's awesome powers by State agents, the Constitution
guarantees every person's right to due process, to be secure against unreasonable searches and
seizures,16 and to the privacy of their communication and correspondence.

27-28 MERON TAYONG Republic Act No. 7438 OR AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF
PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION.

29. In the Philippines, Republic Act No. 9255 allows for the use of DNA evidence to
establish paternity. The law stipulates that the court may order DNA testing either motu proprio
or upon application by any of the parties involved in the case. DNA testing must be carried out
by an accredited institution to ensure reliability.

Types of Cases Where DNA is Applicable

1. Paternity and Filiation: To confirm the biological father of a child.

2. Child Custody: To establish the best interest of the child in custody battles.
3. Child Support: To substantiate claims for financial support from the alleged father.
4. Inheritance Claims: To prove blood relations in estate settlements.
Procedures and Protocols

1. Request for DNA Testing: A party must file a motion to request DNA testing and
specify the purpose for the testing.
2. Court Order: The court reviews the necessity for DNA testing and issues an order if it
deems the request justified.
3. Collection of Samples: Biological samples are collected from both parties and sent to
an accredited laboratory.
4. Results and Admission: Once obtained, the DNA test result will be presented in court
and subjected to scrutiny under the rules of evidence.

31. ANO ANO PO BA ITO ELECTRONIC DOCS?

EX. EMAILS, RECORDED OR SAVED TEXT MSGS, AND COMPUTER GENERATED

DOCS. DOCS SCANNED IS ALSO AN ELECTRONIC DOCS.

TEXT MESSAGE EPHEMERAL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS, ONCE SAVED OR

RECORDED BECOME ELECTRONIC DOCS AND SUBJECT TO THE BEST EVI RULE OR ORIG
DOCS RULE.

AS TO THE Admissibility. – An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies

with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is
authenticated in the manner prescribed UNDER THE RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVI.

WHAT IS THE ORIGINAL OF AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT?

An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the
Best Evidence Rule IF IT IS A PRINTOUT OR OUTPUT READABLE BY SIGHT OR OTHER
MEANS, SHOWN TO REFLECT THE DATA ACCURATELY.

YUNG COPY OR DUPLICATE BA NG ELECTRONIC DOCS CONSIDERED AS

EQUIVALENT OF THE ORIGINAL?

YES, UNDER REE, When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same
time with identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original,
or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic rerecording, or by chemical
reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original, such
copies or duplicates SHALL BE REGARDED AS THE EQUIVALENT OF THE ORIGINAL.

36. RULES ON EXAMINATION OF CHILD WITNESS

A "CHILD WITNESS" is any person who at the time of giving testimony is BELOW THE AGE OF
EIGHTEEN (18) years. In child abuse cases, a child includes one OVER EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS
BUT IS FOUND BY THE COURT AS UNABLE TO FULLY TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF OR
PROTECT HIMSELF FROM ABUSE, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination BECAUSE OF
A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY OR CONDITION.

EVERY CHILD IS PRESUMED QUALIFIED TO BE A WITNESS. However, the court shall conduct a
competency examination of a child, motu proprio or on motion of a party, when it finds that
substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate,
distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court.

CONDUCT OF EXAMINATION - Examination of a child as to his competence shall be conducted

only by the judge. Counsel for the parties, however, can submit questions to the judge that he may,
in his discretion, ask the child.

Before testifying, a child shall take an oath or affirmation to tell the truth.

The EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS presented in a hearing or any proceeding shall be

done in open court. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a
different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally.

The party who presents a child witness or the guardian ad litem of such child witness may,
however, move the court to allow him to testify.

(a) When a child does not understand the English or Filipino language or is unable to
communicate in said languages due to his developmental level, fear, shyness, disability,
or other similar reason, an interpreter whom the child can understand and who
understands the child may be appointed by the court, motu proprio or upon motion, to
interpret for the child.

(b) If a witness or member of the family of the child is the only person who can serve as
an interpreter for the child, he shall not be disqualified and may serve as the interpreter
of the child. An interpreter shall take an oath or affirmation to make a true and accurate
interpretation.

MERON DIN TAYO Live-link television testimony in criminal cases where the child is a
victim or a witness.

(a) D2 YUNG prosecutor, counsel or the guardian ad litem MAY APPLY FOR AN
ORDER THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHILD BE TAKEN IN A ROOM OUTSIDE
THE COURTROOM AND BE TELEVISED TO THE COURTROOM BY LIVE-LINK
TELEVISION.

(b) The court, with notice to the parties, the need for taking the testimony of the child
through live-link television.

(c) The JUDGE MAY QUESTION THE CHILD IN CHAMBERS, OR IN SOME

COMFORTABLE PLACE OTHER THAN THE COURTROOM, in the presence of the
support person, guardian ad litem, prosecutor, and counsel for the parties. The
questions of the judge shall not be related to the issues at trial but to the feelings of the
child about testifying in the courtroom.

(d) The JUDGE MAY EXCLUDE ANY PERSON, including the accused, whose presence
or conduct causes fear to the child.

(f) The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television if
there is a substantial likelihood that the child would suffer trauma from testifying in the
presence of the accused, his counsel or the prosecutor as the case may be. The trauma
 must be of a kind which would impair the completeness or truthfulness of the testimony
of the child.

(g) SO, If the court orders the taking of testimony by live-link television:

(1) The child shall testify in a room separate from the courtroom in the presence
of the guardian ad litem;

(2) The judge, prosecutor, accused, and counsel for the parties shall be in the
courtroom. The testimony of the child shall be transmitted by live-link television
into the courtroom for viewing and hearing by the judge, prosecutor, counsel for
the parties, accused, victim.

(3) If it is necessary for the child to identify the accused at trial, the court may
allow the child to enter the courtroom for the limited purpose of identifying the
accused, or the court may allow the child to identify the accused by observing the
image of the latter on a television monitor.

(4) The court may set other conditions and limitations on the taking of the
testimony that it finds just and appropriate, taking into consideration the best
interests of the child.

(h) The testimony of the child shall be preserved on videotape, digital disc, or other
similar devices which shall be made part of the court record and shall be subject to a
protective order.

Section 26. Screens, one-way mirrors, and other devices to shield child from accused. -

(a) The prosecutor or the guardian ad litem may apply for an order that the chair of the
child or that a screen or other device be placed in the courtroom in such a manner that
the child cannot see the accused while testifying.

Section 27. Videotaped deposition. -

(a) The prosecutor, counsel, or guardian ad litem may apply for an order that a
deposition be taken of the testimony of the child and that it be recorded and preserved
on videotape.

(B) If the CHILD IS UNABLE TO TESTIFY IN THE PHYSICAL PRESENCE OF THE

ACCUSED, the court may direct the ACCUSED to be excluded from the room in which
the deposition is conducted.

IN CASE OF EXCLUSION OF THE ACCUSED, the court shall order that the testimony
of the child be taken by live-link television. KZ SA LIVE LINK IT IS NOT NECESSARY
YUNG PRESENCE NI ACCUSED.

(C) The videotaped deposition shall be preserved and recorded.

(D) The videotaped deposition and stenographic notes shall be subject to a protective
order.