Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • PDF Resize

    Uploaded by

    joliwanag
    25 views587 pages

    Original Title

    Pdfresizer.com PDF Resize

    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
    25 views587 pages

    PDF Resize

    Uploaded by

    joliwanag

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 587
    INSIGHTS ON EVIDENCE DROSDADO M. PERALTA, Chief Justice Supreme Court of the Piigpinet end EDUARDO B. PERALTA, JR. Aniociate Fentice Court of Anpects, Mania FOREWORD ‘The legal prohasion hes Tong awaited the Supreme Court tevisons on our Lav of evilence. Ae for back as 2008, ap Chie? ‘Justice, | formed a sub-Commitve to veview our law on evidence, ait (ee overgromth of tackulallies and sttune it to the times. 1 pecamally handpicked the legal experts ta compose the Sub- (Comnmnese: the Chie was shen Actocate Jute of the Supreme (Gourt Romeo J, Calo, Se. a reccgaized expert in Criminal Law, ‘Pomedure and Bviceaoe; a8 members, ctoge a represwcintive from the Conrt of Appeals. than Aasotiae Justice Laces P, Berstanin. representative fem the Sandigartbayen, shen Arsociate Justice Diosdado M. Peraha veteran judgea tom the Regional Tria Courts. then Judge Aloysius C.Alday and then Judge Haul B. Villaguevs. ‘and litigetrs Trom the Inegrared Bar and the academe, Atty Regsho A. Vinioan, Aby. Fiaacis Ed Lim and Atty. Jose C-Sieon. ‘As Conasitants, [appointed thon Asociata Junicw of the Supreme ‘Coust Bernardo P. Pusdo sn retired Associate Justice of the Guat of ‘Appeals, Osea C. Harrars, They showed thei mastery ofthe subjest {or within ove (2) years, dag eubmitted theiv progesed huanges in cur rales of evidence. Subsequently, the Supreme Court wsarganized the Sub- Conrnittoa nvieing oor enleton Kvidenos, Then Chie uctice Lucas , Barsamin hacare ina Chairman, and then Senior Asoiciate of ‘he Supeete Coort uasice Digsdade M. Peralta, served as Vice Chairman, Then Amaciate Justice of the Supreme Court Evans Hi Jardeloon, Associate Justie of the Supreme Court Benjamin S. Caguios, Associa Justin of the Supreme Court Alecander G. ‘Geamundo, Secretary Meynarto 1 Guevara of the Department ‘of Justice, Justice Adel & Azcuna, Chaneellor of PHILA, Jooe idee P. Macguer, Court Administrator, Atty. Tranquil Gervasio 3, Salvador Ill, Avy. Haron S. Hogueree and Atty. Anedor 2. ‘Talontno, J, all oatstanding privste pracioners completed the membership of the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Comnitees ropoged Farther changes in our )aw on evidence “to incorporate the technological advances and Levelopmonts inlaw, jumiaprudesce and international conventions inthe past decade” On October §, 2019, ‘heSupreme Court with the Honoreble Lucts P. Bersamie, 13 Chiot Justice, wnanimously approved the 2019 Prepwsod Ammendieents to the Bovine lea an Evidence. ‘The publication of this treatise, entitled Insights on Esidence. iscuesing the gravalas ofthe 2019 Suprenee Court amendonte in ‘ur rules on evidence writen by nc kas than Chief Justice Dioudedo 1M. Peraita and Court of Appeals Associte Justin Rdusrdo B, Peralta, J. is glad tidings forthe Boneh one the Bar. Chae Justice Pralea corsmande at his ngorips the theotetical ara philosophical underpinning of car ralen on evidence, and has applied tham in hocsands of real cases as teil juige, a8 associate justice im the Sandigacbayon and as mapistratoin the Highest Cont of the Land. “Anonginal mombor of the 2008 SC Sob-Commatine end ne te Vio ‘Chuirman 20 2019, Chief Justice Peralta can be called ag ove of t8 midwives, hence, he knows al the labyrinths of its retamorphosis. ‘n the ether hand, Ascotinte Justice Eduardo B. Peralte. Je of the Court of Appeats hes repeatedly demenstratct the length of hie intellectual berdwideh with his comperhensive comarentaries on ranioue 2jete of Philippine Jaw: like 1 hetive that tho last building look ofthe rue of law fi the Ivy on evidence, Rev ¥ in thm the ln of evidence thar on Dovple are ablo to sasert in eouts thoi rights and priigeo granted by cur substantive lava ctarting tic the Constitaton, thelawe of Congress, the acta of Uae Bxceutive, and the decisions ofthe Supreaio Court fee alec thea the proper apalication of our law of eredense ‘her tal judgae and appellate justices are sble ts ingure that oxly selevant evidence ae intvedured by the partes to pew thairighta: her anly folevant evidence that ore reliable get oneidered and ‘hat the relevant and reliable evidence ellewed by oourts are not ‘oxeuded by the Conctitction for vslating such right ao the right ‘geinet selfSnerimination. st In fin, ove ln on evidence ine tos ‘better quality of justice for ite verinna rule provers the tampering cfteuth, even ac they prozac diepenaation of epeedt justia for they tdizinate eridenee that ie ielevant and uawebable. Ute ramtery by owe anbitets of junio i a anuat forte wiong application i sartai (o eesule in failure of uate “This terbook gives usa tour horton ofthe latest wires on (helaw on evidence wrought by technology and avtifiil nteigence 10h adopted some of the new Files of e”idence now i Moe th ‘common Jaw couateies, notably the United Statos, It has drawn, ‘on the wisdom of the moot learned Commentators on the law on Gridence like MeCommicl, Mueller, Kirkpatrick, Lome, Saltburg. Sod others, This ereauise Wi bave a lung sbel lie nna i i best [Keep it at sem’ length. yer City, May 14,2000 REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Suatice fret} Supreme Court of the Philippines ABOUT THE AUTHOR (Chict Justice Diosdado M, Peralta) Born in Lagag City, Ukeos Noxte, o former Digos ity, Davao dl Sur and Manila Court of Fast Instance Judge Bleo Lazo Peralta ‘and public schoo} teachar Cazalina Madavang Peralta. the Honoreble ‘Dinedado M. Beralts, the 26th Chiel Justice of the Republic of the Philippines, startad hia cavecr im government pervce itt 100% ‘Thine Assistane City Fiscal of Laoag City. He was wesigned to Prosecutor's Often i che City of Manila in 1988 and Sater became the hariatant Chiat of the Tnvectigatin Division ofthe Office of the City Prosecutor in 1994, Aaa prosecutor, he wae recognized a8 the ‘Mout Outsaading Pxblic Presetor of Monti for the year 1540-109. Sy the City af Maile, and the Moat Outatancing Public Pronecutor of the City of Mant im 1894 by the Department of Fustice. He tras alao one af the Ave finaliste for Outstanding Public Prosecutor Natnwide,eiven by tho Foondatig fr Swaeial Exauilonce i 1988 Sn Septoraber 1964, Hon Dicadado M, Peralta was appointed, as Regiontl Trial Court Jndge in Quezon City, where his sale woe ‘ecignated 4 Specal Cort in Hefnons Crimes apd, later, Dine Caos. dea til out dndge he as confervod the Special Cerdrict ‘Awards in the Fite of Criminal Lou, given bg the Integrated Bar Gf the Philppince and the Supreme Court during the Sapreme ‘Gouree Cenionnisl{Vnth Year) Calibration on June 6. 2001, He was Iikewiae einen the Judicial Bvecllece Atwards 2002 (Chief Justice Raman Avencenia Ateard for Outstonding Reponal Tvial Court ‘Judge iy the Foundation br Judicial Bxeslence on Suge 14 2002 He waa appsinted in 2002 26 Astociate Justice of the Sondiganbavan one, in 20, ag Presiding Justice of the anti-gratt ‘out, Priore beconing a mesaber othe Supreme Court oo January 15, 2009, he wa profeesr, lecurer. xeounce pregoe ond Bar reviewer in Criminol Lave, Grmnal Procedure, Remedial Law. and ‘Teil Teshniques stthe UST Pacule of Civil Law, Ateweo de Manila ‘Unvernity, Sen Bete College of Law, Universiny o€ the Best, aod ‘Unversity of the Phitippives Law Center, among others. He bas beens meuber of the Coma of Professors under the Departoent ‘of Cominal Law of the Philippine Judvial Academy and verbains ta be an wetive Lecturer thereof on its orientation programa for -newly-ap)ointet Judges, pre udlestae programy and ober taining seminars, eveu ate his appriutment as Chet Justive on Oeaber 23, 2019. He was the chairman ofthe 2014 Bar examivatioas, and ‘hairman ofthe committe that drefted the condot of the Special Staci'ah Fer examinations At prosont, Chief Jursise Peralta isthe Oheinpereon af the ‘Cemmivter on the Revisien of the Rules of Couit (Motter Rale Cemunitees), Chaispercon of the Stb-Comaittes an the Reriion of the 1997 Rules of Ci! Provedre, and Clsigperecn af the Special ‘Gommicen for the Rules on Inspection ofthe Phikpgine Competition Goomisoim, Special Committe far the Rulet of Prosecure for Admeralty Casee, a» well ag Sub-Commities for Revision of ie ‘Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Canee ond {evislon ofthe Rules on Criminal Procedure, He isso « member of tthe Board af Judges ofthe Soointy fr dian! Byrelence and af te ‘Bub-Comaitvee on the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, at well 8 the lead representative of the Judiiony Butget Committe that elena itebudgot bofore Cangroos ance 2012. Hes he Chaaaicon of che Gonmittoe on Legslative-Rzeetive Relatims (LERCOMD, and Sub-Committee on Evidence, Ho ip itewiae a meber of the fafowring comitzce: Commsitice en the Rales on DNA Bridence, ‘Gonmittee on the Revision of the Pbatippine Benchbook ie ial Goaxe Judges; and, Judcisl Reform Suppert Project Manegement Commits of which he chairs the Component Working Commitee for Comporent D. Chief Justice Peralta is the Chaisperson of the Spociat Commitee in Small Claims Cases, shich drafted the revision of the Rules of Procedure on Stroll Claime Case in 2016, and Chaiepersin and main architect ofthe Special Committee on Speedy ‘Dial whieb drofted the 2017 Rased Guadelinen for Coniémucus ‘TWiat of Criminal Cases. Both rules af procedure akow rornackable and significant innroverent 2m ewhucing the duration of court Dreveechbgr, and inimprotang the tial coun comidiance with the eglementary periods, whieh resulted in drastic enae docket reduction and speedy disposition of cates. ChicfSuatice Perea likewise serves os ve Chairperson of the Special Committee oa the Revision of the 2018 Inernal Rules of he Bendigenbayan, ae wells Ube Special Granta on the Bales af Procedure in Blction Contests bofoe the First Lavel Couns, Ho also epearheeded the adoption of the 2019 Gudelines on the vi paecofrensng Tonle os Rema Cours Agpoarone Letom of von prt ef ity Pate end Noel Fontes Shek ihe plorsetona in Dee Cy. From Aug 2018 ai hi appoint au Chie Tuas, niet Tone’ Precte snred ap Carport of sho Bowen $epcepttiee Eetra Dohunt (HRED) of wh he bad ba Pes 201. He alo hd. fr api fie, aed Moats atthe Benate Hsoel Seon wah ener Sen inking ating mbes of the Senate ft Pipe Eaten Cnt Jate Perle the eof Coane of he Pein Rloaorl banal Chat Sia Fram navn hry of Sue sg Toely eG aw whe he tc 9p La 2820 Bust aod esata 1978 He ones te underpass ‘ee einen the ag Sn Sn en LOEW S10, yo nas contre he deren of Deter Tite Therts Goa by te Noviwerte Uns, sey Cy Chie tie Perlis tied Cour of Appeals Aszociat> Junie Pepe Campus Poca orca Pesta Teuper, ith es bea ur en: Dro, ho Ceineper, ‘wy doh, ad debra ACKNOWLEDGMENT by CHIEF JUSTICE HOSDADO M. PERALTA ‘The onauthor ie gratefol and appreciative of Court of Appeals ‘Asnosiate Iuatice Rdvsre B. Posies, de. Dustice Ba) for slowing him to mete a humble camizibution to his opus: Perspectives of ‘Enidenoe (2008). Jeane Bai one ofthe leding lights and acredibe ‘hori inthe ferioncloe of rersadial law ‘The proposed amendingats to the Reriaed Rules on Evidence would not have bron possible hal it not boon initiated in 2008 Udocng the term of Chae? dusice Reynato 8. Puno. Credit likewise fore & the Sub-coismittes, the membership of wbich included then Soprome Court. (SC) Assicite Jaatioe (ow Philippine Judicial ‘Acséemy ice Chancellor) Romeo 3 Calli, Se, 83 Chaltpareon: ‘then OC Aasotiate Justice Bernato P. Paedo and retired Court of ‘Appeals (CA) Justice Oncar ©. Herrera, ee conaultants; then CA ‘Aimoniate Justice inow tered Chief Justice) Lucas F. Beruamnin, then Sandiganbayin Associate Justice (rox Chie iutice) Dioadado ka Judge AloysiuaG. Aldor, then Juige (oom Deputy Court aoe) Real B. Vilanuova, and Atty. Rogelio A. Vinivan, Francis Ra Lim, and JoaeC. Sinon. reprementing the academe and private practitioners, ag memabers, Profuse grtizade goes tothe fainity ofthe ovauthor fe being 1 wobipring of guldsnce ani inspiration in hiv journey as a tral Promeator a profcine afta, m tral Judge, an Associate Justice [nd Presiding Juice of the Suadigettoayen, and Asceciate Justice ‘fhe Supreme Corr, andthe 2628 Chic Justice ofthe Philipines, Samely: bis Inte futher Sedge Bhivo Lazo Peralta, who isa legal Tinary and « senoumed prectcianer in the Hocor region: hie ‘ether Caaline Madarang Peralta who is a well-loved pubke school teacher; his cing and supportive motes, Court of AppoalsFutioe Fernanda Lampas Perete, and thet beloved chilen, Dorothy, John ‘Chrigtopber, Pty Job ond Jn eaae. "The co-sutbor ao resoguizes the following for sheir wpportin preparing bis contabotiono bia work: hi legal and administrative {tall am th Offioeof the Chuof Justice, eapecilly Atty. Dorothy L. Pealea ant Atty. Kelph Jerome D.Selvadce, cy. Coie Sue Mae Ting ofthe Ofte ofthe Court Administrator, aa wel a Bex Book, Store, tne. nd ito ator staf FOREWORD While the prioe action of this Look (Perspectives of Bcidencep proved 1o be uf valuatle sasitance to law anudente ond legal practilioners able, this late edition, now conuthared by two {egal lininaris, Chief Justice Diosdady BM. Peralta end Cowst of ‘AppraleAasocinie Justice Dvar B, Peli, J will bo oven mre ‘anmpistensive, given the recent approval of the 2079 Proposod Amendments tothe Revised vie on Briddence. This 220 e6tn, ‘Sims la highlight the galient potata of tho 9918 Rules on Buldence, reconcile ite provision with choo of the retained rule, and agrees ‘any gapt oF incensitensies thal wight rsalt in che application of ‘he new proceducal rules, Chie Justine Disoddo M, Paral anon needa no inroetien, ‘A enowmed expertin the Gsld of criminal and procedural lave, Chie ‘Tumtoe Perel maatery of criminal Law provisions, doctrines, and Jurlepeudence canes from elias theee decades of being eovted in the criminal justice system: ag a tial prosecutor, x a lel court judge, as a monber of the Sandiganbayan and of the Supreme ‘Court, and. ubtinately, as the 2eth Chief Justice ofthe Philippines. Having orved ara Regional Tiel Court Judge inthe City of Monta ‘where Chief Justice Peralta wae my ascigned prosecutor or alsiost {even (years I have doat hand thformatvon #9 is legal acuity in ‘he courtroom raricularly 90 regords the rules cn the admiscbilty af evidence. To this das, T can till zcall his methodical way of ‘eonducting the examineiion of wimnesses whether on direct ot cess ‘Examination; his in degth knowledge of the applicebie rales of ‘evidence: and the fats tc be proxen to establih tke case Seldom mas ‘Ms exazinationof witnesses objected toby the cppoatng eounee. Ke ‘not eurprising then that in those cages thet roached the Supreme ‘Court, hia examination of the witnesses were frequently quoted by ‘the Supreme Couette anive ata concuion ‘These are just of the few reasons why I after having ‘been cheoen tn 2006 by then Chiat Juatsco Reynate §. Puno to serve a2 Chairperson of the Supreme Courte Sub-Committce cm the Revision of the Rules on Evidence, perconally handpicked Bief Juotce Rovalta, then asnocise juste af the Sandigmbayan tebecome a member of the said Sub-Commitee. In a curous ten of erenta, the prpowrd amendments to the Rules ea Bvedene wore dattbrated nyo end econumended for approval mn 2019 the Supreme Court Bx Bene by the Conitiee on the Revision of ‘he Rules of Court, of which Chis! Justics Peralta Wa te Vice Chainpeecan and Working Cheirperson Court. of Appa Associate Jostioe Rdvstde B. Portia, Je ‘profess of law snd an sesompliahed author of eral publicaicne, articular m Remedial Law. After groduating frm the San Bada allege of Law 19 1988 and passing the Borin 1990 Suative Porlta syerked for the legal staff of thea Court of Appetit Justice Joee ‘Anmando f, Melo snd late in the Supretar Court. I 1996, atthe Young aze of 32, he was appeinted ac «jug of fie Metrepohiven ‘Teal Cour of Manite, where he also served ac the Firce and Bewond Vie-Exeeutive Judge. He ikea served as Presiding Judge of Branch 17 and Bxacutve dudge of the Regioaal ial Gost of ‘Manila uni his promotion coche Court af Appotle in 2010, Apart ‘hom hie government service as juris, duatiee Pealta. taught lam im hig alma mater San Beda as well az Lyvovin ofthe Pippen, ‘San Bebostian Colles - Restleto, Angelte Univeraity Feundation, Gentey Excolar University, University of Santo Trtaas Graduate Sekocl of Law and Pacts ef Civil Law, sind Univorty of Ast and the Pace. He alec holds the distinlion of being the Fitet Graduete of the San Beda Graduate School of Law nustatel dquee progrsmn in the your 2005, enmnering com laude for hie dinsetation on the lew on avidenee which bene the foundation of ths pubheatn, Suliceit to sy. the collecting wisdaim of the wo authors ‘conbined with the qually research that wend into the wring of his book mules this edition a formidable reference in the law of evidence. Manile, May 7, 2000. Sustice ROMEO J. CALLEIO, SR, Vice Choncelier, Philippine Judiciod Academy aie radeon ACKNOWLEDGMENT Lnrvoponeto the nea between 2669292019, anthologies have evied on eridentnry Hote within tho fea aren. Avid ‘upozes fhe aed evra api that tela, ite te Covatiton, in em but bard nore ‘Thragh the navn det contrition towards haeony in commentaries ote ster, ha compoation waz egal inetd tgiMreDutice Holmes incnve rrr on" hol hectare of the hens’ Staal, Dame, Joey, MeCormisk,Greeni, Thayer, ‘Donon Lily, Wswnieger snd Exons, were song ever moniter who donated the shail fame coded Seratne i a “ocsibarae with rt hn he Cie Joan af he Supreme oor spstng a pron the he Rules on Bvidens, fo ste promalpeionby the Srprenm Gro AAC Ne. 1081850 em ‘Sarco fon ec May 1,320, was daily dung tsk ‘ith iosaton of vie tntateaion and fcur aide a Frum sine December, 2018, he prece Bally materiale itll nights cn Hvience. font vento of iden, tha cout ix ert 12 ie Ghat Dinas M, erlin the Sopreme Court nd Madame Justin Prmants © Lata Peralla of he Coo af Doves for thei encotagenen! ond energie Lavin Zo cup” 2h in egal Oblogphy, valu proding rome Chet damtce Remnaie 8, Pun pow rted rm the Speen Court, a tie dimite Bomro & Call, Sr, Ys Chanelle of the Plone Tit Asadong, decereed’eppobaton for ai geno a seperate prfaen Roznonledgmente at tn Goo the tinguished agstrte of she Gureme Goth Gore of Appac. torre Unibet Cnet San Gs atl the onsen, dosatas i the Ban Beds Cailog f Lane, Cane of 188 the seer batch {© the San Bot Graate Schial ef La in 2006, the aeaderic ‘Geamonay na he pushing compas. fe Ce Steno hntrbun of led ope Te Aly. Cemline & Conmpo Per, my sharin wif, tho my ound recogion er moat supp end mano Srderstendng hon the thos ebnded os ene ee ‘tensa! etn sadlun tnd evaluat oendance [siete ardor hope fee aubor tht ips rom parts spoon cementite i ae ded sot ey a “stents tthe audy wns of we lary, esto -Sadger, Jastices, and votarice of the law on evidence. " ‘Manila, May 19, 2020 EDUARDO B, PERALTA, JR, CONTENTS CMAPTER 1 RULE 128 GENERAL PROVISIONS AavERSOTY BEM nr Bewenor ofovidence Faetum pribany ard facina probacdum Fae vo Uamate fects - Evsdentiary facts x em se ‘Abzence ofan Scout “Arpiment hom evidence ‘Suspicion snd emnjeotare (Quetion of fact trem 8 auction ofa Goncluaionof fact and conclusion flaw ‘Allegation evidence, a prot Senetioned by the niles Novected sight uf property io rules of evidence Teeth an Matter of ee Matter oflew sos Sentosa of evidence @)- 1967 Constitution Governmental intrferance a8 precondition to ‘application or vocation of the Bill of Rights Right taprivecy Urregnonehle senech Administrative search Unusreared ing Search of pwvernment adie computer Tight tabe forgotten Private individual va. private individual Privacy of sommurdcation end correspondence 2 Ey 8 a 1 2 @) Substontive bow - ‘9) Republi Act No, B18 . 1b) Mepubue act No. N56 ©) Republic Act No. 6353 ©) Republi Act No. 8372 ©) Republi Act No. 8752 Cybercrime Prevention Boleon Cybercrime Warrauta oss @) Procedvral rule Revised Guidelines fr Continuous Tia ‘Criminal Coooe Precautionary Hold Departite Grder State powor over rules ofevidenee 9) Terooon 1b) Rebellion. iaurrecion or orp dae ©. _IUgal assemb ies 7 bora interpretation of rules on ovata Drug cases: atict and liberal approach Principal classification of endsnce Realavidence nn Documentary evidence oe Testimonial evdence : Qualtice: accorate ord completa 2 Rey conoaptsol endence - Scope of evideaoe 7 Administration of julie Bpeosl rules of evidence Subotantial eridenoe Rulamating power 7 = Bseeyted casea Frestleatial Decree No. 1529 Republic Aot No. S087 Sumamery procedure . Admisoibiity of evidence Logically probative on ‘Cameouenta Rales of Evidence expat invocation st he Wignore's axioms of edmiesniity 2 Reloraney aul competes : Ofiovand sbjctioa ne nubs Prectiol guidelines . Suiciel Adavit Rule a x © a a « 3 at 5 8 oe a a 41 a 7 8 3 a n a a En % ca % 6 7% st » ‘golararal matter Gondvaonat atuhipie, curative dma Contigonal admit Sfutiple wemibebilty Cuntive acmisiblity valence aad weight = CHAPTER 2 WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED Any wise epi ieee cia pes ee pen cal suze - Balen oe & iin ncn Jeti in ” . ‘ . Sahai Bit im prealbnge Eniefrjecal ee Tae poe Mindrum Dirty et Pesce Koon eri ois io sent ffs 8 Rect tense cng fi dose fine tae atc eluteteommtay waa ae Ti edd yo sme ec adn le wibihe law Goer = Din pant : Sil pay on ial a Jedi uminon 3D Name forgone Mined Boe vy Yatatatn i a so deeing Quolifed judicial edmiesien Se eieteatsam ets joi msn yoni Tinea acy cated cnvon nv #8 % a 5 6 a ” 95 a8 98 100 100 we wo 103. 103 104 106 08 we ur R0 120 wet wat 132 8 128 182 a A juicial admission does not sequins eidenoa is conclusize and all proof tothe eonteary ‘ast be gcorea ‘An omit hry cata ocorided on pe sides despite a )ueiciel adnacaton Waiver of prot. Waiver of tho benefit of «judicial edniaxion Admission of act of of testimeny vores ne ‘Who caa roguter a judicial admission’ 3) Porty . . by Now parey = ‘Theory of adoptive adaiacion Party ar Conasel? Parameters ota Inwyers autharily ~ ‘Dh form ofa judicial sdenesien 7 Pretrial... . 2 Trial oe 2 Uiapermisaitle admianione Suramation ~ Brtecrof an amended plading vivo PreoURNHO ene ve CHAPTER ® RULE We RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY General view Souret and preservation Origin rule admitting real evidence Urapection in ponera) ‘A. Object (coal) evidence Seope and force of physical evidence Probative value of esl evidence Buhibtions avd demonsientions of ojuroe Mops, drawings and diagrams esos Serays . oe Photepraphe mn ‘Auihentication af photograph wooo Binding effect ofa piclure 135 136 136 138 133, 18 Mo 0 rv waa 183 iss 187 156 12 16s 165 mm 1 wa 176 116 18 ad 18 179 19 19 189 st 12 ‘Totaity of dreunnstances test: Tmperniseble -aggsiton Besily inapoction 2F iantifetion Tha child watneat eon Seized drug ose ‘Availability of Ble 37 a» a mode of discovery Modes of recorded confesion =. Motion pities x Wiseotepe ieee aida reconings + ~ Computer cords ee Expocimona and tate Scientific idence mn general = Fobygragh tet. oo Other aiectibe tote Bleed teat DNA evidence case Bus eo DNA Evidence Weight of wal evidence ‘Venus for real evidence = cular inspection to Roputic Act No, 168 Ocala inepeion spare ft reqs in ‘Republic Art No. 9165 7 Senaaty yarception of jos: eidense sos. ‘Tertmnodial erideese Fresentati of the physical evidence 1B. Documentary evidence Concept ofa document Detinition af dooumentorysvidence Datviion of writings and voordinge Debaseion f photographs ~ in ganorel til photopaphe = Keays : * ‘Videctapes nad motion pictures Document with elevation ‘Theory of indibaitbny ofthe document Interpretation of Socamens = 1. Original Document Rle Best Evidence Rub, ~ ‘The Beet Evidanot Bale Au Overview we 17 ais at a6 6 a6 217 27 a7 218 a Neves for the original Docunoat as eal ox documentary evince Falafoaton and Wel: Original Boouzent Rule reqused Source of she Original Decutwent Rae CGriginal Docurentbejond the court's hriodicon Collar tate rate Orighal under Repue dcx No 8193 Original of te eegvan or cable message Bick af soncomphanos we the Deg Docuruen HONE nnn - al Theoferor i} Theadvorsepary Seconcary evidence oss or deateution ofthe eiginal Grdarof proctor lat er Sestroyed original Intention destruction of orginal roo flat notarial or hologrenh wl Quantam of ondary evidener Goiginal In sdvecee pesty'aconta} Time produce Ue rina! Format the noice undo wb it shuld be ‘deeied Bice yy ar Retual aide enna io plc cvwigical Numero scents oF incon Qeiginat ne pli cond aro! Bvidonoe Rade Concent Persona boundby the rule : dients a the vale ‘Contrast ofthe Bost Evidosos anil the Fase Eridonco le -. ene Acceptable extrinai osiee Srezmne subst i Intermediate ambipuily oo " Insrourcie af desertion Minter Co Inpercion I Faire tn expres tre intent . Validity mpage? a 226 228 2a 282 22 233 ear 28 288 240 23 244 2M 25 aT 28 28 251 235 20 20 265 267 Subenquomt agreaments ae Ineremantal situations which donot siter ‘he contract sn C. Testimonial evidence Bees ~ Focuy fr etimorial evidence x Wass, ac . nn © meotimonial Bvidence 1, Qusligcation of Witnesses Lag ts a Enelusiow st of disqualiied witness - ‘When testinoniel cualification onus exist eign eer pli desler Interest — Convusionsés erie es Disqualified wituerses vo. = Diatinevonbetween Hearoey Bale and Rule ‘Recuiting Frnthend Enowledgeoooonn ‘Other doqualiicotons Spal immumity ~ Philosophy os x Requleites concn Waiver ‘ei ail ein beacons wmorrege Privdaged oomreusiestion Conoopt Fundamental eanisione Nara of privioged comacinication Changes 2 Foundations for pubviloge: "Veiliarian awd pee on Other privileges Privileges ander the 2018 Federal ules of Bvidenes Marital prvilege cen Reqs evar ” Dighorany betsrecn spousal immunity and ‘mavial prvi 210 an 2 28. 28 26 29 B SSeaeey a an an sz siz Covernge: Exvepted Attorney: Basis Prvilege Professional empleyment ‘The thd Confidential cosmuization| Brcepred » » @ a 4 of marital privilege -abient privilege I is sermal FED ann Grianfrauddaune lsimant rough Henin decaced ENE ‘Breach of duty by lawyer or client Document atasted by dhe lonyer eine eben ser ‘Other nxeeptions invelring the lawson Waiver Physician, Changes aient privilege ce = mncon Guiding psincsle ” Presequisi Authority of veawonable lal Confident condi Guilese Water Pelee penitent file Regulates ie ialcomaunicetion te adress medical tion Publi fcers “ equities Parental and Sal privcge 2. Testimonial Privitese Trade serete 8. Admiesions and Confessions 23 a ae sie 20 320 a0 522 228 ar 333 ms see 335 3a 338 337 38 Es 9 Bea aa 2s a MT an Personal nowledge at required ~ Adiniaion and confession ~ ‘amucion and a salfaorving éalatation ‘Admission and declaytion agninst interest Offer of compromise err Compeemive = Offarto compromise in civilease Seatement af an indeyendent fact Changes ‘Offertecompcomine ia eraninal ene Bes inter aioe acta alter! aneare non éebet Philosophy ‘doprion of tatement cf other person Exceptions. i ‘Aibaio bcoarnt or ent Partnarahip ante Reston forthe ule . Requnites Cron Conepheatae nn = oe Requites o— Gist of the rele sony Pv -nnsnnsnneoncnnnae nen Concept ~ ‘Admavion by sleace = ‘Gonfesion renee 2 Concept Admmssiblliy of confsaions .. — Formand auiicheney an cvcsesese= Conatiatlonalsafeguerd Procedural epectation 2 Requisites fic valtity Btatetory prdostion: Republic Act No. 7438 ‘Statatory relabiltston Susiepeuteal jotings ~ Prectanp tin een ” 4. Previous Conduct aa Bridence videnea of sitar acts ene Rationale. . = Admission 2 nasceptad offer . 2 5. Hearsay ‘Testimonial cogsition Peseonal hoowhedge ai ata Sere hoary amas personne etal Concept of aren ee Hearsoy ander Rate 601 ‘Themabingot the sitemens usec ed Original ane served evidence Boeri a ncpendenl eon sat Desaive faces 8 for ejectin of hence Retort or ay rome Bresination Contntatin Misnterprotetion Fors af hearonysvdance Prototive voles Beason fer sopiios lathe hearsay evden re ‘Changes Defialion ola aaicnent Stator men setion Nenserbal edt sore ©) Oxcofcour statement 1B) Offered an aenertion Declerant who tetiie Pei inomiotontotatements Brioreapeimeant statement Statements ofidentiestion Basie ecsumption tothe exeeptious 4. Bxcoptions to The Hearay Rule Ante Mortem Statement Basie cerns Requsites Gonseiousnes of mapeading death Gotmmunicacen of the cause and eicumatencis of deat 48 20 aa aa 46 a6 a6 0 rt a am an a 5 7 78 =o aL Competence - Derlarantia death Statement of tacadent an pereca of unsound mind Teclaration agasnat interest ~ Reason forthe rule SN Changes Parameters 2 ‘Brtraiideial ndmicaien ado declaration ‘Declaration sgainetisverest and entries inthe ‘PRUE AUSINEE oon i. [Declaration asainatinlotest end acibaerving asisfor declaration eainst interes. Element x Form of delacaton agsinge inecroet Actor dearatson abt patie Orig Reauisites 2 Bart of the ces gestae - Concept : 2 Basie 2 Blements - 2 ' Spentancovs exclanation - = Verbal est 2 Maltipleadnissibility ~ Recotds of requlerlyeonduetel business commen Bheients se Root avse = ‘Terma consteaed Lnngunge, form aid precede oracnal knowledge < souree of information ~. Availability cf Bnerant x Pt or ofdal rcorde Bhements ences Inteaaie worth Businees ontieo and public or wiviel Enecien Commercial 2 ern matted tF6 6628 noon -Hepurted teximony rule ” Witness. _ x Testimony one Prvereaing Substantial Hlmtiny of partie, oubjet mallet 508 ‘is 51s 512 59 520 521 SE Bas 28 526 27 528 38 0 ms ‘Oppurtunss for cre exemination Media of proof _ Residral exception Elva exeption Re 7 1. Opinton Rule piven. fee. onl ee pinion edence Keaton fr reserigtin a Eceoplions Bret Sor the cxceptins Expat evidews Thoampore witness Expr witnas muctbe qusiied Conitional siiostiity Bypatenesgenime iature ured epe of te ussite eupert Crosvexamaation ofthe exper. tunes 2 Evidvotiry value of expert crdenoe Sabyets sonoracd with expere tetany 1) Handwriting cnalyia %) Beggraph 3 Pawlin 4) Chemical sasigais 2 Dragessen unter Republic Aa No. 8166 "Bld analay “The edinany wines. _ 8, Character Evidence Gonep of charseer fron mm Dinca : Ravina Somnnery Merlino inc in cd ty 3" “Bat moral enaratr ote evased 1) end mor character ofthe aces 2. Maal cheater fie alfended Edectot proofat gle pond resonate fut Moralcharnterof partyin och ease saa 862 si 55 562 4 65, 565 er 583 30 a0 cy Biz 5 5 315 S78 a 381 ee a8 5 595 g 596 f88S82 & Mocalsharacter of ¢ witness in «evil and ‘riminalcase ~ — Charente neat osu etiom orpret ~ : ft) Reputation sewn B) Optnion sence 9 Conduet - onapren « RULE 31 BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE "AND PRESUMPTIONS Intecdtion [Netor ef burden of proof andburdon of eidence -—~ Cone onaca nannies Sonne ” he pail 2 ‘he defend Equizvive ... - “The posses Nezaiealletion ‘Afemative difenee © Ino odicil wi snooty fra Cone a ® Pronumptien Lu 5. Inerenee LN Covison of prenumptions 2 Purges of preoumptons a Kndeof presumptions. Constitutional of recumpions — Presumed covet tutinality ofa lew . “Effet of presumpeon : ‘Thayer's view or Bursting Bie Theory Marans ww o Prmeybania le Jone viet nee Concusive rasuptoos ‘Ganeanive pression of cognition ofthe law Ganeueveeccuracy of toe enred UAT == ‘Conciaivenen of agent ‘cones : gee888 a7 stepped Basin ot topped Elements afertoppal Lantind- tenet retatinn Diaputabie presumption Brecumption of ianacense ‘Presumption of wnlasful inten fore an tunlawal ae Presumed Intontion of caoyuences from 6 ‘olunary act Presumed exercise cteare Obs Paynentol money, celvery of thing ot obligation, ion of evidence nd pedusona let ep. Monoy pate Delivered thing Datiered obligation Current recipe reszined dec ofthe thing and aacomipiion ot ownership Presumpcions of regularity ‘Presumption of abocace and death acagainet continity of life or existing state of a thing Acaulescence Gsdinery corse of nature aad habitvof ie Prosamodcopartnersh Preaunptions involeing arial rlatam and ahabiation, Manioge Cohsbitation Presumption on property aytem of umone ‘without maar Presumplion over a child in auceesave marriogos [No presumption of legitimacy or llegeimacy Presumption agsinat an sccosed in shiminal crocs CHAPTER RULE 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES General conde of examination Ordiary procedure os er oe 50 cs es 685 689 61 ee ez 665 en es 61 08 ae ee roe ‘8 que om he eo Sie onan : Seewet peteie aan Se Rane : BOS inet in See Tow Fee snc! open Crna canine Uidtentennce ecotny — ded ee : Besar : ee : Bee latin PSone! acy incl ene Coon arpentn SSR Rett lanl soon a Ralaenor : Fen linn Best Pact fica Berane Sn Gnsvant ply : Teneo ali ails sores : Paneaton ei aliens wo ere See os Sclecrag eon Reowone eineny ove Resear " Eigen cyan fa ons Etincmiaton Snelageiee oo : ade comin : Deck ante Paste ie ecm Cebaeatiton nr moa 104 708 708, aT 78 78 cr cy na 13 13 ns m3 ns m4 74 m8 ne 78 ne at as ns 7a a ma mM mm a a8 me mt m8 13 731 148 re a oy Gustions irom advoroe party's counsel Grtrepnsinton gnats rom he ge akas of eres eainfuntion Restiietone 2 ‘a Waiver en By Ratevent 2 Default = 4) Bxyacte proceeding ©) eat Bvidence ard Pavel Bridanet Ral Former tatiriony and other exectiene to Hesreay Bule . Defendants expe fin confine 4a) Sccussd who teatives 3) Unwilling or hostile witness 3) Misleading and inadmiseite Duration ofthe right to cross examine ‘Technhquesofcross2raminttion «., Iiseain af ncomplte aan ‘Re-divect examination ee v= Recrsscromination so. Real Lending and misesdag quasi ‘The mature of, and prescription over. ‘ leadiog quetion Cross-examination om Preleninary matiers Winer lacking power of reolaction Coviling, mete oradverse pet wie Mislsdiny question : impeachment : Goneope oI ‘ime of impenclament . Basi osoumptiour " a) Tarty is bound by own witanea 1) _Inpenchntna ie mattoret right Modes of impeschment a} Avetwe panty ox witness Bi) Parte owe witnand nnn ood Feith sesamed Unveilting, here wiiness ‘Time for reengnition of heesiny cr uriingcoe Significance of Court declaration relative to hctility or unwillingness 131 wt 59 8 a = 3 CCamapts on impeachment penn - Laing of the predicnte Necersity fo popes foundation Disparities cannot be raised on appeal to ‘mpugneredibiity Roce ef ound ation 2 Discrditings witness sistem Trreeonsable anc significant. dlisparitiey Inmprachanere sig nachos wines ~ Impeachment of the witness's character clusion ard soparation of wimesses Vielation af « soparation order a Revializingthe witnet's memory — Media other thon witings = Precnndition tothe vseof Memoranée n= ‘Types of reiuvenation forthe witness's memary Ghossexemiotion ‘Theory of completeness igh to inopoct a waiting prosemted te witness 1B AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF ‘OF DOCUMENTS. Document - ~ Docerentany eviderce - x able and private Jseumonts Poveentation of documentary evidence Promement ‘Stages Making bli documents and prevatedecimonte ~~ Pale document Prints desement -— Tropoutions on autheaticatin sad sdiseitiity setiscaticn and aitheneienion Rules on awhenticoton ofa private doomoent ‘Thenced for proparfoundation af a puvete document Dascxceution and authenteiy roaf of the signature nnn a) Pavly or witness 1%) Byowimaons 9) Expert orondinary witness Comparison 825 $03 308 ESSSeRE BR S22 ear Et RSSSSRE RES SESBSSE a a Otherevidenes of due suecution nad avthenticty Ancient doniment Reckoning period af 0 years Proper eustods . Proof of signatures by comparixis Publieand private docamsents 7 ovidonce rf pb eeumens Foreign nw... . Apestile Convention wm AMteststion a ITeremevabiliy of public record ——, Fubliccecord ofa priests dacvanant oct flack ofreoond ” Anvpeachmneat of judicial reoond von m roof of notanal docwinte = Alteration an adacamient . ‘Account for alization when inatrwineat ‘intro Seal . Documentary evidence in ea unafiial lnguege ©. OFFER AND OBJECTION ‘The oval offer Function of offic - = Specific offer om hen cB oo 'a) Mattes hick need nets posed by Givilcase under summary peecedare 2) Common exhibit &) Waiver 2) Identifention and itepration D. dointhearing ” ‘Time for ora offer ‘The objection Time for objection oo Waiver of objrtion TE Form ofthe cbjrtion Tenor ofobjection Continuing ebjacion Briel courts suing Striking out evidence Oder of net Bizet oferroaeoasruliog ofthe til ere wu ar are 370 rs ane 804 904 08 10 ou 315 os oe 919 ed 220 9 sat sat sat 383 87 20 oat os 5 eat 80 981 one 97 cuAPTER 6 RULE Ast WEIGHT AND SUFTICIENCY OF EVIDENCE, Admincibiliey and weight eight of esidence Propondoraiee of evidence Protable cates (Clear andl ocnvincing evidenne 2 Subeantial evienoe x Bauipondersnoo of ovidonce = Prof beyane reasonble douse = ects in determining weight of evidence = 2) Bacto andesreumeanocs ofthe on Totally ‘of fea and evidence Case fortune 2 Basi of judgment nnn ‘@) Ordinary procedure ) _lncremontal evidence before the tel enw ©) Additional eeidence at the splat level Summary procedure . Chin of evssody ruts By Wiencared wane of stlyiag ©) Witness'simtelligens ot ipnorance © Witness's means and opportunity f knowing ‘he fects fo which Uhey are tenting ©) Nature ofthe fects to which they teat Probability or improbobility of vestimony ©) Wineo'sntereot ar mantf intereat A) Credibility of witnesses 1) Namber of witnescea ‘Additional vues for weighing eviicare Folate in wm, falsasin oronibus Afmtive and negative resinoay Delay scene Testimony ekczed by leading questions deni sti08 ne Afidavie Conspizacy Selldefense Taner nr . Albi : Motive S S8ee88888 a a aL 2 ERSEEiSiseee ga2ga 1010 1010 ten. wt 101? ‘Stcieney ofan ext udicil confession Cireamotactial evidence Factors fe intrinate orth ofan anion ‘from sn expert ‘Substantial evidence o Sperfuous cumulative idence : Bvtdaneoon motion APPENDICES. APPENDIEA 2019 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE [REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE, APPKNDIX B ‘ICVISED HULES ON EVIDENCE @ULES 122154, RULESOF COUKI) ‘AS AMENDED BER RESOLUTION ADOPTED ‘ON MARCH 14.1930 APPENDIX C FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE ‘As ancnded through Decomber 1, 2018 row 1018 10% 1038 0a. 108 203s 107 1098 CHAPTER 1 RIE I28. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1, Auidence defined. — Evidence is the means, sanctioned by eheee rule, of ascertain ‘ajudictal proceeding che truth respecting a matter offaet “Since mathematical az _denyungteative certainty is uneteinable in any of he affvze of day Ufa, ovarts of jet, lke individuate, axe compelled Wo be satia6ed with that inferioe kind Of certainty which ix nlled Word. All otal science, of which lew fs the practical expresion, cowsists Luvinsielly of ixjuiry and investigation, srhich ave infinite by nature, but nite by nevesy: fd in the administration of justice, the exigcotioe of public and private basinewsrequirethat ths Limit should be either recondite foe fendi), but wall defined and according with the maxims aod tuperienie of consion sense, Therefore, moral probability, cr. a8it {r-erronenusly tensed, aotal catainty, is the wtincet to which the stience ef og evidence aspires. ‘The region of evienoe lies, therefore, exusively betwern ‘moral certannty a0 the ene hand, 28 ts most perfect extreme, and ‘novel pesaiblity on the ether, as its most imperfect extrem. It does Tot look for mors tha the Tre, abd w el ot at on es Chan ee Taat, Ita whole chjct ie to produce those convicions which spring spantanrolaly fom the suggestions of the intuition, sx embodied in the contusions te rensting or comparative faculty of the ming; and in every cove the Inet conslusion ofthe speculative intellect rightly auggevts end governs the fist outward operation of the ‘preetical mina.” “Gator rife, Pols Fringes anda the Lew Briere, Atvaranty rystene ‘Aagl- American evidentiery miles and principles are enbedded inthe adversarial ayater of justice. The ganeral theory uederjing the adversarial model ig that che self interest ofeach pany tote Iiigation will produce the evidence end the comprting a2gumente recsonry for the ter to make 2 fetv apd vatioral design. The ‘aéverserial wystem, therefore, i driven by the parties, one or mote ot whom (he plait or plaintilfa initiate a lawsuit by fling Wh (he tral cours chr complaint and a surmons= ‘The Saale eliment of craetial lay io thiajuredictisn ie the adversary aystem, Under this aystea, the responaility bringing wit for shaping the isues, and for producing evidence ces almost certrrely upon the parties tthe controversy, Ube eouet takes almost fe acteve part: i deoe not do tx own inweetigation, it rarely seks ‘pestina? Basence of evidence ‘Aczordng to Cleon, the word “evidence’ has atleast the (2 Tesitinste moanings, a3 denoting (1) the scence of prod or the ‘Aundamental, natural prieiple which yegulata tho art of proving @) the ort of puck ef the rvlos and mthods easpkyel 1a the ‘plication of shat rience to praetite; and (3) the pboeion! means ot ‘gtuciea by which that art la carved inte elect Professor Thayer diceribed it a¢ a lem of fronsie procedure; and inparts something at forwavd ina cnet of jatice 1 its originel sense, the term “ovidence” ig that frem which case the state of being evident or plain * Jn legal acceptation, evidence inshdea alt the moans by which any alleged matter of fet, the Lruth af whichis submitted % "Prana, ra aqui, dbo Paar onde laa Preece ‘so iarcin Cc Ln (sth tase Epsenew ataungang Paneer} Taup os pages ain cot Baad hr ond Som Sa Pe "1 Ghombetarn, A Tatton onthe Nadern Ia 9 Eines, 8H 48 Sing dala Pabeop of aed pane 1 Ctonbertame i ape cking Pheer, cn. Trt pr 3 senshi en rom in SE Harner 2 RULE 124 — GENERAL PROVISIONS investigation, i cctablishador dzproued A rule evidence may be Gotined ot a pritciple expressing the mode and manner of proving the those and riveamstnnnas gon which a party celica to ebtablieh feet in diopute in judi procedure, T sgniBes that“. which ‘makes clear or amertains the truth ofthe very fac. or point in seve. ‘Saher om tas sme site or the ether ™ Te". governs te presentation Gtfrots, ahernue than by comment or argument, before lege] tcbowal” Evidence Ja fundamentally something progared Ww establise an alleged oF disputed fact." Necessarily, the bow of evidence is ‘ependent on roles of selectivity and exeson." Faclum probars and fectum probandum Paciarn provane ie the evidentiary fact which astaiishos the proposition while actum probanduve is the ollinate fact or the ‘ropositio robe established For example, to piove the Proposition Uhat a murder was committed by Jahn Dos, the Evidentiary Fast may he offered that John Doo Ie the wetinva house shortly efise the mueter: to prove thi in tam, a @ Proposition, the Bvidantisey Fort may be ‘ered that Jolin Doe's shoes Bt the krack Loft near the ovine by the ‘mardarer and this agein. as « Propoation may be evidanoed by the ‘atement of 4 witness 08 the atand sho hes placed the shee in the tencke. Here, onch evidentiary foc into fon Decor @ proposition rewiring the merabelling of new evidentiary fact, more oF fewer trcording 4 Sly omplexty. Any spociie matter ay br Proportien ‘& Evidentiony Fact, ascording tothe poirt of view of the moment Sait Mtn hela ods 08 10 En ne "awry WFasking Ca Lae, 1016 BA page 6M citing Fics lachanen’s ren cocker PA mas Spa of te te ote, "We Beier Teche Sais 105, 24 Eton. pn "ig Regutad,Rootiat Law Comper, 208, 11th Balan, th pine 1p. gna cing t Migmereon Enea pp 2-6 Agpl,Hendhook = Bees, $oon- it Waitin vee eting Tonos, epic 24 SERA CBs 11 "3 Imgmer A Teen hepa af eden Tas muon en, 4 mistoars ox EvIneace Fact Scena pealang — alc i tha which act — ether nye wade latin‘ efoin st mo i ct ‘aly of nature, ening or percent nthe essa othe and hawing its seat either in matter or in mind.!* aa ‘The Nndemental concept of fact ia ofa thing sisting oF boing tue It is no Limited to hat ie tangle arin any way the cect of wonae, Thinge jevicible — mace thoughin, tontiows, nee of the mind — when conceived of as enating or ss being true are convsived of as fats. The question of whether a thing be a fac oF nol. i the queotion of whether iti, wheter it este, wbreor be true, All inquiries into the truth, the reality the soluality af things, are inquires to the fact abcut them, Nothing is. 8 quection ‘of fact which ir not » quseton of exbtence, the seals, the tet ot ‘something ~of the rivera For a vicble plsading it munt aver euflisient ultimate facts rather than evdentinry fet. Ultimate facta ‘rime facts refer tothe piniat, determinative, constative {acts upon th tence of whch tect of acon na Ch nen beset veferts devas of probative mater nptiedrs oredr ‘which establish the matetiolelomenta?” "5 Chander Areata the Molen Lam af de. 0, 4 a, Shambara te, page ig ian, egy of Tether. Cronin dit pangs OS SAM She hows 168 "con 2 Ade £2019 Rae of Cin Pree — *Pladg: deft — ‘isang ae tt en sateen of he maps She and ena ated en or type get ‘ihactan 4, Rule & 2010 aa Ct Penner — “In gael ser ean sl nein 1 oth onde om ein ost ‘Betonant of ho winats eta indeding he ede oo shah sie vor {sles eam dren 2 rene mayb omg stom ect Tht ser nineteen pene ‘ino array ohana tanta ao “hCG 08 619A 207 Tee Saat Se ok ine erate os Me GR inthe enews Seam aiasean eas Te. cuter 2 * RULE 18 — GENERAL PROVISIONS Butdentiory facts ‘nthe ater hand, evidentiary fats ane those which tend « grove or eatablish the ulumnate farts ‘inate fact wil be tested ding rial by evidentiary fects thin Shar, oten dicans Oe éiference, beeen lite od evidentary fete im velazon co plealgs, end ‘bat mnt ailegd to stank 4 cauna of sean, Virol Tete are the face that coouvate 4 esse af ation. Thad 9 Dleating Oe contain allegeane c kits facts, that Soar may acconcain shine, aovning the alegtins 0 bo fuels pending state a cave’ of sein Of cour Use vores 1h tde uta fae a be avahlaed daring Ws. per ‘rong the yesentaon af dence that wil prove ede (ttn Tuto, #0, Repub, his Cour anplined “The rues ch pltding apeak of sto 2) kinds f es: he Gen the"uhimace fact” s Uo econ he “eran ‘eu ta Remure Wr ae Yui term “una ace ‘wanton cod explained os lots: ‘the tam “whinnie get ap wid im See 8. Rule 3 of the Rader of rat, mean the samenta fc onetioang toe ‘lanai caape of atinn. Aine canta a i connie be ‘eeken out withou having the talent ofthe ete gti Insuiteent. = Oferan, Rubs of Court, ok 1, 3908 e2, . 2a" Minste face ora Leportont end subetanlel facts ahi ether dzcelly form Oh basi f tho primaty Hight aod ‘day or wih directv take up the saongl sels w omissions, ‘tthe defend. Th trim dors act ester tothe details of iobeuwe matter of portwulne of etence by wileh deve aati) eloneate ate tobe exalted, [Cetra Co pinipal, bterinete consharive fats, open the exictan(sof hic, te ntryssuneed acioazenta” hla the rm Pevlentary fet” has been defined in the eon tame: “Those sis wll a stopsary Tor deternination of he lkimate four they ats fhe pela upon seh aeeesiont pal Wk ge sing Po Ba Marte Pt, Te ve Cours of Apel ns ocpane Fe anol JGR, Ye 25908 ad te dows Fey 4.28 infarc Lee dust . rica oN Evrae sf ubinnt facts ae bos. Womack v dusril Gon. 188 alo, a8 $51 P24 761,764, Fate which forniah selene of ‘llstene af sen ote fat” Cleims naue Whenevar wecall nels to question ~ that 9, when we ash ‘questions about it truth or larity —we roles an icone ab ieae i question cf whether a gitencleim is tor aot.” ‘The ime isthe propustion to he maintained or contioverted 1k will be observed, that, by the comaion law, the iseve ie formed dy the partion themlves through the attorneys. the out heving noting todo with tae progress af che ateresion except ta ase th itis conductod in dhe forms of fae and it away consists if ang Proposition pusizely und disney stated.” The plaadings at common Law are composed af the writen, ‘alleations of the parties, terindting ins singe propesition, distinctly fired on ope aide, are lensed wt the other. called the ‘ot. IE in propcaition of fact, isto be tied bythe fur. upen, the evidence eddoed. And lis an eetablished role, which we state fas the PIRST RULE, governing in the pruution ofevidenea, thee the seidencs offered must correspond wth the allegations, and be ‘congned tothe pont fasue™ Of the anaes thus reiged some are termed guneralissuce:others ‘re pevial. The gonecal issue is eo ened, bores iv nx general Sal comprahensive daniel of the whole doclaretinn, ov ofthe principal DaTcof ithe latter kind af sou wavallyarieos income afer stage Of the pleadings. at? ig callnd hy way of diction fom the former. The general save, ac will be more distinctly coon en proper Dlace, puts in controversy the material pact ef the deslaratoe, nnd obliges the plainti wo prove it in eats partulat. This, upan the plea of not eu. trespass quae leusumn gi, the lain meant Drove his possession by right as against the defandet the unlawfal ‘entry ofthe defendant. and the damage dane by hint if more han ‘nominal damages are claimed, But ifthe defendant spcielly pleads hat eho plamtft gave him a license to ante. then to evidcuce of “haa oe Pare. Ceti Tt, deh Elon, Irian! Eon ronal, Hide os "eemecing. Unto "1 ram, Mera ling Beats Pril of Bride pp 2-48 exnspra 4 7 ULE 109 — GENERAL PROMSTONS ofthe defendants entry. nesdbe mplaistiffetitoor possession o m Brake the fact the Horne beng slo in eontacvest "An ewe aries if party allo fectom pleading?” and Wie diapted Web adverse pay” ete cence athe tee oe areas istment ote” o a9 indi Juirnet ‘nonsdge a rmaton authent to fen baal a Go the frthor ley isavermentsbveatoe eno Finfrmaticn onthe Sie at hand see clesly fnew to Frc simply ened det anor to the again of We fall to vend ar one an Atri Defias ta the fallow 5, While [pettine doee not dy having engaged servis of respondent) for the poly and (livery ef tol voytvomente auch Alvar sa asd teen pain eb atouae of Phps400,078,52 a of Mach &. Respondent} feed wo ahow evtence that indeed (pttvene| il oes the Balance of P1984 20168 ‘Sallegadin tbe Caplan, 1. Mo demand whatacror wt inde ceninst bersin (pation fr the alleged baleen Section 8, Bal of tho Butes of Court ree: 0) An atitmative dane I an allegation of ew atin which while ypothotrally sdmitng the ‘ateial slegraone in ibe plestng of claw Youd neverthelem proven or bar cavers by Bir Te sitenatis defenses include rad, ett of tnattion, foloase, patent legal nats of ead welepyel farmer secvery,dieerge i banbrepecy. and aby eb stata by way of safest ad acne. ‘4 prerivaly discutd, petitioner di ant mt rth ae matter in te Angwar becuse reomvents Cotnplone aired ‘alogoneslystted in Pergraphs 2,9 nd 4 ofthe Carplant ‘har esa hd oly pid ie sna Paco Ol4 Soot ‘taal dcbtednes of PLOZS 90800, Sia pel lner i mt ‘apse the aleations ae vegardethe balasse” a shortens to proot neither ie these am ieave if the comet unis of judicial notion of » matter batons it or ther i 4 jodicial i a wn 26-0, Secon 1a 2 Rue 129 Reid Rue on Boss, a a HAPTER RULE 106 — GENERAL PROVISIONS admission rm a parts or if « party laid the foundation for, oF enjoys the benalt of, a resumption.” In Republic us, Vu de Merk Oho quostun of burden of prot ciaa-ute the actmsity of proving fact, inclusive of the ontoptions hereto, were teed by the Supreme Court in this manner: “ayo sine a ee a eas cree ena eas coment abi: ees ving Sena! alain in hr ave shar he a Tneteatt All ee mae ad clean m8 Jtoatintc eprom eine eye he bowie ()_Shgthne stl in he erplaint or anewer immaterial tee (2) Fats Whi ce ltd oc whch ae ma denied in he ananer prods thy ave hee inl allege (©) Thon seh re the abit fn arn tates aftuce treo te pan at el the adel the fers tome the procdigs nh wt eae. Resse whlch sn eo eubjon of judi ation (0) Pooks wtih re lplly proved (Prete pocliariywitintbe knoweeotshe appoite ares” Ine erminel case, the ples ofthe sceunad signals Jonder of innvos unde wonld be jieprudentially eoparmissible for an scxused to interpose a sountardain for damages, prizarily on accoust of Ea et a en al pamretier TS TE cag en ne Pon snd cee a a mm SE er Po utara corn mat ta te ce a cba isang ta mace RES ores toa oy ae Seicip aacatcer onda sath ete SSS aan et gag eas heater ete een a As Mae ose 2 NstcaeTs oN EMDENCE the sbsence af any epeeific rule therefor in a criminal pruceeding, arsuanl to Cabsero eal, vs Hon. Cats eal" 4s Adjudication of compulsory eousterlsins andr ela dni oy pews peal includes the appbenton of ohor race hich by ter very nature app a teed ‘ith eAlgot eansteronth concerti: he pruners {id due exection of an sconable fate ohich se deere Sionitet bee ante donia: noes oath ivmerte Akfnses ie rex jedcat,preeinon and statate of ade vehick ate detvad waived by tare to norpee them 31 mative efoto an ene the alr after toile on onawer eruonaly mss utente defot inthe Elise butt inthe ol Aba ensequenes of ther ‘ater, the eniry of plea during avrargnonent will ne Tomer tena funder of tunuon tn crtbeat action” Ineynthesis,theneed to ascertain the tit respetingk matter ‘tac: arse Whe fatten isc ad the truth spon OF ‘¥idence, in any of le formers conobingtion theresk= Argument from evidence Simply put, sn segument isthe pcasing together of element facta for 6 suggested conchision while Sidener connctas the process of presenting sasumiod facta The legitimate qualey of Argunentation is the inveeation. by counsel, of ordiary rules of logie and chetoeie in the combination ef aumed facts" ‘An argument is an effet to establieh belief by a couse of reasoning.” The object of evidence ist eotabish the truth by the ‘use of perceptive and censyning fetes 4m evitiel thinking, am argument givee + reason far tithing ‘hat « claim i true, whilau claim thot ia ofetea na m season for TEE ity tet naan ie irae ae oe 8. ing 4 We A Tato th Sve ‘Evidanse in Teals at Cormnon Lav, 1904, nage 8 Hess “i gmon ae ar ‘a aw say 68, eid #4 pg 6? Bee Cry ed Cupron MERE OE Re a, Revert oe tc ie ee at am soa conse acon Palin eae coaerae B RULE 19) CHRERAL PROVISIONS believing another claim iz 4 premise. And the deim for which fr pratviee is auppaeed W give @ teacen is the conclusion of the Suspicion and eosjecture Suspicion caunot site probative force so vestiony which in itell ty nauffcane *9 establish or to justify an inference of perticalay fac Tae aen of suspicon has no short, and the cont that emnbasks upon ia without rudder or compaas". Ls not the Tabi of any courts of justice to ysld thomsslves up in msttore of ‘ight to vars conjesuree sad possiblities. Ie roa; he the maturalinatint ofthe mind tm conehrde thatthe liquid in glasses se. before customers ata bar was intozleating, tat inthe ahuince of any deseipton of ita to color or other. it might ell bea satter of pre conestare." Subjet to the ovdsequent discussion on the value of 2 presumption in Section 2 and Rule 4, Role 181 of the Revised Rules on Bvideney, []ettlad ir the role that a ccort eancot rely ‘on apeculations, conjectures or gueework, but must depend spon Crapetant primi and on the haste of the Lest evidence obrainable Under the crcumazaneee, fe emphasize that Iitigations cannot be properly realeed be suppautions, deductions, or even presumptions, Sith no bas in endence forthe truth must have co Bo determined by dhe hard rales ef edenisiility and prook Qusstlon of fact from a queetion of tase ‘To becertsin chat hols acing in conformity with the law, the jndge bss, on every gocaoin, hwo 2 pointe to conte; the one it ‘question of fat, the other a question of law. The fire consste in Fi ane Pr, deg 1 Song A tn on cea it Weg ard Va of oienow. 108. eeu ct Floto fa 2 DREN 32,305 20,30, Anares,C. "SMe, Vide og 3 tng Boon lohch. (CCA) NBFEA Kp. 8, per Catt Mem soaps. sina The Sh Hoary Batonk 1 Bato, VE) 0 Fol Cie We 86 per be, Ste Say "SU Mae. Vepae 33 sng Ppl ve Ovens, 8 HL. 64565140 KE Ben "Spugamae sl Fumio capone Comme of te 6 1 soe hone iE), Drcabor 216 u Instaars ON EVIDENCE. ‘ssuring bimeelf tat a given fact exnted ina given place. ata given ‘ime; the steond consiets in assuring bizoef that the lew has laid down 9 rule of sushor such a nature, applicable te this intividwal fact. The question of low is decided by the tent of the law, oY when, there io na written law, by presious decisions ™ The question of fact is decided by evidence. All dependeon facta ™ ‘Therein a question of law when 9 doubt ota difference arises fastowhat dhe awison certaia steto of facts and tho question dies not enll for an xacunation of the probartre vali of the evidewoe presented by the parti ltigants. On the other fend, there is = ‘quistion offact when the davbeo» controversy atieer as tothe ruth ot falsity of Che alleged foot. 23 when che qnery Necesearly collet calbrationof the whcle evidence considering mostly the oreibiity of witnestes. existence and veleranon of specite. sureanding shrumnstances, thelr refation to each other and tothe whle, aad rabshiltive of he sicuntion, Simply put, when thereia no diate aa tothe facts the question af whether the casueion dcawn Ghrefrom arrest ornot isa question of law.” Conclusion of fact and canetusien of lax ‘Aconclusion of fact is an ference drew from ihe subecdinete sorevidentiey facta! Por instance, the oral deslaretie of a deughier of eppellan i rape tha: "oghe one her fiber aod AAA in ths net of seal intareovedeservor sare sonsidration oa she Was 1 petra lhe tino of ee commencement of the snd ac She ola ae ‘hereto bai postin mate with crtiny ha here to etaggle on the pact of AAA. Hence, ber etn ren Sitch mates sere oetaston ott A es tO Ce Ot Onder. ors es, Lb Dvr 9 01, to Aas one Bias de OR Now 338, year iota PSY Od “spumen itn Sudiel Bedro Bere im he Mao any Bay ESO pape “thar oy Copenh Pacis rma Ban, iat i Slt €or of een ala Srvantw oilman eats eR iee Sofa ‘Ahdinon oe Bene GR Nn 1785, ps 19, 16 cttan ont SBlew'stee Minar Fs noe 88 peokeon Bon BB Ne 2000 pl 38, 2 curren fa [ILE 198 — GENERAL PHOWSIONS A oondusion flaw means & proposition not arrived at by any process of natural ressoniag from a fact or cimbinstoo af facts havo, but bythe appioatian of dhe artifice] rules of law tothe facts pleaded” a Mercene vs OSIS,* the Suprotse Court slahoratad on the ‘concept of x coucluson of lew, tue ou agzeasnrh Mere tat teil everents ct onetteds, dened see decmnd nintand Nanebel, TS Soca OS ala eid tate mans [Ekle ng ered i ernie Tema be enol Gates foam ew ded in he comple ore ot eerie Ay akc fale eae oan emit Ts SPeeweconldeungShtonly sae faa must alee 9 ty pding we ony salon lation fac ae aba sPaliaiy eocee, venchsooetla ine plies aqestian fe strap neu showig whe hort ensee Miejekek Telestream evecare {Ere coutown of in Ae Curt Ft fomance {Fborgman C ld t caccetan 8 ‘A iealing ds state the oimate as escent tothe mpntof atuncr deine ested, asStngatbed Bont ke senchnns a fe cr woctiaona foe Getecal aegis thet + cstcot fs vad ey hel oF ion fot a ames ree sea {win allstars tht a conte id, voale [ells Hoga tbo eae apninsepaOtc vals, wot ‘ating lcs showing fe vallty ace mere Conles otto I thm ae ning lan, ve precetbed witoet speifing the escumctocrs bebitd 4 Sree cocnon of lew: As weld dcussed firth, he fect ar Bats hed we taney pton ssh na 20) Sco afer se log hed nea enor niente bl potion hal in Than cc SKS dnl weld hat br saeco an specie Gein nb th et ht vor comenrad a” at, woul Fe dered ited at Ue ost Thi trae comedesng Ht the eerste 2 Bean pessipon senna: GBS havo ut been alleged 2 arieslany ‘SG No 183012 donaoy 26,2045, culo omitad 6 INsGHTS O EVIDENCE Allegation, evidence, ond proof ‘a legates sth tern, eda, sateen obs pee to an ston madera peng aeting carat Wr epeee teprove Unde le 0 oth 2050 Feel ae a Benes, 2 'statomen™ metre & pris eal ener, Sin ae nomial covet, i pen tedden Asation teint er ran a te Te pore or tnpote a sont te, she tm of eters ty air be dt or inkit may canatneal este rd nicht gern nthe pntcrorntcmnee er Scifi, ihe ses tere eprted ehcp e sttho rt «Satine rae tarnccraogasons Stine an lbgatns ac et ee Somer abe slaty prove te cer ees ite dee of ates, ttnding mn neeecs cree et pos ate aorta ena Tey chemi teria change cone te oon TAT aan pre STR agra ote tel Pe ee ee sm ate areas an atc sel Se ana naan se tee aoe onan umes eons on ee eos ret ood om MEENA Ey acorn corm ee oe Ane acare: en eee lett’ court cane roy 9 sptuhtann:sonfesuscron wenet Ree anes

    You might also like