You are on page 1of 66

THE REVISED RULES

ON

EVIDENCE:

Codal Provisions, Special Laws & Jurisprudence

Class of 3-C 2003-2004 Atty. Francis Edralin Lim Ateneo De Manila School of Law

— Volume 4 —

Evidence Project Volumes
Volume 1: I. Admissibility of Evidence II. What Need Not Be Proved III. Real Demonstrative Evidence IV. Best Evidence Rule V. Parole Evidence Rule VI. Interpretation of Documents VII. Qualifications of Witnesses VIII. Privileged Communications IX. Admissions & Confessions X. Conduct & Character XI. Hearsay Rule XII. Opinion Rule XIII. Burden of Proof & Presumptions XIV. Presentation of Evidence (Part. A., B. , C. 1. to 7.) XIV. Presentation of Evidence (Part C. 8. to 10., D., E.) XV. Weight & Sufficiency of Evidence

Volume 2:

Volume 3: Volume 4: Volume 5:

Volume 6:

3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 4 - 1 -

Volume 4: Table of Contents
XI. Hearsay Rule A. Testimonial Knowledge 1. Rule 130, Sec. 36 2. People vs. Brioso 3. People vs. Cusi 4. People vs. Gaddi 5. Estrada vs. Desierto 6. US vs. Zenni B. Exceptions to Hearsay 1. Dying Declaration a. Rule 130, Sec. 37 b. People vs. Laquinon c. People vs. Sabio d. People vs. Salison 2. Declaration Against Interest a. Rule 130, Sec. 38 b. People vs. Majuri c. People vs. Toledo d. Fuentes vs. CA 3. Pedigree a. Rule 130, Sec.39 b. Gravador vs. Mamigo c. People vs. Alegado d. Tison vs. CA 4. Family Tradition a. Rule 130, Sec.40 b. Ferrer vs. De Inchausti 5. Common Reputation a. Rule 130, Sec.41 b. Ferrer vs. De Inchausti c. City of Manila vs. Del Rosario 6. Res Gestae a. Rule 130, Sec.42 b. People vs. Lungayan c. People vs. Putian d. People vs. Tolentino
3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 4 - 2 -

Rule 130. Rule 130. Gabriel 9. Ominta 5. Rule 130. Roberts XII. Daubert vs. Rule 130. Stiefel 8. Bonds 10. Sec. Garver 7. Commercial Lists a. Cabuang f. 46 11. Merced 2. HEARSAY RULE 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Estrada vs. 8. Hoffman c. Ohio vs. CA c. Manalo vs. Vallejo 6. 4 . Trono 3. US vs. Leones d. 48-50 B. People vs. Daniel XI. People vs. Africa vs. People vs. Sec.45 b.7. Robles Trans. People vs. Sec. Co. Noble 10. US vs. Lungsford c. Opinion Rule A. Tan vs. Sec. Prior Testimony a. Dilag vs. State vs. 43 b. People vs. People vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 9. US vs. Sec. Palmer vs. Rule 130. Secs. CA d. Caltex c. Official Records a. People vs. Philamlife vs. Cases: 1. Learned Treatises a. State vs. Capital Assurance Corp. e. Entries in the Course of Business a. Rule 130. PNOC Shipping vs. Adoviso 4.3 - .47 b.44 b.

Section 36 Sec. that is. Cecilia Bernal. — A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge. Ruling: There is no discrepancy on the testimony of Bernal on the material points. who told his wife that it was Juan Brioso and Mariano Taeza who shot him. clearing the accused Mariano Taeza.4 - . This statement satisfies the requirements of an ante-mortem statement.A. The alleged inconsistencies in her testimony do not detract from the “positive and straightforward” identification of the accused as the ones who were seen at the scene of the crime and who actually shot Daria. Testimonial Knowledge 1. Moreover. which affidavit had been identified in court by the fiscal before whom the same was executed. Two detonations followed and Bernal heard Daria moaning and his wife crying for help. hearsay excluded. The widow. and unable to speak. was alarmed by the barking of the dogs and when she peeped through a crack in the wall of her house she saw appellants walking in the direction of the house of Silvino. son of deceased. Cases: People vs. 36. appellants assigns the following errors: (1) the lower court erred in relying on the uncorroborated and contradictory statement of prosecution witness Cecilia Bernal. right after being shot. Daria died one hour later. except as otherwise provided in these rules. Bernal witnessed appellants point a gun at the bamboo wall of Daria’s house. Bernal went to the house and found the victim prostrate. Susana Tumalip and Cecilia Bernal executed affidavits pointing to the two accused as the killers. which are derived from his own perception. Cecilia Bernal had no motive to impute falsely the crime against the accused. rushed to her husband’s side and told her that he was shot by Juan Brioso and Mariano Taeza. Silvino Daria must have realized the seriousness of his 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge. Judged by the nature and extent of his wounds. Issues: 1. Brioso 37 SRCA 336 (1971) Hearsay (Testimonial Knowledge) Facts: Appellants Juan Brioso and Mariano Taeza are convicted of the crime of murder for the death of one Silvino Daria. however. Rule 130. the spouses Silvino Daria and Susana Tumalip were in their house at barrio Tiker. Whether the affidavit executed by Antonio Daria is hearsay. a niece and neighbor of the spouses. Brioso was carrying a long gun. The records of the case shows that on 23 December 1966. In this appeal. Tayum Abra. Whether or not the court erred in relying on the testimony of Cecilia Bernal. the testimony of Bernal is corroborated by the declaration of the victim himself. 2. A few days later. and (2) the lower court erred in disregarding the affidavit of Antonio Daria. wounded. 4 .

For this reason. Ricardo Dairo. Davao testified that an extrajudicial confession was made to him by accused Arcadio Puesca wherein the latter admitted his participation in the commission of the crime and revealed the name of other persons who conspired with him. which was presented to corroborate the testimony of Mariano Taeza. if intended to establish the truth of the facts asserted in the statement. hence the present petition for certiorari. Antonio Daria’s affidavit.condition. is clearly hearsay evidence. Baño the names of those who conspired with him to commit the offense charged. without claiming that Puesca’s statement or the answer to be given by Sgt. it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made or the tenor of such statement. and it can be safely inferred that he made the same under the consciousness of an impending death. By: Christian H. With respect to the affidavit of Antonio Daria. Jose Gustilo. prosecution witness Sgt. affidavits are generally rejected in a judicial proceeding as hearsay. is nothing more than to establish the fact that the accused Puesca had mentioned to Sgt. Gustilo. The said affidavit was never identified by the supposed affiant and there was no opportunity for the prosecution to crossexamine him. if timely objected to may not be admitted. Respondent Judge resolved the objection allowing the witness to answer the question but without mentioning the name of those persons who objected. Prosecuting officer’s motion for reconsideration having been denied. Counsel for the accused Macalinao. Cusi 14 SCRA 944 (1965) Hearsay (Testimonial Knowledge) Facts: Respondents Arcadio Puesca. But while the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person. Lucio Baño of the Police Force of Digos. Ruling: There is no question that hearsay evidence. has no probative value. Prosecuting officer asked the witness Baño to mention in court the name of Puesca’s alleged co-conspirators. 4 . and Magno Montano were all charged with robbery in band with homicide. which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by the one writing them. Mariquina. Walter Apa. the same is rejected as hearsay. Bano 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. During the trial. considering that he died only an hour after being shot. affidavits are generally not prepared by affiants themselves but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant’s statements. Sorita People vs. and Dairo objected to this upon the ground that whatever the witness would say would be hearsay as far as his clients were concerned. therefore. unless the affiants themselves are place on the witness stand to testify thereon. Issue: Whether the court erred in not allowing the witness to mention the names of Pueca’s co-conspirators on the ground of hearsay.5 - . In the present case. the purpose of the prosecuting officer as manifested by him in the discussions below. and for further reason that the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants. Filomeno Macalinao. As stated in People vs.

Issue: Whether or not Guzman’s testimony is hearsay. He claims that Ernesto Guzman’s testimony on Gaddi’s confession of the crime to him cannot be given credence for being hearsay. In this appeal. On December 12. 1981. Appellant voluntarily surrendered and told the police that he killed the victim and that he buried the body. it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made or the tenor of such statement. that his answer shall not to be taken as competent evidence to show that the persons really and actually conspired with Puesca and later took part in the commission of the offense. with the understanding. 4 . the appellant was arrested. In the morning of the following day. Gaddi points to Guzman as the perpetrator of the crime and that he was only forced by the latter to admit the crime.6 - . The court convicted the appellant of the crime charged. we believe that the question propounded to the witness was proper and the latter should have been allowed to answer it in full. Ruling: No. By: Christian H. however. which are derived from his own perception. Guzman went to the police and reported what appellant told him. Patrolman Patriarca noted the statements of Guzman and Gaddi and took down the confession of appeallant. Novaliches. This tribunal had previously declared that a confession constitutes evidence of the high order since it is suported by the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to crime unless prompted by truth and his conscience. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Guzman advised appellant to surrender to the police. Hence. while the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person. appellant disputes the trial court’s reliance on the testimonies of the prosecution witness Guzman as a basis for his convition.would be competent and admissible evidence to show that the persons so named really and actually conspired with Puesca. appellent told Ernesto Guzman that he killed Esguerra and dumped his body in a toilet located in the backyard of Guzman. Proof that a person confessed to the commission of a crime can be presented in evidence without violating the hearsay rule which only prohibits a witness from testifying as to those facts which he merely learned from other persons but not as to those facts which he “knows of his own knowledge. Quezon City. The prosecution’s version of the facts (which was the version believed by the court) show that in the afternoon of December 11. is clearly hearsay evidence. Sorita People vs.that is. if intended to establish the truth of the facts asserted in the statement. at San Bartolome. In his defense. 1981. For this limited purpose. The appellant led the police to where the body is buried. Ernesto Guzman saw appellant Nerio Gaddi and the victim Augusto Esguerra drinking gin. Gaddi 170 SCRA 649 (1989) Hearsay (Testimonial Knowledge) Facts: Nerio Gaddi was charged with murder for the death of one Augusto Esguerra.

2. the Angara Diary is not an out of court statement. 146710-15 and Omnibus Motion in GR. admissions.R. Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force depends. 2001. admitted the killing to him. In G. Not all hearsay evidence. Over the years. who probably was bothered by his conscience. best evidence. It is urged that the use of the Angara Diary to determine the state of mind of the petitioner on the issue of his resignation violates the rule against the admission of hearsay rule. 2001. 4 . 146738 of the Court’s Decision of March 2. Whether petitioner resigned or should be considered resigned as of Janury 20. still its use is not covered by the hearsay rule. Ruling: We are unpersuaded. To begin with. 146738. A more circumspect examination of our rules of exclusion will show that they do not cover admissions of a party and the Angara Diary belongs to this class. trustworthiness and necessity. when Guzman testified that the appellant.7 - . however. Whether reliance on newspaper accounts is violative of the hearsay rule. is inadmissible as evidence. that is. petitioner raises and argues the following issues: 1. there was no violation of the hearsay rule as Guzman was testifying to a fact which he knows of his own personal knowledge. he was testifying to the fact that the appellant told him that he stabbed Augusto Esguerra and not to the truth of the appellant’s statement. Even assuming arguendo that the Angara Diary was an out of court statement.Here. authentication. Whether the Anagara Diary is inadmissible for being violative of the following rules on evidence: hearsay. Sorita Estrada vs. A complete analysis of any hearsay problem requires that we further determine whether the hearsay evidence is one exempted from the rules of exclusion. 3.) By: Christian H. (2) absence of demeanor evidence. a huge body of hearsay evidence has been admitted by courts due to their relevance. (In this case. in whole or in part. No. Section 26 of Rule 130 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. on the competency and reliability of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce it. Desierto 356 SCRA 108 (2001) Hearsay (Testimonial Knowledge) Facts: This is a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s resolution in GR. and res inter alios acta. and (3) absence of oath. There are three reasons for excluding hearsay evidence: (1) absence of cross-examination. The Angara Diary is part of the pleadings in the cases at bar. it should also be noted that the appellant was not convicted based only on the prosecution witness’ testimony but also on the presence of other circumstantial evidence proved. No.

4 . The res inter alios acta rule has several exceptions. that is. executive Secretary Angara had to ask Senate President Pimentel to advise petitioner to consider the option of ‘dignified exit or resignation. nonbinding on him. petition errs in his contention.” It is however argued that the Angara Diary is not the Diary of petitioner. ill will and other emotions. knowledge belief. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Moreover the ban on hearsay evidence does not cover independently relevant statements. Executive Secretary Angara as such was an alter ego of the petitioner. They belong to two (2) classes: (1) those statements which are the very facts in issue. Petitioner also contends that the use of Angara Diary against him violated the rule on res inter alios acta. Thus. intriga. One of them is provided in Section 29 of Rule 130 with respect to admissions by a co-partner or agent.” Petitioner did not object to the suggested option but simply said he could never leave the country. x x x b. viz: “The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act. Ayoko na. og the latter. These are statements which are relevant independently of whether they are true or not. good or bad faith.8 - . That Angara Diary contains direct statements of petitioners which can be categorized as admissions of a party: his proposal for a snap presidential election where he would not be a candidate. masyado nang masakit. declaration or omission of another. Petitioner’s silence on this and other related suggestions can be taken as an admission by him.provides that “the act. motive. In the Angara Diary. the knowledge. The rule is expressed in section 28 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The argument overlooks the doctrine of adoptive admission. and (2) those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue. belief. The basis for admissibility of admissions made vicariously is that arising from the ratification or adoption by the party of the statement which the other person had made. his statement that he only wanted the five-day period promised by chief of Staff Angelo Reyes. Statements of a person showing his state of mind. An adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person. or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. except as hereinafter provided. intention. Pagod na ako sa red tape. Under our rules of evidence. declaration. etc. hence.” It has long been settled that these admissions are admissible even if they are hearsay. statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to the state of mind of another. bureaucracy. that is his mental condition. his statements that he would leave by Monday if the second envelope would be opened by Monday and “pagod na Pagod na ako. The second class include the following: a. the options of the petitioner started to dwindle when the armed forces withdrew its support from him as president and commander-in-chief. admissions of an agent (Secretary Angara) are binding on the principal (petitioner).” Again.

. Ruby Humphrey.The utterances of the absent declarants are not offered for the truth of the words. . The government proposes to introduce this evidence to show that the callers believed that the premises were used in betting operations. vs. when a person acts in a way consistent with a belief but without intending by his act to communicate that belief. the Angara Diary contains statements of the petitioner which reflects his state of mind and are circumstantial evidence of his intent to resign. The defendants object on the ground of hearsay. as implied assertions.S. one of the principal reasons for the hearsay rule – to exclude declarations whose veracity cannot be tested by cross-examination – does not apply. Ruling: The utterances of unknown callers were non-assertive verbal conducts offered as relevant to support inferences that bets could be placed at premises being telephoned. Sorita U. It also contains statements of Secretary Angara from which we can reasonably deduce petitioner’s intent to resign.” By: Christian H. because the declarant’s sincerity is not then involved. Rather they are offered to show the declarant’s belief in a fact sought to be proved. Two principal arguments were usually expressed for removing implied assertions from the scope of the hearsay rule: First. 4 . pursuant to a lawful search warrant. The existence of such belief tends to prove that they were. Sorita B. The unknown callers stated directions for the placing of bets on various sporting events. Exceptions to Hearsay Rule 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. In the second place. By: Christian H. government agents answered the telephone several times. the underlying belief is in some cases self-verifying: “There is frequently a guarantee of the trustworthiness of the inference to be drawn .9 - . Under the federal rules of evidence. Issue: Whether the statements overheard in the telephone call are inadmissible in evidence on the ground of hearsay. which authorized a search for evidence of bookmaking activity.e. his actions speak louder than words. and the mere fact that the words were uttered has no relevance in itself. i. and thus. The evidence was not offered for any truth stated in it but for the truth of some other proposition inferred from it. Zenni 492 F. implied assertions are not hearsay. They are admissible and they are not covered by the rule on hearsay. utterances were not within the operation of the hearsay rule. 464 (1980) Hearsay (Testimonial Knowledge) Facts: While conducting a search of the premises of the defendant. Supp.As afore discussed. because his actions on the correctness of his belief.

1. In this appeal. as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. Samama proceeded to the place where the unidentified man was. Samama Buat took the ante-mortem statement of Pablo Remonde. 1972. Dying Declaration (a) Rule 130. he was only the one who brought Remonde to Cabardo. Ruling: The dying declaration of Remonde is not admissible as an ante-mortem declaration since the deceased was in doubt as to whether he would die or not. may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry. Barrio Captain Samama Buat heard gunshots coming from the bank of a river near his house. (Remember that when the 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 4 . Issue: Whether the declaration of Remonde is admissible as an ante-mortem declaration. Section 37 Sec. After trial. Leocario Buat. Laquinon 135 SCRA 91 (1985) Dying Declaration Facts: Accused Gregorio Laquinon was charged with the crime of murder in the CFI of Davao del Sur for the killing of Pablo Remonde. Samama found the man lying face down on the sand and with his two hands tied on his back.” Barrio captain Samama Buat also informed Vice Mayor Biran the shooting of Remonde. the appellant argues that the lower court erred in finding him guilty on the basis of the ante-mortem statement of Remonde since it was not made under the consciousness of an impending death. in Barrio Clib. — The declaration of a dying person. 1972 because of bullet wounds. Leocario and the barrio councilman also arrived there. the man answered that he is Pablo Remonde. Hagonoy. As a member of the KM. The accused denied the killing and raised the defense that it was a certain Noli Cabardo who killed Remonde. Samama’s brother arrived and told the latter that a man was shouting for help at the bank of the river. the court found the accused guilty of the crime charged. Biran went to the scene of the incident and asked Remonde who shot him to which the latter answered that he was shot by Gregorio Laquinon. Cases: People vs. Dying declaration. Samama asked Remonde who shot him and the latter replied that it was Gregorio Laquinon. When asked who he was. He also asked Pablo Remonde whether he would survive and to which the victim answered “I don’t know. Samama instructed Leocario to call the barrio councilman. Moments later. Remonde was subsequently brought to the hospital but died on November 16. The facts show that on the night of November 13.10 - . 37. Davao Del Sur. made under the consciousness of an impending death.

Fuentes asked Espina questions about his wounding and wrote the answers on torn calendar page. “at the point of death when hope of recovery is extinct. 4 . Fuentes and Burgos signed as witnesses. Camilo Semilla. In his defense. wounded on the forehead. Sabio 102 SCRA 218 (1981) Dying Declaration (Exception to Hearsay) Facts: Catalino Espina. The evidence presented however shows that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by treachery. Semilla observed that Sabio had his hands tucked inside his shirt while running. “I don’t know. Espina identified Papu Sabio as his assailant. Sometime later. testified that he left the victim’s home at around 4am to go fishing.11 - . 80 years old and owner of a sari-sari store in Cebu. When Semilla arrived. was found on the second floor of his home. Sabio also presented a certain Jacinto Mendez who testified that he slept at the home of the accused the night before and corroborated Sabio’s presence therein. she saw the accused. there being no ink available.”) The declaration fails to show that the deceased believed himself in extremis.” which is the sole basis for admitting this kind of declarations as an exception to the hearsay rule. Prosecution witness Jesusa Birondo testified that around 5am that day. as she was preparing to go to the seashore. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Fuentes then had Espina thumbmark this “ante-mortem statement” with his own blood. Sabio testified that at the time of the supposed robbery and homicide. the latter having attacked him after demanding money. he was asleep at home. from which injury he died 3 days later. she heard cries for help coming from Espina’s house. in response to his questions. who lived at the latter since childhood. Semilla also observed that the tin can (called a “barrio”) containing the cash sales of the store amounting to around 8 pesos was lying empty on the floor. Sorita People vs. he saw Espina lying wounded upstairs and the latter was only able to speak when his head was raised. By: Christian H. he observed Sabio from 6 meters away. as part of the res gestae since the statement was made immediately after the incident and deceased Pablo Remonde had no sufficient time to concoct a story. It may be admitted however. running past him and towards his (Sabio’s) home. grandnephew of the victim. Minutes later. Upon arrival. Espina was then brought to the hospital where he died 3 days later due to his head wounds. Another witness. When she looked outside her window. Rodulfo Sabio (nicknamed “Papu”) coming out of the door of the store of Espina’s house. According to Fuentes.deceased was asked when he would be able to survive. Espina asked Semilla to call for the police and Patrolmen Fuentes and Burgos responded. the deceased replied. a certain Enok Calledo arrived and told Semilla to go home because his grand-uncle was crying for help.

Jr. Whether or not the Ante-mortem Statement of Espina is admissible as evidence against Sabio Ruling: 1. Issues: 1. Further. it emphasizes the realization that he had little time to disclose his assailant to the authorities. Jr. Salison. was convicted by the RTC of Davao City for the murder of one Rolando Valmoria. put his arm around his shoulder. Rather. The consummation of robbery cannot be presumed from the circumstance that the accused was seen running with his hands inside his shirt or that the tin can allegedly contained 8 pesos or that the house was in disarray. as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of death. Witness Maria Ayola saw Salison approach Valmoria.The RTC found Sabio guilty of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced him to death. The evidence in support of robbery is circumstantial at best and does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Sabio had carried away the money contained in the tin can. Dignaran and 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 2. 253 SCRA 758 (1996) Dying Declaration (Exception to Hearsay) Facts: Appellant Rey Salison. The Ante-mortem Statement is admissible versus Sabio. that renders the dying declaration admissible. 2. 4 . bring him behind a neighbor’s house and boxed the latter in the abdomen. Nor can the dying declaration be admitted to establish the robbery (part of which read: “Q: Who slashed and robbed you? A: Rodulfo Sabio”). Salvosa People vs. Whether or not the RTC correctly convicted Sabio of robbery with homicide. A fight then ensued. during which. the spontaneous answers to Fuentes’ questions. By: Jose C. The Supreme Court ruled that only the crime of homicide had been committed and sentenced him to 12-20 years of imprisonment. his subsequent demise from the wounds. The fact that death did not ensue until 3 days later does not alter its probative force since it is not an indispensable requirement that the declarant expire immediately after. It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of death in point of fact. The arguments of the defense are unavailing. 3 other accused (Andiente.12 - . the profuse bleeding. The admission of dying declarations has always been strictly limited to criminal prosecutions for homicide or murder. the inability to speak unless his head was raised. the fact that the victim told his grandnephew to fetch the police does not negative the victim’s feeling of hopelessness of recovery. That the victim was under the consciousness of impending death is strengthened by the following circumstances: the seriousness of injury to the victim’s forehead.

Also. Although Sec.13 - . A person would not say so if he believes he would be able to testify against his assailants. Declaration Against Interest (a) Rule 130. it is still admissible as part of the res gestae. Valmoria then related to Alcoseba the details of the attack.Fediles) appeared and joined the fight against Valmoria. Valmoria then ran towards his house which was a few meters away and hid inside. At the time of the declaration. shouting for him to come out but Valmoria refused. At any event. his written declaration could be utilized as evidence. Valmoria was under great pain and he expressed belief in his imminent death and the hope that his declaration could be used as evidence regarding the circumstances thereof. the Court believes that in the interest of justice. any such infirmity is waived. He asked Alcoseba to take down his declaration regarding the incident. Salvosa 2. Thus. Another witness Emilia Fernandez tried to separate the parties but to no avail. He signed the same at the end and gave it to his mother. since it was made shortly after the startling occurrence and under the circumstances. assuming the declaration is not admissible as a dying declaration. 4 . Valmoria died of his wounds 3 days later. At this point. Issue: Whether or not the written declaration of Valmoria is admissible as evidence against Salison. The judgment of the RTC is affirmed. which was bleeding at the time. The 4 assailants then picked up pieces of wood and began to hit Valmoria with them at the back of his nape. After Salison and his 3 cohorts left. Valmoria began to feel dizzy and pain from his head. The declaration was written in Cebuano. the accused had no opportunity to contrive. Furthermore. Section 38 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. identifying his assailants. 33 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court now prohibits the admission of such document in an unofficial language. Although the declaration is in Cebuano dialect and is unaccompanied by an English or Filipino translation. such injunction should not be literally applied here especially since no objection was made by the appellant. By: Jose C. explaining that if he should die and no witness would testify. the records do not disclose that the defense offered any objection to the admission of such declaration at trial. Ruling: The declaration is admissible. Patricia Alcoseba. Valmoria was accompanied by his parents to the home of the purok leader. appellant’s contention that the declaration was not made under the consciousness of impending death holds no water. it appears that the concerned parties and judicial authorities were sufficiently familiar with the dialect in which it was written. The 4 assailants began hitting the walls and windows of his house.

Ruling: The contention of the appellant’s counsel is without merit. 38. Majuri 96 SCRA 472 (1980) Declaration Against Interest (Exception to Hearsay) Facts: Airol Aling y Majuri was a Muslim belonging to the Samal tribe of Siasi. Aling chased after her and stabbed several times with a bolo. he received information from his relatives that his wife. But upon seeing him. against the interest of the declarant. The fact that he bitterly resented her infidelity. Issue: Whether or not the marriage between the accused (Aling) and the victim (Norija) was sufficiently proven to warrant conviction for parricide. That implies that the victim was his lawful wife.14 - . he readily admitted to the killing of his wife. the counsel of Aling contended that the marriage of Aling and Norija was not proven and so the accused could not be convicted for parricide. On the witness stand. Later on. Sulu. or unable to testify. Under police investigation. Aling admitted to stabbing his wife and related to the police the details of his assault. when he was able to escape prison. Norija Mohamad. may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons. While serving sentence in prison for robbery with frustrated homicide. her failure to visit him in prison and her neglect of their children are other circumstances confirmatory of their married status. that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true. The testimony of the accused that he was married to the victim was an admission against penal interest. On automatic review to the Supreme Court. Aling was convicted of parricide and since he was an escaped convict. — The declaration made by a person deceased. Cases: People vs.” Aling had 5 children with the deceased and he alluded in his testimony that Norija’s father was his father-in-law.Sec. Salvosa 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. if the fact is asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's own interest. She died 2 days later due to her stab wounds. As such. By: Jose C. Declaration against interest. It was a confirmation of the maxim semper praesumitur matrimonio and the presumption that “a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. Norija just ran away. was fooling around with other men. He was charged with parricide and pleaded guilty to the same. 4 . he went to his house to reconcile with his wife. he was sentenced to death. Infuriated.

his extrajudicial statement should not be heard. the affidavit of Holgado made at the municipal building after the fight. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. which is the subject of this appeal. Issue: Whether or not the affidavit of the deceased Holgado is admissible as evidence. They agreed to engage in a bolo duel which resulted in the death of Morales. One of the recognized exceptions has been the declarations of third parties contrary to their pecuniary or proprietary interest. Her testimony was partially corroborated by a certain Justina Llave. 4 . Toledo denied having participated in the fight and stated that his only involvement was having met Holgado after the fight and helping him get to the Manlisic residence. however. Toledo 51 PHIL 825 (1928) Declaration Against Interest (Exception to Hearsay) Facts: Sisenado Holgado and Filomeno Morales had a dispute over parcels of land located in Pinamalayan. The counsel of Toledo contends that Exhibit 1 should have been admitted into evidence. He then proceeded to the municipal building where he made a sworn statement before the municipal president that only there were the only 2 persons who fought. The Court however fails to see why a man will be presumed to tell the truth in the former instances and not the latter. This Exhibit however was ruled to be hearsay evidence and hence. To limit the exception to statements against pecuniary interests and not criminal liability cannot be justified on grounds of public policy. A month later. the great possibility of fabrication and falsehood and the inability to prove such untruths requires the doors to be closed to such evidence. Holgado died of his wounds. Traditionally. Toledo was convicted of homicide by the trial court. this exception has been made only to apply to admissions against a pecuniary or proprietary interest but not a penal interest. One morning. Holgado. The trial court erred in not admitting Exhibit 1 as a statement of fact against penal interest and had it been received.15 - . Ruling: The conviction is reversed and Toledo acquitted. was seriously wounded and fled to the neighboring house of Dalmacio Manlisic. The purpose of evidence is to get the truth. its influence would have been felt by the trial court. Hearsay evidence is generally excluded by the courts. one of Holgado’s workers had intervened in the fight and dealt a mortal blow to Morales. Toledo’s counsel presented Exhibit 1. The reason for the hearsay rule is that the extrajudicial statements of another are not the best way of serving this purpose. testified however that appellant Eugenio Toledo. the 2 men happened to me and their argument was renewed. In other words. The querida of Morales. inadmissible. Mindoro. Justina Villanueva. So long therefore as the declarant is available.People vs.

Zoilo Fuentes. Appellant Alejandro Fuentes.. Ruling: The conviction of Fuentes is affirmed. put his arm around his shoulder.16 - . was attending a benefit dance in Agusan Del Sur. The latter testified that after Alejandro was charged with murder. if not inadmissible on other grounds. Jr.” He then stabbed Malaspina with a hunting knife and fled. alias “Jonie” who was the killer. His defense was that of mistaken identity. (b) that the declaration must concern a matter of fact cognizable by the declarant. Alejandro was charged with murder qualified by treachery.Where however. his previous out-of-court statements are the best evidence. By: Jose C. I saw you with long hair but now you have short hair. He further stated that upon learning of Alejandro’s arrest. Conde then personally went to the alleged home of Zoilo but he was informed that he had already fled. It is true that declarations against interest are an exception to the hearsay rule. One fact that will satisfy this necessity is that the declaration is or was against the declarant’s interest and this is because no sane person will be presumed to tell a falsehood to his own detriment. Jr. Felicisimo Fuentes. Alejandro appealed to the Supreme Court. vs. Benjamin Conde. arguing that the lower courts erred in ruling that he was positively identified as the killer. 4 . (c) that the circumstances render it improbable that a motive to falsify existed. Alejandro also presented the testimony of one Station Commander P/Sgt. saying: “Before. But they cannot be rendered inadmissible by the mere fact that the declarant is unavailable. the declarant is dead or has disappeared. Court of Appeals 253 SCRA 430 (1996) Declaration Against Interest (Exception to Hearsay) Facts: Julieto Malaspina. He claimed that it was actually his cousin. Zoilo immediately fled and could not be found. Issue: Whether or not Alejandro Fuentes was indeed positively identified as the killer of Malaspina. The trial court convicted Alejandro of murder which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. There are 3 essential requisites for this exception: (a) that the declarant must not be able to testify. Felicisimo approached him and relayed the confession of Zoilo. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. called Malaspina. Felicisimo testified that Zoilo had confessed to the killing of Malaspina and even sought help in finding a lawyer. Salvosa Fuentes. together with his 3 friends. Before Malaspina succumbed. Jr. he told his 3 companions that it was Alejandro Fuentes who stabbed him. He presented as evidence the testimony of his uncle.

there is nothing to prevent the latter from repudiating the statement. death.17 - . may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy. Assuming that Alejandro is acquitted and Zoilo subsequently captured and put to trial. By: Jose C. it has not been demonstrated that Zoilo is unable to testify. Second. and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. Zoilo cannot be bound to such a statement. 39. Salvosa 3. First. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. But this can be open to abuse as when the extrajudicial statement is not even authenticated. birth. There is no showing that he is either dead. an innocent declaration by the real culprit should be admissible as evidence. in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage. The holding of the Court in People vs. Third and most importantly. Cases: Gravador v. For this case.In this case. at least. Indeed. of his separation 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Pedigree (a) Rule 130. and the names of the relatives. the prudent course is its exclusion. — The act or declaration of a person deceased. 1964 when he was advised by the Superintendent of Schools Angel Salazar. the admission of such a statement would be shocking to the sense of justice. 4 . family genealogy. His mere absence from the jurisdiction does not make him ipso facto unavailable under this Rule. the dates when and the places where these fast occurred. thereby increasing the probability of its fabrication. For all its attempts to demonstrate the arbitrariness behind the traditional rejection of declarations against penal interest. Catalina. The word "pedigree" includes relationship. or unable to testify. Toledo is inapplicable here. Mamigo 20 SCRA 742 (1967) Pedigree Facts: The petitioner Pedro Gravador was the principal of the Sta. Jr. Negros Oriental on August 15. The alleged confession is patently untrustworthy because these two have every motive to prevaricate. Act or declaration about pedigree. Catalina Elementary School in Sta. mentally incapacitated or physically incompetent. through Teodulfo Dayao.. the Toledo case is remarkably different from the instant case. Zoilo is the cousin of the accused and Felicisimo is his uncle. The records show that the defense did not exert any serious effort to produce Zoilo as a witness. marriage. Section 39 Sec. the alleged declaration against interest attributed to Zoilo is inadmissible in evidence as an exception to hearsay. Legally.

Respondent Eutiquio Mamigo. In his application for back pay filed with the Department of Finance and when he asked the GSIS and the Civil Service Commission to correct the date of his birth. 1901. can not be ignored. Although a person can have no personal knowledge of the date of his birth. In a letter dated August 31. In the second place. Attached to this letter was the affidavit of Lazaro Bandoquillo and Pedro Sienes who were their neighbors even during the lifetime of the parents of Gravador. this statement is at once a declaration regarding pedigree within the intendment and meaning of section 33 (now section 39) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Alegado 201 SCRA 37 (1991) Pedigree 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. The trial court committed no error in relying on post-war records that reflected Gravador’s birth date as December 11. According to respondent. back salaries and damages amounting to P52. They stated that Gravador’s true birth date is December 11. Thus. Ruling: Yes. to the effect that the petitioner was then 23 years old. December 11. Mamigo contends that it was error on the part of the trial court to rely solely on post-war records to determine petitioner’s true date of birth. the District Supervisor. Issue: Whether or not the trial court correctly relied on post-war records. 4 . 1901 is established as the date of birth of the petitioner not only by evidence of family tradition but also by the declaration ante litem motam of a deceased relative. 8 months and 22 days old on record).from the service on the ground that he had reached the compulsory retirement age of 65. 1897 (He was thus 66 years. contained in a verified pleading in a cadastral survey way back in 1924. 1901.400. Puyo People v. the petitioner protested his forced retirement on the ground that the date of his birth is not November 26. he repeatedly asserted that his birthday was on December 11. 1897 but December 11. 1901 and ordered his reinstatement.18 - . 1901. By: Giancarlo M. 1901. The latter’s findings were based on pre-war records which included Gravador’s Employee’s Record Card that stated that he was born on November 26. these records were only manufactured since it was believed that the original pre-war records had been lost or destroyed. 1964. he may testify as to his age as he learned it from his parents and relatives and his testimony in such case is an assertion of a family tradition. The Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental ruled that Gravador was born on December 11. Made ante litem motam by a deceased relative. the import of the declaration of petitioner’s brother.

She was pale with blood flowing from her thigh and legs. namely. Issue: Whether or not the age of the offended party was duly proven to be below twelve years old in order for the RPC provision on statutory rape to apply. the victim told no one. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. One of the errors assigned by Alegado is that the trial court erred in convicting him of statutory rape as defined under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code despite the prosecution failure to prove with certainty the actual age of the offended party. that the declaration of the victim’s grandfather relating to tradition existed long before the rape case was filed.19 - . 1988. the appellant shoved her to the stairs into the upper floor near the civic center. (2) that the reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person concerned existed previous to the controversy. Family. 1988 at the Freedom Square inside the public market of San Carlos City. and (3) that the witness testifying to the reputation or tradition must be a member of the family of the said person. Alegado again asked Cristina to go to second floor of the same market place. He then inserted his penis into the girl’s vagina that eventually bled. All these preconditions are obtaining in the case at bar considering that the date of birth of the rape victim is put in issue. and that the witness testifying to the said tradition is the maternal grandfather of the rape victim. 1976 do not constitute hearsay evidence as claimed by the accused-appellant but rather fall under the exceptions to the hearsay rule as provided under Section 39 and 40 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. the appellant ordered Cristina to masturbate him then forcibly pushed her to the floor.m. When she refused. Patrolwoman Evangeline Alfaro saw appellant coming down the stairs and then the victim followed a minute later. 53 year old market watchman took the victim Cristina Deang to the second floor of the public market building that was deserted. The said provision contains three requisites for its admissibility. Fearing that he might kill her. Negros Occidental. the dates when and places where these facts occurred and the name of the relatives. the appellant threatened to kill her. the offended party herself and her maternal grandfather. The fact that the victim was below twelve years old at the time of the rape was duly proved. around 7:00 p. as to the fact that the victim was born on September 5. birth. The word “pedigree” under Section 39 includes relationship. The appellant gave her P2. genealogy.. (1) that there is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any member of the family. Held: Yes. The appellant gave her P2. death. marriage. a 170-pound.00 and then left. On April 20.00 and then left. 4 . on April 14. When she resisted to take off her shorts and panty. On the second floor.m. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. The accused-appellant was charged and convicted of two counts of statutory rape by the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City and was sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua. the appellant Alfredo Alegado.Facts: At about 6:00 p. Cornelio Villarosa. He lay on top of her and inserted his penis but it did not penetrate fully before he ejaculated.

During the pre-trial hearing. Court of Appeals 276 SCRA 582 (1997) Pedigree Facts: It appears that petitioners Corazon Tison and Rene Dezoller are the niece and nephew of the deceased Teodora Dezoller Guerrero. Issue: Whether or not petitioners failed to prove to establish their legitimacy and filiation to the deceased Teodora Guerrero with evidence merely consisting of several documents and the testimony of Corazon Tison. taken separately and independently of each other. Teodora died on March 5. Hence they seek to inherit from Teodora Guerrero by right of representation.20 - . Martin Guerrero died on October 1988. 1976. among other documents shown. Upon the death of his wife. The Trial Court granted the demurrer and dismissed the complaint. Martin Guerrero. Tison also testified as to her filiation Tedorora. On January 2. we affirm the trial court’s finding that the victim in these rape cases was under twelve years old. The CA affirmed the TC ruling. a family picture. Quezon City. TC and CA ruling are reversed and set aside. Puyo Tison v. Subsequently. Martin sold the lot to herein private respondent Teodora Domingo. Inasmuch as the accused-appellant failed to present contrary evidence to dispute the prosecution’s claim that the victim was below twelve years old at the time of the rapes under consideration. Corazon Tison was presented as the lone witness and she offered the following evidence to prove their filiation to their father and their aunt: baptismal certificates. and certificates of destroyed records of births of Teodora Dezoller and their father Hermogenes Dezoller. a parcel of land with a house and apartment thereon located at San Francisco del Monte. They have proved their filiation. It is not debatable that the documentary evidence adduced by petitioners. petitioners filed for an action for reconveyance claiming that they have a right to inherit one half of the property. Martin executed an Affidavit of Extrajudicial Settlement adjudicating to himself. marriage certificates of Martin and Teodora. and was survived only by her husband. 1983 without any ascendant or descendant. death certificates. affidavits of Pablo Verzosa and Meliton Sitjar. 4 . are not per se sufficient proof of legitimacy nor 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. he may testify as to his age as he learned it from his parents and relatives and his testimony in such case is an assertion of a family tradition. 1988. By: Giancarlo M. Held: Yes. the offended party herself categorically stated in open court that she was born on September 5. Private respondents filed a Demurrer to Evidence on the ground that petitioners failed to prove their legitimate filiation under Article 172 of the Family Code.Moreover. and herein petitioners. Although a person can have no personal knowledge of the date of his birth. allegedly as sole heir.

(2) that the declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is subject to inquiry. either by consanguinity or affinity. Puyo 4. not only before the commencement of the suit involving the subject matter of the declaration. The primary proof to be considered in ascertaining the relationship between the parties is the testimony of Corazon Dezoller Tison to the effect that Teodora Dezoller Guerrero in her lifetime. second and fourth requirements. categorically declared that the former is Teodora’s niece. Section 40 Sec. And well settled is the rule that the issue of legitimacy cannot be attacked collaterally as in an action for reconveyance. subject to the following conditions: (1) that the declarant is dead or unable to testify. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. may be received as evidence of pedigree. Such a statement is considered a declaration about pedigree which is admissible. may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family. in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members. However. family portraits and the like.21 - . 40. but before any controversy has arisen thereon. where the party claiming seeks recovery against a relative common to both claimant and declarant – not from the declarant himself or the declarant’s estate – the relationship of the declarant to the common relative may not be proved by the declaration itself. engravings on rings. 4 . Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts. The presumption consequently continues to operate in favor of petitioners. Case: 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. but this requirement does not apply where it is sought to reach the estate of the declarant himself and not merely to establish a right through his declarations to the property of some other member of the family. There is no presumption more firmly established and founded on sounder morality and reason than the presumption that children born in wedlock are legitimate. that is. both courts failed to recognize the presumption of legitimacy. or sometime in 1946. and (4) that the declaration be made ante litem moam. As to the third requirement. the declaration of the latter that the former is her niece is admissible and constitutes sufficient proof of such relationship. There is no dispute as the first. as an exception to the hearsay rule under Section 39. By: Giancarlo M. — The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy. (3) that such relationship be shown by evidence other than the declaration. the reason that such declaration is rendered competent by virtue of the necessity of receiving such evidence to avoid a failure of justice. Where a party claims a right to the part of the estate of the declarant.even of pedigree. notwithstanding the fact that there was no other preliminary evidence thereof. Family Tradition (a) Rule 130.

905 (1918) Family Tradition & Common Reputation Facts: Plaintiffs Rafael and Maria Angelina Ferrer filed a complaint praying for a declaration that Rosa Matilde Viademonte. Issue: Whether or not Joaquin de Inchausti’s testimony and the diary accounts of Ramon Viademonte Jr. de Inchausti dedicated a picture to Rosa in the following manner: “To my dear and unforgettable sister Rosa. Joaquin de Inchausti testified that one day he was assured by his half brother Ramon Martinez Viademonte that Rosa Matilde was not his sister but a mere protégée and that her true name was Rosa Matilde Robles and that on occasion the said brother showed him the certificate of birth of which Exhibit 6 is a copy. Ramon. The plaintiffs allege that they are the only legitimate heirs of Rosa Viademonte and are entitled to receive the latter’s share. Rafael. father of defendants herein. that is. had the right to succeed to the inheritance left by Isabel Gonzales in the same proportion and capacity as the other four children of the latter namely. Joaquin. The defendants presented an entry in the notebook of Ramon Viademonte Jr. Counsel for the plaintiffs sought to establish that Rosa Matilde Viademonte has been treated and considered as a daughter of Isabel Gonzales and that on one occasion. the said Gonzales remarked that the father of Rosa Matilde was Ramon Martinez de Viademonte. born of unknown parents in September 1. whose marriage was dissolved 1n 1936 by the death of the husband.Ferrer v. and Clotilde. the testimony of Joaquin Jose de Inchausti referring to the said deceased is admissible as evidence of family tradition. Puyo 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol.” College records of the latter at Collegio de Santa Isabel were shown to use establish filiation. in no manner could she be a legitimate daughter of Ramon Viademonte and Isabel Gonzales.22 - . Isabel was then married Jose Joaquin de Inchausti. for they are members of the same family and consequently the conclusion is that Rosa Matilde is the same Rosa Matilde Robles mentioned in Exhibit 6 and because she was born in 1952. De Inchausti 38 Phil. that Joaquin C. In view of the fact that Ramon Martinez Viademonte is now dead. in a manner which leaves no room for doubt. which showed that true name of Rosa Matilde Viademonte was Rosa Matilde Robles. They allege that Isabel was first married to Ramon Martinez Viademonte and that their mother Rosa was the fruit of their relationship. mother of the plaintiffs herein. Also. 1952. that Rosa was not a legitimate daughter of Isabel Gonzales and it follows that her children have no right to a part of the hereditary property of Isabel Gonzales. are admissible to prove the filiation of Rosa Matilde Viademonte to Isabel Gonzales Ruling: Yes. Notwithstanding the arguments of the plaintiff. one-fifth of the estate left by Isabel Gonzales. which he took from the parochial church. By: Giancarlo M. 4 . Evidence adduced at the trial to prove the origin of the cause of action shows.

5. Common Reputation (a) Rule 130, Section 41 Sec. 41. Common reputation. — Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, respecting facts of public or general interest more than thirty years old, or respecting marriage or moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation. Cases: Ferrer v. De Inchausti 38 Phil. 905 (1918) Common Reputation Ruling: Counsel for the plaintiffs likewise objected to the admission in evidence of the daybook kept by Ramon Martinez Viademonte Jr. as hearsay. Their contention is untenable as the section 298, No, 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now section 41, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court) provides that evidence may be given upon trial of monuments and inscriptions in public places as evidence of common reputation; and entries in family Bibles or other family books or charts; engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, as evidence of pedigree. By: Giancarlo M. Puyo City of Manila v. Del Rosario 5 Phil. 227 (1905) Common Reputation Facts: This is action to recover possession of two parcels of land located in Calles Clavel and Barcelona, district of Tondo, filed by the City of Manila against its present occupant, Jacinto del Rosario. The plaintiff introduced both documentary and oral evidence. The latter consisted of the testimony John Wilson, Eduardo Timoteo, Juan Villegas, Sotera Roco, Lorenzo del Rosario, and Modesto Reyes, the city attorney. The third witness, Juan Villegas, testified that the land in question was formerly included in the Gran Divisoria, and that all the land included in it belonged to the city. This particular testimony is at variance with the testimonies of Wison and Timoteo who testified that the land belonged to the Central Government (not the city). His testimony was based on what he had learned from the oldest residents of that section of the city and was introduced by the City of Manila apparently for the purpose of proving that the city was generally considered the owner of the land drawing from this fact the presumption of actual ownership
3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 4 - 23 -

under paragraph 11, section 334, of the Code of Civil Procedure (now Section 41, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court). Issue: Whether or not the testimony of Villegas is admissible as proof of “common reputation.” Ruling: No. Villegas testimony is merely hearsay. Since it consisted of what he had learned from some of the old residents of Manila, it was hearsay as to the court since those who said it were not produced. Such testimony does not constitute the “common reputation” referred to in the section mentioned. “Common reputation” as used in that section, is equivalent to universal reputation. The testimony of Villegas is not sufficient to establish the presumption referred to. Furthermore, this witness stated that the land in Calle Azcarraga had been partitioned between the municipality and the Central Government, share and share alike, and that the Central Government (not the city) retained Calles Gabriel de Rivera and Barcelona, which are precisely the streets on which the property abuts. By: Giancarlo M. Puyo

6. Res Gestae (a) Rule 130, Section 42 Sec. 42. Part of res gestae. — Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae. Cases: People vs. Lungayan 162 SCRA 100 (1988) Exception to the Hearsay Rule: Res Gestae Facts: This appeal from the decision of the RTC arose due to the complaint filed by Agripina Juan Vda. De Garzota, then 52 years old and widow, charging the accused of rape. At about 10 in the evening of January 20, 1980, the complainant was already asleep inside the room at their market stall when the accused, who was then the barangay captain, awakened her by entering her room after one of her children opened the door for him. He invited her to join him to observe the persons drinking wine in the market because they are in violation of a barangay ordinance prohibiting drinking after 10 pm. She consented. While they were
3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 4 - 24 -

standing two meters away from the open door of the canteen, the accused suddenly grabbed both of her hands and allegedly pointed a gun at her after she shouted loudly (only once). The accused then pulled her and she fell hitting her head on the ground. When she regained consciousness, she was dragged to a banana grove where she was allegedly raped which lasted for less than an hour. She only reached home at about 12 midnight and one of her daughters asked her what happened. She revealed that the accused abused her and when pressed for details, she just said that she will just tell everything in the morning. She told her as such and they then reported the incident. She was also submitted for to a medical examination. Based on the evidence presented, the accused was convicted. By way of rebuttal during appeal, the accused emphasized the failure of the prosecution to establish involuntariness on the part of the victim. Issues: 1. Whether or not the prosecution failed to establish the involuntariness of the victim. 2. Whether or not the trial court erred in considering the revelation of the complainant to her daughter of what happened to her as part of the res gestae. Ruling: 1. Yes. The prosecution failed. The circumstances of the case militated against the claim of the complainant that force and intimidation was employed by the accused. She should have declined the invitation. Going out alone with a man late in the evening is not good taste nor safe. She was also not discreet because she did not even put any underwear. She also only shouted for help once when she could have done more and just ran. She also offered no resistance nor struggle making the consummation last for almost an hour. 2. Yes. The RTC erred in considering the revelation as part of the res gestae. The Court stressed that in order for the statement to be part of the res gestae, it must not only be spontaneous but also be made at a time when there was no opportunity to concoct or develop a story. As the Court observed, she did not go home immediately after the incident. She took a walk and spent sometime thinking of what to do. She had enough time to make a decision of what will be the nature of her story. By: Marie Angeli Uy

People vs. Putian 74 SCRA 133 (1976) Exception to the Hearsay Rule: Res Gestae Facts: This is an appeal from the decision of the CFI convicting the accused of murdering Teodulo Panimdim. On November 22, 1969, while the victim was attending a dance, he was stabbed in the left groin. As a result, he died five days later. Putian was charged and convicted of murder on the basis of the testimony of the doctor who treated the victim and of the policeman who arrested the accused and seized from him the dagger allegedly used in the stabbing and who took down the victim’s ante-mortem statement identifying the accused as
3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 4 - 25 -

He had no time to concoct a falsehood or fabricate a malicious charge again Putian. The victim was even able to go home after the medical treatment without any assistance. 4 . got so frightened that she revealed where her mother hid the 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. When John Doe threatened to stab the kids. Tolentino 218 SCRA 337 (1993) Exception to the Hearsay Rule: Res Gestae Facts: This is an appeal from the decision of the RTC convicting all the accused of Robbery with Multiple Homicide and Serious Physical Injuries. and. Grace Paule. is not admissible as a dying declaration. one of the children. was convicted only of homicide since treachery was not proven. being made several hours after the incident. Geraldine. At that time. Although a declaration does not appear to have been made by the declarant under the expectation of a sure and impending death. for the reason. yet if such declaration was made at the time of. The trial court regarded the victim’s ante-mortem statement as part of the res gestae and not as a dying declaration since it was not made under the consciousness of an impending death. Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in ruling that the statement be made part of the res gestae. Ruling: No. the children were accompanied by their cousin. Panimdim’s staetement was given sometime after the stabbing while he was undergoing treatment at a medical clinic. who was able to recognize all the accused except for whose face was covered because Tolentino is both her uncle and barriomate.26 - . or at a time when the exciting influence of the startling occurrence still continued in the declarant’s mind. Putian. however. 1983. The appellant challenges the trial court’s ruling that the statement be made part of the res gestae because it was not spontaneous. all the accused entered into the house of Adelaida Lingad (who at the time is not at home) by forcibly breaking a wooden window grill of the comfort room and then demanded from her children the whereabouts of Adelaida’s money. Panimdim’s statement was a spontaneous statement made after the commission of the felony. On or about November 8. By: Marie Angeli Uy People vs. The res gestae rule embraces (a) spontaneous declarations and (b) verbal acts. it is admissible as part of the res gestae. He claims that the requisite that the declarant gave the statement before he had time to devise or contrive was not present in this case. No motive has been shown as to why he would frame up Putian. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not err in characterizing Panimdim’s statement as part of the res gestae and as proving beyond reasonable doubt that Putian is guilty of stabbing the victim. Tala is a relative of her mother and Matawaran as a barkada of Tala.the assailant. the commission of the crime. or immediately thereafter.

Her testimony was also corroborated by Adelaida when the latter testified that her daughter Geraldine mentioned the names of Tala and Matawaran. Tala argued that no probative value should be given to the extrajudicial statement of Garace taken by the fiscal while she was staying in the hospital. Grace Paule was the only surviving victim who later positively identified the three accused. namely: (1) that the principal act. he stabbed Grace Paule using a scythe and thereafter. All the children died. since his name and that of Matawaran were not mentioned. The accused also assailed the admissibility of the statement of Geraldine as par of the res gestae. — Entries made at. be a startling occurrence. No. Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting the statement of Geraldine. the res gestae. Ruling: 1. By: Marie Angeli Uy 7. by a person deceased. The trial court was correct in admitting Geraldine’s statement as part of the res gestae. (2) that the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise. Entries in the Course of Business (a) Rule 130. and (3) that the statements made must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. she cried for help and was heard by her mother and grandmother. There is no improper motive on her part to implicate Tala who is even her mother’s relative. who was in a position to know the facts therein stated. Adelaida was then informed of the incident and thus rushed to her house. 43. she was then groggy and delirious but she was nevertheless able to identify all of them on the witness stand. Failure to mention some of the names of the accused was due to the fact that at the time her statements were taken. if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Section 42 Sec. Entries in the course of business. After Grace regained her consciousness.money. All are present in the case at bar as Geraldine had named the accused-appellants as the perpetrators in the commission of the crime immediately after the occurrence of the stabbing incident. 4 .27 - . No. The TC had correctly applied the principle of the res gestae. or near the time of transactions to which they refer. may be received as prima facie evidence. Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting the statement of Grace Paule. or unable to testify. Issues: 1. After Tolentino took the money. She asked Geraldine who the responsible persons were and the latter answered Bong-Bong and also mentioning the names of Tala and Matawaran. stabbed the three other children one after the other. 2. The trial court did not err in admitting Grace’s extrajudicial statement. 2.

such written statement was offered in evidence. Inez. The petitioners are in the railroad business. Cases: Palmer vs. The Act which allows the admission of business entries refers only to records kept in the regular course of business and not those kept in the regular course of conduct related to business. 4 . In this case. PhilAm wrote Capital a letter advising it 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. However. Unlike payrolls.S. 1963.. accounts payable. the reports were not for the systematic conduct of the enterprise as a railroad business. filed an action against Palmer et al. it being the regular course of such business to make such a statement. Howard Hoffman. the reports were calculated essentially for use in the court. On March 19.performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. Issue: Whether or not the report is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule being an entry in the course of business. which caused the death of the administrator’s wife. who died before the trail. On July 21. Hoffman’s objection to this was sustained. the administrator of the estate of Inez Hoffman. bills of lading and the like. By: Marie Angeli Uy Philamlife vs. trustees of NYNHH Railroad Company. PhilAm entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with Capital and spouses Galang whereby the latter parties agreed to pay the former a sum of money with interest in consideration of PhilAm issuing a clearance in favor of the Galang spouses. After two days.G. it was also stipulated in the MOA that Capital will also be liable to any obligation arising from unremitted premiun collection. Ruling: No. 3941 (1975) Exception to the Hearsay Rule: Entries in the Course of Business Facts: This is an appeal from the judgment of the CFI which ordered Capital to pay PhilAm a certain sum of money. 109 (1943) Exception to the Hearsay Rule: Entries in the Course of Business Facts: This is a petition for certiorari filed by Palmer et al. Their primary utility is for litigating and not for railroading. During trial. Capital Assurance Corporation [CA] 72 O. Hoffman 318 U. This action arose from a railroad accident. the enginner of the train. account receivables. The sum involved was paid in full by Capital. The accident occurred on the night of December 25. 1940. made a statement at the freight office of petitioners where he was interviewed. It is not an entry in the regular course of business.28 - . They further offered to prove its admissibility by saying that the statement was signed in the regular course of business. based on the decision of the District Court in favor of Hoffman. 1960.

In the action of PhilAm for the collection of money. The rule also requires that the entries must have been made by a person deceased. or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. Before entries in the course of business may be received. Section 44 Sec. or unable to testify…. it must be shown that they were made by a person who was in a position to know the facts therein stated. Ruling: Yes. it may be received provided the inconvenience of producing the numerous persons thus concerned outweighs the probable utility of doing so. Bacani. Bacani is neither of those enumerated. it presented Bacani. Caltex 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. the statement substantially satisfies the element of trustworthiness and necessity that underlie the consideration of exceptions to the hearsay rule. however. Entries in official records. 44. (38) Cases: Africa vs. The issue boils down to the question of whether Philam has proved such unreported collections. are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. did not have personal knowledge about how the account had arisen. His office merely computed the charges based on debit memos received from other departments. If he made the entry in the regular course of business. In this case. The PhilAm maintains that the statement is admissible because it was a matter of company routine that charges for unremitted premiums are covered through the Accountant’s Control Office as soon as they are discovered. The statement of account could not be legally received in evidence. outside the Philippines. its chief of accounts to testify on a statement of account showing the indebtedness of the debtors. By: Marie Angeli Uy 8.29 - . recording an oral on a written report made to him by other persons in the regular course of business lying in the personal knowledge of the latter. — Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines. To lend probative value to the entries would be to countenance reception of self-serving evidence made without the intervention of other parties involved.that the Galangs have incurred additional accounts by way of unreported premium collections and demanding payment thereof. 4 . Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the statement of account. Dissenting Opinion: The rule says entries…by a person…who was in a position to know. The Court said that Bacani certainly did not have personal knowledge of the transactions to which such entries refer. In this case. It is not essential that the entrant should have personal knowledge of the facts entered by him. Entries in Official Records (a) Rule 130.

1948. the complainants furnished this office a copy of a photograph taken during the fire and which is submitted herewith. TINIO – The report reproduced information given by a certain Benito Morlaes regarding the history of the gasoline station and what the chief of the fire department had told him on the same subject. a. RTC and Court of Appeals ruled that petitioners failed to prove negligence and that respondents had exercised due care in the premises and with respect to the supervision of their employees. The report also stated that “the quick action of Leandro Flores in pulling off the gasoline hose connecting the truch with the underground tank prevented a terrific explosion. petitioners filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court arguing that the reports in themselves. The action filed by the petitioners is one for damages under Article 1902 and 1903 of the old civil code. fall within the scope of section 35. The petitioners alleged negligence on the part of the respondents as the cause of the fire. CAPT. which provides that “entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines. fire departments and a certain Capt. Rule 123.30 - . or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law.” Issue/s: 1. Held: 1. There are three requisites for admissibility under the rule just mentioned.” Hence. POLICE REPORT – The report stated the circumstances surrounding the cause of the fire. that the entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Whether or not the reports prepared by the Manila police. The reports are inadmissible. without further testimonial evidence on their contents. are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. agent in charge of operation. fire broke out at the Caltex service station in Manila. The court held that the police and fire department reports were inadmissible as being “double hearsay.” FIRE DEPARTMENT REPORT – “In connection with their allegation that the premises was subleased for the installation of a coca-cola and cigarette stand.16 SCRA 448 (1966) Official Records Facts: On March 18. Their owners among them petitioners in this case sued respondents Caltex phils and Mateo Boquiren. 4 . It appears in this picture that there are in the premises a coca-cola cooler and a rack which according to information gathered in the neighborhood contained cigarettes and matches installed between the gasoline pumps and the underground tanks. They presented the police and fire department reports to substantiate their claim. Tinio of the AFP are admissible in evidence. The fire spread to and burned several neighboring houses.

The reports in question do not constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. the facts stated therein were not acquired by the reporting officers through official information. To qualify the statements as “official information”. The Court held Caltex liable for the fire and imposed solidary liability. 4 . who was then feeling very dizzy. from persons who had PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND DUTY TO GIVE SUCH STATEMENTS. Leones 117 SCRA 382 (1982) Official Records Facts: Complainant Irene Dulay was a salesgirl employed in the store of Spouses Leones in La Union where she also resided. By: Arnaldo M. The accused took advantage of Irene’s condition and succeeded in raping her. they saw the condition of Irene. not having been given by the informants pursuant to any duty to do so. only the last is material to the issue in this case.b. After drinking the medicine. The stepmother of the accused found Irene without any panty and brought her to the hospital where she was examined by a doctor. The accused tried to give Irene medicine but the later refused so he forced her to drink it. Obviously. that it was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties or by such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law c. Cayao revealed the following 1. all the members of the Dulay family went for a picnic. in the report submitted by Captain Mariano of the Manila Police Department. The medical examination conducted by Dr. The accused. However. which must have been acquired by him personally or through official information. that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated. The court held that the foregoing report was an exception to the hearsay rule since Captain Mariano prepared it basing it from his personal knowledge. it must have been acquired by the officers who prepared the reports. Joseph Leones. was a member of the Leones family. smear exam for sperm cell negative 3. One day. healing lacerations of the hyment at 2 o’clock and 10 o’clock 2. Of the three requisites just stated. Irene felt more dizzy.31 - . easily admit one finger with pain 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. When the accused and her sister went back to the house. Cariño People vs. the material facts recited in the reports as to the cause and circumstances of the fire were NOT WITHIN THE PERSONAL KNWOLEDGE of the officers who conducted the investigation. Neither was it acquired by them through OFFICIAL INFORMATION. the negligence of the respondents were established.

the said entries having been made in official records by public officer of the Philippines in the performance of his duty especially enjoined by law which is that of a physician in a government hospital. The court also observed that it is quite abnormal and unheard of in human experience and behavior that a man would have sexual intercourse with a woman having her menstrual period. No. Co. The written entries in the clinical case record showing the date of her admission the hospital and her complaint of vaginal bleeding and the diagnosis of “healing lacerated wide at 2 o’clock and 10 o’clock hymen” are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. [ Rule 130 sec.. Hence the direct appeal to the SC. 38. By: Arnaldo M. 729 (1956) 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol.32 - . Robles Trans.Thereafter. 4 . The accused denied the charge imputed to him and set up the defense of alibi claiming that he was at the beach with his family at the time the alleged incident happened. Issue/s: Whether or not the evidentiary value of the medical record presented by the government is sufficient to warrant conviction Held: 1. which may have happened when Irene took a week-long vacation to her hometown in Pugo La Union. The clinical case record of Irene’s admission and confinement at the hospital contain entries which totally and completely belie the claim of the complainant that she was raped by the accused. Rules of Court] The court also found that Irene never complained of being rape but that her vaginal bleeding was caused by her menstruation. Inc. The entry in the medical record of Irene stated VAGINAL BLEEDING – HEALING LACERATED WIDE AT 2 o’clock and 10 o’ clock hymen. the case for rape was filed against the accused. Cariño Manalo and Salvador vs. Then the lacerations of the hymen at 2 o’clock and 10 o’clock would not have been described and indicated to be HEALING in the clinical case record. The findings of healing laceration clearly indicates that the defloration occurred SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE. RTC ruled that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having committed the crime of rape and was sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua. 99 Phil. The court acquitted the accused after it concluded that the evidence produced by the prosecution were not persuasive to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the accused. It would be described as LACERATION FLESH. Assuming that the victim was raped between 2 and 3 pm. Supreme Court ruled for the acquittal of the accused.

Firstly. Rules of Court. Issue/s: 1. The sheriff served 2 writs of execution to Hernandez but it returned unsatisfied because Hernandez did not have any real or personal properties to answer for the liability. taxicab ran over Armando Manalo. Secondly. Rbles should pay the plaintiffs for the amount of P3. As a result of the accident. 4 .000. herein Plaintiffs. Whether or not the sheriff's return is admissible in evidence Held: 1. Without exceptions to official statements. therefore. 35. filed the present action against Robles to enforce its subsidiary liability pursuant to Art. Robles filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that Hernandez should have been included in the complaint because he was an indispensable party. objected to the presentation of evidence but the RTC admitted it. the law reposes a particular confidence in public officers that it presumes they will discharge their several trusts with accuracy and fidelity. and is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein (Rule 123.) Sheriff making the return need not testify in court as to the facts stated in his entry. Robles. Plaintiffs introduced as evidence a copy of the decision in the criminal case convicting Hernandez of homicide. The parents of the victim. the occasions in which the officials would be summoned from his ordinary duties to declare as a witness are numberless. the work of administration of government and the interest of the public having business with officials would alike suffer in consequence.Official Records Facts: A taxicab owned by Robles Transport(Robles) and driven by Edgardo Hernandez (Hernandez) collided with a passenger truck. The court cited 2 reasons why public records need not be proven the way a private record is proven. A sheriff's return is an official statement made by a public official in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law and forming part of official records. Armando died several days later from his injuries.000. Hernandez was charged and convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence and sentenced to one year in prison and to pay P3. The defendant. and. officials would be found devoting greater part of their time to attending as witness in court or delivering their depositions before an officer. Yes. Hernandez served out his sentence but failed to pay P3. 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code.000. Hence. litigation is unlimited in which testimony by officials is daily needed. The RTC denied the motion. sec. whatever acts they do in discharge of their public duty may be given in evidence and shall be taken to be true under such a degree of caution as the nature and circumstances of each case may appear to require.33 - . this petition. The writs of execution and the returns of the sheriff showing that the two writs of execution were not satisfied because of the insolvency of Hernandez. By: Arnaldo M. This fact was certified by the sheriff. Cariño 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol.

the tricycle driver and another person who was seated at the back of the tricycle. Autopsy report by Dr. She also positively pointed them out from a police line up. Evelyn became anxious and started walking faster. There she was scolded by her sister for coming home late. Evelyn De Vera and Maria Victoria Parana. The police were also able to find a book and some articles of feminine underwear and other personal belongings of a woman some 50 meters from where they had found the body of Maria Victoria. without success. Maria Victoria started talking to Modesto. She ran and ran until she entered the yard of a house along the road and hid in the shadows of the plants and shrubs inside the yard where she could not be seen by Nardo. Evelyn. naked. The following morning. Evelyn heard her cousin pleading for help. Hence. Whether or not Evelyn de Vera had positively identified Modesto Cabuang and Nardo Matabang as the assailants of Maria Victoria.People vs. When Evelyn was about ten (10) feet ahead of the two. Modesto then put off and pocketed his flashlight. Modesto Cabuang emerged with a flashlight and asked them where they were going. Cabuang 217 SCRA 675 (1993) Entries in the Official Record Facts: On 14 October 1988. grabbed Maria Victoria and covered her mouth. with stab wounds in different parts of her body including the pubic area. Aside from the sworn statement made by Evelyn identifying the two suspects Modesto Cabuang and Nardo Matabang since they were her baranggay mates and she knew them well. The cash valued at P400 with Maria Victoria was likewise missing. who had started to run away. she looked back and saw Modesto turn and shift his flashlight to the rear.34 - . Pangasinan. Sometime later. on the basis of such evidence. Evelyn emerged from her hiding place and proceeded to the house of her sister. from out of the rice paddies. After some time. and Modesto Cabuang. when the entry in the Bayambang police 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. was not able to tell her sister what had just occurred. Garcia also showed the victim was raped and stabbed by a pointed object. Suddenly. Nardo Matabang in turn pursued Evelyn. were walking home along an uninhabited place in Bayambang. but from where she is she could see him. suspects were convicted of the crime of robbery with rape and homicide. Upon the other hand. viewed and identified such articles as being owned by her deceased cousin. confused by the scolding and frightened by what she had just seen and experienced. She stayed in the sala and there tried to go to sleep. 4 . Issue/s: 1. Maria Victoria was found dead along the road. Nardo Matabang. Evelyn from her hiding place saw a tricycle pass by with her cousin Maria Victoria. Evelyn. After the tricycle had passed by. illuminating the figure of Nardo Matabang. Nardo went back and rejoined Modesto. having lost sight of Evelyn. who had also suddenly appeared behind them from the rice fields alongside the road.

Held: 1. Prosecution witness Evelyn de Vera did positively and clearly identify Modesto Cabuang and Nardo Matabang as among those who had raped and killed and robbed the victim. since the entries in the police blotter could well be incomplete or inaccurate. Elegio Lopez. Whether or not the defense of denial and alibi may be given weight. although such entry was made after prosecution witness Evelyn de Vera was questioned by the police. there was the initial report prepared and recorded in the police blotter at around 11 o'clock in the morning. 4. The failure of Evelyn to specify the accused-appellants as the doers of the crime. Cabuang grabbed Maria Victoria and covered her mouth. Thus. 5. Santito. there was. Evelyn de Vera's sworn statement made and completed in the afternoon of the same day. On the other hand. Evelyn ran away because she became terribly frightened and Matabang followed in pursuit. 2. It remains only to note that entries in a police blotter though regularly done in the course of performance of official duty. The police investigator. upon the other hand. 2. stated that the assailants were "still unidentified". He accordingly chose to defer further questioning until the afternoon of the same day when Evelyn had calmed down sufficiently to be able to give a sworn statement to the police. It is firmly settled case law that the delay of a witness in revealing to the police authority what he or she may know about a crime does not. are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries. render the witness' testimony unworthy of belief. 3. And in relation thereto. Pfc. by itself.blotter. On 14 October 1988. From her hiding place in the front yard of a house along the road. who initially questioned witness De Vera that morning. as well as Nardo Matabang’s excuse that he was allegedly in a town more than an hour away by bus was not given weight. does not adversely affect her credibility. Jr. accused Cabuang and Matabang suddenly appeared from the surrounding rice fields. Evelyn 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. In the case at bar. In People v.. where she revealed the identities of the men she had seen the night before.35 - . noticed that she was in a state of shock. RTC decision was affirmed. but must necessarily consider all other evidence gathered in the course of the police investigation and presented in court. the first time she was questioned by the police. whether or not circumstantial evidence may be considered adequate to convict the appellants beyond reasonable doubt since Evelyn did not witness the actual sex assault and slaying of the victim. unless the accused is able to prove that he was at some other place during the commission of the crime and that it was impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Testimony given in open court during the trial is commonly much more lengthy and detailed than the brief entries made in the police blotter and the trial court cannot base its findings on a police report merely. 12 the Court held that entries in official records like a police blotter are only prima facie evidence of the facts therein set out. Modesto Cabuang’s alibi that he was supposedly attending the wake held in the same baranggay where Maria Victoria was killed. The firmly settled doctrine is that the defense of alibi cannot prosper. 4 . stating that the assailants were still unidentified. the following circumstantial evidence produced conviction of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

They approached Tonog surreptitiously. a fistfight ensued between Jaime Tonog on one hand and the accused Ricardo San Gabriel together with "Ramon Doe" on the other. Judgment was affirmed. at the vicinity of the North Harbor. The fight was eventually broken up when onlookers pacified the protagonists. Ricardo and Ramon then hastened towards Marcos Road but in no time were back with bladed weapons. the body of Maria Victoria was found in the barangay traversed by the road on which Maria Victoria were walking the night before. Issue/s: 1. Ramon fought back but was subdued by his bigger assailant so the former ran towards the highway. being entries made in the official records? Held: 1. at this moment he saw Ramon return with a bolo on hand. Gonzales and Ochobillo testified in a direct and candid manner. Hence. Whether or not the Advance Information Sheet did not mention him at all and named only "Ramon Doe" as the principal suspect. In relation thereto. instead.saw Maria Victoria pass by in a tricycle with the accused Early the next morning. By: Beverly L. when Tonog met a certain "Mando" he boxed the latter who however fought back despite his (accused) warning not to. He testified that he saw Tonog drunk. 4 . was the Advance Information Sheet an exception to hearsay rule. He was then brought to Mary Johnson Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. with bolo on hand Ramon struck Tonog on the belly. The court was not convinced that Gonzales would testify against accused3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. The lower court did not believe the accused’s version and instead convicted him based on the testimony of two prosecution witnesses Brenda Gonzales and Pio Ochobillo. San Gabriel 253 SCRA 84 (1996) Entries in the Official Record Facts: The evidence shows that on 26 November 1989.36 - . 2. Manila. he warned Ramon not to fight but his advice went unheeded. Tonog attempted to box him but he parried his blow. Tonog continued walking but when he chanced upon Ramon he suddenly and without provocation boxed and kicked Ramon. No. after which the assailants ran towards the highway leaving Tonog behind on the ground. Ramon and "Mando" then fled towards the highway. when "Mando" saw what happened he ("Mando") pulled out his knife and also stabbed Tonog at the back. surrounded him and simultaneously stabbed him. Santiago People vs. The accused on the other hand has a different version. RTC Decision was affirmed. Whether or not the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are incredible and conflicting.

Santiago 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol.37 - . an alleged eyewitness. Nobody ever implicated him except the accused.appellant for a crime so grave simply because he owed her a measly sum of P300. In the case of Camba. Any information possessed by him was acquired from Camba which therefore could not be categorized as official information because in order to be classified as such the persons who made the statements not only must have personal knowledge of the facts stated but must have the duty to give such statements for the record. They are not conclusive. hence. The failure to exert the slightest effort to present Camba on the part of the accused should militate against his cause. The entry in the police blotter is not necessarily entitled to full credit for it could be incomplete and inaccurate. Unfortunately this cannot defeat the positive and candid testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. inadmissible. Not a single witness was presented by the defense to prove who "Mando" was. conviction was affirmed. nor even a hint of his personal circumstances. the accused did not offer any information regarding the person and circumstances of "Mando. (c) The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated. and. 4 . which did not mention San Gabriel at all and named only "Ramon Doe" as the principal suspect. the Advance Information Sheet was prepared by the police officer only after interviewing Camba. Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Significantly. Furthermore. Entries in official records. he was not legally so obliged to give such statements. Hence. It is understandable that the testimony during the trial would be more lengthy and detailed than the matters stated in the police blotter. The Advance Information Sheet does not constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. During the entire proceedings in the court below "Mando"was never mentioned by the prosecution witnesses. which has not been formally offered. as in the case of a police blotter. Yes. which must have been acquired by him personally or through official information. Furthermore. The accused then could have compelled the attendance of Camba as a witness. the Advance Information Sheet was never formally offered by the defense during the proceedings in the court below. 2. The public officer who prepared the document had no sufficient and personal knowledge of the stabbing incident. Hence any reliance by the accused on the document must fail since the court cannot consider any evidence. (b) It was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties or by such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall the connected collateral circumstances necessary for the correction of the first suggestion of his memory and for his accurate recollection of all that pertain to the subject. sometimes from either partial suggestions or for want of suggestions or inquiries." Up to this date "Mando" remains a myth.00. But to be admissible in evidence three (3) requisites must concur: (a) The entry was made by a police officer or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so. are only prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. As regards the Advance information sheet. By: Beverly L.

The color of the car was also different from registered color. Law was not located despite efforts from both sides. Section 45. Lungsford 400 A. He did not say when he replaced such nor did he present any receipts. Sgt Barett testified that he contacted Wilton and obtained the correct VIN which was compatible with the one found in the Road Runner. 45. any of which may be used to trace a car. Automobiles have at least 2-3 distinguishing numbers placed during its production.9. register.2d 843 Commercial Lists Facts: Lungsford was arrested for being found in possession of a 1968 Plymouth Road Runner. Sec. or other published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein. ignition stolen. for the benefit of Auto Theft Investigation. The report contained an incorrect VIN. (39) Cases: State v. Such is also called a factory order number and found underneath the hood in the radiator base. found in a permanent component of the car. 4 . Wilton was not presented during the trial. State claimed that the Road Runner was stolen from James Wilton. the third is a packing slip number. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Commercial Lists (a) Rule 130. replaced engine and placed a new radiator and brace. The primary and most visible number is called the VIN (vehicle identification number) such indicates the type. year and make of the car. Commercial lists and the like. Finally.38 - . bought new seats. Defendant testified that he purchased the car from James Law. periodical. Defendant claimed that such condition was because his windshield broke. placed in the coils of the back seat. The 2nd number is a confidential serial number. He had title and registration but he could not corroborate the purchase. Criminal investigation report showed that Wilton reported his car stolen on Jan 8. The VIN of the Road Runner located in the dashboard driver’s side did not appear to have been factory installed. — Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list. 1975. He had new front plates because he lost the old one.

4 . Its purpose was to prevent and reduce theft losses of automobiles. statements from compilation are admissible to prove the truth of the relevant matter stated. The process of tracing the identity of the Road Runner was dependent thereon. But no information about probable reliability of NATB was found in the record. NATB is sometimes called upon for information pertinent to investigations with regard identifying and retrieving stolen cars. Generally considered useful and reliable If such conditions are met.” Qualification of evidence offered must be first decided and must satisfy the following: 1. 2. Factory trace permits identification of first owner and the proper VIN of the vehicle. national in scope and financed by over 95% of automobile insurance companies. reliability of NATB procedures must be proven. Information led him to Wilton’s stolen vehicle. Such procedure would be considered evidential only if such complies with the rules on evidence which states: “Evidence of a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list. Information obtained from NATB is not admissible as evidence because Walsh failed to tell the jury the precise content of the information received from NATB. TC convicted Walsh based on such information. Trustworthiness requirement is satisfied by the judge that the material is regularly published for use by persons in a given occupation who rely on it. Judge must be convinced that the compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation 2. The National Automobile Theft Bureau is a non-profit corporation.39 - . No. Detective Walsh obtained confidential factory code # from the Road Runner and sought factory trace from the NATB. register. Thus. Whether or not the information obtained from NATB was admissible as evidence. The ratio of this rule is that the use of such materials is necessary because it is too difficult to call to the witness stand those who have participated on their preparation or compilation. periodical or other published compilation is admissible to prove truth of any relevant matter so stated if the compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them. It assembles and disseminates information on stolen vehicles and assists law enforcement in their identification and recovery.The Road Runner was factory traced through the factory order number. There 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Issue/s: 1. The entire tracing process was crucial in State’s attempt to link car of defendant and that which was stolen from Wilton. no proof of reliability of NATB procedures were presented thus no proper evidential basis for admission of data derived therefrom. State relied on NATB factory trace information to establish that the car in Walsh’s possession was the same car stolen from Wilton. In this case. Whether or not police record is admissible as evidence under the Business Entries exception Held: 1.

Salvatierra PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Records made in the usual course of business normally possess a circumstantial probability of trustworthiness. Business records exception is founded upon twin principles of reliability and necessity. Such report was filled out by Detective Vittelo who recorded in writing summary of statements taken from Wilton. Thus. No. state had no case for receiving a stolen vehicle. Barett personally recorded the corrected VIN. Conviction must be reversed. witness or victims are not under duty to make an honest and truthful report. Barett had known Wilton since his HS days. Police records are admissible to prove that a report of crime was made and secured. Vitello was not presented as witness. He also claimed that when he read the report on Wilton’s stolen car. it was Sgt Barett who testified. Business records exception is predicated not only on the circumstance that record itself is kept in the usual course of business but also on the circumstance that the recorded information is obtained by the recorder from a declarant having a business duty to communicate truthfully.is no motive to falsify on the contrary there is every reason to be accurate and precise since the success of a business depends on accuracy and reliability. Since the report and reference in supplement were inadmissible. In his testimony he said that the Auto Theft reports are routinely filled out contemporaneously with the complaint and are kept in the department’s files. The information before the trial court regarding the operations of NATB was inadequate to permit admissibility under rules of Evidence. Providing of info by the declarant whose duty it is to supply truthfully.40 - . This was the only evidence in the case establishing that Wilton’s car had been stolen. The trial court erred in admitting the report and the reference in the supplement as a Business Entries exception to the Hearsay Rule. Recording of info on the usual course of business and 2. Court of Appeals 297 SCRA 402 Commercial Lists 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. he observed that VIN was not accurate so he called Wilton and obtained the correct VIN. Cristina P. In this case the trial court should not have admitted the police record for falling short of the second criteria. By: Ma. Instead. 2. Such contained information that Wilton allegedly gave to the police immediately after he realized his car was stolen. evidence inadmissible. But such is not admissible to prove the truth of its contents since members of the public whether targets of investigation. 4 . The following are criteria must be met: 1. He was also familiar with Wilton’s car. These two must be met before the trial judge is free to exercise his discretion in admitting or excluding the business entry based upon his ultimate evaluation of reliability.

boat equipment and cargoes. Original complaint was amended to include recovery of the lost value of the hull of M/V Maria Efigenia XV in the amount of P600.000). Petitioner PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation sought to be substituted in place of LSC since it already acquired ownership of the vessel.000 (Actual value at P800. pathometer and compass. its equipment and its lost cargoes as well as unrealized profits.438.00 of the fishing boat and all its equipment would regularly increase at 30% every year from date quotations were given. quotation of prices issued by Scan Marine Inc showing cost or radar. Respondent sued LSC and the Petroparcel captain. Lower court held that the prevailing replacement value of P6.41 - .680 representing value of fishing nets.Facts: M/V Maria Efigenia XV owned by respondent Maria Efigenia Fishing Corporation (MEFC) collided with vessel Petroparcel owned by the Luzon Stevedoring Corporation (LSC). regarding cost of other equipments. 4 . a quotation by Saefgear Sales Inc. he used the quotations of his suppliers in making his estimates. radar. Edgardo Doruelo and sought an award of P692. Sumulong Associates Law Offices.” Thus the lower court admitted as sufficient evidence the quotations presented. pro forma invoice showing cost of engine. quotation for the construction of 95-footer trawler issued by Isidro Magalong of LA Magalong Engineering and Construction showing cost of trawler.000 for attorneys fees plus cost of suit. Trial court rendered a decision in favor of MEFC and ordered PNOC to pay the value of fishing boat with interest and P50. and retainer agreement between Del Rosario and F. Lazaro testified that price quotations submitted were excessive and that as an expert witness.060 tubs of fish the value of which was never recovered. The respondents merely relied on witness bare claim that the amount presented were bloated or 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. petitioner merely presented Lorenzo Lazaro senior estimator of the PNOC Dockyard & Engineering Corporation as sole witness and no other documentary evidence to support its position. Documentary evidence presented consisted of the following: Marine Protest executed by Delfin Villarosa Jr.048. But he failed to present such saying that he could not produce a break down of the cost of his estimates as it was “a sort of secret scheme.000 less insurance of P200. On the other hand. Evidence presented by the respondent was a testimony of its general manager and sole witness Edilberto Del Rosario who testified that M/V Maria Efigenia XV was owned by respondent. the decision of the Philippine Coast Guard Commandment Simeon N. Alejandro found Petroparcel at fault. Also lost were two Cummins engines. The case against Edgardo Doruelo is dismissed. At the time of sinking. The amended complaint also alleged that inflation resulting from the devaluation of the Philippine peso had affected the replacement value of the hull. The incident was investigated by the Board of Marine Inquiry. the vessel was carrying 1. interest and attorney’s fees.

the CA held that reception of these documentary evidence rests on the discretion of the lower court until the SC rules on the admissibility or inadmissibility of this class of evidence. Thus. trade journals.excessive. Whether or not the quotations presented can be admitted as a Commercial List exception to the hearsay rule 2. Thus. Not having received order denying motion for reconsideration. If they are thereafter found relevant or competent can easily be remedied by completely discarding or ignoring them. it is the safest policy to be liberal not rejecting them on doubtful or technical grounds but admitting them unless plainly irrelevant. the court found that petitioner ironically situated itself in an inconsistent posture by the fact that its own witness relied heavily on the same pieces of evidence appellant has so vigorously objected to as inadmissible evidence. Whether or not actual damages were proven 3. No. CA ruled that the alleged inadmissible documentary exhibits were never satisfactorily rebutted by appellants sole witness in the person of Lorenzo Lazaro.42 - . With regard the admissibility of documentary evidence presented in the nature of market reports or quotations. CA affirmed decision of the trial court. it was within his knowledge and competency to identify and determine the equipment installed and cargoes loaded. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the lower court decision which was denied. ISSUE: 1. Del Rosario could not have testified on the veracity of the contents of the writings because he was not the one who issued the price quotations. It should have been supported by independent evidence. additional docket fee may later be declared still owing court may enforce as a lien on judgment. Petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals claiming the award was not proved by competent and admissible evidence. Price quotations are ordinary private writings which under the Revised Rules of Court should have been proffered along with the testimony of the authors thereof. Since was also the owner of the respondent corporation whatever testimony he would give with regard to the value of the lost vessel. 4 . With regard issue of lack of jurisdiction. Section 36 Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that a witness can testify only to those facts that he knows of his personal knowledge. CA ruled that it was not necessary to qualify Del Rosario as an expert witness because as the owner of the lost vessel.048. trade circulars and price lists.00 should have been admitted with extreme caution because it was merely a bare assertion. immaterial or incompetent for the reason that their rejection places them beyond the consideration of the courts. petitioner filed motion for leave to file a reply which became moot and academic.438. Case was brought to the SC. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. its equipment and cargoes should be viewed in the light of his self-interest. Whether or not the lower court acquired jurisdiction HELD: 1. With regard evidence which may appear to be of doubtful relevancy or incompetency or admissibility. Del Rosario’s claim that losses incurred were in the amount of P6.

” These are simple letters responding to the queries of Del Rosario. such inadmissibility does not mean that it totally deprives a private respondent of any redress of the loss of the vessel. his testimony with regard valuation of equipment must not be accepted as the truth. the probative value of evidence refers to the question of whether or not it proves an issue. The exhibits are mere price quotations issued personally to Del Rosario who requested for them. Based on such requisites. A letter may be offered in evidence and admitted as such but its evidentiary weight depends on the observance of the rules on evidence. Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not the circumstance (or evidence) is to be considered at all. Price quotations presented as evidence partake of the nature of the hearsay evidence considering that the persons who issued them were not presented as witnesses. said compilation is published for the use of persons engaged in that occupation. it is a statement of matters if interest to persons engaged in an occupation 2. periodical or other compilation on the relevant subject matter. register. periodical or other published compilation 3. Author of the letter should be presented as witness to provide the other party to the litigation the opportunity to question him on the contents of the letter. However. Hearsay evidence. Yes. whether objected to or not. Although damages may not be awarded on the basis of hearsay evidence. On the other hand. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. private respondent is entitled to nominal damages which is adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff which has been violated may be vindicated and recognized and not for the purpose of indemnifying plaintiff for any loss suffered. it is generally used and relied upon by persons in the same occupation. 2. has no probative value unless the proponent can show that the evidence falls within the exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule. Any evidence. register. In the absence of competent proof on the actual damage suffered. Letters and telegrams are admissible in evidence but these are however subject to the general principles of evidence and to various rules relating to documentary evidence. These are not published in any list. and 4.His testimony with regard equipment installed and cargoes loaded should be given credence. Being mere hearsay evidence. Neither are these “market reports or quotations” within the purview of “commercial lists” as these are not “standard handbooks or periodicals. whether oral or documentary is hearsay if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of another person who is not on the witness stand.43 - . The exhibits presented do not fall under any of the exceptions provided under Sections 37 to 47 of Rule 130. 4 . There is a difference between admissibility and probative value. containing data of everyday professional need and relied upon in the work of the occupation. failure to present the author of the letter renders its contents suspect. a document is a commercial list if: 1. the documentary evidence presented are not “commercial lists” for these do not belong to the category of other published compilations under Section 45. such statement is contained in a list. Under Section 45.

Damages cannot be presumed and courts must point out specific acts that could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne. Cristina P. 139 Commercial Lists Facts: Maximino Noble. P180 of which was paid to Francisco Espiritu as repurchase price.438. Petitioner did not likewise question the jurisdiction of the lower court on the ground of insufficient docket fees in its answers to both the amended complaint and the second amended complaint.600. The deed dated June 22.000.] 49 O. they are not treated as an equivalent of a wrong inflicted but simply in recognition of the existence of a technical injury. Unpaid docket fee should be considered as a lien on the judgment.A. By: Ma. 3. The burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence would be presented on either side. 4 . 1945.Nominal damages are damages in name only and not in fact.44 - .048. Failure to pay the docket fee corresponding to its increased claim for damages under the amended complaint should not be considered as having curtailed the lower court’s jurisdiction. The lower court acquired jurisdiction over the case when private respondent paid the docket fee corresponding to its claim in its original complaint. The allegations in the original and amended complaints can be the basis for determination of a fair amount of nominal damages inasmuch as a complaint alleges the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. To enable an injured party to recover actual or compensatory damages. his heirs and assigns the 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Petitioner has sustained injury but which unfortunately was not adequately and properly proved and P2.000 award for damages as nominal damages was in order. defendant in this case conveyed to the latter a lot in Camarines Sur through a public deed after payment of P2.G. he is required to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence. It did so only in its motion for reconsideration of the decision of the lower court. Such sale wais subject to the condition that the vendor preserves to himself. Amount to be awarded as nominal damages shall be equal or at least commensurate to the injury sustained by respondent considering the concept and purpose of such damages. Decision of the CA affirming decision of RTC is modified in so far as it awarded actual damages to private respondent Maria Efigenia Fishing Corporation in the amount of P6. Where these are allowed.Actual damages were proven by means of the testimony of private respondent’s general manager and certain pieces of documentary evidence although these documents were not authenticated and that the witness Del Rosario did not have personal knowledge on the contents of the writings nor was he an expert on the subjects. Proculo Noble [C. father of Proculo Noble. Salvatierra Gregorio Estrada vs.00 for lack of evidentiary bases.

Thus. No instrumental witnesses were placed on the stand to corroborate it.300 was paid to Maximino Noble. 1948. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Issue/s: 1.000. Defendant appealed and alleges that the trial court incurred error in their judgment. Register of Deeds of Camarines Sur is ordered to execute a deed of resale of the same property in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P700 in Philippine currency and the defendant is ordered to pay the cost of the suit. 4 . Estrada made a bona fide offer to repurchase the property with tender of the redemption price. offering to repurchase the property for the sum of P700 but Proculo refused the offer. Thus. plaintiff has acquired the right to redeem the property in question. the sale shall be irrevocably consummated and the vendee’s ownership over the said land shall become irrevocable and unconditional without the need of executing any other instrument. within the period of redemption agreed upon. Trial court ruled in favor of Estrada and ordered defendant to execute a deed of resale in favor of Estrada for the amount of P700 which plaintiff offered for repurchase and in case defendant refuses to execute a deed of resale. Failure to exercise such right within the time aforesaid. The deed which evidenced the transaction between Maximino and Proculo is clearly a deed of sale with right to repurchase. While at the time of the deed was executed. Estrada approached Proculo shortly after transaction was entered between Estrada and Maximino. balance of P700 was retained by the plaintiff. Filing of this complaint was equivalent to an offer to redeem and had the effect of preserving the right of redemption. Defendant claims that the transaction entered was an absolute sale although the deed was termed as a sale with right of repurchase because his father was afraid that he might dispose of the property. On February 28. which obviously included the right to repurchase to the plaintiff. Although Proculo testified that the understanding between him and his father was that the sale was absolute and that it was made such because his father was afraid that he might dispose of the property. Maximino could not have sold and conveyed ownership of the property since a sale with right to repurchase transfers legal title to the vendee nevertheless said deed validly conveyed all his rights and interests in the property.45 - . Whether or not the transaction entered into by Maximo and Proculo was an absolute sale 2. Whether or not the court should take judicial notice of the Ballantine scale of values HELD: 1. Only P2. Maximino Noble by means of another deed conveyed the same property by way of absolute sale to the plaintiff Gregorio Estrada for the sum of P3. his statement is not corroborated by any other evidence of record either direct or circumstantial. No memorandum of the alleged agreement has been presented. No.right to repurchase or redeem the parcel of land described.

Learned treatises. Cristina P. Yes. Section 46. science. Learned Treatises (a) Rule 130. Computed based on the scale. an official document whose publication constituted a leading event of general interest and whose provisions are widely known and have played an important part in the contemporary political history of the country of which courts of justice could take judicial cognizance.2. — A published treatise. Based on the evidence of the record the sum of P180 and P2. The table was embodied in a bill which the President of the Philippines sent to the Philippine Congress for enactment on December 13. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. The appellant is entitled to the equivalent in Philippine currency of the P180 Japanese occupation currency in the month of July 1944 and as to the amount of P2. (40a) 11. law. Computation made by the trial court was correct. the former. Prior Testimony (a) Rule 130. P90 Japanese occupation currency. periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history. in the month of July 1944. and the latter.88 thus the estimate made by the court which is P700 is sufficiently liberal and justly compensates the appellant. D. Sec. the value is around P538. Such conversion table was submitted by Dr. Ballantine scale of values provides that the equivalent of every Philippine peso in July 1944 was P20 Japanese occupation currency and in December 1944. Ballantine to the President of the Philippines in his capacity as economic adviser of the Commonwealth Government. 46. L.420 Japanese occupation currency were paid to Maximino.420 Japanese occupation currency at least to its equivalent in the month of December 1944. It is therefore. Salvatierra 10.46 - . 1945. that the writer of the statement in the treatise. He is also entitled to reimbursement of the amount of P400 which he spent in the construction of the dam. such is considered as useful expense. It contained a recommendation for the adoption of measure which were greatly needed to solve the problem created by transactions made during the Japanese occupation and to hasten the economic recovery of the country. subsequent to that date but prior to the liberation of the Province of Camarines Sur. 4 . Section 47. Judgment affirmed. or a witness expert in the subject testifies. By: Ma. or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice.

additional amount of P300 semi-annually for matriculation expenses. Tan appealed to the CA. given in a former case or proceeding.Sec. The witnesses are available. — The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify.47 - . RTC reconsidered previous decision and declared petitioners to be the illegitimate children of defendant and ordered the him to support minors in the amount of P200 a month. cause of action and subject matter. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. to be paid directly to Carmelita for herself and her younger brother.000 as his expenses in supporting petitioners as well as attorney’s fees and costs of suit. No. Thus. petitioners through their maternal grandfather Servillano Daldo as guardian ad litem filed action for acknowledgment and support involving the same parties. She also subscribed to an affidavit stating that Tan “is not the father of my said minor children named Carmelita and Rodolfo but another person whose name I cannot divulge” and that she prepared said affidavit “to record what is true and correct what misinterpretation may arise in the future. They just refused to testify. (41a) Cases: Tan vs. may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him. judicial or administrative. ISSUE: 1. HELD: 1. and reimburse Servillano P2. Whether or not the testimonies made by petitioner’s witnesses in the former case may be admissible as evidence under Section 41 of Rule 130. they do not come within the legal purview of 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 4 . They are not dead nor are they outside the Philippines. However. One year and eight months after dismissal of the case. RTC dismissed the case based on res judicata. Celestina moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the parties have come to an amicable settlement and prayed that the same be dismissed. which reversed RTC decision and dismissed the complaint. Petitioner moved to reconsider. 47. involving the same parties and subject matter. Court of Appeals 20 SCRA 54 (1967) Prior Testimony Facts: Petitioners Carmelita and Rodolfo Tan through their mother Celestina Daldo as guardian ad litem sued respondent Francisco Tan for acknowledgment and support. after petitioners have presented their evidence.” RTC issued an order stating that dismissal of action with prejudice based on the ground that the parties have already come to an amicable settlement with the conformity of counsel.

1944. Salvatierra Ohio vs. sole witness was questioned by both prosecutor and defense counsel regarding her daughter’s whereabouts. Defense attempted to elicit from her an admission that she had given respondent checks and the credit cards without informing him that she did not have permission to use them. The validity of the testimony of petitioner’s witnesses was downgraded by the affidavit of Celestina. Cristina P. By: Ma. She testified that she knew the respondent and that she permitted him to use her apartment for several days while she was away. SC affirmed judgment of CA.48 - . Trial court conducted a hearing regarding its admissibility and Amy Isaacs. the TC admitted the transcript into evidence and respondent was convicted on all counts. Roberts 448 U. 1942 and Rodolfo on September 11. Before the trial. Thus. Respondent took the stand and testified that Anita Isaacs had given him her parents’ checkbook and credit cards with the understanding that he could use them. Anita in one of her few phone calls to her parents informed them that she was traveling outside Ohio but did not reveal the place. Counsel of the respondent did not ask that she be declared hostile and Prosecutor did not question her. had been a nursemaid (yaya) in the respondent’s residence but for a short period of not less than one year. 4 . Petitioners tried to prove that Daldo and Tan lived together as husband and wife for more than 8 years. In such affidavit. She did not call nor appear at trial. 56 (1980) Prior Testimony Facts: Herschel Roberts was arrested and charged for forgery of a check in the name of Bernard Isaacs and with possession of stolen credit cards belonging to the Isaacs and his wife Amy. Carmelita was born on May 8. The last 3 carried a written instruction that Anita should “call before appearing.” She was not at the residence when these were executed. Daldo deposed that petitioners were not fathered by Tan but by another person whose name she could not divulge. Daldo by her own admission. But such was denied by Anita. San Francisco social worker was in communication with the Isaacs about a welfare application Anita filed there. five subpoenas for four different trial dates were issued to Anita at her parents’ residence. Witnesses were called during the preliminary hearing including Isaacs’ daughter Anita who was the defense’s only witness. The defense objected. A year before trial.S. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Nobody knew where she was. She said that Anita left their home soon after the preliminary hearing.” Petitioners also failed to avail court remedies to secure their attendance. The State on rebuttal offered the transcript of Anita’s testimony invoking the use of preliminary examination testimony of a witness who cannot for any reason be produced at the trial.those “unable to testify. Carmelita and Rodolfo were allegedly fruits of such cohabitation. Respondent denies such and alleges that he is very much a married man with several children.

The second aspect operates once a witness is shown to be unavailable. Prosecutor did not breach its duty of good faith effort. Yes. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. She told him. In the usual case. The service and ineffectiveness of the five subpoenas and the conversation with Anita’s mother were far more than mere reluctance to face the possibility of a refusal. Anita’s parents undertook affirmative efforts to reach their daughter and such was not a case of abandonment. the declarant whose statement it wishes to use against the defendant. Prosecutor issued subpoena to Anita at her parent’s home not only once but on five separate occasions over a period of several months. There was an adequate opportunity to crossexamine the witness and counsel availed himself of that opportunity. In all criminal prosecutions. his statement is admissible only if it bears adequate indicia of reliability. 4 . the sixth amendment establishes a rule of necessity. the Confrontation Clause normally requires a showing that he is unavailable. Thus. Whether or not the transcript is admissible as a prior testimony under Section 47 Rule 130.CA of Ohio reversed judgment of TC based on the fact that prosecution failed to make show good faith effort to secure the absent witness’ attendance. the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. the Clause countenances only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule. The purpose of which is to augment accuracy in the fact finding process by ensuring the defendant an effective means to test adverse evidence. that she was not in San Francisco but was traveling outside Ohio and there was no way they could reach her even for emergency. Issue/s: 1. or demonstrate the unavailability of. and from prior decisions that even though the witness be unavailable his prior testimony must bear some of these indicia of reliability. Anita’s unavailability was established and her whereabouts were entirely unknown. State had nothing to show that Anita would be absent because of unavailability and showed no effort to seek out her whereabouts. Court has emphasized that the Confrontation Clause reflects a preference for a face-to-face confrontation at trial and that a primary interest secured by the provision is the right of cross-examination. First. Four months before the trial. In sum. The questioning of Anita afforded substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement. Anita’s unwillingness to shift the blame away from respondent because discernible early in her testimony.49 - . the prosecutor was in touch with Amy Isaacs and discussed Anita’s whereabouts. that the last time they heard from Anita was during the preceding summer. the prosecution must either produce. when a hearsay declarant is not present for cross-examination at trial. Held: 1. Even then. Confrontation clause operates in two separate ways to restrict the range of admissible hearsay. the transcript bore sufficient indicia of reliability and afforded a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of prior statement. SC of Ohio affirmed such decision. It is clear from these statements.

48. The prosecution carried its burden of demonstrating that Anita was constitutionally unavailable for purposes of respondents trial. Cristina P. for business purposes. except as indicated in the following sections. — The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given. After liberation. OPINION RULE A. it was seen parked in front of City Lunch in San Pablo Laguna. Rule 130. General rule. purchased from International Harvester Company for P2. Plaintiff filed present action against the 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. secretary-treasurer of the corporation. skill. 50. experience or training which he shown to posses. may be received in evidence regarding — (a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge.400 an International truck model 1938 with motor No. HD-232-22265. (44a) Cases: Dilag & Co Inc vs Vicente Merced and Sixto Zandueta 45 O. may be received in evidence. By: Ma. Sections 48-50. 4 . condition or appearance of a person. (b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity.G. Sy Pua and Sixto Zandueta. Salvatierra XII. (43a) Sec. behavior.Judgment of the SC of Ohio is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Dilag had it seized by the police and filed a complaint for theft against Vicente Merced who had in possession of such truck. — The opinion of witness is not admissible. The truck was entrusted to Pablo Dilag. (42) Sec. Sec. The criminal complaint was dismissed. 49. The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion. Truck was stolen during the Japanese occupation. and against Lim Ben. and (c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.50 - . — The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge. Opinion of expert witness. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. 5523 (1949) Opinion Rule Facts: Dilag & Co.

000 as damages and costs.same parties for the recovery of the truck in question and for damages as well as order of seizure upon filing of bond. Defendant impugns the testimony of Aguilar on the ground that he is not qualified as expert on motor numbers. The key was originally one for a cabinet lock. Such features were found in the truck involved in the dispute. Defendant knew the address of Zandueta but chose not to cite him as witness. suggesting that testimony rendered by Dilag may have weight if such was rendered before Dilag saw the truck. Evidence clearly shows that the motor number was tampered for it is no longer the original. 4 . But it is apparent that some of the distinguishing features mentioned were not exposed to view but were hidden. The key was original and had no alteration. The substitution was obvious because the last three digits appearing were larger than the others. declared such owner of the truck and absolved Lim Ben and Sy Pua from liability for damages as purchasers in good faith and ordered defendants Merced and Zandueta to pay plaintiff sum of P5. He also testified regarding certain features of its stolen truck which were to be found on the truck found in possession of Merced. Issue/s: 1. But Zandueta did not appear and was declared in default. Whether or not Aguilar is considered as an expert witness 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. stating that such truck is the property of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to return such. The most convincing detail presented was the fact that the key of the plaintiff’s truck could be used to start the engine of the said truck. Jose Aguilar was presented as witness to testify on the alleged tampering. Dilag’s testimony was corroborated by the mechanic who made such repairs. Trial court rendered judgment in favor of Dilag & Co. plaintiff was able to prove that the motor number of the truck has been tampered. later converted into a key for motor vehicle switch. Trial Court ruled in favor of plaintiff. Merced filed a counterbond and was able to retain possession. Respondent claims he purchased the truck from Lim Ben. Pablo Dilag could not say for certain what the original number was but he was able to give the first five numbers which coincide with the first five numbers of the motor number of the plaintiff’s truck. On the other hand. Defendant claimed that features were visible at a glance. The most important distinguishing features are as follows: (1) general appearance of the truck (2) paint of the hood (3) wooden running board on the left side (4) two iron bars supporting the glass windshield (5) welded tie rod (6) welded propeller shaft (7) half inch screw on the cylinder head (8) hole in the radiator caused by a blow from the fan belt.51 - . The key in possession of the defendant had an appearance of a made up key with many scratches on it which indicates that it had been filed off to make it fit into a keyhole not intended for it. The latter claimed they bought the truck in good faith from Zandueta. He relied on his certified copy of the certificate of registration and claimed such is conclusive on the question of ownership.

Defendant’s crosscomplaint against Lim Ben for breach of implied warranty against eviction should have been upheld and the cross-defendant Lim Ben adjudged to return to Merced the value of the truck at the time he is actually deprived of its possession with proper damages under Article 1478 of the CC. Such is overruled by the conclusion reached by the court regarding ownership of the truck. It is possible that the certificate was issued for another truck already out of commission and is not being made to apply to this stolen truck. Scientific study and training are not always essential to the competency of a witness as an expert. Lim Ben liable is liable on his implied warranty against eviction thus. Appellant may not question the amount of damages since he himself asked damages in the amount of P15. chief of the registration division for 8 years and is presently a chief investigator charged with investigating conflicting claims on motor vehicles. By: Ma. Under the CC. Cristina P. liable for damages. 4 .52 - . Judgment of lower court modified in so far as it absolves Lim Ben from damages and affirmed as to the rest. A witness may be competent to testify as an expert although his knowledge his knowledge was acquired through the medium of practical experience rather than scientific study and research. Whether or not Lim Ben can be held liable under his implied warranty against eviction Held: 1. 2. The fact that the motor number has been altered destroys the value of the certificate of registration as evidence of ownership of truck. A person with these qualifications is amply qualified for the simple task of determining whether the number appearing on the motor of a particular vehicle is genuine or not. This kind of fraud was rampant during the time this case arose.000. Witness Jose Aguilar was presented as witness to testify on the alleged tampering. the vendee shall have the right to demand of the vendor. Yes.2. Appellant protests the award of damages premised on the fact that the plaintiff has not proven his ownership. 213 (1904) Opinion Rule Facts: 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. the vendee is deprived of the thing bought. There is no precise requirement as to the mode in which skill or experience shall have been acquired. vendor is bound to deliver and warrant the thing sold and by his obligation he is answerable to the purchaser for its legal and peaceful possession and if by final judgment and by virtue of right previous to purchase. Yes. The lower court shall fix the sum on the basis of evidence. It appears Aguilar has been with the Bureau of Public Works since 1930 having occupied the position of inspector in charge of weighing and measuring trucks and verifying their motor numbers. The value of the truck cannot now be fixed for the actual eviction has not yet taken place. Salvatierra US vs Torno 3 Phil.

Issue/s: 1. a disease suffered by the deceased for a long time. The wife has just finished spreading the sleeping mats when she heard several gunshots. Perez was in good health. they took Emeterio and Rufino to the hospital. but after he was released from custody. he complained of sharp pains in the abdomen and needed assistance to walk. Unfortunately. Adoviso 309 SCRA 1 (1999) Opinion Rule Facts: At around 8:00 in the evening. Bautista. the injury suffered by Perez were sufficient in themselves to bring about death of the deceased. Bonifacio went to the municipal building to fetch a police inspector. the spouses’ son. although not exclusive. Defense admits the fact of arrest but denies ill treatment. and together. Bonifacio. the testimony of an expert witness is not conclusive upon the courts. By: Jose Miguel Fernandez People vs. These symptoms continuously showed themselves until death came to Perez. 4 . and Guevara were arrested in their respective houses by Officer Torno with other policemen. Emeterio Vasquez was preparing coffee as his wife was about to retire for the night. they were taken to a place called Sapang Angelo and there beaten and ill-treated. Their grandson Rufino had already gone to sleep in the papag. were accused with ill treatment of three persons arrested as a result of which one died. Whether or not the testimony can be admitted? Held: 1. It offered the testimony of Dr. They can give or refuse to give them any value as proof or they can counterbalance such evidence with other elements of conviction which have been adduced during the trial. which from the very first moment prevented him from keeping on his feet. both did not make it to the hospital alive. SC held that the expert testimony no doubt constitutes evidence worthy of meriting consideration. He hid himself at dark portion a few meters from the house and saw Rufino being shot. Icasiano to the effect that the deceased had not died due to wounds but by hepatic colic. Emeterio uttered that he was shot. and caused him continuous and sharp pains in the abdomen. In the absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary. After the assailants left. Officer Torno et. As such. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. The courts however.Perez. al. on questions of professional character. Thereafter.53 - . They are free to weigh them. upon hearing the shots rushed to his parent’s house. are not bound to submit to such testimony. Soon after. Prior to his arrest. He recognized Pablo Adoviso as one of the assailants. In the present case there are to be found sufficient data which show in a conclusive manner the seriousness of the wounds inflicted upon the deceased. Perez died. brought the cop to the scene of the crime. They were suspected of the theft of the revolver of Angeles.

the complainant. Garcia took the cigarette. On December 22. at around 3:00 a. Appellant.R. the accused. stating that much faith and credit must not be vested upon the lie detector test as it is not conclusive. Held: 1. while Baid caressed her.” The trial court found Adoviso guilty. is a 27 year old single woman diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia and confined at Holy Spirit Clinic in Cubao. American Courts almost uniformly reject the results of polygraph tests when offered in evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence of one accused of a crime. The rule is no different in this jurisdiction. because she afterward removed her pants. However. at the same time touching her foot. The theory behind a polygraph or lie detector test is that a person who lies deliberately will have a rising blod pressure and subconscious block in breathing which will be recored on the graph. He put up alibi as defense.Adoviso was charged with murder. Daniel. in this case. Afterwards. Whether or not the negative results of the polygraph test should be given weight to absolve the accused of the crime. for the reason that polygraph has not as yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception. A polygraph is an electromechanical instrument that simultaneously measures and records certain physiological changes in the human body that are believed to be involuntarily caused by an examinee’s conscious attempt to deceive the questioner. is a nurse-aide of said clinic. By: Jose Miguel Fernandez People vs. No. He woke up Garcia and offered her a cigarette. in People vs. they 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 129667 (July 31 2000) Opinion Rule Facts: Nieva Garcia.. Baid sneaked into the patient’s room.54 - . The Supreme Court still found Adoviso guilty. Eric Baid. He claimed that he was at another place drinking when the murder took place. whther the accused or the prosecutor seeks its introduction. 1996. Appartently. she was aroused. smoked it.m. has not advanced any reason why this rule should not apply to him. Issue/s: 1. 4 . Thus. The accused also removed his pants and the two had sexual intercourse. He also offered in evidence the testimony a NBI polygraph examiner who conducted a polygraph test on him. Ominta G. It turned out that she was not wearing any underwear. The report of the examiner opined that Adoviso‘s polygram revealed that “there were no specific reactions indicative of deception to pertinent questions relevant to the investigation of the crime.

A female patient who had been awakened tried to separate the two. as she failed to do so. complainant showed that she was qualified to be a witness. Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies. the Supreme Court ruled that the accused cannot question the said qualification on appeal fro he did not raise any objection in the trial court. the weight and process of reasoning by which he has supported his opinion. Salangad. thus making her testimony unworthy of consideration. The fact that an expert witness was hired by the family of the complainant to give expert testimony does not by that fact alone make her a biased witness and her testimony unworthy of consideration. the relative opportunities for study and observation of the matter about which he testifies. while the complainant already put her pants on. it is to be considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances of the case and when common knowledge utterly fails.55 - . Issue/s: 1. On the contrary. the accused had left. the expert opinion may be given controlling effect. As defense. The trial court found Baid guilty of rape. Dr. and other matters which deserve to illuminate his statements. they may place whatever weight they choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. Salangad. She could perceive and was capable of making known her perceptions to others. No. an expert witness for the complainant. The nurses responded but when they arrived. Objections not timely raised are deemed waived. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide. testified that Garcia was in no position to give her consent to the sexual congress. 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 abuse of that discretion. Held: 1. Notwithstanding her mental illness. he even cross-examined her on the matters on which she testified. the accused questions the qualifications of Dr. his actions upon the witness stand. the fact that he is a paid witness. Salangad as an expert witness and he raises the issue that the doctor is biased because she was hired by the Garcia family as a psychiatrist of the complainant. considering the ability and character of the witness. As regard the qualification of Dr. By: Jose Miguel Fernandez 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Baid was charge with rape. 4 . Whether or not the qualifications of the expert witness can be assailed during appeal and whether the doctor is a biased witness. his possible bias in favor of the side fro whom he testifies. The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected.transferred under the bed and continued their sexual intercourse. she went out to call the two nurses o duty.

Witness claim that at the time when Daisy was missing. Vallejo 382 SCRA 192 (2002) Opinion Rule Facts: Daisy Diolola went to Aimee Vallejo’s house to be tutored with her lessons. On appeal. Daisy’s mother. He set up the defense of alibi. The NBI took blood samples from the accused. Nida with her siblings searched for Daisy the whole evening until the following morning but their search proved fruitless. He claims that the DNA analysis conducted by the NBI forensic chemist failed to show that all the samples submitted for DNA testing were not contaminated.56 - . An hour later. Except for identical twins.People vs. Issue/s: 1. and there. Later that day. Aimee explained that she was not able to tutor because she was not feeling well. The trial court found Vallejo guilty. She asked other neighbors if they saw her daughter and was told that they saw her playing and watch television after. After a few hours. Held: 1. She went to Aimee’s place to look for her daughter and was told that Daisy was not there. looking uneasy and troubled. Nida decided to go back to Aimee’s house. she met Gerrico. Nida went there but was told that Daisy had not been there. Daisy came back to her house to look for a book with Gerrico Vallejo. Vallejo contends that the trial court erred in convicting him despite of the insufficient and weak circumstantial evidence against him. Daisy and Gerrico went back to the latter’s house. Nida was informed that the dead body of her daughter was found tied to the tree of an aroma tree by the river. to prove Vallejo’s guilt. started get worried that it was already late in the afternoon and her daughter has not yet returned. but she already left with Gerrico. material is collected from the scene of the crime or from the 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. her tutor’s brother. each person’s DNA profile is distinct and unique. After finding the book. 4 . a sample that matched the DNA profile of the accused. but his face and hair remained dry. Nida Diolola. When a crime is committed. The basketball shirt and short worn by the accused on the day the victim was missing were taken for testing. being soaked in smirchy waters before they were submitted to the laboratory. The prosecution submitted DNA evidence gathered from the body of Daisy. who told her that Daisy had gone to a classmate’s house to borrow a book. they saw Gerrico walking towards the “compuerta” with cloths wet. Later on Vallejo claimed that the statement was a product of torture and coercion. The accused executed a statement wherein he admitted his participation in the crime. Whether or not the DNA evidence gathered is insufficient to establish his participation in the crime. Vallejo was charged of rape with homicide. No. Nida looked for Daisy in her siblings houses but the child was not here. DNA is an organic substance found in a person’s cell which contains his or her genetic code.

courts should consider.) It is not possible to be sure. the samples are found to be similar. The Supreme Court ruled that result of the DNA evidence. contamination. In the case at bar. based on the result of the test. The samples collected are subjected to various chemical processes to establish their profile. whether the samples have similar DNA types (inconclusive). 2. whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests. “the specimens were soaked in smirchy water before they were submitted to the laboratory. the analyst proceeds to determine the statistical significance of the similarity. which accounted for the negative results of their examination. and not the possibility that the samples had been contaminated. the same can be attributed to the fact that the hair did not contain any root while the nails did not contain any subcutaneous cells that would be amenable for DNA analysis. the procedure followed in analyzing the samples. it is the inadequacy of the specimen submitted for examination. The evidence sample is then matched with the reference sample taken from the suspects and the victim. This conclusion is absolute and requires no further analysis or discussion. The vaginal swabs taken from the victim yielded positive for the presence of human DNA. or failure of some aspect of the protocol.victim’s body for the suspect’s DNA. to obtain a more conclusive result. 3. among other things. the bloodstains taken from the clothing of the victim and of the accused. As the NBI forensic chemist explains. This is evidence sample. Thus. therefore. how they were handled. In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence. and could have originated from the same source (inclusion).” With regard the negative results of the hair and nail samples. the following data: how the samples were collected. the possibility of contamination of the samples. the smears taken from the victim as well as the hair strands and nails taken from her tested negative for the presence of human DNA.2d 771 (1950) Opinion Rule Facts: 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol.) The samples are similar. The test may yield three possible results: 1. and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. Various parts of the analysis might then be repeated with the same or different sample. However.57 - . together with other evidence.) The samples are different and therefore must have originated from different sources (exclusion). The state of the DNA analysis could have been hampered the preservation of any DNA that could have been there before. This might occur for a variety of reasons including degradation. The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an association exists between the evidence sample and the reference sample.a DNA profile of the accused. not all samples taken produced negative results. 4 . In such a case. point to no other conclusion that the Vallejo is guilty of the crime charged. By: Jose Miguel Fernandez State vs. Garver 225 P.

Previously. the court held it proper in a personal injury case to permit laymen. and rejoined Garver in the evening at the vicinity of the store. The jury understands what the witness means. Garver claimed to have information that Abbott would be leaving the store late in the evening carrying about $5. his moral delinquencies. his hospitalizations.2d 431 (6th Cir. Acting upon Garver’s suggestions. which turned out to contain no money. Hanger was called to testify and gave a finding that the accused was suffering from “psychosopathic inferiority”. Mitchell. and the right to cross-examination removes the likelihood of harm to the other side. taking with them the victim’s shopping bag. when all the while the witness is sure in his own mind that he is testifying to the facts. 1970) Opinion Rule 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol.Robert Garver met Norman Andrus and Leland Marshall in a tavern in downtown Portland and proposed to them that they rob Abbot who was a janitor in the Fred Meyer Store. But lay witnesses are frequently permitted to use the so-called “short-hand” descriptions.including his illnesses.. By: Jose Miguel Fernandez US vs. Mitchell can testify as to the mental condition of Garver? Held: The general rule is that a witness may testify only to facts and not to opinions or conclusions. only clothes. 4 .58 - . and held up Abott with guns in hand. unbewildered by admonitions from the judge to testify to facts. in presenting to the court their impression of the general physical condition of a person. It was shown during the trial that the accused was suffering from insanity. Defense also presented Ms. He was committed to the mental hospital many times before hand and was acquitted from a previous charge of robbery on the ground of insanity.00 in a shopping bag. Whether or not Ms. the other two stole an automobile. The witness is free to speak his ordinary language.whatever might throw light on his mental conditions. Mitchell in her testimony on the theory that they were opinions or conclusions of the witness. while Garver set up the defense of insanity. to testify that her health and general physical condition had materially changed for the worse. in reality opinions. got out. the accused’s mother. and the three desperados fled in the automobile. secured two guns. both physical and mental. Too strict adherence to the opinion rule is undesirable. Issue/s: 1. The court struck the phrases “such a terrible shape” and “physically ill” used by Ms. They waited until Abott appeared carrying the shopping bag and followed him several blocks in the stolen car. Stifel 433 F. Andrus and Marshall pleaded guilty. Dr. They parked the car. Garver shot Abott three times. who were intimately acquainted with the plaintiff prior to her injury and observed her condition thereafter. and his crimes. She related to the jury the history of her son from infancy to the day of the alleged crime. The lower court convicted Garver of the crime of first degree murder. to testify as to her son’s mental condition.

its metal top. a graduate school student. 2786 (1993) Opinion Rule 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. fireworks and small rockets. skill or trade or others of the like kind. The certain materials from which the bomb package could have been fabricated were available to him at his place of employment in a laboratory of Proctor & Gamble. Ct. Evidence was presented that he had experience in handling firearms. he was capable of fashioning the bomb. together with access to Stifel’s father’s tools and machinery rendered him capable of building the bomb. he had a motive to kill Ronec. The defense objected and averred that Scott’s opinion was inadmissible on the ground that the test is too new and unreliable and has not yet been accepted by scientists in its particular field. and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from well-recognized scientific principle and discovery. 4 . Stifel learned of the new relationship Cheryl had and started to threaten her. Later on. The prosecution suspected Stifel as the author of the crime. By: Jose Miguel Fernandez Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 113 S. No. United States the court held “Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. In 1968. mailing stickers and tape which were in the Proctor & Gamble stock room to which appellant had access.59 - . This background. the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. This expert testimony indicated that through the method of neutron activation analysis. Their tempestuous romance lasted for a year until Cheryl ended it. In the case of Frye vs. she met Daniel Ronec. we do not believe that the lower court committed error in the admission of Scott’s evidence. Whether or not the lower court erred in admitting Scott’s testimony. Issue/s: 1. Daniel Ronec was killed by an explosion when he opened a package addressed to him consisting of a mailing tube with a screw-on top. The lower court admitted Scott’s testimony and convicted Stifel of murdering Ronec. its mailing sticker and its tape were found to be microscopically identical to cylinders. a chemist and microanalyst. If the court admits the testimony then it is for the jury to decide whether any or if any weight is to be given to the testimony.” Employing this standard in this case. Whether a witness is shown to be qualified or not as an expert is a preliminary question to be determined in the first place by the court. and materials from which the bomb was made were accessable to him. but are permitted to give their opinion in evidence. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of principle must be recognized. with whom she was engaged to be married. persons of skill or experts may not only testify to facts. It was ruled that Scott’s expert opinion is admissible. tops. Held: 1.Facts: Orville Stifel used to be in a relationship with Cheryl Jones. The prosecution also introduced expert testimony of James Scott. On questions of science. the bomb package cylinder.

Respondent moved for summary judgment arguing that Bendectin does not cause birth defects. DR. minors. respondent submitted an affidavit of DR. DR. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RULING The court stated that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is inadmissible unless the technique is “GENERALLY ACCEPTED” as reliable in the relevant scientific community. a prescription anti-nausea drug marketed by respondent. LAMM concluded that maternal use of Bendectin during the first trimester of pregnancy has not been shown to be a risk factor for human birth defects.000 patients. Whether or not the “GENERAL ACCEPTANCE” rule is the proper standard for the admission of expert testimony as relied upon by the district court and the USCA.Facts: The petitioners are Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller. petitioners presented eight (8) expert witnesses who all testified that Bendectin can cause birth defects. LAMM stated that he had reviewed all the literature on Bendectin and human birth defects-more than 30 published studies involving over 130. In response and opposition to the motion. who are being represented by their parents. Petitioner’s epidemiological analyses. The court declared that expert opinion based on a methodology that diverges “significantly from the procedures accepted by recognized authorities in the field…. Held: 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. who is a well-credentialed expert on the risks from exposure to various chemical substances. STEVEN LAMM. The court stated that scientific evidence is admissible only if the principle upon which it is based is “SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED TO HAVE A GENERAL ACCEPTANCE IN THE FIELD TO WHICH IT BELONGS. an epidemiologist. Hence. were ruled to be inadmissible because they had not been published or subjected to peer review. the petitioners sued the respondent. Petitioners were born with serious birth defects. Issue/s: 1. The respondent is Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. In support of its motion. Inc. DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA RULING Granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment. On the basis of this review. based as they were on recalculations of data in previously published studies that had found no causal link between the drug and birth defects.” The court concluded that petitioner’s evidence did not meet this standard since expert opinion that is not based on epidemiological evidence is inadmissible to establish causation. Petitioners alleged that the birth defects had been caused by the mother’s ingestion of Bendectin.cannot be shown to be generally accepted as a reliable technique.60 - . Their conclusions were based upon “in vitro”(test tube) and “in vivo”(live) animal studies that found a link between Bendectin and Malformations. 4 .

or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. its know or potential error rate and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation. which specifically governs expert testimony.1. and careful instruction on the burden of proof. Cariño 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. provides for the proper standard for admitting expert scientific testimony in a federal trial. No. WHEREFORE. the court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 702 governing expert testimony. rather than wholesale exclusion under an uncompromising “general acceptance” standard. Moreover. By: Arnaldo M. experience. “general acceptance” is not a necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The inquiry is a flexible one and its focus must be solely on principles and methodology. or education. whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication. skill. such a rigid standard would be at odds with the Rules’ liberal thrust and their general approach of realizing the traditional barriers to “opinion” testimony. nothing in the Rules as a whole or in the text and drafting history of RULE 702. including whether the theory technique in question can be and has been tested. not on the conclusions that they generate. Faced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony under Rule 702. case is hereby remanded for further proceedings. not the FRYE TEST.61 - . the trial judge must make a preliminary assessment of whether the testimony’s underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid and properly can be applied to the facts at issue. present contrary evidence. In conclusion. Pertinent evidence based on a scientifically valid principles will satisfy those demands. technical. The remedy of the party who is questioning the admissibility of the challenged evidence is to cross-examine it. provides: “If scientific. the “general acceptance” test established by the case of FRYE has been superseded by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence. a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge. 4 . After careful analyses of the origin and rational for the “general acceptance” standard established in the famous case of FRYE. may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. but the Rules of Evidence especially Rule 702 do assign to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert’s testimony both rests on a RELIABLE foundation and is RELEVANT to the task at hand. Many considerations will bear on the inquiry. training. gives any indication that “general acceptance” is a necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence. Firstly. Abel. and whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.” As held in the case of US vs.

The court affirmed the ruling of the district court convicting the defendants of the crime charged. the police found the deposit bag containing some $4. BONDS wore his right arm in a sling. The defendants now appeal the decision. These samples. THE OUTLAWA. The rare enzymes matched those found in BONDS’ blood.62 - . The court held that the district court did not err in admitting Forensic DNA testimony and evidence. a MAC-11 9-mm semi-automatic pistol and the victim’s van that was abandoned behind a hotel. were indicted in connection with the crime. including evidence that the DNA in BONDS’ blood matched the DNA from the blood found in the back seat of Yee’s car. it was established that after the murder. members of the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang. the Government’s theory for the shooting was that the gunmen. tried. Serology tests showed that the blood was not the victim’s. VS. Defendants rely on the FRYE test arguing that forensic DNA testimony and evidence is not admissible since it has not met the “general acceptance” standard established by FRYE case. 3d 540 (1993) Opinion Rule Facts: On February 27. The killers did not intend to rob the victim. had mistaken the victim’s yellow van for an identical van driven by a local member of a rival motorcycle gang. During the trial. Police authorities were able to recover the gun used in the shooting. and convicted of conspiracy and federal firearms offenses. which only appear in about 1% of Caucasian males. Most of the blood in the van had dripped between the front seats. All 3 defendants were eventually tried to a jury and convicted. Held: 1. No.U. were the basis for evidence introduced at trial. Issue: 1. Both the gun and the van’s carpet were spattered with blood.000 on the seat of the van. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. and it was later established that he had a serious ricochet wound which evidently bled between the seats as he drover the van that night. 4 . but rare enzymes identified in the spattered blood. The police authorities obtained a blood sample of BONDS pursuant to a court order. where he planned to make a night deposit of cash from the music store he helped manage. whom the gunmen had allegedly planned to “hit” in retaliation for the shooting of a Hell’s Angels member by an OUTLAW the previous year in Illinois.S. Three individuals. In fact. David Hartlaub was gunned down in his van as he stopped at a bank near the Sandusky Mall in Ohio. Whether or not the district court erred in admitting expert testimony concerning DNA evidence in the trial. Bonds 12 F. 1988. including the defendant JOHN BONDS.

63 - . It is also clear from this record that the DNA evidence and testimony would have met the more liberal rule test of Daubert case. in the event that a reviewing court disagreed with him. it did begin to draw the parameters of this inquiry by providing the following non-exclusive list of factors: (1) whether a theory or technique can be tested. While the Daubert court did not explicitly define scientific validity or apply its new teaching to the evidence at issue in that case. The evidence that BONDS’ DNA matched at least to some extent the DNA found in the crime-scene sample clearly is relevant to whether defendant BONDS was present in the victim’s van on the night of the murder. the court found that the underlying methodology and reasoning are scientifically valid and it is undisputed that the general principle that individuals can be identified by DNA is scientifically valid. Firstly. As the RELIABILITY TEST of Daubert. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. the DNA evidence was helpful to the jury in determining whether defendants were guilty of the charges. the court held that the expert testimony meets such requirement. although based on the FRYE test. the court held that since the technique has been accepted in the scientific community. The inquiry envisioned by RULE 702 is a flexible one. (3) the known or potential rate of error in using a particular scientific technique and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation an (4) whether the theory or technique has been generally accepted in the particular scientific field. the judge issued exhaustive findings on the DNA evidence. Although the magistrate judge and the district court in admitting the DNA testimony focused on the FRYE test that has now been superseded by the Daubert Case. Thus. it is implicit that the rate of error is acceptable to the scientific community as well. Lastly. As to the rate of error of the technique. The court held that the findings of the magistrate judge. The FBI’s procedures have also received at least some exposure within the scientific peerage to which they belong.The court cited the case of DAUBERT vs. the court still affirm the decision on other grounds. 4 . MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS. INC wherein the US Supreme court rejected FYRE’s “general acceptance” test as the exclusive test and redefined the standard for the admission of expert scientific testimony. as to the RELEVANCY TEST of Daubert. The magistrate then defined general acceptance by stating what general acceptance is not-it does not require unanimity or consensus or approval by other courts. The court held that the proper standard is RELIABILITY AND RELEVANCY of the evidence being presented. The magistrate judge went on to make alternative findings on the merits of the disputes about the reliability of the results. the court held that the FBI’s principles and methodology of matching DNA samples have in fact been tested. (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication. were not clearly erroneous and are conclusive. Firstly.

No. When the victim reached her house. was a first year high school student as the Baguio Eastern High School. place and circumstances when taken and the nature of the subject. The victim confided to her father the terrible misfortune. If the subject is hard 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Dr. as the defense argue. the accused tried to force his way inside and pulled a dagger and threatened to kill her. The victim tried to avoid the accused but the latter was adamant in following her. The counsel for the defense raised the point that the accused voluntarily submitted himself to a lie detector test with the NBI and the report of the lie detector examiner is in accused’s favor. During the trial. It is well known that the same is not conclusive. Whether or not this finding. One afternoon. the accused said that the incident inside the room of the victim was with the latter’s consent and in fact it was the second time he had carnal knowledge with her.64 - . Daniel 86 SCRA 511 (1978) Opinion Rule Facts: This is a case involving the crime of rape. Its efficacy depends upon the time.As to the NBI lie detector test report. This is to say that the accused was telling the truth on the questions propounded to him one of which was whether he forced the victim into having sexual intercourse. Thereafter. She was immediately brought to the Baguio hospital where she was examined. RTC AND CA RULING – Guilty Issue: 1. The victim was again re-examined by Dr. The victim together with her parents filed a complaint in the Fiscal. Held: 1. the victim. the court does not put much faith and credit on it. He also concluded that the victim was a virgin prior to the incident. should have been taken into consideration by the trial court. For his defense. By: Arnaldo M. the court holds that testimony proffered by the government about the DNA matching and probabilities easily met the Daubert standard and admissible under Rule 702. the accused succeeded in raping the victim. a minor named Margarita Paleng. The victim. the accused followed the victim while the latter was on her way home. Cariño People vs. Dr. Micu at a helath center in Baguio. Micu was called to the witness stand he testified on the physical examination conducted on the person of Margarita Paleng.WHEREFORE. 4 . Micu concluded that the “defloration was recent”. when the victim just arrived in Baguio from Tublay.

were not conducive to affect the subject emotionally.as in this instant. 2. his reaction to the questions propounded was normal and unaffected and the apparatus could not detect it.65 - . the test will fail. He was not confronted by the victim or other persons whom he had a reason to fear. 4 . The subject had nothing more to fear because the trial was over. Cariño 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. By: Arnaldo M.and the circumstances . Naturally.