Transcription - Premidterms

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403
PRE-MIDTERMS TRANSCRIBED BY: ATON, Carla. ESPIRITU, Leah. SALVA, Carlo. ARANAS, Kim.
Coverage will be from: Preliminary chapter, then judicial notice, judicial admission, presumptions, best evidence rule, electronic evidence, DNA, and all the cases. Exams will all be essay but starting midterms, we will start with the MCQ as required during the bar exams Lets start with preliminary chapter. Evidence is just a component of the entire remedial law during the bar exams. So, this just small part of remedial law. Particularly in our jurisdiction, the rules in evidence are found in very few provisions in our rules of court, although there are some other provisions found somewhere else but primarily the rules of evidence are found in: 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, and 133. So, practically there are only 6 rules constituting the entire rules of evidence. For purposes our discussion we have to lump all these 3; Judicial notice, judicial presumption and judicial admissions. Then, we have 128- preliminary matter, 129, 130, rules on admissibility and then we have presentation of evidence and then weight and sufficiency of evidence. So lets start with rule 128. What is evidence? Evidence is defined as the means sanctioned by the rules of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting matters of fact. From the definition alone, the following elements must be emphasized: 1. Evidence essentially is just a tool in achieving the ultimate purpose and that purpose is the ascertainment of a truth. So, as lawyers we are warriors of truth so we have to be armed with evidence to achieve that purpose. So, evidence is not an end in itself. Okay? You need to distinguish the concept of evidence from proof because you cannot mistake one from the other. Although loosely evidence and proof maybe used interchangebly. But as students of law, we have to be very technical that evidence is different from proof. Evidence is the means and proof is the total effect of evidence. So, we have the means, then the result is the truth. And that truth establishes the objective which is the truth of the fact in issue. Okay. Now, you cannot equate evidence with proof because evidence it doesnt mean that when you have evidence you necessarily have proof because evidence needs to undergo some process for it to produce the desired proof. Example: Evidence needs to go to the process of admissibility and weight and efficiency so that it will achieve the desired proof sufficient to establish the truth of a fact in issue. So its just like the woman Miss Espiritu, the beauty of Miss Espiritu maybe the sum total of all her special attributes: Nice eyes, nice hair, long legs, sexy body, (haaaay lanay akong atay). All these specific attributes are just the means. The totality of them all results to the beauty, and that is Miss Espiritu. Thats an analogy you have to distinguish evidence from proof.
Page22

2. Evidence as a means must be sanctioned by the rules or the law for that matter. Meaning it must be such which is contemplated and allowed by the rules. So, anything presented in court which isnt allowed by the rules isnt evidence. That is why we have the requirement of competency. Anything which is excluded by the rules cannot be considered as evidence. It has to be that which is allowed by the rules for it to be considered evidence. 3. Means of ascertaining in a judicial proceedings. Take note this very important element of evidence. When we talk about evidence, almost always you think about judicial proceedings because as a GR, the rules on evidence apply only in judicial proceedings. Judicial meaning, courts and bodies created by law that exercises judicial functions. But we have EXCEPTIONS: While the rules of evidence shall be uniform in all courts, in all judicial proceedings, Rule 1 section 4 specifically provides the exceptions. The rules of court including the rules on evidence shall not be applied to the following judicial proceedings. In other words, even if these proceedings are judicial in nature because they are filed before the courts, still in these proceedings, the rules of court and the rules of evidence do not apply, the following are: Land registration Cadastral proceedings Election cases Naturalization Insolvency
In these special kinds of cases though judicial in nature the rules of evidence as in fact all in the rules of court dont apply as a GR. Except by analogy or in a suppletory character whenever practical and convenient. So, as a GR, rules of court dont apply but only in analogy and suppletory character. The reason why the rules of court particularly the rules of evidence dont apply in these cases is because these cases are governed by their own peculiar sets of rules. Now, when does suppletory applies? It happens in cases their own rules governing these types of cases are silent in a specific question of proceeding. So, meaning when a particular issue involving procedure is silent in so far as their own rules are concerned, you refer to the rules of court, rules of evidence for solution. Either by analogy or by applying similar provisions in the rules of court including the rules on evidence.
The rules expressly say so.
Page22
The reason why the rules of court dont particularly apply to non judicial proceedings is that:

It says that the rules of evidence particularly apply only to judicial proceeding.
In the proceeding before these non judicial bodies they have their own rules of procedure.
Okay, so for cases before these non judicial bodies, what applies is their own rules of procedure. So, you refer to their own rules of procedure which may provide for 2 possible things these are:
Their own rules of procedure may expressly prohibit the application of the rules
of court including the rules on evidence. This was what happened in the case of Reyes vs CA involving a cadastral case filed before an agrarian court. Now, one of the primary issues raised in that cases was WON the trial court was correct in admitting in evidence the affidavits of witnesses even if they were not presented during the trial and were not cross examined by the adverse party. Now, you will realize as we go along later that as a GR, an affidavit of a witness is a hearsay evidence, it is not admissible because the requirement is that, the witness himself will be presented in court. What for? For purposes of cross examination. Thats the elementary requirement of due process. So as a GR the affidavit of a witness is not enough. Its not even admissible. Its a mere scrap of paper; it has no probative value unless the affiant himself testifies in court and subjected himself to cross examination. That is the regular rules of procedure. Now, in this case of Reyes, the court admitted just simply the affidavits so therefore, it was objected to. The issue raised was: WON it was correct on the part of the court to admit the affidavits. Now, the SC ruled that the lower court committed no error in admitting the affidavits because when you look at the rules governing cases filed before the agrarian court, the rules of evidence are not applicable even in suppletory character in other words their own rules of procedure expressly prohibit the application of the rules of evidence under the rules of court. It also says in the rules of agrarian courts that testimonies of witnesses in forms of affidavits are admissible. So this case demonstrates a situation where the rules of evidence adopted by a non judicial body like the agrarian expressly prohibits the application in the rules of evidence in cases before them even in suppletory character.
The body will apply the rules of court including the rules on evidence in a suppletory
character. You will also note, you have taken your labor law, cases of proceeding before labor courts like NLRC are also governed by their own rules of procedure in cases pending before them. If you look at the rule in labor rules of procedure, you will note that their own rules allow the application of the rules of evidence in suppletory character. In other words what Im saying is that in so far as non judicial bodies are concerned, the primary rules in their proceedings
Page22

should be governed by their own rules of procedure and these rules may either provide the rules of evidence in suppletory character or the reverse which will prohibit the application of the rules of evidence even in suppletory character. There are other several non judicial bodies or the so called quasi judicial bodies, administrative bodies like the HLURB, SSS they have their rules involving SSS benefits. ECC and CIA a special body vested with the authority to decide cases involving construction disputes, they have their own sets of procedure. So if you happen to handle a case pending before a non judicial body you first get a copy of their own rules of procedure. Last element: 4. Ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth. Now, what is meant by truth in contemplation of the rules? Its not the ethics, not what our religion taught us. Truth contemplated by the law is the so called legal truth. Its not the actual truth, not real truth nor moral truth. When a statement coincides with reality thats actual truth or moral truth. It is not so in the truth that evidence is talking about. The truth that we are talking here is that what the evidence says. What is proved by evidence is the legal truth. What you will realize when you become lawyers is that truth is not what you know but its what you can prove in court. So, dont be disappointed when you go into practice, you might think that this profession is not good for you given your orientation as Christian species, Im sure one way or the other you will find yourself in that crossroads. Imagine yourself handling a case from a client whom you believe is a guilty as hell. Take it this way, if you handle a case for a guilty client and all indications point to guilt of your client. Dont feel disappointed. Its not for you to say that your client is guilty; its to the courts. Youre there as an advocate to protect the interest of your client. WON your client is guilty is the problem of the court. If you defend your client but your client is guilty, you are not actually defending evil, you are actually making it sure that the system works. The presumption on our law is that every person is innocent until contrary is proven. So better, start to direct your future in that manner because sooner or later you will be in the real world and this will be the recurring questions you will be encountering while in practice.
6. Means in ascertaining the truth respecting in a matter of fact In every litigation, there are always 2 issues: Factual Legal The purpose of evidence is to ascertain only the factual issue. Trial is for the determination of a factual issue. Take out factual issue, then you dont speak of evidence. What happens if in the case theres only a question of law or legal issue? Or will only involve the interpretation of
Page22

law? Since evidence is a means to ascertain a fact respecting a matter, you dont need to present evidence in case where there is no factual issue. The case will just be submitted on the bases of the legal issue involved. Take note that judges are enjoined to take judicial notice on existing laws so you dont need to prove it. Courts are supposed to take judicial notice on existing law. That is why in your civ pro, you were taught that if the pleading in the parties dont tender a issue, your remedy is either summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings. Both of these doesnt contemplate any factual issue, so that trial is no longer necessary and the cases will be submitted on the basis of the legal issue which remains to be resolved. What are the kinds of evidence? Direct and Circumstantial Direct- directly proves a fact in issue without any inference from other established facts. Now, example. Testimony of an eye witness. In a case for murder, a witness will testify that on such date and time, he saw the accused killed the victim. That is a direct evidence because it directly proves a fact in issue. And the fact is issue here is WON the accused killed the victim. Okay now. Circumstantial- the opposite of direct evidence. It indirecty proves a fact in issue by the aid of inference from other established facts. So a circumstantial evidence, while it may prove a fact in issue collaterally, it needs as a precondition of other facts before a circumstantial evidence can serve its purpose of indirectly proving a fact in issue. There are 3 classifications circumstantial evidence:
Antecedent circumstances- circumstances that happened before the fact in issue

occurred. So in a crime of murder, the antecedent circumstances are circumstances which happened before the crime was committed. But being a circumstantial evidence, these antecedent evidence may indirecty prove the fact in issue which is murder by the aid of inference from other established facts. Example: Motive- arises before the occurrence of the killing. If one has the motive to kill, it must have existed before the actual killing. If it can be established that before the death of Mr Benigian that he had a very violent quarrel with Mr. Gabuya because they fiercely competed for the attention of Ms. Espiritu. So, the violent quarrel could be a motive of the actual killing of Mr. Benigian by Mr Gabuya. Okay now, these could establish indirectly the fact in issue by the aid of inference from other established facts. What are the other established facts? The quarrel. Since circumstantial evidence depends from other established facts, it is necessary therefore that if you are the proponent, you need to prove first the truth of that other fact; in this case, the violent quarrel. Once you can prove the truth that a day before the killing Mr Benigian and Mr Gabuya had a quarrel, you have the circumstantial evidence of motive.
Page22

Motive cannot be a direct evidence because motive alone does not prove the killing unlike a witness who saw the accused killed the victim. Plan or habit or design- if Mr Benigian is in the habit of molesting women, that could be considered circumstantial if recently convicted of molestation. Character of a personExample Murder--As a prosecutor you can establish the fact that the accused has violent tendencies. So you can invoke that he has been in so many violent fights.
Contemporaneous- circumstances occurring at the time of the fact in issue.

So in a murder case typical example of this is opportunity of the accused. The prosecutor can prove that that at the precise time that the killing took place, the accused was found within the same house where the killing took place. Its not a direct evidence because his presence doesnt directly prove that he killed the victim but it only tends to prove the probability of the fact in issue which is WON the accused killed the victim. Alibi- this is another form of contemporaneous circumstantial evidence. Opportunity is circumstantial evidence that tends to prove the fact in issue. Alibi on the other hand is also a circumstantial evidence but opposite to opportunity because it tends to disprove a fact in issue.
Subsequent circumstance- a circumstantial evidence which took place after the

occurrence of the fact in issue. Murder again. A typical example is: Flight- the accused took flight. This is the flight took place after the fact in issue. Offer of compromise/ payment/ apologies- if after the rape, Mr. Benigian offered apology to the victim, that is a circumstantial evidence classified under subsequent circumstance. Properties left in the crime scene- the underwear of Mr benigian was left there in the crime scene embroidered with a name Dodge Benegian. That is a circumstantial evidence considered or classified under subsequent circumstance. Prima facie and Conclusive Prima facie- standing alone uncontroverted is sufficient to establish a fact in issue or proposition sought to be proven. So it is a kind a kind of evidence, although it can be overcome, although it can be controverted and rebutted but if it is allowed to stand uncontroverted, unchallenged, it is sufficient to prove a fact in issue.
Page22

Example: in the presumption that one in possession of the stolen item is the thief, if youre the prosecutor and you can prove that the accused was in possession of the stolen item and these fact remains unrebutted because the accused never explained how he came in the possession of the stolen property, the presumption stands and the evidence stands. That is prima facie evidence. Therefore, it is enough to convict for failure to controvert the prima facie evidence. Conclusive- evidence which is incontrovertible and cannot be overcome. Cannot the rebutted. Example: DNA results which says that the purported parent could not be the parent of the child. So when the DNA yields a negative result, that is a conclusive evidence and theres no another evidence available to contradict. So conclusive as to the fact of non- paternity. Negative and Positive Positive- when a witness declares, confirms than an event had happened or took place. Negative- when a witness says that the fact or event did not take place or happen. Take note: as between the positive and negative evidence, as thru the probative value, the court are inclined to give more weight to a possible evidence than negative evidence. Typical type of negative evidence are denial and alibi. So when a person is accused of committing a crime, the defence of the accused saying that i did not do it is a negative evidence. If the complainant accuses the accused of committing a crime, that is a positive evidence. As between them, the courts are inclined to believe the testimony of a witness who testifies of alternative matter. So thats why you often heard that alibi and denial are the weakest of all evidences. Relevant, Material and Competent Relevant- which has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or no existence. So it has a connection to the fact sought to be established that the presentation of the evidence may either prove the existence or non existence of the fact in issue. Relevancy is governed by the law of logic, common sense and human experience. So this is not governed by any positive law. So the question is: is it reasonable? Is it logical? is it in accordance with human experience? Example in a case of reckless driving. The prosecution, to prove that the incident was the proximate result of the negligent of the fault of the driver, the prosecution present as his witness saying that few hours before the incident in question, the accused was so drunk from a drinking spree in the party. Now, in the determination of WON the testimony of that witness that the driver was drunk, the prosecutor should ask these questions, is it logical and reasonable that a drunk driver could possibly cause the incident? Now, common sense would tell us, human experience and reason would tell us that a drunk person has a diminished capacity so it is reasonable to conclude that he could be responsible in the incident. Being drunk is relevant evidence because it has a relation to the fact in issue which is WON the driver was at fault resulting the incident in question.
Page22

Material- directed to prove a fact in issue. You present evidence. Evidence in order to prove a fact in issue. So that when you present evidence that doesnt prove a fact in issue, that is not material. Example. In an action for collection of sums of money which was filed based on a PN. So the plaintiff, appended to his complaint a copy of his promissory note, in civpro, in denying an actionable document, the defendant either admits or denies the allegations in the complaint. If you admit it, you say you admit it. If you deny it there are 2 ways of denying the allegations in a complaint. Either you deny it specifically and state the truth. Or deny because of lack of information sufficient to form a belief as to the as to the truth or falsity in the allegation. Also, an actionable document must be denied under oath. So if you are the defendant and you interposed that the document isnt genuine, you are to deny it under oath. Now, suppose the defendant failed to deny it under oath. The effect is that there is an implied admission so the defendant can no longer question the genuiness of the PN because he already admitted the due execution of the PN. So if you present forgery expert from the NBI saying that your signature appearing therein is forged, it is already an immaterial evidence because it is directed to prove a fact which is no longer an issue because due execution of the PN has already been admitted. Now, when is there an issue of fact? When a plaintiff alleges a fact and the defendant denies. Competent and Cumulative Competent- when it is not excluded by the rules/law. Meaning allowed and accepted by the rules. So if the evidence specifically excluded, its not a competent evidence. Example a hearsay evidence or a secondary evidence presented without accounting to the original. Cumulative evidence- additional evidence of the same kind and character but tending to prove the same point. Example in a prosecution for a crime of murder. There were 5 witnesses who saw the actual shooting. The 1st witness testified as to how he witnessed the evidence. The 2nd, 3rd 4th and 5th testimony will be considered as cumulative evidence because their testimonies are of the same nature and character as to the first and all of them tend to prove the same point or fact. Corroborative- also an additional evidence but of different nature and character while although it tends to prove the same point. Example: Rape. Victim testified as to the circumstance surrounding the commission of the crime that is the evidence supplied by the victim herself that she was raped. The prosecution to corroborate the testimony of the victim took the testimony of the medico legal armed with her findings. The testimony of the medico legal and the report that he prepared based on the examination is a corroborative evidence because it is of different kind and character because the medico legal officer isnt an eye witness to the crime but an expert who happened to examine the victim after the crime. ADMISSIBILITY
Page22

How does evidence suppose to serve its purpose as a means of ascertaining the truth of respecting a matter of fact? An evidence for it to serve its purpose of ascertaining the truth has to go through 2 basic tests. TEST 1. Admissibility 2. Weight & Sufficiency The evidence must pass these two tests otherwise the evidence will not serve its intended purpose. What is admissibility and what is the test of weight and sufficiency? ADMISSIBILITY simply refers to the stage of the trial where the evidence is presented in court and accepted by the court. What does one accomplish when the evidence is admitted by the court? The benefit that the proponent achieves when the evidence formally offered is admitted by the court is that, the court now is bound, oblige, to consider the evidence. On the other hand, if your evidence does not pass through the test of admissibility because it is either irrelevant or it is incompetent it will not be admitted by the court, the evidence will not be considered by the court even if it forms part of the record of the case because you physically submit it to the court but court will not consider it in the resolution of the case because it has not been admitted. In other words, what you achieve when your evidence is admitted is that the court is obligated, required to evaluate it, to look at it with scrutinizing eye. That is only what you achieve when your evidence passes through the test of admissibility. Take note however that, the evidence is admitted does not necessarily follow that the court will give credit or weight with your evidence. It does not follow that since the evidence is admitted it already produces the effect of proof. Because in evidence, admissibility is one thing, weight and sufficiency is entirely different thing. Ok so what happens now, when your evidence is admitted the court is not obliged to consider it or evaluate it, you know that. The process of evaluation now involves the test on weight and sufficiency. In admitting the evidence the only concern of the court is whether or not the evidence is relevant and competent. If it is relevant and competent then the court has to admit it. But when the evidence goes through the process of weight and sufficiency, the concern of the court is different. The concern of the court is whether or not this evidence that I already admitted, this evidence that I am bound to consider, are this evidence sufficient, trustworthy, believable, such that the court can form a judgment on the basis of this evidence. So it is now a question of whether or not it is sufficient and whether or not it is believable. So for your evidence to serve its purpose of as a means of ascertaining the truth, it must pass through admissibility and weight and sufficiency. It is
Page22

not enough that your evidence is admitted by the court but most importantly, your evidence must pass through the test of weight and sufficiency. When is evidence admissible? Relevancy and competency. Now take note, under our own rules, the requisites for admissibility are relevancy and competency. You will note earlier that I also classified under their category material evidence. What about if the evidence is relevant but not material? What about if the evidence is relevant and competent but not material? Is it admissible? Is materiality an element for admissibility? in our own rules we have only two, materiality is not there! One author says that it is possible that the evidence is relevant but not material. So you do not equate relevancy with materiality because these are 2 different things. Specific example is a situation where, in an action for a collection of sums of money and the defendant failed to deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of a promissory not from where the action is based. The presentation of evidence tending to prove forgery could be a relevant evidence but not material it is relevant because forgery has a connection to the fact in issue in the collection suit. The fact in issue in a collection suit is whether or not the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff so that if the defendant can prove forgery in the promissory note then it has reasonable probative value that maybe the defendant is not indebted to the plaintiff because the promissory note is forged. So reason, common sense, will tell us that there is reasonable connection between the fact of forgery and the fact in issue whether or not the debt existed, because the defendant will move that the promissory note is falsified, chances are no obligation. That is relevant evidence but is it material? It is not because genuineness and due execution is not an issue in the case. it is not an issue in the case because failure to deny it under oath. So this is a situation where an evidence is relevant but not material. Now another example, in an action for collection for sums of money, in his answer the defendant interposes the defense that, he did not owe him a thing, he did not obtain money from the plaintiff, he did not completely contracted the obligation. During the trial the defendant presented an acknowledgement receipt, proving to show that he already paid his obligation to the plaintiff. In an action for collection for sums of money where the issue is whether or not the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff, that receipt is relevant, because if you can present proof of payment then necessarily, logically, the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant because the defendant has already paid his indebtedness. Logical, common sense, but this is not material, why? Because this is not an issue in the case because the defendants defense as alleged in the answer is he did not obtain anything from the plaintiff. So evidence of payment is immaterial, because the payment is not an issue in the case because the defendant denied having obtained
Page22

indebtedness. So this will illustrate the situation where the evidence is relevant but not material. So going back to my question. Is materiality one of the elements of admissibility? In his book, justice cosca herrerra said, the trend now is that, relevancy is composed of two components. In other words when we talk of relevancy we are actually talking about an evidence which has a probative value and evidence which is material. Just a component of relevancy, that is the trend now although this goes against the very provision our own rules of court, our rules on evidence, because our rules of evidence expressly provide only for relevancy and competency and relevancy there as defined refers only to probativeness it does not refer to materiality. Relevancy under our rules is defined as evidence that has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. This is essentially the concept of probative value, probativeness. So to reconcile this Id like to believe that our concept of relevancy already subsumed the concept of materiality there otherwise it would appear that our requirement for admissibility limited only to relevancy and competency. That is very absurd, because its possible that the evidence passes through relevancy and competency but it is not material. The requirements of admissibility are expressed in the maxim of none but facts having rational probative value are admissible, thats the axiom of relevancy. Second, all which have rational probative value are admissible, except when some specific rules forbid, the axiom of competency. 3 RULES or KINDS ON ADMISSIBILITY 1. Multiple Admissibility 2. Conditional Admissibility 3. Curative Admissibility CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY Conditional admissibility is a principle which applies to a situation where at first blush evidence presented is irrelevant but its relevance will be established when that same evidence is connected with other evidence yet to be presented. Initially you present the evidence, at the surface, it is not relevant it has no connection at all to the fact in issue. So obviously the counsel of the other party will object, objection your honor, that evidence is inadmissible because it is not relevant. What will you do if you are the proponent of that evidence which seems to be at first blush irrelevant? What do you do there? You will invoke the principle of conditional admissibility. You will tell the court that your honor although this evidence at first blush is seem to be irrelevant. But under the rule on conditional admissibility we ask that may I be allowed to present this evidence subject to its being connected to the other evidence that I will present later. So there is now a condition the court in the meantime will allow you or the proponent to present that evidence although apparently it is not relevant subject to the condition that relevance of this evidence will be established when taken together with the other evidence yet to be presented. Specific example
Page22

here is for example, A obtained a loan from B, and for that purpose A executed a promissory note so A is the borrower B is the lender. In turn B the lender assigned his credit to C evidenced by a deed of assignment. Then C assigned that credit to D. so the credit of B who originally owns the credit the right to collect the debt from A was transferred twice from B to C then C to D so there are now 4 parties there the borrower A the first lender B and then the transferees C and D when A failed to pay him an action for collection of sum of money was filed this time by D because he is now the present possessor of the credit. In turn he states D the present holder of the promissory note presented C as his witness to testify that the credit was assigned to D at first if you look at the testimony of C in relation to his transaction with D it appears that D has no cause of action against A because there is no connection between A and D. so at that precise moment the counsel for A may object to the testimony of C because this is irrelevant by virtue of conditional admissibility the proponent will ask the court to be allowed temporarily that the testimony of C be conditionally admitted because you will present later on B who will establish that C obtained the credit from B and B will in turn establish or testify that he obtained the loan from A. the presentation of all these witnesses will now establish the connection and taken altogether these pieces of evidence are now there. What happens when the proponent fails to connect the otherwise irrelevant evidence conditionally admitted?
The evidence which was conditionally admitted may be striken off the record for failure to connect because there the evidence is irrelevant so therefore inadmissible. MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY Multiple admissibility is a rule when an evidence is admissible of 2 or more purposes. You know you will realize as we go on that if you offer an evidence you have to state its specific purpose because the evidence can be admitted only for that purpose only. Now its possible that the evidence is admissible for 2 or more purposes you have to specify which purpose or if you intend to offer it in evidence for purposes of all these 2 or more purposes then you have to specify if not all then you have to specify the purpose otherwise it will not be admitted because the court will not be able to appreciate it whether it is admissible if the purpose is not specified. This is illustrated in the case of UNIWIDE SALES V. TITANIKEDA, this is a dispute between a contractor and the owner of the project involving 3 construction projects. When the owner of the project failed to pay certain amount the contractor sued went to court and filed an action for collection of sum of money arising from these construction contracts. In his answer the contractor interposed counterclaims liquidated damages against the contractor he alleges that the contractor failed to complete the project and incurred delay in the construction of the project. During the trial in order to prove that the project was completed, the contractor presented the project engineer to prove that the project indeed was completed on a specific day. The purpose of the testimony of the project engineer was specified in the offer and that was purpose is to prove the fact that the project was completed so the fact of completion was the purpose of the testimony of the engineer. The adverse party took advantage of the admission made by the project engineer that the project was completed on a certain date it turned out that the date of completion was way beyond the date of completion stipulated in the contract. So taking advantage of that admission the adverse party argued that your own project engineer admitted the fact of delay because while
Page22

it was completed on a certain date it was completed way beyond the stipulated period. The SUPREME COURT said cannot be, because the purpose of the testimony of the project engineer was only to prove the fact of completion and therefore it cannot be used to prove the fact of delay. Multiple admissibility if the evidence is admitted for one purpose it can only be admitted for that purpose alone. CURRATIVE ADMISSIBILTY Curative admissibility as a rule by the way this is also known as fight fire with fire, this is a situation where the court erroneously admitted an otherwise inadmissible or incompetent evidence. If this happens the adverse party is entitled to present an equally inadmissible evidence and the court is bound to accept it. In other words if the court allowed or admitted an inadmissible evidence from one party it should also allow an equally inadmissible evidence submitted by the other party. Purpose, fairness. Take note however that for this curative admissibility to apply the adverse party, meaning the party against whom the inadmissible evidence was adduced should have objected to the admission of the inadmissible evidence. If he failed to object the admission of the inadmissible evidence and the court eventually admitted it the party cannot interpose an equally inadmissible evidence. Reason, the right to object to the inadmissibility of evidence is not self- executory it has to be invoked by the party entitled to it failure, failure to invoke, failure to object the admission of the inadmissible evidence results to waiver. So that party has no right to complain with the admission of the inadmissible evidence. So that in a case where the plaintiff to prove his allegation in the complaint introduces, so for example in an action for a collection for a sum of money plaintiff alleges that the defendant owed him 1 M to prove that allegation the plaintiff offered as evidence a photocopy of a promissory note without accounting for the original under the best evidence rule that photocopy is inadmissible without accounting for the original but despite the objection of the defendant the court erroneously admitted the otherwise inadmissible photocopy of the promissory note. How does the rule on curative inadmissibility work?
In this situation the defendant now objected to the admission of the photocopy of the promissory note under curative admissibility he is entitled to present a photocopy of a receipt without also accounting for the original to prove that he already paid the loan mentioned in the promissory note. So since the court erroneously admitted a photocopy of the promissory note it is also obliged to admit a photocopy of a receipt that is curative admissibility for the other party is entitled to adduce an equally inadmissible evidence to controvert the already admitted inadmissible evidence. Lets go to the second element of Admissibility, COMPETENCY. An evidence is competent when it is not excluded by the law or by the rules. So for an evidence to be considered incompetent there has to be a specific law or rule which excludes it. So the interrelation of evidence is whether or not it is based on the rules or law. So in our jurisdiction we have various exclusionary rules. There are exclusionary rules based on the constitution, there are some exclusionary rules based on special laws, there are exclusionary
Page22

rules based on the rules of court. All these specifically, forbid the admission or expressly exclude the admission of specific types of evidence. EXCLUSIONARY RULES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION 1. Rules relating to evidence relating to the admission of evidence obtained in violation on ones constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure 2. Evidence obtained in relation to ones constitutional right to privacy and inviolability of communication 3. Evidence obtained investigation in violation of persons constitutional rights during custodial
4. Evidence obtained in violation of a persons constitutional right against self incrimination Generally if the evidence is obtained in violation of any of this constitutional right general rule is evidence in inadmissible therefore it is incompetent and therefore it is inadmissible. SEARCH AND SEIZURE As a general rule, no search and seizure can be conducted except with a valid search warrant. You know already the requirements of a valid search warrant; requirements for the judge to issue search warrant, the procedure in applying for a search warrant and the issuance of a search warrant. There are however exceptions to the requirements of the judicial warrants because the constitution provides for this and ah allows instances valid warrantless search or serach without warrant but nonetheless valid. 1. Search incident to a lawful arrest 2. Search of moving vehicle 3. Search in plain view 4. Custom search 5. Waiver on the part of person searched 6. Stop and friske 7. Urgency 8. Airport security check SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST This contemplates of a situation where the search is effected as an incident to a lawful arrest. So in most cases if not all what results here is an arrest without warrant resulting to a search without
Page22

warrant. Thats the ideal situation contemplated by the rule on search incidental to a lawful arrest so in short the search there should be preceded by a valid warrantless arrest. When may a warrantless arrest be effected?
Under the rules on criminal procedure there are 3 instances where a warrantless arrest maybe effected. 1. Inflagrante arrest When the person has committed, about to commit, is actually committing in the presence of the police officer. 2. Hot pursuit arrest The offense has just been committed and arresting officer has reasonable ground or has personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed the crime. 3. Arrest of a fugitive person The first and the second both require personal knowledge but not the same personal knowledge. The first, inflagrante arrest will require personal knowledge on the part of the arresting officer that the crime has just been committed or is about to be committed, or is actually being committed. Personal knowledge of the arresting officer of the commission of the crime without personal knowledge no warrantless arrest can be effected under the first category. On the other hand hot pursuit arrest also requires personal knowledge but the personal knowledge is not on the commission of the offense but personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed the crime so thats the distinction there. So in the second the arresting officer need not have personal knowledge of the commission of the crime only facts and circumstances indicating that the arrested has indeed committed the crime. You have the cases of people v. Aminudin etc. the principle laid down in this cases is that for warrantless arrest to be valid under the first category, the police officer must have personal knowledge of some overt acts of the person sought to be arrested that the person to be arrested is committing, about to commit or is actually committing the crime so that in the Aminudin the supreme court declared the search as well as the arrest invalid because aminudin there the accused was arrested and then searched while he was just alighting in the gangplank of mv osamis. Mv osamis from Mindanao and while she was descending the gangplank he was arrested by the police operatives and then searched. The supreme court said there was nothing wrong in the act of alighting in the gangplank the person there was not committing a crime, no warrantless arrest under the first category. Invalid arrest, invalid search.
Page22
Mengote was somebody who stood at the corner of the street holding his bulging stomach while looking side to side the supreme court said there was nothing wrong with somebody standing in the corner of the street holding his abdomen while looking side to side. Illegal arrest, illegal search. Basic principle there no overt acts indicative of the commission of the crime.

What about if the situation is the reverse? The search preceding the arrest because its obvious that if the arrest effected ahead of the search the arresting officer should have personal knowledge that the crime is about to be committed, has been committed or is actually commiting. Overt acts indicative of the crime. Take note that in warrantless search it is not required that the arresting officer has personal knowledge of the commission of the crime what is required is probable cause, reasonable suspicion that the person to be searched may have committed the offense or in possession of some contraband or illegal merchandise. No requirement of personal knowledge only probable cause. Take note that in search incidental to lawful arrest tipped information from a reliable source is not enough but in search tipped information may constitute probable cause specially if the description given by the informant is confirmed by the arresting officer the moment they spotted the person identified in the information. So when the informant described in detail the personal circumstances of the person so they search and this description fits in and they saw that it fits the description given so there is probable cause, reasonable suspicion that this person is the one referred to by the informant. Search may then conducted. Even if no personal knowledge. People v. quibral. EVIDENCE Transcription December 8, 2010 Part 1
In our jurisdiction there are various exclusionary rules that govern the competency or incompetency of a piece of evidence. The sources of these exclusionary rules could be the constitution, legislation, special laws, and the rules of court. Lets go to exclusionary rules under the constitution. The exclusionary rules under the constitution relate to the following bill of rights enumerated under Art. III. 1. Person's right against unreasonable search and seizure. 2. Person's right available during custodial investigation 3. Person's right to privacy and inviolability of communication 4. Right against self incrimination. Lets go to search and seizure. The principle there is a search and seizure can only be validly conducted when there is a validly issued judicial warrant. Search and seizure presupposes a valid search warrant.
Page22

But there are recognized exceptions where a search and seizure may be effected even without a valid warrant: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Search incident to a lawful arrest Search under plain view doctrine search of moving vehicle Custom's search Consented search Search in airports Stop and frisk search
I call your attention more specifically to search incident to a lawful arrest. This needs more elaboration given the emerging trend of our jurisprudence regarding the matter. Search incident to a lawful arrest presupposes a situation where the person searched has been first arrested. The lawful arrest contemplated there is a lawful warrantless arrest. You consult your criminal procedure there are instances when a valid warrantless arrest can be effected: 1. In flagrante arrest 2. Hot pursuit 3. Arrest of a fugitive from justice In in flagrante arrest and hot pursuit, both require personal knowledge. The distinction however lies in the fact that in in flagrante arrest, the personal knowledge there, on the part of the arresting officer should pertain to the commission of the crime. The police officer should have personal knowledge that a crime is about to be committed, is being committed or has just been committed. Without the personal knowledge, no in flagrante arrest can be effected. On the other hand, arrest in hot pursuit scenario requires personal knowledge also, but unlike in in flagrante arrest, the personal knowledge here does not pertain to the commission of the crime but rather personal knowledge of circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed an offense. So only personal knowledge of the facts constituting probable cause that the person to be arrested has committed the offense. But both require personal knowledge. In Aminudin, Mengote and kindred cases, the principle there is that a valid warrantless arrest under in flagrante arrest requires that there must be some overt acts on the part of the person to be arrested showing that the person to be arrested has committed or is about to commit or has just committed and offense. So that applying that in Aminudin, the accused there was arrested while alighting from a vessel from Osamis, which arrived in Cebu going to the gangplank and arrested by the police.
Page22

The SC said there that there was nothing wrong with a person walking or going down from a vessel, passing through a gangplank and therefore the accused was not deemed to have committed an offense when the arrest was effected. The SC said there that the search was illegal because the arrest was illegal. So no valid search incident to a lawful arrest because in the first place the arrest was illegal. Similarly in Mengote where the accused there was just standing in the corner with a bulging abdomen and looking side to side, he was arrested! The SC said that there was nothing wrong with someone standing in a corner with a bulging EYE looking from side to side. No overt act that Mengote was about to commit, is committing or has just committed an offense. The search effected after the arrest was illegal because the arrest was illegal. So that is the settled principle as strengthened and reinforced by jurisprudence. In a scenario where there is a search incident to a lawful arrest. The problem is, what about if the search precedes the arrest? Meaning the reverse! You may encounter jurisprudence there that arrest should come first before the search and it cannot be reversed. But suppose it is the reverse search first, arrest later. When the search yields positive results arrest is made. Both warrantless. Take note that for purposes of search it is not required that the searching officer has personal knowledge of the commission of a crime. Take note! It is not a requirement that the searching officer has personal knowledge that a person to be searched has committed an offense. What is only required is probable cause. Facts and circumstances that would engender a well founded belief that a person to be search has in him the possession of illegal effects in violation of some existing rules. So that under this scenario, TIP information from reliable sources, police informant for example, at times considered by the Supreme Court as sufficient to constitute probable cause to justify a warrantless search. I call your attention to the case of People vs Quebral. In that case the police operatives got a call from the PDEA, informing them that based on the report of the informant, two men and a woman would deliver prohibited drugs locally known as shabu to a known drug pusher at a particular petron station somewhere. The following day the police operatives had a briefing, they proceeded to the area where the delivery of the shabu was reported to take place. Two men and a woman in a jeep arrived at he gasoline station, minutes later a toyota tamaraw arrived also, the driver alighted and walked towards the woman in the jeep. The woman handed a white envelope to the driver of the tamaraw fx, thereupon, seeing this the operatives swooped down on the accused. One of the police operatives took the white envelope, opened it and yielding shabu. They were arrested and prosecuted for violation of the dangerous drugs law. Convicted by the trial court, the case went all the way up to the Supreme Court. The main argument raised by the
Page22

accused there was that they said there was nothing wrong with them riding a jeepney, staying at the gasoline station and handing a white envelope to the other. There was no overt acts constitutive of a crime. In short they were saying that they were not committing any offense when they were arrested by the police operative. Taking their cue from the case of Aminudin and other kindred cases. The SC said actually this is a case where the search precedes the arrest. It is the reverse. The SC said that when the police operatives confirmed the presence of two men and a woman and the driver and the notorious drug pusher at the gas station, they confirmed the information relayed by their informant. All these facts taken together constitute probable cause that justifies the warrantless search. And because the warrantless search yielded positive result the subsequent warrantless arrest is also legal. The SC went on to distinguish that case from the case of Aminudin: 1. In Aminudin the police operatives had two days from the time they got their information from the informant. Two days before Aminudin arrived in Cebu. So the SC said that there was sufficient time to secure the necessary judicial warrant. In the case of Quebral they were briefed in the morning, the search and arrest took place 4pm. The SC said there was no sufficient time to secure a search warrant because of the exigencies of the situation. 2. Unlike in Aminudin where the name of the accused was known and the description of all his personal circumstances were known, in Quebral, the information they got from the informant did not contain/include the specific name of the persons to be search and arrested. So that according to the SC it was practically impossible for the police opeWatives to secure a wawant(warrant) where the person to be searched was not identified by name. It is not possible to secure a warrant to whom it may concern! Otherwise it would be allowing the police officers to search practically anyone, everybody seen by them. So that is how the SC distinguished Quebral from the parameters of the Aminudin. Id like you also to relate this to the case of Ppl vs Lagiuo, the SC there made a definitive pronouncement, although i do not think this is the very lis mota of the controversy but nonetheless the SC said there that you have to distinguish a situation where a search was effected as an incident of a lawful arrest from a situation where the search precedes the arrest. In search incident to a lawful arrest the requirement there is personal knowledge as exemplified in Aminudin and other related cases. But if the search precedes the arrest what is only required is probable cause. And for this purpose a tip information from a reliable source like that of a police informant, if confirmed by the arresting officer, is sufficient to constitute and justified warrantless search.
My concern is, if the Quebral principle will become a doctrine it might open the floodgates of more police abuses. If they can plant evidence, there is no reason why they cannot take advantage of the Quebral ruling. Because if you look at strictly the doctrine enunciated in Aminudin and the rest
Page22
This is now the emerging trend on the matter.

of these cases, it is also difficult for the police to just arrest any suspect of a crime. Maybe they can improve jurisprudence further in your time. So you have that search and seizure, privacy of communication, you take care of that. Custodial investigation. You take care of that because it will require us another semester to discuss thoroughly the subject so i leave it up to you to review your constitutional law. And we have this Right Against Self Incrimination. Basic principle of right against self incrimination is that this applies or this can be invoked in all proceedings. Criminal, civil, and administrative. The only distinction there is that if it criminal or administrative proceedings penal in nature, the person under investigation can altogether refuse to take the witness stand. oK? The reason there being is that when the accused is called to the witness stand by the prosecution, the presumption there is that the prosecutor there will really have to incriminate the accused. So the moment the accused is called to the witness stand the accused may altogether refuse to take the witness stand because he is called there for no other purpose but to incriminate him. Its different there when a person is called to the witness stand in a civil case. Because in a civil case, basically the purpose there is not to establish criminal liability. Civil liability, which is not covered by right against self incrimination. So right against self incrimination is available in a civil case but the only difference there is that the person there or the defendant may invoke the right against self incrimination and refuse to answer any incriminating question when that specific incriminating question is asked. In other words he cannot altogether refuse to take the witness stand. It's different when it is a criminal proceedings. For ordinary witness, not a party, there is no right to refuse altogether to take the witness stand. But in any proceeding, that ordinary witness may invoke self incrimination at the precise moment that incriminating question is asked. Ok now. The rule there is that any evidence obtained in violation of any of these constitutional rights is inadmissible for being poisonous. Take note! That the right to object to the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of this constitutional right belongs to the person whose right is being violated and no other. Take note! This right is personal to the person whose right is being violated. So the objection to admissibility cannot be invoked by a third party even if the admission of that evidence may prejudice that same third party. Because the right to object belongs to the party whose right is violated. Take note of that! Very important. The constitution says that any evidence obtained in violation of these rights is inadmissible for any purpose in ANY proceedings.
Page22

Take note that, that principle applies only if the evidence is offered or presented against the person whose right has been violated. So in ANY proceeding it is not admissible in so far as that person's right has been violated. But it can be admissible for purposes or in any proceeding if it is presented not against the person whose right has been violated. If it is presented against any other person, it is admissible! So that if you sue the police officer for violating your right, search and seizure, there is abuse in the execution of the search warrant, excessive force. Under your criminal law, that constitutes a criminal offense. Employing unnecessary force in the implementation of search warrant. The person aggrieved may file a criminal case against the police officer. The prosecution now may present in evidence the seized items as evidence in the criminal prosecution against the police. That is admissible. Why? Because it is offered against the police, not against the person whose right has been violated. So dont confuse your mind of the erroneous notion that the phrase there in the constitution that it is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding holds as an absolute principle, it is not! The principle there is in so long as it is offered in evidence against the person whose right has been violated, because precisely that is intended for his protection. Lets go to exclusionary rule under some special laws. We have: 1. Anti wiretapping act - penalizes the act of intercepting or otherwise recording in a private conversation the use of any means specified under the law. Any evidence obtained in violation of the provision of the antiwiretapping act is inadmissible. Take note of the following relevant jurisprudence on antiwiretapping act. 1. Gaanan vs CA - An extension telephone line is not covered under the wiretapping act. So that if a private conversation is overheard by a third party, using an extension telephone line, that evidence is admissible. Because according to the SC, an extension line is not among the devices contemplated by law as being prohibited to record or intercept conversation under the antiwiretapping act. 2. Ramirez vs CA - the prohibition covers recorded conversation even if the party violating the provision is one of the parties to the conversation. Take note that in Ramirez vs CA,w hile they had this altercation and in the course of their altercation,the other party allegedly defamed/maligned the other, not knowing that the conversation or altercation was recorded. When prosecuted for violation of antiwiretapping act, the accused rasied the defense that he cannot be punished under the wiretapping act because he is a party to the conversation being recorded. The SC said No! the law does not distinguish. It does not distinguish whether the party responsible for violating the provision is a party to the conversation or not. So it could be anybody. The only requirement there is the recording is done without the consent of the parties to the conversation.
Page22

3. Ppl vs Navaw(r)o - Wiretapping act applieso only if the conversation is private. This case of navaro involves a case for homicide when the police killed a reporter. The killing was preceded by an altercation with the police and the reporter and unknown to both, the companion of the victim, also a reporter. secwetly wecorded the altercation. After the altercation the police killed the victim. When prosecuted for homicide, one of the pieces of evidence introduced by the porsecution was the recorded altercation between the police and victim. The accused objected invoking the provision of the antiwiretapping act. SC said that in the first place the altercation was not a private conversation. Although the SC did not endeavour to define what is a private conversation, but according to Mr. Riano, common sense tells us that private conversation is a conversation which is not intended to be heard by anothher who is not a party to the conversation. That is a private conversation. If it's not intended to be heard only by the parties then it is not private conversation. In this case there was other persons present, other than the parties to the altercation. Take not of the provisions of the Human Security Act. The HSA allows the act of listening to, intercepting or recording of any communication, conversation or messages between 1. Persons who are members of judicially declared and outlawed organization association or group of persons or 2. of any person suspected or charged with crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. Despite the prohibition on the antiwiretapping act, wiretapping or tapping of any conversation or messages is allowed under the parameters prescribed in the Human Security Act. Take note that the provisions in the HSA allowing recording, listening and interception of messages and private conversation and so on does not apply cover conversation between 1. 2. 3. 4. Lawyers and their clients Physician and patients Journalists and sources Confidential business correspondence
The interception listening or recording under the HSA can be done only upon order of the court of appeals. Which order takes effect 30 days extendible to another 30 days. Just review the provisions on Human Security Act. 2. Exclusionary rule under RA8505, Act providing assistance and protection to rape victims. So called Rape Shield Rule. It says there that in any criminal prosecution for rape. Any evidence which tends to prove the past sexual conduct of the victim or any opinion thereof or her sexual reputation is not admissible. Except and only to the extent that the court finds it relevant and material. This is a stupid law. Why would you present sexual, why would you waste time presenting evidence that would tend to prove the victim's past sexual conduct or sexual
Page22

reputation. You don't believe that it is relevant and material. Although it says there, Rape Shield Rule. 3. Exclusionary rule under RA 9262, VAWC law. Sexual Abuse Shield Rule. In any prosecution involving child abuse. Evidence which would tend to prove that the accused engaged in other sexual behavior or evidence that would tend to prove the victim's sexual predisposition, except evidence of specific sexual conduct of the victim to prove that the person other than the accused is the source of the semen, injury or other physical evidence. Take note under in rape shield rule or sexual abuse rule, this can be invoked only criminal prosecution for rape in so far as rape shield rule, and in criminal prosecution for sexual child abuse case in so far as sexual abuse shield rule. So both are criminal prosecution. The rule is specific. 4. Exclusionary rule under special law. RA 1403/1404. The Act prohibiting inquiry or disclosure of bank deposits. Generally inquiring into or disclosure of information regarding bank deposit is prohibited. Any information obtained in violation, inadmissible. You take note of the exceptions, there are so many exceptions. In case of impeachment, in case of bribery, when the bank deposit is subject of litigation, in case of regular audit allowed by the monetary board, etc. 5. Another exclusionary rule is that under section 201 of the internal revenue code. Under the IRC there these so called taxable documents. Documents requiring documentary stamp tax. Common of these are deed of conveyances involving real property, sale or lease of real property, certificate of stocks, bonds, insurance policies, special power of attorney, wills, bill of lading, etc. Whats the rule? For purposes of presenting any or all or some of these documents in evidence, the requirement is the documentary stamp tax should be paid, and this should be evidenced by the stamp being affixed or appended to the document, with an indication that the stamp has been cancelled. This is usually manifested by placing two parallel lines across on the face of the stamp itself. This is to avoid recycling of the stamp. So if you present your evidence classified as taxable documents you need to comply with the requirement of the documentary stamp tax, you have to append the stamp to your evidence. If you present a deed of sale you have to attach the documentary stamp duly cancelled. Ok. In my practice the lawyers never attach a documentary stamp tax on these documents and the courts accept them. Maybe in your time you can try to object on the admission of the documents to this ground. But it will not serve any purpose to you because the rule there is the nonadmissibility of a taxable document for failing to comply with the documentary stamp requirement exists only as long as the requirement is not complied with! In other words, as long as the taxable document did not contain the required stamp, it is not admissible. So that for practical document if you are the proponent of a taxable document and you failed to comply with the doc stamp requirement, and it is objected to, you can always comply later. So in the end it will
Page22

not help you, so maybe just to rattle off your opponent, you can try that. But the rule there is that the court will just have to require the proponent to comply and allow the government to make money. So these are some of the exclusionary rules under special laws. Lets go to exclusionary rules under the rules of court. There are so many! Some of them will be discussed thoroughly as we go along but let me mention the most common. 1. Best evidence rule. Evidence offered in violation of the best evidence rule, inadmissible. 2. Parol Evidence Rule. Document offered in violation of the parol evidence rule, inadmissible. 3. Rule on Authentication. Document not duly otinticated, inadmissible! 4. Hearsay Evidence Rule. Evidence which is hearsay, inadmissible. 5. Offer of compromises in civil cases. Inadmissible 6. The rule on Res Inter Alias Acta Rule. The act of one cannot prejudice another. Inadmissible. 7. The rule on disqualification of witnesses. There are witnesses who are disqualified from testifying. Like wife is disqualified from testifying against the husband because of marital disqualification. Or testimony involving confidential information with a lawyer and client, priest and penitent, and patient and physician. Inadmissible. By virtue of privileged communication. There are so many under rules of evidence. Lets go to Rule 129. As i said evidence is the means to ascertain in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. But not all instances that a party needs to present evidence respecting a matter of fact. Because there are facts established without need for introducing evidence. There are 3 instances: 1. Judicial Notice 2. Judicial Admission 3. Presumptions.
Judicial Notice. The principle of judicial notice is premised on the fact that there are matters that courts or judges ought to know by reason of their judicial function. Take note that the law says the judges OUGHT to know. So even if the judges themselves actually do not know that does not excuse them from taking judicial notice of something because they ought to know the matter. So you have to distinguish judicial notice from personal knowledge of the judge. What is personally known to the judge does not necessarily constitute judicial notice. Matters which the courts are enjoined to take judicial notice do not necessarily mean matters personally known to the courts. So. There are matters which should be taken judicial notice by the court in the
Page22

mandatory character. And there are those which are discretionary. Mandatory, you have that under the rules. You have also the three written under discretionary. You just have to familiarize yourselves. Like the mandatory, the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government, and maritime and admiralty courts of the world. Laws of nature, measure of time. Official acts of legislative, executive, judicial departments of government, geographical divisions. So when the matter involves any of these the courts have no choice but to take judicial notice of them. Now it does not follow that judges actually have knowledge of these facts here. you cannot expect a judge in cebu to be familiar with the political history of serbia and sergovia. Or the form of government of the other countries. What is the court supposed to do when the matter involves mandatory judicial notice and the judge does not actually aware of it. How can he take judicial notice of that matter. Take note that when the matter falls or is a proper subject of judicial notice. you dont need evidence because it is supposedly known to the court. So if you are the judge the matter is mandatory and in all honesty you are not personally aware of this fact. How do you perform your function of taking judicial notice. So there you just have to resort to research materials and inform yourself of the matter. So if the issue there is the political history of a certain country or the territorial extent. How many states of America, you go to the library and research! If there is an issue on whether the one who was crucified was JC or Simon, you refer to the bible. There was a portion there that when JC was carrying the cross he fell down and Simon, a true refined gentleman, offered to carry the burden for JC and yet no provision(verse) there that Simon returned the cross to Jesus Christ. The next thing you knew there somebody was crucified and died. So the issue there is whether the one crucified was JC or Simon, so if you are the judge there you refer to the bible. Or muslim, quoran. Just jokin. harhar. Take note that when the matter falls under DISCRETIONARY Judicial Notice, hearing is required. Now the question is what is that hearing for?? If evidence is not required if the matter is proper to be taken judicial notice of, what is that hearing for? The hearing may be intended for any or both of these purposes. 1. To determine the propriety of taking judicial notice. There is an issue there of whether this can be taken judicial notice of. Like matters of public knowledge. You still have to determine if this matter is really public knowledge. So if the court is in doubt of whether this matter is a public knowledge. The court will conduct a hearing and allow the parties to be heard thereon, to determine if it is really proper to take judicial notice of the matter. Otherwise if the court is convinced that the matter cannot be taken judicial notice of, then allow or require the parties to present evidence. 2. Suppose the court determines that the matter can be properly taken judicial notice. The other purpose is the precise tenor of the judicial notice. So for example, in a case for recovery of a
Page22

slightly used motor vehicle sold by plaintiff to the defendant. The seller/plaintiff wants to recover the motor vehicle because the defendant failed to pay. He promised to pay within the three years but he failed to pay. So he wants now to recover the property. But the property could no longer be recovered. So instead the plaintiff asked for compensation representing the value of the property. So there is now an issue as to the Fair Value of the Motor Vehicle subject of the case. So if you are the court you may decide to take judicial notice of the matter. Maybe this is common knowledge that when a car is 1990 model and its now 2010, then the prevailing price is this much. So the court may in the exercise of its discretion, decide to take judicial notice of the fair value of the property. In case the court is in doubt then he may conduct hearing and allow parties to be heard thereon. Now supposing the court decides to take judicial notice, that he will take judicial notice of the fair value of the motor vehicle which was 1990 model. The problem now is the tenor. How much? The plaintiff would go for higher and the defendant lower amount. So they are now fighting over the tenor of the judicial notice. So, how much? This is now a hearing. What do you do during the hearing. You are not supposed to present evidence during the hearing because this is judicial notice and evidence is dispensed with. So what do you do during the hearing? The parties will provide information to the court as to the Fair Value of the property. How do you do that? You dont present evidence, just INFORMATION. What do you exactly mean by that? Information meaning any material which can be a source of information that would guide and help the court in arriving at a decision as to the fair value of the property. It could be any source of information. It is not evidence. Meaning you do not have to follow the rules on evidence to present this information. So when you are in the hearing you may present a document, for example newspaper, like the ads on second hand cars, you have this list of prices so you can use this as a source of information and you can present this in court. This is not considered as evidence because you do not follow the strict rules of presenting evidence. So you can present it in any form you want. The purpose there is to help the court in arriving at the accurate and fair tenor of the judicial notice. Or you can present pricelist from dealers of secondhand or slightly used cars. That could be a source of information. If you were to follow the rules on evidence, these materials would not be admissible, these are all hearsay. But because these are presented not as evidence but only a source information, no problem. Because that hearing is NOT intended to afford the parties the opportunity to present evidence but only information.
Lets go Judicial Admission. A judicial admission is an admission whether written or oral, made by a party in the course of proceedings in the same case.
Take note.
Page22

1. It should be made by a party 2. It should be made in the proceedings of the same case where the admission is made. It is made in the case where it is used. That admission should be used in the same case it is made So that if the admission is made in the course of proceeding but in another case, that is not a judicial admission, only extra judicial admission. So if that admission was made in branch 1, if you use that admission in the case pending in branch 2, that admission is extrajudicial. A judicial admission is an admission made in branch 2 and used in the case of branch 2, that very same case where the admission is made. It should be made by a party. Question: What about the admission of counsel? The rule is admission of counsel is admission of the client because the lawyer is the agent of client. Exception there is when the admission prejudices the right of the client. What about the admission of a witness? When you are a party to a case, you may prove your case by presenting witness. That witness may not be yourself but some other 3rd parties who are not parties to the case. Question: What about your witness who is not a party to the case makes an admission in court which is prejudicial to you? Does it take the form of a judicial admission so that that admission which is prejudicial to you is conclusive upon the party who calls him as a witness? The rule says judicial admission is that which is made by a party. So if you look at the rules strictly, it does not cover an admission made by a witness. Now if you present a witness class. You vouch to the honesty and credibility of your witness. Of course you are there for the truth so you should present yourself as an honest person and you should present a witness who will prove your case, who is supposed to be an honest witness. So that if your witness testifies in court his testimony will benefit you because you are the one calling him as your witness in support of your case. But there are times when your witness would make admissions prejudicial to your cause. What happens? Will that bind you? When you are the one calling him? The rule is the party calling the witness cannot impeach his own witness. What does that mean? You cannot contradict your own witness. Because in calling him you vouch the integrity and honesty of this witness. When you present your witness you are in effect telling the court that your honor whatever this witness will tell you is true, because he is like me, an honest person. So when something goes wrong when your witness testifies in court you cannot later on say, that witness is a LIAR! So in effect it would appear that you are bound by the testimony of your witness because you are not permitted to contradict him. So what do you do when your witness surprisingly makes admission/testimony prejudicial to you? The rule is you cannot impeach your own witness.
Page22

What do you do when your witness turns against you? The rule provides for a remedy. When this happens your remedy is to have your witness declared as a hostile witness! When he becomes a hostile witness by declaration by the court you can now impeach him. You can now contradict him. And you can now disown him. So in effect while literally judicial admission is an admission made by a party, essentially an admission made by a witness is a judicial admission. The same effect results. Contd JUDICIAL ADMISSION Admission by a witness is also a judicial admission even if the RULEs (of court) made mention only of admission by a party. - When you present a witness you vouch for the truthfulness and honesty of the witness. As a rule you cannot impeach your own witness. - What if he testifies against you? The remedy is to have him declared a HOSTILE WITNESS by court declaration. After that, you can now contradict and disown him. JUDICIAL ADMISSION v. EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION Judicial Admission was made in the course of judicial proceeding of the same case where it is used Conclusive and binding upon the admitter, hence it cannot be contradicted by the admitter himself (other party is not bound) Needs no evidence or proof as far as the admitter is concerned; it need not be offered as evidence Extrajudicial Not made in the same case where it is offered though made in the course of judicial proceeding or may be out of court admission. Can be contradicted by other evidence as it not deemed conclusive There is need of proof and for it to be formally offered in evidence.
Instances when admissions may be contradicted 1. When made through palpable mistake 2. That no such admission was made as when it is taken out of context 3. Gardner Case. Testimony in open court adverse to ones own interest. Atillo v CA Atillo was owner of Amancor, Lhuillier then purchased shares of stocks of Amancor. When Amancor was sued for collection of it corporate debt by Metrobank, Atillo demanded the payment from Lhuillier alleging that Lhuillier assumed the corporate debt. Atillo claimed that by Judicial admission Lhuillier affirmed his personal liability as shown in their agreement, I will personally answer the obligation with the condition that it will be a set off to Lhuilliers stock purchase. Mr. Lhuillier admitted that he was dealing personally with Atillo. SC: Atillo took the admission out of context when he alleged that Lhuillier admitted he personally dealt with him hence Lhuillier is personally liable to him . The personal liability admission of Lhuillier pertains to his stock purchases and not to the corporate debt payment. Lhuillier even categorically denied in his answer the personal assumption of the
Page22

corporate debt. There was actually NO admission made by Lhuillier as it is out of context. Mr. Lhuillier cannot be held personally liable. Gardner v. Deogracias Petitioner filed for declaration of nullity, rescission of sale and damages on grounds of simulated, fictitious and no consideration against Santos et. al. in his answer, Santos posits that the transaction is a conditional sale, in effect saying that it is valid. But when Santos testified in court, a complete turnaround happened when he admitted that the sale is simulated without consideration. SC: The testimony prevails over the answer since it is more credible as it is done against his own interest (this is peculiar circumstance). An answer is only a mere statement of fact. GR: NO need of evidence in Judicial Admissions ( may be in pleadings, oral manifestations, testimonies, depositions, etc) Exception (when evidence needs to be presented): 1. Rule 23, Secs 6 & 8 Depositions (containing admissions for it to be considered by the court) need to be formally offered in evidence and the adverse party may object to it. Deposition- common justification is when the witness resides in more than 100 km from court. This is taken out of court and considered as judicial admission. 2. Rule 116, Sec 3 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure - When accused pleads guilty to a capital offense the court is mandated to conduct a searching inquiry as to the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and directs the prosecution to establish his guiltevidence shall then have to be presented. 3. Rule 26, Sec 3Effect of Admission after request for admission by the adverse party. An admission made by a party pursuant to the request is for the purpose of the pending action only and shall not constitute an admission by him for any other purpose nor the same be used against him in any other proceeding. It cannot be use even as an extrajudicial admission, since the prohibition is very categorical and absolute. 4. Rule 10, Sec 5 (ROC) Amendments The amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends but whatever admissions in the superseded pleading may be received in evidence (Sec. 8, Rule 10). The admissions in the superseded pleading now become extrajudicial when used, that needs to be formally offered. Admissions in the old and new pleading might be contradictory. This seemed to contradict with Elayda. There is no conflict with Elayda Case and Rule 10 for once there is amendment, the judicial pleading becomes extrajudicial, and you can now contradict. An issue not raised in the pleading but raised on trial, there can be amendment to conform to evidence allowing the party to contradict his pleading by presenting a contrary evidence!! (Rule 15??) for so long as there is (1) no objection and the (2) interest of justice is subserved. PRESUMPTIONS
Page22

PRE-MIDTERMS TRANSCRIBED BY: ATON, Carla. ESPIRITU, Leah. SALVA, Carlo. ARANAS, Kim. The fact is established without need of evidence; inference from established facts. Dispenses only the evidence in so far as the ultimate fact is concern but there is still need to present evidence to prove the fact where inference is founded. Does not necessarily excuse the party invoking presumption from presenting evidence. Maglaya v. Angeles Doctrine: There is still need to prove the basic fact where the presumption is based. The petitioner in this case alleged that the respondent was not able to present evidence to prove that she is illegitimate (she insists she is legit therefore should be appointed as administratrix). Having been born during the marriage of her mother and the deceased, she is presumed legitimate. The basic fact of marriage in this case should have been proved first by the petitioner, before petitioner makes presumption that she is legitimate, this, she failed to do so. Effect of presumption: does not take the place of evidence it only affects the burden of proof. They still have to prove the basic facts. 2 kinds of Presumption
1. Conclusive Presumption cannot be controverted by other evidence 1.1 Estoppel in Pais when a person by his acts intentionally misled others to believe that
his acts are truthful. When a third party has acted based on his representation, he who made the representation cannot take a position contradictory to his representations during a dispute arising from the representation. Ex. When you have already received benefit from a contract which in reality is inexistent, you have to make good of it as it now becomes conclusive to you. You cannot later on deny responsibility and assail its legality. You are now estopped.
1.2 Estoppel by Laches unreasonable delay in invoking a right leading a third party to
believe that nothing is wrong, prevents you from seeking relief in court.
1.3 Existence of Landlord-Tenant relationship the tenant cannot assail better ownership
right than the landlord. Datalift Movers v. Belgravia Realty PNR ( owned lot) Leased Sampaguita Co. Made an agreement Belgravia (sister co., of sampaguita) Subleased the warehouse it built Datalift Movers
SC: Sec 2, Rule 131 under conclusive presumption, the tenant (Datalift) is not permitted to deny title to his landlord so long as the lessor-lessee relationship exists.
Page22
Datalift questioned Belgravias authority to increased rent after PNR has also increased the rent, assailing the right of Belgravia to the possession of the warehouse and lot.

The lessee by any proof cannot overturn the conclusive presumption that Belgravia has better title.
2. Disputable Presumption presumptions that can be overcome by controverting

evidence 2.1 Presumption of Innocence 2.2 Presumption of Prudence; that everyone is presumed to take ordinary care in his functions
Reyes v. BPI The SC sided with BPI on the presumption of regularity and good faith in their function as no bad faith was shown. BPIs claim that there was only a fund transfer from savings to express teller account and no additional deposit (Reyes claimed there was a deposit) made was supported by the tellers tapeas no deposit was reflected therein, only a P100,000 fund transfer. 2.3 Presumption of the identity of the taker and the doer of the entire act by one in possession of the property. The person caught in possession of the stolen item is presumed to be the thief. Compare this with Art. 541 and 539 of the civil code ( which protects the possessor of the property in the concept of an owner to enjoy such presumption) Art. 539, NCC any possessor is entitled to enjoy his possession and entitled to the protection of his possession. Art. 541, NCC possessor under claim of ownership is presumed to be the owner and should be respected of his possession. If it is robbery with homicide and you are in possession of the thing robbed then you are presumed to be the robber and the killer at the same time. This presumption only holds true only when the possessor cannot explain as to how he came into possession of such thing. Edu v. Gomez The policemen cannot just seize a carnapped car found to be in possession of X, they should have filed a case first. After filing the case, the burden of proving ownership shall now rest on the possessor of the car. This is in accordance with the presumption that the possessor of the property is the owner thereof. 2.4 Presumption that evidence willfully suppressed when presented will be adverse Suppression must be willful. Exception to the presumption: a. When the evidence deemed suppressed is at the disposal of the parties b. When the evidence allegedly suppressed is merely corroborative or cumulative c. If the suppression is in the exercise of a right such as privilege communication between: lawyer-client, priest-penitent, doctor-patient etc. Blue Cross v. Olivares
Page22

Neomi entered into a health care program excepting from the coverage pre-existing ailments. 38 days after effectivity, Neomi suffered stroke. Blue Cross refused payment alleging that it is excepted and that there was suppression of evidence when Neomi refuse to present Dr. Saniels report. SC: Neomis invocation (which is Valid) of the Doctor-Patient relationship is not a conclusive presumption but a disputable presumption as this is a privileged communication, other evidence could have been presented to controvert it. The insurance company failed to present evidence showing that the stroke was due preexisting ailment under the exception. The Company is liable. 2.5 Presumption of Death Absence of : 7 years 10 yrs. 5 yrs 4 yrs - Normal circumstances - For succession purpose - if the person missing is at least 75 y/o -if the person is in danger of death
The presumption applies only when there is no preponderance of evidence that the person has died. If there is by preponderance of evidence showing the death, then the presumption does not apply
Eastern shipping Line Case the whereabouts of the ship traversing from Hongkong to Manila is known when the captain was able to send 3 radio messages detailing that they met strong winds coupled with turbulent waters, followed by jettisoning and abandonment of the ship. The ship is not lost; no need of the presumption. Victoria Lines Shipping- the presumption does not apply also since the whereabouts of the ship was known; that it gutted fire and that the deceased was last seen jumping overboard. (1) the vessel was accounted for (2) the preponderance of evidence showed that the crew died. No need of presumption.
2.6 Presumption of Survivorship- applies when the death took place on a calamity. Not for
succession purposes. (this is not applied for succession purposes) < 15 & >50 the one below 15 is presumed to survived or died last. 15>60 the male is presumed to have survived over the female; if same sex, the older is presumed to have survived
2.7 Presumption of Simultaneity of Death- applies when the purpose is succession

When two or more persons are called to succeed, the one who alleges has the burden of proof as to who died first, in absence of evidence it is presumed that BOTH DIED SIMULTANEOUSLY AND NO SUCCESSION WOULD TAKE PLACE. The sex, age, and strength of the party wont matter. END FOR PREMID
Page22

Page22

Transcription - Premidterms

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Transcription - Premidterms

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

The rules expressly say so.

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

Antecedent circumstances- circumstances that happened before the fact in issue

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

Contemporaneous- circumstances occurring at the time of the fact in issue.

Subsequent circumstance- a circumstantial evidence which took place after the

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

This is now the emerging trend on the matter.

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

2. Disputable Presumption presumptions that can be overcome by controverting

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

2.7 Presumption of Simultaneity of Death- applies when the purpose is succession

EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTION RM 403

Potrebbero piacerti anche