Sei sulla pagina 1di 62

THE REVISED RULES

ON

EVIDENCE:

Codal Provisions, Special Laws & Jurisprudence

Class of 3-C 2003-2004 Atty !rancis "dralin Li# Ateneo $e %anila Sc&ool of Law

Volume 1

Project Heads Glenn Q. Albano Ma. Lourdes O. Dino Frances Joanne D. Miranda Ma. Cristina P. Salvatierra Jose C. Salvosa Project Members & Contributors Frank John S. Abdon Madeleine G. Avanzado Giovanni autista Jazel Anne G. Calvo Arnaldo M. Cari!o "lon Cris C. Culan#en Oliver S. Faustino Jose Mi#uel A. Fernandez Abi#ail Jo$ D. Ga%boa Serene A. Go &a$%ond Jose'h &. (bon Jonas S. )ha* )atherine L. Larios Ja$dee Justine . Le#as'i Antonio Paolo S. Li% &o%eo D. Lu%a#ui+ Jr. &$an D. Mancera Gar$ Ja$ &. Mara%a# Marvin ,. Masan#ka$ Clarence &o%%el C. -an.uil "%erson /. Palad Giancarlo M. Pu$o &odol0o ,. &e$no ((( Aaron &oi . &iturban Anne Per'etual S. &ivera Jose Mar%oi F. Salon#a 1rina . San Die#o Anna L$ne P. San Juan everl$ L. Santia#o Jeovert Les%es S. Solano$ Christian 2. Sorita Marie An#eli P. /$ Fides C. ,ictorio

Evidence Project Volumes


'olu#e () * Ad#issi+ility of "vidence ** ,&at -eed -ot .e Proved *** /eal $e#onstrative "vidence *' .est "vidence /ule ' Parole "vidence /ule '* *nterpretation of $ocu#ents '** 0ualifications of ,itnesses '*** Privile1ed Co##unications *2 Ad#issions & Confessions 2 Conduct & C&aracter 2* 3earsay /ule 2** 4pinion /ule 2*** .urden of Proof & Presu#ptions 2*' Presentation of "vidence 6Part A , . , C ( to 7 8 2*' Presentation of "vidence 6Part C : to (0 , $ , " 8 2' ,ei1&t & Sufficiency of "vidence

'olu#e 2)

'olu#e 3) 'olu#e 4) 'olu#e 5)

'olu#e 9)

Volume 1: Table of Contents

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 9 6

(.

Ad%issibilit$ o0 "vidence A. &ule 94:+ Sections 967. 9. &e$es vs. CA 4. Peo'le vs. 1urco . &elevance 9. &ule 94:+ Sections 3 ; 7. 4. autista vs. A'erece 3. Lo'ez vs. 2eesen 7. State vs. all C. Co%'etence 9. &ule 94:+ Section 3. 4. "<clusionar$ &ules /nder 9=:> Constitution ?a@ Art. (((+ Sections 4 ; 3. ?b@ Art. (((+ Section 94. ?c@ Art. (((. Section 9>. 3. Statutor$ &ules o0 "<clusion ?a@ 1a< &e0or% Act o0 9==>+ Section 459 ?b@ &A 975A+ La* on Secrec$ o0 ank De'osits ?&A >BA3+ C93A@ ?c@ &A 7455+ Anti6Direta''in# Act ?i@ Ganaan vs. (AC ?ii@ Salcedo6Ortanez vs. CA ?iii@ &a%irez vs. CA

((.

Dhat -eed -ot e Proved A. &ule 94=+ Sections 967. &ule 95+ Section :. . Cases 9. Judicial -otice ?a@ Cit$ o0 Manila vs. Garcia ?b@ a#uio vs. ,da. De Jala#at ?c@ Prieto vs. Arro$o ?d@ Eao6)ee vs. S$6Gonzales ?e@ 1abuena vs. CA ?0@ Peo'le vs. Godo$ ?#@ P(6Savin#s vs. C1A 4. Judicial Ad%issions ?a@ Lucida vs. Calu'itan
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 4 6

?b@ 1orres vs. CA ?c@ iton# vs. CA (((. &eal and De%onstrative "vidence A. &ule 935+ Sections 9 ; 4. . Cases 9. 4. 3. 7. (,. Peo'le vs. arda8e Sison vs. Peo'le Ada%czuk vs. 2ollo*a$ State vs. 1atu%

est "vidence &ule A. &ule 935+ Sections 46: &ule 934+ Sections 4A ; 4>. "lectronic Co%%erce Act ?&A :>=4@+ Sections A+ B69A. &ules on "lectronic "vidence+ &ule 4+ Sections 9+ 3+ 7. . Cases 9. Air France vs. Carrascoso 4. Me$ers vs. /nited States 3. Peo'le vs. 1an 7. Seiler vs. Lucas0il% A. Peo'le vs. 1ando$ B. /S vs. Gre#orio >. Fiscal o0 Pa%'an#a vs. &e$es :. ,da. De Cor'us vs. raban#co =. Co%'ania Mariti%a vs. Allied Free Dorkers 95. ,illa &e$ 1ransit vs. Ferrer 99. Michael ; Co. vs. "nri.uez 94. De ,era vs. A#uilar

I.

ADMISSI I!IT" #$ %VID%&C% A. RULE 128, SECTION 1-4: RULE 128


3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 3 6

GENERAL PROVISIONS SECTION 1. Evidence defined. Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1) SECTION 2. Scope. The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as other ise provided by la or these rules. (!a) SECTION 3. Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is admissible hen it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the la or these rules. ("a) SECTION 4. Relevancy; Collateral Matters. Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non#existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allo ed, except hen it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. CASES: 'e(es )s. Court of A**eals +1, SC'A +- .1//01 'ule 1+23 Sec. 145 FAC1SF Juan Mendoza+ the 0ather o0 de0endant Ol$%'io+ is the o*ner o0 Far% Lots -os. 7B and 95B+ devoted to the 'roduction o0 'ala$. 1he lots are tenanted and cultivated b$ Julian de la Cruz+ the husband o0 'lainti00 "u0rocina de la Cruz. (n her co%'laint+ "u0rocina alle#ed that u'on the death o0 her husband+ she succeeded hi% as bona 0ide tenant. 2o*ever+ Ol$%'io in cons'irac$ *ith the other de0endants 'revented her dau#hter ,ioleta and her *orkers 0ro% enterin# and *orkin# on the 0ar% lots. De0endants like*ise re0used to vacate and surrender the lots+ *hich 'ro%'ted "u0rocina to 0ile a case 0or the recover o0 'ossession and da%a#es *ith a *rit o0 'reli%inar$ %andator$ in8unction in the %eanti%e. 1he 'etitioners in this case+ the de0endants &e$es+ Para$ao+ A#uinaldo and Manan#ha$a+ are dul$ elected and a''ointed baran#a$ o00icials o0 the localit$+ *ho denied their inter0erence in the tenanc$ relationshi' e<istin# bet*een Ol$%'io and "u0rocina. Ol$%'io+ 0or his 'art+ raised abandon%ent+ sublease and %ort#a#e o0 the 0ar% lots *ithout his consent+ and non6'a$%ent o0 rentals as his de0enses. 1he Court o0 A''eals ?CA@ a00ir%ed the a#rarian courtGs decision *ith %odi0ication+ *hich ordered the de0endants to restore 'ossession o0 the 0ar% lots to 'lainti00 "u0rocina. 1he CA like*ise ruled that the 'etitioners are solidaril$ liable to 'a$ to "u0rocina the value o0 cavans o0 'ala$ until the$ have vacated the area.

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 7 6

On a''eal+ the 'etitioners .uestioned the 0avorable consideration #iven to the a00idavits o0 "u0rocina and "0ren 1ecson+ since the a00iants *ere not 'resented and sub8ected to cross6 e<a%ination. (SS/"?S@F Dhether or not the trial court erred *hen it #ave 0avorable consideration to the a00idavits o0 'lainti00+ even i0 the a00iant *as not 'resented and sub8ected to cross6e<a%ination. &/L(-GF 1he 8ud#%ent is a00ir%ed. 1he trial court did not err *hen it 0avorable considered the a00idavits o0 "u0rocina and "0ren 1ecson althou#h the a00iants *ere not 'resented and sub8ected to cross6e<a%ination. Section 9B o0 P.D. -o. =7B 'rovides that the H&ules o0 Court shall not be a''licable in a#rarian cases even in a su''letor$ character.I 1he sa%e 'rovision states that H(n the hearin#+ investi#ation and deter%ination o0 an$ .uestion or controvers$+ a00idavits and counter6a00idavits %a$ be allo*ed and are ad%issible in evidence+I Moreover+ in a#rarian cases+ the .uantu% o0 evidence re.uired is no %ore than substantial evidence. 1hus+ this case is an a''lication o0 the rule *ith re#ard the sco'e o0 the &ules on "vidence *hich states that H1he rules o0 evidence shall be the sa%e in all courts and in all trials and hearin#s except as otherwise provided by law ?e<. Section 9B o0 P.D. -o. =7B@ or these rules.I (: $rances 6oanne D. Miranda Peo*le )s. Turco 007 SC'A 715 .+8881 'ule 1+23 Sec 145 FAC1SF &ode#elio 1urco+ Jr. ?a.k.a. H1oton#I@ *as char#ed *ith the cri%e o0 ra'e. 1he 'rosecution alle#ed that the victi%+ "scelea 1abada ?94 $rs and B %onths old at the ti%e o0 the incident@ and accused 1urco *ere nei#hbors. On the ni#ht o0 the incident+ u'on reachin# her ho%e+ "scelea heard a call 0ro% outside. She reco#nized the voice to be 1urcoGs since the$ have been nei#hbors 0or 7 $ears and are second cousins. Dhen she o'ened the door+ the accused *ith the use o0 a to*el+ covered the victi%Gs 0ace. 1hen the accused bid the victi% to *alk. Dhen the$ reached a #rass$ 'art+ near the 'i# 'en *hich *as about 94 %eters a*a$ 0ro% the victi%Gs house+ the accused laid the victi% on the #rass+ *ent on to' o0 her an took o00 her short 'ants and 'ant$. 1he victi% tried to resist b$ %ovin# her bod$ but to no avail. 1he accused succeeded in 'ursuin# his evil desi#n b$ 0orcibl$ insertin# his 'enis inside the victi%Gs 'rivate 'arts. /'on reachin# ho%e+ the victi% discovered that her short 'ants and 'ant$ *ere 0illed *ith blood. For al%ost ten da$s+ she ke't to hersel0 the harro*in# e<'erience+ until she had the coura#e to tell her brother6in6la*+ *ho in turn told the victi%Gs 0ather about the ra'e o0 his dau#hter. 1herea0ter+ the$ did not *aste ti%e and i%%ediatel$ asked the victi% to see a doctor 0or %edical e<a%ination. A0ter the issuance o0 the %edical certi0icate+ the$ *ent to the (sabela Munici'al Station and 0iled a co%'liant a#ainst the accused char#in# hi% *ith ra'e.

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 A 6

1he trial court convicted the accused+ statin# that the de0ense o0 Hs*eetheart theor$I *as a %ere concoction o0 the accused in order to e<cul'ate hi% 0ro% cri%inal liabilit$. A''ealin# his conviction+ the accused6a''ellant ar#ues that the trial court erred because no actual 'roo0 *as 'resented that the ra'e o0 the co%'lainant actuall$ ha''ened considerin# that althou#h a %edical certi0icate *as 'resented+ the %edico6le#al o00icer *ho 're'ared the sa%e *as not 'resented in court to e<'lain the sa%e. (SS/"?S@F Dhether or not the trial court erred in ad%ittin# the %edical certi0icate in evidence+ althou#h the %edico6le#al o00icer *ho 're'ared the sa%e *as not 'resented in court to testi0$ on it. &/L(-GF Conviction a00ir%ed. De 'lace e%'hasis on the distinction bet*een ad%issibilit$ o0 evidence and the 'robative value thereo0. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules ?Section 3+ &ule 94:@ or is co%'etent. Since ad%issibilit$ o0 evidence is deter%ined b$ its relevance and co%'etence+ ad%issibilit$ is there0ore+ an a00air o0 lo#ic and la*. On the other hand+ the *ei#ht to be #iven to such evidence+ once ad%itted+ de'ends on 8udicial evaluation *ithin the #uidelines 'rovided in rule 933 and the 8uris'rudence laid do*n b$ the Court. Thus, while evidence may be admissible, it may be entitled to little or no weight at all. Conversely, evidence which may have evidentiary weight may be inadmissible because a special rule forbids its reception. 2o*ever+ althou#h the %edical certi0icate is an e<ce'tion to the hearsa$ rule+ hence ad%issible as evidence+ it has ver$ little 'robative value due to the absence o0 the e<a%inin# 'h$sician. -evertheless+ it cannot be said that the 'rosecution relied solel$ on the %edical certi0icate. (n 0act+ reliance *as %ade on the testi%on$ o0 the victi% hersel0+ *hich standin# alone even *ithout the %edical e<a%ination+ is su00icient evidence. 1he absence o0 %edical 0indin#s b$ a %edico6le#al o00icer does not dis'rove the occurrence o0 ra'e. (t is enou#h that the evidence on hand convinces the court that conviction is 'ro'er. (n the instant case+ the victi%Gs testi%on$ alone is credible and su00icient to convict. (: $rances 6oanne D. Miranda . '%!%VA&C%: 1. SECTIONS 3 AND 4, RULE 128 SECTION 3. Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is admissible hen it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the la or these rules. ("a) SECTION 4. Relevancy; Collateral Matters. Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or n$on#existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allo ed,

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 B 6

except hen it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. CASES: autista )s. A*arece -1 #.9. 28- .1//-1 'ele)ance FAC1SF As o*ner o0 the lot sub8ect o0 the case+ -icolas Anasco sold the sa%e to ,alentin Justiniani. (n the sa%e $ear+ ,alentin sold this 'ro'ert$ to Claudio Justiniani+ (n October 94+ 9=3A+ Claudio Justiniani e<ecuted a 'ublic instru%ent *hereb$ he sold the sa%e 'ro'ert$ 0or P955 to A'olonio A'arece in *hose na%e it *as assessed since 9=3A. Dhile A'arece *as in 'ossession+ 2er%o#enes autista ille#all$ entered a 'art o0 the land and took 'ossession thereo0. 1hus+ A'arece 0ile a co%'laint *ith the #uerilla 0orces then o'eratin# in the 'rovince o0 ohol. Dhen the case *as called 0or hearin#+ and a0ter ins'ection *as %ade b$ a #uerilla o00icer+ autista e<ecuted a 'ublic instru%ent *herein he 'ro%ised to return the land to A'arece in #ood *ill+ and reco#nized A'areceGs la*0ul o*nershi' over the land. 1hus+ 'ossession o0 the land *as restored to A'arece. 2o*ever+ clai%in# that the 'ro'ert$ belon#s to hi%+ and alle#in# that *ith the aid o0 ar%ed %en and 'retendin# to be o*ner+ usur'ed the land+ autista 0iled a co%'laint in the Court o0 First (nstance ?CF(@ o0 ohol. 1he CF( rendered 8ud#%ent declarin# A'arece as o*ner o0 the land. On a''eal+ autista raised as de0ense the error o0 the trial court in ad%ittin# the 'ublic instru%ent *hich he e<ecuted as evidence. 2e ar#ued that the docu%ent *as e<ecuted under duress+ violence+ and inti%idation+ and that the #uerilla o00icer be0ore *ho% it *as e<ecuted+ had no 8urisdiction over the %atter. (SS/"?S@F Dhether or not the trial court erred in ad%ittin# as evidence+ a 'ublic docu%ent e<ecuted be0ore an o00icer *ho had no 8urisdiction over the %atter. &/L(-GF 1his ar#u%ent is beside the 'oint. The test for the admissibility or inadmissibility of a certain document is whether or not it is relevant, material or competent. 1he 'ublic docu%ent is not onl$ relevant+ but is also %aterial and co%'etent to the issue o0 o*nershi' bet*een the 'arties liti#ants. Relevant evidence is one that has an$ value in reason as tendin# to 'rove an$ %atter 'robable in ac action. And evidence is said to be material *hen it is directed to 'rove a 0act in issue as deter%ined b$ the rules o0 substantive la* and 'leadin#s+ *hile competent evidence is one that s not e<cluded b$ la* in a 'articular case. Dith these criteria in %ind+ *e hold that the %ere 0act that the 'ublic docu%ent *as e<ecuted be0ore a #uerilla o00icer does not %ake the sa%e as irrelevant+ i%%aterial or inco%'etent to the %ain issue raised in the 'leadin#s. 1he 'ublic docu%ent+ considered to#ether *ith the other evidence+ docu%entar$ and oral+ satis0ies the Court that the 'ortions o0 land in .uestion reall$ belon# to de0endant A'arece. (: $rances 6oanne D. Miranda
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 > 6

!o*e: )s. Heesen 0,- P.+d 552 .1/,11 'ele)ance FAC1SF A''ellee 2eesen+ an air Force o00icer+ 'urchased a J.C. 2i##ins Model A9 35.5B ri0le 0ro% the store o0 a''ellee Sears. 1he ri0le has a bolt action kno*n as a HMausser t$'e actionI *ith a HClass 9I sa0et$ %echanis%. At the ti%e o0 the 'urchase+ 2eesen *as #iven an instruction 'a%'hlet *hich he read+ e<'lainin# the co%'osition o0 the ri0le and #ave o'eratin# instructions+ includin# the %ethod to be 'ursued to %ake the #un Hsa0eI. (%%ediatel$ a0ter the 'urchase+ 2eesen le0t 0or a deer huntin# tri' in an area kno*n as /te Park. 2e 'laced a live cartrid#e in the cha%ber and 'laced the #un on sa0et$ 'osition. 2e traveled a #ood deal durin# the hours be0ore the shootin# and on one o0 t*o occasions+ he discovered the #un o00 sa0et$ 'osition. 1his occurred *hen he had co%e do*n a lon# hill covered *ith rocks and boulders. 2eesen *as not a*are that the ri0le %oved 0ro% Hsa0e to 0ireG 'osition at least t*ice be0ore the shootin#. 1en %inutes be0ore the accident be#an+ he le0t the knoll and he *as carr$in# the #un on his shoulder. 2e later heard a rustle and sa* a deer #o bet*een so%e trees. Dhen he 0ollo*ed the deer+ his le0t 0oot *ent do*n hard on the #round on one side o0 a lo# and his ri#ht 0oot sli''ed on the #rass. 1his brou#ht the ri0le do*n and the ri0le dischar#ed+ the bullet hittin# a''ellant Lo'ez+ *ho *as nearb$. Lo'ez brou#ht suit a#ainst 2eesen 0or alle#edl$ unla*0ull$ assaultin# hi%+ thereb$ in0lictin# dan#erous and 'ain0ul *ounds. 2e also included as 'art$6de0endant+ the desi#ner+ %anu0acturer and seller o0 the ri0le+ Sears+ 0or alle#edl$ ne#li#entl$ desi#nin# and %anu0acturin# the ri0le bou#ht b$ 2eesen. De0endants 'resented e<'ert testi%on$ on the #eneral re'utation o0 other 0irear%s co%'anies *ho use the sa%e %odi0ied lea0 sa0et$ device as the 2i##ins Model A9. Lo'ez ob8ected to this evidence on the #round that it *as *holl$ i%%aterial and irrelevant to an$ issue in the case. 2e like*ise ob8ected on the introduction o0 testi%on$ on the H'ounda#e 'ressureI re.uired to %ove the sa0et$ levers 0ro% sa0e to 0ire 'osition on the #round o0 irrelevance and i%%aterialit$. Lastl$+ he ob8ected to the introduction o0 o'inion evidence re#ardin# the desi#n o0 the sa0et$ %echanis%+ on the #round that it *as a sub8ect *hich is *ithin the 'rovince o0 the 8ur$ to deter%ine. ?9@ ?4@ ?3@ (SS/"?S@F Dhether or not e<'ert testi%on$ on the #eneral re'utation o0 other 0irear%s co%'anies usin# the sa%e sa0et$ device is %aterial and relevant. Dhether or not testi%on$ on the H'ounda#e 'ressureI re.uired is relevant and %aterial. Dhether or not the desi#n o0 the sa0et$ %echanis% *as a 'ro'er sub8ect o0 e<'ert testi%on$. &/L(-GF 1he e<'ert testi%on$ is ad%issible. 1he alle#ations on the ulti%ate 0acts in issue involve *hether the 2i##ins Model A9 ri0le *as in a dan#erous and de0ective condition due to its ne#li#ent %anu0acture+ in that the sa0et$ %echanis% %oved re7adil$ 0ro% Hsa0eI to H0ireI
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 : 6

?9@

'osition. 1his is an issue+ the 'ro'er understandin# o0 *hich+ re.uires kno*led#e or e<'erience and cannot be deter%ined inde'endentl$ %erel$ 0ro% deductions %ade and in0erences dra*n on the basis o0 ordinar$ kno*led#e. Moreover+ the conduct o0 others is 'ro'er evidence 0or a 8ur$ to consider+ in deter%inin# *hether the tendenc$ o0 the thin# is dan#erous+ de0ective+ or the reverse. Considerin# these 'rinci'les+ the Court held that the testi%on$ as to the re'utation o0 other 0irear%s co%'anies usin# the sa%e sa0et$ device is %aterial and relevant to the issue o0 *hether the sa0et$ device on the 2i##ins Model A9 *as unsa0e or sa0e+ and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ad%ittin# this testi%on$. ?4@ 1he testi%on$ *as introduced under Lo'ezGs contention that the 2i##ins %odel *as unsa0e and thus+ the issue arose as to the H'ounda#e 'ressureG re.uired to %ove the sa0et$ lever 0ro% sa0e to 0ire. (t *as then 'ro'er 0or Sears to sho* the a%ount o0 'ressure re.uired to %ove the sa0et$ lever as this *as relevant to the issue 'osed. "<'ert testi%on$ is ad%issible because the e<'ert testi%on$ *as u'on the ulti%ate issue o0 *hether or not the sa0et$ device *as dan#erous and de0ective. (t *as the 'ro'er sub8ect o0 e<'ert testi%on$. (t does not usur' the 0unctions o0 the 8ur$ as the latter %a$ still re8ect these o'inions. Said o'inion evidence is not bindin# on the 8ur$. (: $rances 6oanne D. Miranda State )s all 00/ S.;+d 720 .1/,81 'ele)ance FAC1SF all a''eals 0ro% an order o0 the trial court+ convictin# hi% o0 robber$. At about 4F35 in the a0ternoon+ t*o colored %en+ one o0 the% tall and the other short+ entered the )rekeler Je*elr$ Store. As the taller %an looked at 8e*elr$ and %ade his 'urchase+ the shorter %an looked in the cases and %oved about in the store. Later in the sa%e da$+ at around AF35 '.%.+ as John )rekeler *as 'lacin# the rin#s and *atches in the sa0e 're'arin# 0or the closin# o0 the store+ the t*o %en *ho had been in the store at 4F35+ entered the store. 1he$ *ere i%%ediatel$ reco#nized b$ )rekeler+ es'eciall$ the taller %anGs narro*6bri%%ed tall hat+ bro*n 8acket+ #ra$ short and 'articularl$ a scar on his 0ace. 1he shorter %an *alked behind the counter and as )rekeler tried to interce't hi%+ the %an hit )rekeler on the 0ace usin# a 5.3: lon# barreled 'istol. Dith the #un on his back+ the t*o %en directed )rekeler to #o to the *atch re'air de'art%ent+ then to the restroo%+ *here he *as 'ositioned+ 0acin# the *all. 1herea0ter+ he could hear 8e*elr$ bein# du%'ed in a ba#+ and the H8in#leI o0 the car re#ister. A0ter hearin# the door sla%+ )rekeler call the 'olice. 2e re'orted that the t*o %en took J7+7AA.49 *orth o0 *atched and rin#s+ and J975 in cash. 1hree *eeks later+ all *as arrested b$ O00icers Po*ell and allard *hile *alkin# in the street. all shoved O00icer Po*ell over and ran do*n the avenue. 1he o00icers ran a0ter hi% and he *as onl$ 'aci0ied *hen the O00icerGs 0ired a bullet *hich 0ell in his back. all clai%s that this evidence o0 H0li#htI *as not %aterial or relevant+ since it *as too re%ote 0ro% the date o0 the robber$ ?3 *eeks later@+ to indicate a consciousness o0 #uilt. all like*ise
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 = 6

?3@

ob8ected to the ad%issibilit$ o0 the 0ollo*in# articles 0ound in his 'erson durin# the arrest on #rounds o0 i%%aterialit$ and irrelevanceF a bro*n 0elt hat+ a bro*nish *indbreaker t$'e 8acket+ trousers+ #ra$ shirt and shoes+ and J4A:.54 in currenc$ and t*o 'ennies. ?9@ ?4@ (SS/"S?S@ Dhether or not the evidence o0 0li#ht is inad%issible 0or reason o0 re%oteness to the ti%e o0 the co%%ission o0 the cri%e. Dhether or not the articles 0ound in the 'erson o0 the accused at the ti%e o0 his arrest are inad%issible 0or bein# irrelevant and i%%aterial. &/L(-GF /ne<'lained 0li#ht and resistin# arrest even thirt$ da$s a0ter the su''osed co%%ission o0 the cri%e is a relevant circu%stance. 1he re%oteness o0 the 0li#ht #oes to the *ei#ht o0 the evidence rather than to its ad%issibilit$. (n identi0$in# all+ )rekeler *as i%'ressed *ith and re%e%bered the bro*n ense%ble+ 'articularl$ the tall bro*n hat. 1hese ite%s *ere o0 course relevant and ad%issible in evidence and there is no ob8ection to the%. 2o*ever+ the %one$ is inad%issible. 1he 'roo0 o0 the %one$ here *as evidentl$ on the theor$ that all did not have or *as not likel$ to have such a su% o0 %one$ on his 'erson 'rior to the co%%ission o0 the o00ense. 2o*ever+ )rekeler *as not able to identi0$ the %one$ or an$ o0 the ite%s on allGs 'erson as havin# co%e 0ro% the 8e*elr$ store so that in 0act+ the$ *ere not ad%issible in evidence. 1here *as no 'roo0 as to the deno%ination o0 the %one$ in the cash re#ister+ it *as si%'l$ a total o0 J975. 2ere+ nineteen da$s had ela'sed+ there *as no 'roo0 that all had suddenl$ co%e into 'ossession o0 the J4A:.54 and in all these circu%stances Hthe %ere 'ossession o0 a .uantit$ o0 %one$ is in itsel0 no indication that the 'ossessor *as the taker o0 the %one$ char#ed as taken+ because in #eneral all %one$ o0 the sa%e deno%ination and %aterial is alike+ and the h$'othesis that the %one$ 0ound is the sa%e as the %one$ taken is too 0orced and e<traordinar$ to be receivable.I (: $rances 6oanne D. Miranda C. C#MP%T%&C%: 1. SECTION 3, RULE 128

?9@

?4@

SECTION 3. Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is admissible hen it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the la or these rules. ("a) +. %<C!=SI#&A'" '=!%S =&D%' TH% 1/27 C#&STIT=TI#& (a) SECTIONS 2 AND 3, ARTICLE III
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 95 6

SEC. 2, Article III The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and sei%ures of hatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search arrant or arrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei%ed. SEC. 3. Article III (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon la ful order of the court, or hen public safety or order re&uires other ise as prescribed by la . (!) 'ny evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (b) SECTION 12, ARTICLE III Section 12, Article III (1) 'ny person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his o n choice. (f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided ith one. These rights cannot be aived except in riting and in the presence of counsel. (!) )o torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means hich vitiate the free ill shall be used against him. *ecret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (") 'ny confession or admission obtained in violation of this or *ection 1+ hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (,) The la shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as ell as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families. (c) SECTION 17, ARTICLE III SEC. 17. )o person shall be compelled to be a itness against himself.

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 99 6

0. 1.

STATUTORY RULES OF EXCLUSION SECTION 2 1, TAX REFOR! ACT OF 1""7

SEC. 201. Effect of Failure to Stamp Taxable Document. 'n instrument, document or paper hich is re&uired by la to be stamped and hich has been signed, issued, accepted or transferred ithout being duly stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the re&uisite stamp or stamps are affixed thereto and cancelled. (b) RA 14 #, LA$ ON SECRECY OF %AN& DE'OSITS
LA! ON SECREC" O# $AN% &EPOSITS Re'()lic Act No.140*, +, +-en.e. AN ACT PRO/I$ITING &ISCLOSURE O# OR IN0UIR" INTO, &EPOSITS !IT/ AN" $AN%ING INSTITUTION AN& PROVI&ING PENALT" T/ERE#OR Section 1. (t is hereby declared to be the policy of the -overnment to give encouragement to the people to deposit their money in ban.ing institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that the same may be properly utili%ed by ban.s in authori%ed loans to assist in the economic development of the country. Sec 2.1 'll deposits of hatever nature ith ban.s or ban.ing institutions in the /hilippines including investments in bonds issued by the -overnment of the /hilippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, in&uired or loo.ed into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except hen the examination is made in the course of a special or general examination of a ban. and is specifically authori%ed by the 0onetary 1oard after being satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that a ban. fraud or serious irregularity has been or is being committed and that it is necessary to loo. into the deposit to establish such fraud or irregularity, or hen the examination is made by an independent auditor hired by the ban. to conduct its regular audit provided that the examination is for audit purposes only and the results thereof shall be for the exclusive use of the ban., or upon ritten permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases here the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. ('s amended by /2 )o.1+3!, $anuary 14, 1351) Sec 3. (t shall be unla ful for any official or employee of a ban. to disclose to any person other than those mentioned in *ection T o hereof, or for an independent auditor hired by a ban. to conduct its regular audit to disclose to any
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 94 6

person other than a ban. director, official or employee authori%ed by the ban., any information concerning said deposits. ('s amended by /2 )o.1+3!) Sec 4. 'll acts or parts of 'cts, *pecial 6harters, Executive 7rders, 8ules and 8egulations hich are inconsistent ith the provisions of this 'ct are hereby repealed. Sec *. 'ny violation of this la ill subject the offender upon conviction, to an imprisonment of not more than five years or a fine of not more than t enty thousand pesos or both, in the discretion of the court. Sec 1. This 'ct shall ta.e effect upon its approval. '//879E2, *eptember 3, 13::.

;;;;;;;;;;
1

This *ection and *ection " ere both amended by /res. 2ecree )o.1+3!, issued $anuary 14, 1351, /2 1+3! as expressly repealed by *ec. 1": of 8ep. 'ct )o.+4:", approved $une 1,, 133". The original *ections ! and " of 8ep. 'ct )o.1,<: are hereby reproduced for reference, as follo s= >*ec. ! 'll deposits of hatever nature ith ban.s or ban.ing institutions in the /hilippines including investments in bonds issued by the -overnment of the /hilippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, in&uired or loo.ed into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except upon ritten per# mission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials. or in cases here the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation,> >*ec. ". (t shall be unla ful for any official or employee of a ban.ing institution to disclose to any person other than those mentioned in *ection t o hereof any information concerning said deposits.>

(c)

R.A. NO. 42

$IRETA''IN( ACT

REPU$LIC ACT NO. 4200 AN ACT TO PRO/I$IT AN& PENALI2E !IRE TAPPING AN& OT/ER RELATE& VIOLATIONS O# T/E PRIVAC" O# CO33UNICATION, AN& #OR OT/ER PURPOSES SECTION 1. (t shall be unla ful for any person, not being authori%ed by all the parties to any private communication or spo.en ord, to tap any ire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spo.en ord by using a device commonly .no n as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or al.ie#tal.ie or tape recorder, or ho ever other ise described.

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 93 6

(t shall also be unla ful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penali%ed in the next preceding sentence, to .no ingly possess any tape record, ire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spo.en ord secured either before or after the effective date of this 'ct in the manner prohibited by this la ? or to replay the same for any other person or persons? or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in riting, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, hether complete or partial, to any other person= rovided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in *ection " hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition. SECTION 2. 'ny person ho illfully or .no ingly does or ho shall aid, permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unla ful in the preceding section or ho violates the provisions of the follo ing section or of any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months or more than six years and ith the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute dis&ualification from public office if the offender be a public official at the time of the commission of the offense, and, if the offender is an alien he shall be subject to deportation proceedings. SECTION 3. )othing contained in this 'ct, ho ever, shall render it unla ful or punishable for any peace officer, ho is authori%ed by a ritten order of the 6ourt, to execute any of the acts declared to be unla ful in the t o preceding sections in cases involving the crimes of treason, espionage, provo.ing ar and disloyalty in case of ar, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, .idnapping as defined by the 8evised /enal 6ode, and violations of 6ommon ealth 'ct )o. 414, punishing espionage and other offenses against national security= rovided! That such ritten order shall only be issued or granted upon ritten application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the itnesses he may produce and a sho ing= (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed= rovided! "o#ever! That in cases involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be, have actually been or are being committed? (!) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence ill be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such crimes? and (") that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence. The order granted or issued shall specify= (1) the identity of the person or persons hose communications, conversations, discussions, or spo.en ords are to be overheard, intercepted, or recorded and, in the case of telegraphic or telephonic communications, the telegraph line or the telephone number involved and its location? (!) the identity of the peace officer authori%ed to overhear,
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 97 6

intercept, or record the communications, conversations, discussions, or spo.en ords? (") the offense or offenses committed or sought to be prevented? and (,) the period of the authori%ation. The authori%ation shall be effective for the period specified in the order hich shall not exceed sixty (4<) days from the date of issuance of the order, unless extended or rene ed by the court upon being satisfied that such extension or rene al is in the public interest. 'll recordings made under court authori%ation shall, ithin forty#eight hours after the expiration of the period fixed in the order, be deposited ith the court in a sealed envelope or sealed pac.age, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the peace officer granted such authority stating the number of recordings made, the dates and times covered by each recording, the number of tapes, discs, or records included in the deposit, and certifying that no duplicates or copies of the hole or any part thereof have been made, or if made, that all such duplicates or copies are included in the envelope or pac.age deposited ith the court. The envelope or pac.age so deposited shall not be opened, or the recordings replayed, or used in evidence, or their contents revealed, except upon order of the court, hich shall not be granted except upon motion, ith due notice and opportunity to be heard to the person or persons hose conversation or communications have been recorded. The court referred to in this section shall be understood to mean the 6ourt of @irst (nstance ithin hose territorial jurisdiction the acts for hich authority is applied for are to be executed. SECTION 4. 'ny communication or spo.en ord, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this 'ct shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, &uasi#judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. SECTION *. 'll la s inconsistent repealed or accordingly amended. ith the provisions of this 'ct are hereby

SECTION 1. This 'ct shall ta.e effect upon its approval.

CASES: 9aanan )s. Intermediate A**ellate Court 15- SC'A 11+ .1/2,1 Com*etence .Anti4>ireta**in? Act1 FAC1SF Co%'lainant Att$. Pintor and his client Montebon+ *ere in the livin# roo% o0 co%'lainantGs residence+ discussin# the ter%s 0ro% the *ithdra*al o0 the co%'laint 0or direct assault *hich the$ 0iled a#ainst Laconico. A0ter the$ decided on the conditions+ Att$. Pintor %ade a 'hone call to Laconico.
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 9A 6

1hat sa%e %ornin#+ Laconico tele'honed Att$. Gaanan to co%e to his o00ice and advise hi% on the settle%ent o0 the direct assault case. Dhen Att$. Pintor called+ Laconico re.uested Att$. Gaanan to secretl$ listen to the tele'hone conversation throu#h a tele'hone e<tension so as to hear 'ersonall$ the 'ro'osed conditions 0or the settle%ent. 1*ent$ %inutes later+ Att$. Pinto called u' a#ain to ask Laconico i0 he *as a#reeable to the conditions. Laconico a#reed. An a%ount o0 PA+555 as settle%ent %one$ *as a#reed u'on. 2e *as instructed to #ive the %one$ to #ive the %one$ to Att$. PintorGs *i0e at the o00ice o0 the De'art%ent o0 Public 2i#h*a$s. 2o*ever+ Laconico insisted that Att$. Pintor hi%sel0 should receive the %one$. 2o*ever+ *hen Att$. Pintor received the %one$+ he *as arrested b$ a#ents o0 the Phili''ine Constabular$. On the 0ollo*in# da$+ Att$. Gaanan e<ecuted an a00idavit that he heard co%'lainant Att$. Pintor de%and P:+555 0or the *ithdra*al o0 the case 0or direct assault. Laconico attached the a00idavit to the co%'laint 0or robber$Ke<tortion *hich he 0iled a#ainst Att$. Pintor. Since Att$. Gaanan listened to the tele'hone conversation *ithout Att$. PintorGs consent+ Att$. Pintor char#ed Att$. Gaanan and Laconico *ith violation o0 the Anti6Direta''in# Act ?&.A. -o. 7455@. Att$. Gaanan and Laconico *ere 0ound #uilt$ b$ the trial court. 1he decision *as a00ir%ed b$ the (nter%ediate A''ellate Court ?(AC@ statin# that the He<tension tele'honeI *hich *as used to overhear the tele'hone conversation *as covered in the ter% HdeviceI as 'rovided in &.A. -o. 7455. (SS/"?S@F Dhether or not an e<tension tele'hone is a%on# the 'rohibited device in Section 9 o0 the Anti6 Direta''in# Act+ such that its use to overhear a 'rivate conversation *ould constitute unla*0ul interce'tion o0 co%%unications bet*een the t*o 'arties usin# a tele'hone line. &/L(-GF 1he %ain issue revolves around the %eanin# o0 the 'hrase Han$ other device or arran#e%ent.I 1he la* re0ers to a Hta'I o0 a *ire or cable or the use o0 a Hdevice or arran#e%entI 0or the 'ur'ose o0 secretl$ overhearin#+ interce'tin#+ or recordin# the co%%unication. 1here %ust be either a 'h$sical interru'tion throu#h a *ireta' or the deliberate installation o0 a device or arran#e%ent in order to overhear+ interce't+ or record the s'oken *ords. An e<tension tele'hone cannot be 'laced in the sa%e cate#or$ as a dicta'hone+ dicta#ra'h or the other device enu%erated un Section 9 o0 &.A. -o. 7455 as the use thereo0 cannot be considered as Hta''in#I the *ire or cable o0 a tele'hone line. 1he tele'hone e<tension in this case *as not installed 0or that 'ur'ose. (t 8ust ha''ened to be there 0or ordinar$ o00ice use. 1he 'hrase Hdevice or arran#e%entI+ althou#h not e<clusive to that enu%erated+ should be construed to co%'rehend instru%ents o0 the sa%e or si%ilar nature+ that is+ instru%ents the use o0 *hich *ould be tanta%ount to ta''in# the %ain line o0 a tele'hone. (t re0ers to instru%ents *hose installation or 'resence cannot be 'resu%ed b$ the 'art$ or 'arties bein# overheard because+ b$ their ver$ nature+ the$ are not o0 co%%on usa#e and their 'ur'ose is 'recisel$ 0or ta''in#+ interce'tin#+ or recordin# a tele'hone conversation.

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 9B 6

An e<tension tele'hone is an instru%ent *hich is ver$ co%%on es'eciall$ no* *hen the e<tended unit does not have to be connected b$ *ire to the %ain tele'hone but can be %oved 0ro% 'lace to 'lace *ithin a radius o0 a kilo%eter or %ore. An e<tension tele'hone is not a%on# such device or arran#e%ents covered b$ Section 9 o0 &.A -o. 7455. (: $rances 6oanne D. Miranda Salcedo4#rta@e: )s. Court of A**eals +0- SC'A 111 .1//51 Com*etence .Anti4>ireta**in? Act1 FAC1SF &a0ael Orta!ez 0iled a co%'laint 0or annul%ent o0 %arria#e *ith da%a#es a#ainst his *i0e 1eresita Salcedo6Orta!ez+ on #rounds o0 lack o0 %arria#e license andKor 's$cholo#ical inca'acit$ o0 1eresita. A%on# the e<hibits o00ered b$ &a0ael *ere three ?3@ cassette ta'es o0 alle#ed tele'hone conversations bet*een 1eresita and unidenti0ied 'ersons. 1hese ta'e recordin#s *ere %ade and obtained *hen &a0ael allo*ed his 0riends 0ro% the %ilitar$ to *ire ta' his ho%e tele'hone. 1eresita ob8ected to &a0aelGs oral o00er o0 the said ta'es. 2o*ever+ the &e#ional 1rail Court ?&1C@ o0 Quezon Cit$ ad%itted the ta'es into evidence. 1eresita 0iled a 'etition 0or certiorari *ith the Court o0 A''eals ?CA@+ but the CA u'held the lo*er courtGs order 0or t*o reasonsF ?9@ 1a'e recordin#s are not inad%issible 'er se. he$ are ad%issible de'endin# on ho* the$ are 'resented and o00ered and ho* the trial 8ud#e utilizes the% and ?4@ Certiorari is ina''ro'riate since the order ad%ittin# the ta'e into evidence is interlocutor$. 1he order should be .uestioned in the a''eal 0ro% the 8ud#%ent on the %erits and throu#h the s'ecial civil action o0 certiorari. 2ence+ 1eresita 0iled a 'etition 0or revie* *ith the Su're%e Court ?SC@. (SS/"?S@F ?9@ Dhether or not the recordin#s o0 1eresitaGs 'hone conversations+ %ade and obtained throu#h *ireta''in# are ad%issible as evidence ?not 'er se inad%issible@ ?4@ Dhether or not a 'etition 0or certiorari is the a''ro'riate re%ed$ to .uestion an order ad%ittin# the ta'es into evidence &/L(-GF ?9@ The tape recordings are inadmissible. &elevant 'rovisions o0 &.A. 7455 ?Anti6 Direta''in# Act@ 'rovides thatF Section 1 (t shall be unla*0ul 0or an$ 'erson+ not bein# authorized b$ all 'arties to an$ 'rivate conversation or s'oken *ord+ to ta' an$ *ire or cable+ or b$ usin# an$ other device or arran#e%ent+ to secretl$ overhear+ interce't+ or record such co%%unication or s'oken *ord b$ usin# a device co%%onl$ kno*n as a dicta'hone+ or dicta#ra'h or detecta'hone or *alkie6talkie or ta'e recorder+ or ho*ever other*ise described < < <

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 9> 6

Section !. An$ co%%unication+ or s'oken *ord+ or the e<istence+ contents+ substance+ 'ur'ort+ or %eanin# o0 the sa%e or an$ 'art thereo0+ or an$ in0or%ation therein contained+ obtained+ or secured b$ an$ 'erson in violation o0 the 'recedin# section o0 this Act shall not be admitted in evidence in any "udicial, #uasi$"udicial, legislative, or administrative hearing or investigation. 2ence+ absent an$ clear sho*in# that both 'arties consented to the recordin#+ the inad%issibilit$ o0 the ta'es is %andator$ under &.A. -o. 7455 ?4@ Certiorari *as the a''ro'riate re%ed$. Generall$+ the e<traordinar$ *rit o0 certiorari is not available to challen#e interlocutor$ orders o0 a trial court. 1he 'ro'er re%ed$ is an ordinar$ a''eal 0ro% an adverse 8ud#%ent+ incor'oratin# in the said a''eal the #rounds 0ro assailin# the interlocutor$ order. 2o*ever+ *here the assailed interlocutor$ order is 'atentl$ erroneous and the re%ed$ o0 a''eal *ould not a00ord ade.uate and e<'editious relie0+ the Court %a$ allo* certiorari as a %ode o0 redress. (: Aaron 'oi . 'iturban 'amire: )s. Court of A**eals +52 SC'A -/8 .1//-1 Com*etence .Anti4>ireta**in? Act1 FAC1SF "ster Garcia 0iled a cri%inal case 0or violation o0 &.A. -o. 7455 ?Anti6Direta''in# Act@ a#ainst Socorro &a%irez+ 0or secretl$ ta'in# their con0rontation. Socorro 0iled a Motion to Quash the (n0or%ation+ *hich the &e#ional 1rial Court ?&1C@ o0 Pasa$ #ranted+ a#reein# that the 0acts char#ed did not constitute an o00ense under &.A. -o. 7455 since the la* re0ers to the ta'in# o0 a co%%unication b$ a 'erson other than a 'artici'ant to the co%%unication. A0ter *hich+ "ster 0iled a 'etition 0or revie* *ith the Court o0 A''eals ?CA@+ *hich reversed the rulin# o0 the lo*er court. 2ence+ Socorro 0iled this instant 'etition *here she raised three (SS/"SF ?4@ 1hat &.A. -o. 7455 does not a''l$ to the ta'in# o0 the conversation b$ one o0 the 'arties to the conversation. She contends that &.A. 7455 onl$ re0ers to unauthorized ta'in# o0 a conversation o0 a 'erson other than those involved in the conversation. ?3@ 1hat the substance or contents o0 the cnvesation %ust be alle#ed in the in0or%ationL other*ise+ the 0acts char#ed *ill not constitute a violation o0 &.A. -o. 7455. ?7@ 1hat &.A. -o. 7455 'enalizes the ta'in# o0 H'rivate co%%unicationI not a H'rivate conversationI and that+ conse.uentl$+ her act o0 secretl$ ta'in# her conversation *ith "ster *as not ille#al under the said Act. &/L(-GF ?9@ R.%. &o. !'(( applies to recordings by one of the parties to the conversation. Section 9 o0 the Act clearl$ and une.uivocall$ %akes it ille#al 0or any person+ not
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 9: 6

authorized b$ all 'arties to an$ 'rivate co%%unication to secretl$ record such co%%unication b$ %eans o0 a ta'e recorder. 1he la* %akes no distinction as to *hether the 'art$ sou#ht to be 'enalized b$ the statute ou#ht to be a 'art$ other than or di00erent 0ro% those involved in the 'rivate co%%unication. 1he statuteGs intent to 'enalize all 'ersons unauthorized to %ake such recordin# is underscored b$ the use o0 the .uali0ier Han$I. Conse.uentl$+ the CA *as correct in concludin# that Heven a 'erson 'riv$ to a co%%unication+ *ho records his 'rivate conversation *ith another *ithout kno*led#e o0 the latter+ *ill .uali0$ as a violator under &.A. -o. 7455.I A 'erusal o0 the Senate Con#ressional &ecords+ %oreover+ su''orts such conclusion. ?4@ The substance of the conversation need not be alleged in the information. 1he nature o0 the co%%unication is i%%aterial. 1he %ere alle#ation that an individual %ade a secret recordin# o0 a 'rivate co%%unication b$ %eans o0 a ta'e recorder *ould su00ice to constitute an o00ense under Section 9 o0 &.A. -o. 7455 As the Solicitor General 'ointed out+ H-o*here ?in the said la*@ is it re.uired that be0ore one can be re#arded as a violator+ the nature o0 the conversation+ as *ell as its co%%unication to a third 'erson should be 'ro0essed.I )*rivate communication+ includes )private conversation+. 1he *ord co%%unicate co%es 0ro% the Latin *ord communicare+ %eanin# Hto share or to i%'artI. (n its ordinar$ si#ni0ication+ co%%unication connotes an act o0 sharin# or i%'artin#+ as in a conversation ?H'rocess b$ *hich %eanin#s or thou#hts are shared bet*een individuals throu#h a co%%on s$ste% o0 s$%bolsI@. 1hese broad de0initions are likel$ to include the con0rontation bet*een Socorro and "ster. Moreover+ an$ doubts about the le#islative bod$Gs %eanin# o0 the 'hrase H'rivate co%%unicationI are 'ut to rest b$ the 0act that Senator 1a!ada in his "<'lanator$ -ote to the ill used Hco%%unicationI and HconversationI interchan#eabl$.

?3@

(: Aaron 'oi . 'iturban

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 9= 6

II.

>HAT &%%D &#T % P'#V%D


A. RULE 12", SECTIONS 1-4) RULE 124 !/AT NEE& NOT $E PROVE& SECTION 1. $udicial notice! #"en mandatory. ' court shall ta.e judicial notice, ithout the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the la of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the orld and their seals, the political constitution and history of the /hilippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the /hilippines, the la s of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a) SECTION 2. $udicial notice! #"en discretionary. ' court may ta.e judicial notice of matters hich are of public .no ledge, or are capable of un&uestionable demonstration, or ought to be .no n to judges because of their judicial functions. (1a) SECTION 3. $udicial notice! #"en "earin% necessary. 2uring the trial, the court, on its o n initiative, or on the re&uest of a party, may announce its intention to ta.e judicial notice of any matter and allo the parties to be heard thereon. 'fter trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its o n initiative or on re&uest of a party, may ta.e judicial notice of any matter and allo the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (n) SECTION 4. $udicial Admissions. 'n admission, verbal or ritten, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not re&uire proof. The admission may be contradicted only by sho ing that it as made through palpable mista.e or that no such admission as made. (!a) RULE 1 , SECTION 8 SECTION 8. Effect of amended pleadin%s. 'n amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. Ao ever, admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader? and claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed aived.

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 45 6

CASES: 1. *UDICIAL NOTICE Cit( of Manila )s. 9arcia 1/ SC'A 510 .1/,71 6udicial &otice FAC1SF Findin# that it *as necessar$ to e<'and the school #rounds o0 "'i0anio de los Santos "le%entar$ School+ ManilaGs Cit$ "n#ineer+ 'ursuant to the Ma$orGs directive+ ordered the ille#al occu'antsKs.uatters ?de0endants@ to vacate the 'ro'ert$ conti#uous to the school. 1he de0endants re0used to vacate+ thus+ 'ro%'tin# the Cit$ o0 Manila to 0ile a suit to recover 'ossession over the land. 1he Court o0 First (nstance ?CF(@ o0 Manila 0avored the 'lainti00. Conse.uentl$+ the s.uatters a''ealed and .uestioned the lo*er courtGs 0indin# that the cit$ needs the 're%ises 0or school 'ur'oses. 1he cit$Gs evidence on this 'oint *as the certi0ication o0 the Chair%an Co%%ittee on A''ro'riations o0 the Munici'al oard. 1he certi0ication recites that the a%ount o0 P955+555 had been set aside in Ordinance 7ABB+ the 9=B46B3 Manila Cit$ ud#et+ 0or the construction o0 an additional buildin# o0 the ele%entar$ school. 1he said docu%ent *as ori#inall$ dee%ed inad%issible+ but *as+ subse.uentl$+ ad%itted into evidence b$ the lo*er court. 2ence+ the de0endants a''ealed. (SS/"F Dhether or not the CF( o0 Manila had 'ro'erl$ 0ound that the Cit$ o0 Manila needs the 're%ises 0or school 'ur'oses ?considerin# that it had a contradictor$ stance re#ardin# the ad%issibilit$ o0 the evidence o0 the Cit$ on this 'oint@. &/L(-GF The C,- of .anila properly found that the city needs the premises for school purposes. (t is be$ond debate that a court o0 8ustice %a$ alter its rulin# *hile the case is *ithin its 'o*er+ to %ake it con0or%able to la* and 8ustice. Such *as done here. 1he de0endantsG re%ed$ *as to brin# the attention o0 the court to its contradictor$ stance. -ot havin# done so+ the Su're%e Court *ill not reo'en the case solel$ 0or this 'ur'ose. An$*a$+ eli%ination o0 the certi0ication as evidence *ould not bene0it the de0endants. For in reversin# his stand+ the trial 8ud#e could have *ell taken M because he *as dut$ bound to take 8udicial notice o0 Ordinance 7ABB. 1he reason bein# that the cit$ charter o0 Manila re.uires that all courts sittin# therein to take 8udicial notice o0 all ordinances 'assed b$ the %unici'al board o0 Manila. (: Aaron 'oi 'iturban

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 49 6

a?uio )s. . Vda de 6ala?at 5+ SC'A 007 .1/711 6udicial &otice FAC1SF GA &("L AG/(O 0iled 0or the .uietin# o0 title to real 'ro'ert$ a#ainst 1"OF(LA JALAGA1 and her %inor children *ith the Court o0 First (nstance ?CF(@ o0 Misa%is Oriental. 1he Jala#ats 0iled a %otion to dis%iss on the #round that the 'resent co%'laint is barred b$ a 'revious 8ud#%ent rendered b$ the sa%e court. 1he 'revious case involved 'racticall$ the sa%e 'ro'ert$+ the sa%e cause o0 action+ and the sa%e 'arties+ *ith Melecio Jala#at ?1eo0ilaGs deceased husband and 'redecessor in interest@ as the de0endant. 1he 'revious case *as ter%inated *ith the court dis%issin# a#uioGs co%'laint. Actin# on the %otion and takin# 8udicial notice o0 its 'revious 8ud#%ent+ the lo*er court dis%issed the 'resent co%'laint on the #round o0 res "udicata. Conse.uentl$+ a#uio a''ealed the order o0 dis%issal. 2e clai%ed that 0or the #round o0 res "udicata to su00ice as a basis 0or dis%issal it %ust be a''arent on the 0ace o0 the co%'laint. (SS/"F Dhether or not the CF( o0 Misa%is Oriental *as correct in 0indin# that there *as res "udicata b$ takin# 8udicial notice o0 its 'revious 8ud#%ent. &/L(-GF T/E C,- 0, .-S%.-S 0R-E&T%1 2%S C0RRECT -& T%3-&4 567-C-%1 0, -TS *RE8-06S 5674.E&T. (t ou#ht to be clear even to the a''ellant that under the circu%stances+ the lo*er court certainl$ could take 8udicial notice o0 the 0inalit$ o0 8ud#%ent in a case that *as 'reviousl$ 'endin# and therea0ter decided b$ it. 1hat *as all that *as done b$ the lo*er court in decreein# the dis%issal. Certainl$+ such an order is not contrar$ to la*. 1he Su're%e Court .uoted Chie0 Justice Mor#an+ *ho saidF HCourts have also taken 8udicial notice o0 'revious cases to deter%ine *hether or not the case 'endin# is a %oot one or *hether or not the 'revious rulin# is a''licable in the case under consideration.I (: Aaron 'oi 'iturban Prieto )s. Arro(o 15 SC'A -5/ .1/,-1 6udicial &otice FAC1SF N"F"&(-O A&&OEO and GA &("L P&("1O *ere re#istered o*ners o0 ad8oinin# lots in Ca%arines Sur. A0ter Ne0erino died+ his heirs had a ne* certi0icate o0 title re#istered in their na%es. Subse.uentl$+ the heirs discovered that the technical descri'tion set 0orth in their trans0er certi0icate o0 title and in the ori#inal certi0icate o0 title did not con0or% *ith that e%bodied in the decision o0 the land re#istration court ?*hich re#istered the land in Ne0erinoGs na%e@+ and *as less in area b$ 9A> s.uare %eters. 1he$+ there0ore+ 0iled a 'etition 0or the

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 44 6

correction o0 the said descri'tion in their titles. 1herea0ter+ the court issued an order directin# the correction o0 the technical descri'tion o0 the land covered b$ their title. Gabriel 0iled a 'etition to annul the order #rantin# the correction clai%in# that the 9A> s.uare %eters *ere undul$ taken 0ro% his lot. 2o*ever+ his 'etition *as dis%issed 0or 0ailure to 'rosecute. 1hus+ Gabriel 0iled a second 'etition containin# si%ilar alle#ations. As e<'ected+ the court dis%issed his second 'etition on the #round o0 res "udicata. 2ence+ Gabriel a''ealed to the Su're%e Court to .uestion the dis%issal o0 his second 'etition. 2e insisted that there *as no res "udicata since the dis%issal o0 his 0irst 'etition *as erroneous. 2e clai%ed that the lo*er court should have not dis%issed his 0irst 'etition 0or 0ailure to 'rosecute because Hno O'aroleG evidence need be taken to su''ort it+ the %atters therein alle#ed bein# 'art o0 the records land re#istration 'roceedin#s+ *hich *ere *ell *ithin the 8udicial notice and co#nizance o0 the court.I (SS/"F Dhether or not the Court o0 First (nstance ?CF(@ o0 Ca%arines Sur ?in dis%issin# the 0irst 'etition o0 Gabriel@ erred in not takin# 8udicial notice o0 the 'arts o0 the records o0 the land re#istration 'roceedin#s that *ould have su''orted GabrielGs alle#ations+ thus+ %akin# the dis%issal 0or 0ailure to 'rosecute erroneous. &/L(-GF 12" CF( OF CAMA&(-"S S/& DAS CO&&"C1 (- -O1 1A)(-G J/D(C(AL -O1(C" OF 12" &"CO&DS 12" LA-D &"G(S1&A1(O- P&OC""D(-GS. As a #eneral rule+ courts are not authorized to take 8udicial notice+ in the ad8udication o0 the cases 'endin# be0ore the%+ o0 the contents o0 other cases+ even *hen such cases have been tried or are 'endin# in the sa%e court+ and not*ithstandin# the 0act that both cases %a$ have been tried or actuall$ 'endin# be0ore the sa%e 8ud#e. esides+ i0 Gabriel reall$ *anted the court to take 8udicial notice o0 such records+ he should have 'resented the 'ro'er re.uest or %ani0estation to that e00ect. For 0ailin# to do so in the a''ro'riate ti%e+ the dis%issal o0 the 0irst 'etition is no* valid and bindin# on hi%. 1hus+ the dis%issal on the #round o0 res "udicata %ust be sustained. (: Aaron 'oi 'iturban "ao4Aee )s. S(49on:ales 1,7 SC'A 70, .1/221 6udicial &otice FAC1SF S$ )iat+ a Chinese national+ died intestate+ leavin# real and 'ersonal 'ro'erties in the Phili''ines. A(DA SE6GO-NAL"S and the other children o0 S$ *ith Asuncion Gille#o 0iled a 'etition 0or the settle%ent o0 his estate. EAO )"" 0iled her o''osition to the 'etition clai%in# that she is the le#iti%ate *i0e o0 S$. 1he 'robate court sustained the validit$ o0 EaoGs %arria#e to S$+ but the Court o0 A''eals ?CA@ reversed the lo*er courtGs decision and held that the 'etitionerGs and EaoGs children *ere all o0 ille#iti%ate status. 1he CA ruled that the %arria#e bet*een Eao and S$ *as not 'roven to be valid under the Chinese la*s.

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 43 6

2ence+ Eao 0iled a 'etition 0or revie* *ith the Su're%e Court clai%in# that the CA erred in holdin# that the validit$ o0 the 0orei#n %arria#e bet*een Eao and S$ had not been 'roven. 1o su''ort this contention+ Eao clai%ed that the CA should have taken 8udicial notice o0 the Chinese la*s on %arria#e *hich sho* the validit$ o0 her %arria#e to S$. (SS/"F Dhether or not the CA should take 8udicial notice o0 0orei#n la*s ?i.e. Chinese la*s on %arria#e@+ thus+ relievin# Eao o0 her dut$ o0 'rovin# the validit$ o0 her %arria#e under Chinese la*s. &/L(-GF CO/&1S CA--O1 1A)" J/D(C(AL -O1(C" OF FO&"(G- LADS. /nder the Phili''ine 8uris'rudence+ to establish a valid 0orei#n %arria#e t*o thin#s %ust be 'rovenF ?9@ the e<istence o0 the 0orei#n la* as a .uestion o0 0actL and ?4@ the alle#ed 0orei#n %arria#e b$ convincin# evidence. 1hou#h Eao %a$ have established the 0act o0 %arria#e+ she has 0ailed to 'rove the Chinese la*s on %arria#e that *ould sho* the validit$ o0 her %arria#e to S$. Dell6established is the rule that Phili''ine courts cannot take 8udicial notice o0 0orei#n la*s or custo%s. 1he$ %ust be alle#ed and 'roved as an$ other 0act. On this 'oint+ Eao cannot rel$ on a the case o0 S$ Joc Lien# v. S$ Quia ?9B Phil. 93> ?9=95@@ to 'rove her case. 1he rulin# that case did not sho* that the court took 8udicial notice o0 Chinese la*s on %arria#es. "ven assu%in# 0or the sake o0 ar#u%ent that the court did take 8udicial notice o0 Chinese la*s or custo%s on 0orei#n %arria#es in that case+ Eao still 0ailed to sho* that the la* assu%ed to reco#nized in S$ Joc Lien# case ?*herein the %arria#e *as celebrated in 9:7>@ *as still a''licable durin# the ti%e o0 her %arria#e to S$+ *hich took 'lace :7 $ears later. 2ence+ the CA *as correct in considerin# that the validit$ o0 the %arria#e bet*een Eao and S$ has not been established. (: Aaron 'oi 'iturban Tabuena )s. Court of A**eals 1/, SC'A ,-8 .1//11 6udicial &otice FAC1SF 1he sub8ect o0 the dis'ute is a 'arcel o0 residential land o0 about 775 s.. %eters in Makato+ Aklan. (n 9=>3+ an action 0or recover$ o0 o*nershi' *as 0iled b$ the estate o0 Al0redo 1abernilla a#ainst Jose 1abuena. A0ter trial+ the court ordered 1abuena to return the 'ro'ert$ to 1abernilla. At the trial+ it *as 0ound that the lot *as sold b$ Juan Peralta+ Jr. in 9=4B to 1abernilla *hile the$ *ere in the /nited States. /'on 1abernillaGs return to the Phili''ines in 9=37+ Da%asa 1i%ti%an+ %other o0 Juan Peralta actin# u'on JuanGs instructions conve$ed the land to 1abernilla. /'on her re.uest+ she *as su''osedl$ allo*ed b$ 1abernilla to re%ain in the said lot 'rovided she 'aid the realt$ ta<es on the 'ro'ert$ *hich she did do so. She re%ained on the lot until her death and+ therea0ter+ the 'ro'ert$ *as taken 'ossession b$ 1abuena. 1his co%'laint *as 0iled a0ter a de%and 0or 1abuena to vacate *as %ade. 1he trial court re8ected his de0ense that the sub8ect o0 the sale *as a di00erent lot and that he *as the absolute o*ner o0 the said 'ro'ert$ b$ virtue o0 the inheritance he ac.uired
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 47 6

0ro% his deceased 'arent. 1he Court o0 A''eals a00ir%ed the decision o0 the trial court+ re8ectin# therein his clai% that the trial court erred in takin# co#nizance o0 "<hibits HAI+ H I+ ; HCG *hich had been %arked but not 0or%all$ o00ered in evidence b$ 1abernilla. (SS/"?S@F ?9@ Dhether or not it *as 'ro'er 0or the CA and trial court 'ro'erl$ took co#nizance o0 the e<hibits even i0 the$ *ere not 0or%all$ o00ered durin# trialP ?4@ Dhether or not the trial court erred in takin# 8udicial notice o0 1abuenaGs testi%on$ in a case it had 'reviousl$ heard *hich *as closely connected *ith the case be0ore itP &/L(-GF 1he SC reversed the decision and ruled in 0avor o0 1abuena. ?9@ -o. 1he %ere 0act that a 'articular docu%ent is %arked as an e<hibit does not %ean it has thereb$ alread$ been o00ered as 'art o0 the evidence o0 a 'art$. (t is true that "<hibits HA+I H +I and HCI *ere %arked at 're6trial but this *as onl$ 0or identi0$in# the% and not 0or %akin# a 0or%al o00er. (t is durin# the trial that the 'art$ 'resentin# the %arked evidence decides *hether to o00er the evidence or not. (n case the$ donGt+ such docu%ents cannot be considered evidence+ nor can the$ be #iven an$ evidentiar$ value. An e<ce'tion *as #iven in Peo'le vs. -a'at6a+ *herein the court ruled that evidence even i0 not o00ered can be ad%itted a#ainst the adverse 'art$ i0F 0irst+ it has been dul$ identi0ied b$ testi%on$ dul$ recorded and second+ it has itsel0 been incor'orated in the records o0 the case. (n this case+ these re.uire%ents had not been satis0ied. 1he docu%ents *ere indeed testi0ied to but there *as no recital o0 its contents havin# been read into the records. ?4@ Ees. 1he Court o0 A''eals conceded that as a #eneral rule+ Hcourts are not authorized to take 8udicial notice in the ad8udication o0 cases 'endin# be0ore the% o0 the contents o0 the records o0 other cases+ even *hen such events have been tried or are 'endin# in the sa%e court+ and not*ithstandin# the 0act that both cases %a$ have been heard or are actuall$ 'endin# be0ore the sa%e 8ud#e.I -evertheless+ it a''lied the e<ce'tion that Hin the absence o0 ob8ection+I H*ith the kno*led#e o0 the o''osin# 'art$+I or Hat the re.uest or *ith the consent o0 the 'arties+I the case is clearl$ re0erred to or Hthe ori#inal or 'art o0 the records o0 the case are actuall$ *ithdra*n 0ro% the archivesI and ad%itted as 'art o0 the record o0 the case then 'endin#. 1hese conditions ho*ever+ *ere not established in this case. 1abuena *as co%'letel$ una*are that the court had taken 8udicial notice o0 Civil Case no. 934>. 1hus+ the said act b$ the trial court *as i%'ro'er. (: $ranB 6oCn Abdon

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 4A 6

Peo*le )s. 9odo( +-8 SC'A ,7, .1//-1 6udicial &otice FAC1SF 1his is an auto%atic revie* o0 the decision o0 the &1C in vie* o0 the death sentence i%'osed u'on Dann$ Godo$+ *ho *as char#ed in t*o se'arate in0or%ations *ith ra'e and another 0or kidna''in# *ith serious ille#al detention. Co%'lainant Mia 1aha alle#ed that Godo$+ her Ph$sics 1eacher and a %arried %an ra'ed her 0irst on Jan. 49+ 9==7 in her cousinGs boardin# house *herein u'on enterin# the back door+ Godo$ 'ointed a kni0e at her. As Godo$ re%oved her 'anties and brou#ht out his 'enis to ra'e her+ a kni0e *as 'ointed at her neck. As such+ she *as not able to resist. 1he ne<t da$+ Godo$ ca%e b$ their house and asked the 'er%ission o0 her 'arents i0 she can 8oin hi% in solicitin# 0unds+ since Mia *as a candidate 0or Ms. Pala*an -ational School ?P-S@. MiaGs 'arents allo*ed her to #o *ith Godo$ and she *as alle#edl$ brou#ht to the Sunset Garden Motel *here she *as re'eatedl$ ra'ed a#ain. A0ter three da$s+ the$ trans0erred to "d*ardGs subdivision *here she *as ke't in a lod#in# house and *as a#ain ra'ed. Durin# this ti%e+ a 'olice blotter had alread$ been 'laced 0or the %issin# Mia. She *as later released b$ Godo$ a0ter a certain -ae% interceded and onl$ a0ter her 'arents a#reed to settle the case. (t *as a0ter MiaGs return that her 'arents acco%'anied her to a %edico6le#al *hich 0ound lacerations in her va#ina concludin# that Hshe "ust had sexual intercourse.I She and her %other 2elen *ent to the 'olice and e<ecuted s*orn state%ents statin# that the accused Godo$ had ra'ed and abducted Mia. Godo$ denied that he ra'ed Mia 1aha. 2e ad%itted havin# had se< *ith her and that the$ indeed sta$ed in Sunset Gardens and in "d*ardGs Subdivision+ but it *as because the$ *ere lovers and that Mia had consented to their havin# se<. 1o su''ort his clai% that the$ *ere lovers+ he 'resented t*o letters su''osedl$ delivered to hi% in the 'rovincial 8ail *hile he *as detained b$ MiaGs cousin Lorna. 1here Mia e<'lained that it *as her 'arents *ho 0orced her to testi0$ a#ainst hi%. 1he deliver$ o0 the letter *as denied b$ Lorna but the de0ense 'resented the 'rovincial 8ail #uard on dut$ on the su''osed date o0 the deliver$ and testi0ied that indeed Lorna had visited Godo$ on said date. Several *itnesses *ere also 'resented includin# t*o 0or%er teachers o0 Mia *ho kne* the hand*ritin# on the t*o said letters as belon#in# to Mia havin# been their 0or%er student and *here thus 0a%iliar *ith her hand*ritin# 'articularl$ those %ade in her test 'a'ers. Other *itnesses *ere 'resented b$ the de0ense attestin# that the$ sa* the t*o to#ether in a %anner that *as a00ectionate and cordial+ 'rior to the said Hkidna''in#I and even durin# such. (SS/"F Dhether or not the 'rosecution *as able to 'rove be$ond reasonable doubt the #uilt o0 the accused &/L(-GF 1he Su're%e Court ac.uitted Dann$ Godo$ . 1hree #uidin# 'rinci'les in the a''ellate revie* o0 the evidence o0 the 'rosecution 0or the cri%e o0 ra'e+ na%el$F a@ *hile ra'e is a %ost detestable cri%e+ it %ust be borne in %ind
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 4B 6

that it is an accusation eas$ to be %ade+ hard to be 'roved+ but harder to be de0ended b$ the 'art$ accused+ thou#h innocentL b@ the testi%on$ o0 the co%'lainant %ust be scrutinized *ith e<tre%e cautionL and c@ that the evidence 0or the 'rosecution %ust stand or 0all on its o*n %erits and cannot be allo*ed to dra* stren#th 0ro% the *eakness o0 the evidence 0or the de0ense. Mia clai%ed that the a''ellant al*a$s carried a kni0e but it *as never e<'lained ho* she *as threatened *ith the sa%e in such a %anner that she *as alle#edl$ al*a$s co*ed into #ivin# in to his innu%erable se<ual de%ands. (n takin# 8udicial notice+ the Su're%e Court said that it is not una*are that in ra'e cases+ the clai% o0 the co%'lainant o0 havin# been threatened a''ears to be a co%%on testi%onial e<'edient and 0ace6savin# subter0u#e. ut it had not been dul$ corroborated b$ other evidence nor 'roved that the accused indeed al*a$s carried a kni0e. 1he SC also takes 8udicial co#nizance o0 the 0act that in rural areas ?such as in Pala*an@ $oun# ladies are strictl$ re.uired to act *ith circu%s'ection and 'rudence. Great caution is observed so that their re'utations shall re%ain untainted. An$ breath o0 scandal *hich brin#s dishonor to their character hu%iliates their entire 0a%ilies. (t could 'recisel$ be that co%'lainantGs %other *anted to save 0ace in the co%%unit$ *here ever$bod$ kno*s ever$bod$ else+ and in an e00ort to conceal her dau#hterGs indiscretion and esca'e *a##in# ton#ues o0 their s%all rural co%%unit$+ she had to *eave the scenario o0 this ra'e dra%a. (: $ranB 6oCn Abdon PI4Sa)in?s )s. Court of TaD A**eals 008 SC'A -87 .+8881 6udicial &otice FAC1SF 1his case involves a clai% 0or ta< re0und in the a%ount o0 P994+7=9.55 re'resentin# P(Gs ta< *ithheld 0or the $ear 9=:=. P(Gs 9=:= (nco%e 1a< &eturn ?(1&@ sho*s that it had a total re0undable a%ount o0 P4=>+7=4 inclusive o0 the P994+7=9.55 bein# clai%ed as ta< re0und in this 'resent controvers$. 2o*ever+ P( declared in the sa%e 9=:= (1& that the said total re0undable a%ount o0 P4=>+7=4.55 *ill be a''lied as ta< credit to the succeedin# ta<able $ear. On October 99+ 9==5+ P( 0iled a *ritten clai% 0or re0und in the a%ount o0 P994+7=9.55 *ith the Co%%issioner o0 (nternal &evenue ?C(&@ alle#in# that it did not a''l$ the 9=:= re0undable a%ount to its 9==5 Annual (1& or other ta< liabilities due to the alle#ed business losses it incurred 0or the sa%e $ear. Dithout *aitin# 0or the C(& to act on the clai% 0or re0und+ P( 0iled a 'etition 0or revie* *ith the C1A+ seekin# the re0und o0 the a%ount o0 P994+7=9.55. 1he C1A dis%issed P(Gs 'etition on the #round that 'etitioner 0ailed to 'resent as evidence its Cor'orate Annual (1& 0or 9==5 to establish the 0act that P( had not $et credited the a%ount o0 P4=>+7=4.55 to its 9==5 inco%e ta< liabilit$. P( 0iled a Motion 0or &econsideration *hich *as denied b$ the C1A. 1he CA a00ir%ed the C1A. 2ence+ this Petition. e0ore the Su're%e Court+ the 'etitioner called the attention o0 the Court to a Decision rendered b$ the 1a< Court in CT% Case &o. !9:; involvin# its clai% 0or re0und 0or the $ear 9==5 *herein the 1a< Court held that H'etitioner su00ered a net loss 0or the ta<able $ear 9==5.I &es'ondent+ ho*ever+ ur#es the Su're%e Court not to do so.
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 4> 6

(SS/"F Dhether or not the Court %a$ take 8udicial notice o0 the Decision b$ the C1A in decidin# the 'resent caseP &/L(-GF AS A &/L"+ Qcourts are not authorized to take 8udicial notice o0 the contents o0 the records o0 other cases+ even *hen such cases have been tried or are 'endin# in the sa%e court+ and not*ithstandin# the 0act that both cases %a$ have been heard or are actuall$ 'endin# be0ore the sa%e 8ud#e.Q e that as it %a$+ Section 4+ &ule 94= 'rovides that courts %a$ take 8udicial notice o0 %atters ou#ht to be kno*n to 8ud#es because o0 their 8udicial 0unctions. (n this case+ the Court notes that a co'$ o0 the Decision in C1A Case -o. 7:=> *as attached to the Petition 0or &evie* 0iled be0ore this Court. Si#ni0icantl$+ res'ondents do not clai% at all that the said Decision *as 0raudulent or none<istent. (ndeed+ the$ do not even dis'ute the contents o0 the said Decision+ clai%in# %erel$ that the Court cannot take 8udicial notice thereo0. 1his %erel$ sho*ed the *eakness o0 the res'ondentGs case because the$ did not take ste's to 'rove that P( did not su00er an$ loss in 9==5. &es'ondents o'ted not to assail the 0act a''earin# therein 6 that 'etitioner su00ered a net loss in 9==5 M the sa%e *a$ that it re0used to controvert the sa%e 0act established b$ 'etitionerGs other docu%entar$ e<hibits. 1he Decision in C1A Case -o. 7:=> is not the sole basis o0 'etitionerGs case. (t is %erel$ one %ore bit o0 in0or%ation sho*in# that the 'etitioner did not use its 9=:= re0und to 'a$ its ta<es 0or 9==5. (: $ranB 6oCn Abdon 2. *UDICIAL AD!ISSIONS !ucido )s. Calu*itan +7 PCil. 52 .1/151 6udicial Admissions FAC1SF 1he 'ro'erties o0 Leonardo Lucido *ere sold on auction on Feb. 95+ 9=53 to &osales and Nolaivar. On March 35+ 9=53+ &osales and Nolaivar *ith the consent o0 Lucido+ sold the 'ro'erties to Calu'itan via a 'ublic docu%ent. On the sa%e da$+ Calu'itan and Lucido e<ecuted a docu%ent ad%ittin# the sale and that their real a#ree%ent *as that rede%'tion b$ Lucido can onl$ be e00ected 3 $ears. 0ro% the date o0 the docu%ent. Lucido tendered the rede%'tion 'rice to Calu'itan. For 0ailure o0 the latter to surrender the 'ro'erties to Lucido+ this case *as instituted. Calu'itan clai%ed that the sale *as not one *ith a ri#ht to redee%. 1he lo*er court decided in 0avor o0 Lucido. (SS/"F Dhether or not Calu'itanGs ori#inal ans*er to the co%'laint %a$ be used as evidence a#ainst hi% to 'rove that a sale *ith a ri#ht to redee% *as in 0act a#reed to b$ both 'artiesP &/L(-GF

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 4: 6

Ees+ Calu'itanGs ori#inal ans*er to the co%'laint e<'ressl$ stated that the transaction *as one o0 sale *ith ri#ht to re'urchase. 1he Court held that its ad%ission *as 'ro'er+ es'eciall$ in vie* o0 the 0act that it *as si#ned b$ Calu'itan hi%sel0+ *ho *as actin# as his o*n attorne$. 1he Court cited Jones on "vidence ?sec. 4>4+ 4>3@ *hich stated that althou#h 'leadin#s *ere ori#inall$ considered as inad%issible as ad%issions because it contained onl$ 'leaderGs %atter ?0iction stated b$ counsel and sanctioned b$ the courts@+ %odern tendenc$ *as to treat 'leadin#s as state%ents o0 real issues and herein+ ad%issions o0 the 'arties. (: $ranB 6oCn Abdon

Torres )s. Court of A**eals 11 SC'A +5 .1/251 6udicial Admissions FAC1SF 1his is a Petition 0or &evie*+ treated as a s'ecial civil action 'ra$in# that the decision o0 the CA be set aside. Lot no. AA9 *as ori#inall$ o*ned b$ Mar#arita 1orres. Mar#arita *as %arried to Claro Santillan and out o0 this union *ere be#otten ,icente and Antonina. Claro died. Antonina %arried and had si< children+ *ho+ to#ether *ith ,icente are the 'rivate res'ondents. A0ter ClaroGs death+ Mar#arita cohabited *ith Leon Arbole+ and out o0 this+ 'etitioner Macaria 1orres *as born. Lot no. AA9+ an urban lot+ *as leased to Mar#arita+ *ho *as the actual occu'ant o0 the lot. A Sale Certi0icate *as issued to Mar#arita b$ the Director o0 Lands. 1he 'urchase 'rice *as to be 'aid in install%ents. Accordin# to testi%onial evidence+ Leon 'aid the install%ents out o0 his o*n earnin#s. e0ore his death+ Leon sold and trans0erred all his ri#hts to R 'ortion o0 the lot in 0avor o0 'etitioner Macaria. Subse.uentl$+ ,icente e<ecuted an A00idavit clai%in# 'ossession o0 Lot no. AA9 and 'etitioned the ureau o0 Lands 0or the issuance o0 title in his na%e. A title *as then issued in the na%e o0 the le#al heirs o0 Mar#arita ?'rivate res'ondents@. On June 3+ 9=A7+ res'ondents 0iled a co%'laint a#ainst 'etitioner 0or 0orcible entr$ alle#in# that 'etitioner entered a 'ortion o0 Lot no. AA9 *ithout their consent and constructed a house therein. 1he case *as decided a#ainst the 'etitioner. On June :+ 9=A7+ 'etitioner instituted an action 0or Partition o0 Lot. -5. AA9 alle#in# that said lot *as con8u#al 'ro'ert$ and the she is the le#iti%ated child o0 Mar#arita and Leon. 1he e8ect%ent case and the 'artition case *as consolidated. 1he trial court ruled that the lot *as 'ara'hernal 'ro'ert$ o0 Mara#arita and ad8udicated 4K3 o0 the lot to res'ondents and 9K3 to 'etitioner Macaria. On Motion 0or &econsideration+ the decision *as a%ended *ith Macaria bein# entitled to 7KB o0 the lot. On a''eal to the CA+ the CA chan#ed MacariaGs share to R o0 the lot and declared that she is not a le#iti%ated child. Petitioner no* alle#es that althou#h the CA is correct in declarin# that she is not a le#iti%ated child o0 the s'ouses+ it has overlooked to include in its 0indin#s o0 0acts the ad%ission %ade b$ the res'ondents that she and ,icente and Antonina are brothers and sisters and the$ are the le#al heirs and nearest o0 relatives o0 Mara#arita. 1he ad%ission adverted to
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 4= 6

a''ears in 'ara#ra'h 3 o0 res'ondentsG ori#inal co%'laint in the "8ect%ent Case+ *hich *as ho*ever subse.uentl$ a%ended. (SS/"F Dhether or not said state%ent in the ori#inal co%'laint %ust be treated as a 8udicial ad%ission des'ite the 0act that the sa%e state%ents no lon#er a''ears in the a%ended co%'laintP &/L(-GF -o+ in the A%ended Co%'laint 0iled b$ res'ondents in the sa%e e8ect%ent case+ the su''osed ad%ission *as deleted and in 0act the state%ent si%'l$ read+ H1hat 'lainti00s are the le#al heirs and nearest o0 kin o0 Mar#arita.I $ virtue thereo0+ the a%ended co%'laint takes the 'lace o0 the ori#inal. 1he latter is re#arded as abandoned and ceases to 'er0or% an$ 0urther 0unction as a 'leadin#. 1he ori#inal co%'laint no lon#er 0or%s 'art o0 the record. (0 'etitioner had intended to utilize the ori#inal co%'laint+ she should have o00ered it in evidence. 2avin# been a%ended+ the ori#inal co%'laint lost its character as a 8udicial ad%ission+ *hich *ould have re.uired no 'roo0+ and beca%e %erel$ an e<tra8udicial ad%ission o0 *hich as evidence+ re.uired its 0or%al o00er. Contrar$ to 'etitionerGs sub%ission+ there0ore+ there can be no esto''el b$ e<tra8udicial ad%ission in the ori#inal co%'laint+ 0or the 0ailure to o00er it in evidence. T++,a-.++, /+0a1a2+ 304-43-: Such ad%ission did not cease to be a 8udicial ad%ission si%'l$ because res'ondents subse.uentl$ deleted the sa%e in their a%ended co%'laint. 1he ori#inal co%'laint+ althou#h re'laced b$ an a%ended co%'laint+ does not cease to be 'art o0 the 8udicial record+ not havin# been e<'un#ed there0ro%. (: $ranB 6oCn Abdon iton? )s. Court of A**eals +/+ SC'A -80 .1//21 6udicial Admissions FAC1SF Petitioner -ora iton#+ clai%in# to be a 0or%er 1reasurer and Me%ber o0 the oard o0 Directors o0 .r. < .s. Publishin# Co. 0iled a derivative suit be0ore the Securities and "<chan#e Co%%ission ?S"C@ alle#edl$ 0or the bene0it o0 'rivate res'ondent .r. < .s. Publishin# Co.+ (nc. to hold res'ondent s'ouses "u#enia A'ostol and Jose A'ostol liable 0or 0raud+ %isre'resentation+ dislo$alt$+ evident bad 0aith+ con0lict o0 interest and %is%ana#e%ent in directin# the a00airs o0 Mr. ; Ms to its da%a#e and 're8udice and its stockholders. She 0urther alle#ed that res'ondents A'ostol+ Ma#sanoc and -$uda subscribed to Phili''ine Dail$ (n.uirer ?PD(@ shares o0 stockL the stock subscri'tions *ere 'aid 0or b$ .r. < .s. and treated as receivables 0ro% o00icers and e%'lo$ees but no 'a$%ents *ere ever received 0ro% res'ondents. 1he 'etition 'rinci'all$ sou#ht to en8oin res'ondent s'ouses 0ro% 0urther actin# a 'resident6director and director+ res'ectivel$ o0 Mr. ; Ms and disbursin# an$ %one$ or 0unds e<ce't 0or the 'a$%ent o0 salaries and si%ilar e<'enses in the ordinar$ course o0 business.
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 35 6

Private res'ondents re0uted the alle#ations o0 'etitioner sa$in# that she *as %erel$ a holder6in6 trust o0 JA)A shares and onl$ re'resented and continue to re'resent JA)A in the board. JA)A+ o*ned b$ s'ouses Senator Juan Ponce "nrile and Cristina Ponce "nrile+ is one o0 the ori#inal stockholders o0 .r. < .s.. 1he res'ondents averred that the real 'art$6in6interest *as JA)A and not 'etitioner. iton# testi0ied at trial that she beca%e the re#istered o*ner o0 ==> shares o0 stock o0 .r. < .s. a0ter she ac.uired the% 0ro% JA)A throu#h a deed o0 sale.1he S"C 2earin# Panel dis%issed the derivative suit. 1he S"C En =anc reversed the decision o0 the 2earin# Panel. 1he Court o0 A''eals reversed the decision o0 the S"C En =anc and held that 0ro% the evidence in record+ 'etitioner *as not the o*ner o0 the shares o0 stock in .r. < .s. and there0ore not a real 'art$6in6interest to 'rosecute the clai%. She *as %erel$ an a#ent *ho cannot 0ile a derivative suit in behal0 o0 her 'rinci'al. e0ore the Su're%e Court+ 'etitioner sub%its that in her %mended *etition in the S"C+ she stated that she *as a stockholder and director o0 .r. < .s. and even declared that Hshe is the re#istered o*ner o0 9+555 shares o0 stock o0 .r. < .s. out o0 the latterGs 7+5:: total outstandin# shares+ and that she *as a %e%ber o0 the oard o0 Directors and treasurer o0 said co%'an$. She contends that res'ondents did not den$ the above alle#ations in their ans*er and are there0ore conclusivel$ bound b$ this 8udicial ad%ission. (SS/"F Dhether or not there *as 8udicial ad%ission on the 'art o0 the res'ondents that 'etitioner is a stockholder o0 .r. < .s.P &/L(-GF 1he ans*er o0 'rivate res'ondents sho*s that there *as no 8udicial ad%ission that 'etitioner *as a stockholder o0 .r. < .s. to entitle her to 0ile a derivative suit on behal0 o0 the cor'oration. 1he a00ir%ative de0enses o0 'rivate res'ondents directl$ re0ute the re'resentation o0 'etitioner that she is a true stockholder o0 .r. < .s+ b$ statin# une.uivocall$ that 'etitioner is not the true 'art$ to the case but JA)A *hich continues to be the stockholder o0 .r. < .s. (n 0act+ one o0 the relie0s 'ra$ed 0or *as the dis%issal o0 the 'etition on the #round that 'etitioner did not have the le#al interest to initiate and 'rosecute the sa%e. Dhen taken in its totalit$+ the %mended %nswer to the %mended *etition and even the %nswer to the %mended *etition alone+ clearl$ raises an issue to the le#al 'ersonalit$ o0 the 'etitioner to 0ile the co%'laint. Dith re#ard to the contention o0 the 'etitioner that res'ondentsG ad%ission that she has 9+555 shares o0 stocks re#istered in her na%e 0orecloses an$ .uestion on her status and ri#ht to brin# a derivative suit the Court saidF Dhere the state%ents o0 the 'rivate res'ondents *ere .uali0ied *ith 'hrases such as+ Hinso0ar as the$ are li%ited+ .uali0ied andKor e<'anded b$+I Hthe truth bein# as stated in the %ffirmative %llegations>7efenses of this %nswer+ the$ cannot be considered de0inite and certain enou#h to be construed as 8udicial ad%issions. A 'art$ *hose 'leadin# is ad%itted as an ad%ission a#ainst interest is entitled to overco%e b$ evidence the a''arent inconsistenc$ and it is co%'etent 0or the 'art$ a#ainst *ho% the 'leadin# is o00ered to sho* that the state%ents *ere inadvertentl$ %ade or %ade under a %istake o0 0act. Dhile an ad%ission is ad%issible in evidence+ its 'robative value is to be deter%ined 0ro% the *hole state%ent and others inti%atel$ related or connected there*ith. Althou#h acts or 0acts ad%itted do not re.uire 'roo0 and cannot be contradicted+ evidence aliunde can be 'resented to sho* that the
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 39 6

ad%ission *as %ade throu#h 'al'able %istake. 1he rule is al*a$s in 0avor o0 the liberalit$ in construction o0 'leadin#s so that the real %atter in dis'ute %a$ be sub%itted 0or 8ud#%ent in the court. (: $ranB 6oCn Abdon

III.

'%A! A&D D%M#&ST'ATIV% %VID%&C% A. RULE 13 ) SEC. 1) SEC. 2 R(le 130 RULES O# A&3ISSI$ILIT" $. O$5ECT 6REAL7 EVI&ENCE

SECTION 1. &b'ect as evidence. 7bjects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. Bhen an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or vie ed by the court. C. &OCU3ENTAR" EVI&ENCE

SECTION 2. Documentary evidence. 2ocuments as evidence consist of ritings or any material containing letters, ords, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of ritten expressions offered as proof of their contents. Ca/+/: Peo*le )s. ardaje // SC'A 022 .1/281 'eal and Demonstrati)e %)idence FAC1SF 1he accused+ Adelino arda8e *as convicted o0 Forcible Abduction *ith &a'e and sentenced to death. 1hus+ the case is brou#ht to the SC 0or auto%atic revie*. 1he co%'lainant Marcelina Cuizon clai%ed that she *as dra##ed b$ the accused to#ether *ith 0ive other 'ersons 0ro% the house o0 a certain Fernandez b$ %eans o0 0orce and inti%idation and at ni#htti%e. Also+ she narrated that arda8e sla''ed her renderin# her unconscious and *hen she re#ained consciousness in a hut+ arda8e *as holdin# her hands and re%ovin# her 'anties. Des'ite her stru##le+ arda8e succeeded in havin# se<ual intercourse *ith her *hile his co%'anions ke't #uard.

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 34 6

Dhen Cuizon under*ent 'h$sical e<a%ination+ the doctor 0ound that there *ere Hold healed lacerationsI *hich %a$ have been caused b$ 'ossible se<ual intercourse or other 0actors+ and i0 it *ere intercourse+ it could have occurred Ht*o *eeks or one %onth a#o.I Durin# trial+ Adelino ad%itted havin# had carnal kno*led#e o0 the victi% but denied havin# ra'ed her. 2e clai%s that the$ elo'ed as 'reviousl$ 'lanned. (SS/"F Dhether or not the #uilt o0 arda8e *as established be$ond reasonable doubtP &/L(-GF &o. CuizonGs char#e that she *as 0orcibl$ abducted and a0ter*ards ra'ed *as hi#hl$ dubious and inherentl$ i%'robable. Accordin# to the %edical 0indin#s+ Hno evidence o0 e<ternal in8uries *as 0ound around the vulva or an$ 'art o0 the bod$.I Considerin# that co%'lainant *as alle#edl$ Hdra##ed+I Hsla''edI into unconsciousness+ H*restledI *ith and cri%inall$ abused. Ph$sical evidence is o0 the hi#hest order and s'eaks %ore elo.uentl$ than all *itness 'ut to#ether. 1he %edical 0indin#s o0 Hold healed lacerationsI in the h$%en *hich accordin# to the testi%on$ o0 the e<a%inin# 'h$sician *ould have occurred t*o *eeks or even one %onth be0ore+ i0 said lacerations had been caused b$ se<ual intercourse. 1his e<'ert o'inion bolsters the de0ense that arda8e and Cuizon had 'revious a%orous relations at the sa%e ti%e that it casts serious doubts on the char#e o0 intercourse b$ 0orce and inti%idation. (t is i%'ossible that co%'lainant could have been ra'ed b$ the accused inside a s%all roo% occu'ied b$ a *o%an and t*o children and in a s%all hut *here the o*ner+ his *i0e and seven children are all 'resent. (t is i%'robable that she could have been se<uall$ abused *ith so %an$ *ithin hearin# and seein# distance. /nder the above%entioned circu%stances+ the Five Others *ho stood #uard outside *hile Adelino alle#edl$ took advanta#e o0 her. Dould have taken turns in abusin# her i0 ra'e indeed ha''en. 1he 0act that the$ did not do so+ i%'lies a s'ecial relationshi' bet*een Marcelino and Adelino. 1his is a case *here a $oun# #irl could not ad%it to her 'arents that she had elo'ed and voluntaril$ sub%itted to se<ual intercourse. She *as le0t *ith no choice but to char#e arda8e *ith ra'e or incur the ire o0 her 'arents and social disre'ute 0ro% a s%all co%%unit$. (: 'a(mond 6ose*C Ibon Sison )s. Peo*le +-8 SC'A -2 .1//-1 'eal and Demonstrati)e %)idence FAC1SF Several in0or%ations *ere 0iled in court a#ainst eleven 'ersons ?Sison et al@ identi0ied as Marcos lo$alists char#in# the% *ith the %urder o0 Ste'hen Salcedo+ a su''orter o0 Cor$ A.uino+ *hich ha''ened on the occasion o0 a rall$ held b$ the Marcos lo$alists at Luneta. A0ter bein# asked to dis'erse the cro*d 0or not havin# *ith the% the re.uired 'er%it+ the lo$alists started hurlin# stones to*ard the 'olice o00icers at the scene+ and directed their ire
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 33 6

a#ainst Cor$ su''orters. Salcedo+ *earin# a $ello* shirt *as #an#ed u'on b$ several %en+ and he *as beaten and %auled. Dhen he tried to #et a*a$ 0ro% his attackers b$ runnin# a*a$+ the attackers ran a0ter hi% and *hen the$ cau#ht u' *ith hi%+ he *as 0urther beaten until he *as knocked unconscious. 2e *as dead u'on arrivin# at the PG2. All these *ere *itnessed b$ &enato anculo+ a ci#arette vendor. anculo and Su%ilan# ?*ho *as also a *itness *ho tried to hel' Salcedo but to no avail@ *ere 'rinci'al *itnesses 0or the 'rosecution. 1he incident *as also *itnessed b$ 'hoto#ra'hers+ *hose 'ictures ere 'ublished in %a8or ne*s'a'ers in Metro Manila and *ere 'resented as evidence as to the 'artici'ation o0 the accused in the %aulin#. Several o0 the accused *ere 'hoto#ra'hed *ith Salcedo. Des'ite their de0ense o0 alibis+ the trial court convicted several o0 the accused o0 ho%icide and ac.uitted the others. /'on a''eal to the CA+ the char#e *as .uali0ied to %urder. (n the SC+ the accused .uestion the ad%issibilit$ o0 the 'hoto#ra'hs taken o0 the victi%s as he *as bein# %auled at the Luneta+ 0or lack o0 'ro'er identi0ication b$ the 'erson or 'ersons *ho took the sa%e. (SS/"F Dhether or not the 'hoto#ra'hs should be ad%itted as evidence a#ainst the accusedP &/L(-GF ?es. 1he rule in this 8urisdiction is that 'hoto#ra'hs+ *hen 'resented in evidence+ %ust be identi0ied b$ the 'hoto#ra'her as to its 'roduction and testi0ied as to the circu%stances *hich the$ *ere 'roduced. 1he value o0 this kind o0 evidence lies in its bein# a correct re'resentation or re'roduction o0 the ori#inal+ and its ad%issibilit$ is deter%ined b$ its accurac$ in 'ortra$in# the scene at the ti%e o0 the cri%e. 1he 'hoto#ra'her+ ho*ever+ is not onl$ the *itness *ho can identi0$ the 'ictures he has taken. 1he correctness o0 the 'hoto#ra'h as a 0aith0ul re'resentation o0 the ob8ect 'ortra$ed can be 'roved 'ri%a 0acie+ either b$ the testi%on$ o0 the 'erson *ho %ade it or b$ other co%'etent *itnesses+ a0ter *hich the court can ad%it it sub8ect to i%'each%ent as to its accurac$. Photo#ra'hs+ there0ore+ can be identi0ied b$ the 'hoto#ra'her or b$ an$ other co%'etent *itness *ho can testi0$ to its e<actness and accurac$. "ven i0 the 'erson *ho took the 'hoto#ra'hs *as not 'resented to identi0$ the%+ the use o0 these 'hotos b$ so%e o0 the accused to sho* their alle#ed non6'artici'ation in the cri%e is an ad%ission o0 the e<actness and accurac$ thereo0. 1hat the 'hotos are 0aith0ul re'resentations o0 the %aulin# incident *as a00ir%ed *hen a''ellants identi0ied the%selves therein and #ave reasons 0or their 'resence thereat. (: 'a(mond 6ose*C Ibon Adamc:uB )s. Hollo;a( 10 A.+d.+ .1/581 'eal and Demonstrati)e %)idence FAC1SF

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 37 6

Jack Ada%czuk brou#ht an action in tres'ass a#ainst de0endants car o*ner Morris Cohon and driven b$ de0endant "l%er 2ollo*a$ 0or an incident arisin# out o0 the collision bet*een the cars the$ *ere drivin#. 1he accident took 'lace at =F35 '.%. at the 8unction *ere 2i#h*a$ &oute B %eet *ith rid#eville &oad. Ada%czuk *as drivin# south*ardl$ on the rid#eville &oad and 2ollo*a$ *as drivin# east*ardl$ on &oute B. 1he 8ur$ ruled in 0avor o0 2ollo*a$. Ada%czukGs %otion 0or a ne* trial *as re0used and these a''eals 0ollo*ed. (t *as 0ound that on trial+ Jack Ada%czuk *as on the stand and he *as sho*n H"<hibit no. 3+I a 'icture and *hen .ueried as to *hat it de'icted+ he re'lied+ Hthe conditions re'resented b$ that 'icture trul$ re'resents the conditions o0 the crossin# at the ti%e o0 this accident e<ce't 0or the 0act o0 da$li#ht or dark.I 1hen the e<hibit *as o00ered in evidence. On cross+ it *as disclosed that the *itness did not kno* *ho took the 'icture or *hen it *as taken. 2e could not relate the circu%stances at to ho* the 'icture *as taken. 1he court then sustained the ob8ection to the 'ictureGs introduction+ *herein the court did not ad%it it. 1he none ad%ission o0 this evidence is the %ain issue asserted b$ the 'lainti00 in this a''eal. (SS/"F Dhether or not the Photo#ra'h ?"<hibit no. 3@ is ad%issible as evidence even i0 the taker is not 'resented to veri0$ the 'ictureP &/L(-GF The court affirmed the decision. 1he rule is *ell settled that a 'hoto#ra'h %a$ be 'ut in evidence i0 relevant to the issue and i0 veri0ied. (t does not have to be veri0ied b$ the taker. (ts veri0ication de'ends on the co%'etenc$ o0 the veri0$in# *itness and as to that the trial 8ud#e %ust in the 0irst instance decide+ sub8ect to reversal 0or substantial error. 1he %a' or 'hoto#ra'h %ust 0irst+ to be ad%issible+ be %ade a 'art o0 so%e .uali0ied 'ersonGs testi%on$. So%e one %ust stand 0orth as its testi%onial s'onsorL in other *ords+ (1 M/S1 " ,"&(F("D. (0 a *itness is 0a%iliar *ith the scene 'hoto#ra'hed and is co%'etent to testi0$ that the 'hoto#ra'h correctl$ re'resents it+ it should+ i0 relevant+ be ad%itted. 1here is also a rule #ivin# the trial 8ud#e discretion to re8ect a 'icture+ on the #round that the evidence is cu%ulative or that the 'hoto#ra'h is unnecessar$. 1his can be done the court in such situations that there are 0ar better 'hoto#ra'hs o0 the 'lace taken than the 'hoto o00ered or the 8ur$ had 'ersonall$ visited the 'lace 'hoto#ra'hed. H1he .uestion o0 the su00icienc$ o0 the 'reli%inar$ 'roo0s to identi0$ a 'hoto#ra'h and sho* that it is a 0air re'resentation o0 the ob8ects *hich it 'ur'orts to 'ortra$ is a .uestion co%%itted to the discretion o0 the trial 8ud#e.I 1he court thus 0inds that the e<clusion under the 0acts o0 this case a%ounted to reversible error becauseF a.@ the 8ur$ had the bene0it o0 other 'hotos o0 the intersection b.@ the testi%on$ o0 2erbert Dillard c.@ Also+ it *ould not su''ort Ada%czukGs contention that he had his head turned at a 7A de#ree an#le and+ thus+ bein# able to see 0or 455 0eet onl$. 1his caused hi% not to see the car co%in# 0ro% the *est. ut DillardGs testi%on$ stated that at the intersection he had an unobstructed vie* to the *est o0 >=3 0eet.
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 3A 6

(: 'a(mond 6ose*C Ibon State of >asCin?ton )s. Tatum 0,8 P.+d 7-5 .1/,11 'eal and Demonstrati)e %)idence FAC1SF Dillia% 1ousin received %onthl$ *el0are checks 0ro% the state o0 Dashin#ton. (n Februar$ o0 9=B5+ 1ousin did not receive his check *hich *as nor%all$ %ailed to hi%. (t *as discovered that 1ousinGs check had been taken b$ &al'h 1atu% *ho subse.uentl$ 0or#ed an endorse%ent on the check to his na%e and cashed the sa%e at a 0ood store. A cri%inal case *as subse.uentl$ brou#ht a#ainst 1atu% 0or 0irst de#ree 0or#er$. Durin# the trial+ Caroline Pentecost+ an e%'lo$ee o0 the store+ testi0ied that+ althou#h she could not recall the s'eci0ic transaction involvin# 1atu%+ the initials a''earin# on the back o0 the check *ere hers. She e<'lained that *henever a check *as 'resented to her 0or 'a$%ent at the store+ she had been instructed b$ the %ana#er to initial it and then to insert it into a Hre#isco'eI %achine. 1he %achine *as desi#ned to si%ultaneousl$ 'hoto#ra'h both the check and the 'erson 0acin# the %achine. 1he &e#isco'e 0il% o0 the transaction *as then sent to the &e#isco'e distributor to be develo'ed. 1he 'rocessed 0il% sho*ed both the check and the 'erson o0 1atu% *ith the 0ood store in the back#round. 1he ne#ative and the 'rint *ere ad%itted in evidence and 1atu% *as convicted and sentenced to li0e i%'rison%ent. On a''eal+ 1atu% .uestions the 0il%Gs ad%ission into evidence. (SS/"F Dhether or not the &e#isco'e 0il%s *ere authenticated su00icientl$ to *arrant their ad%ission into evidenceP &/L(-GF ?es. 1he .uantu% o0 authentication re.uired b$ the courts be0ore a 'hoto#ra'h %a$ be ad%issible in evidence *as stated thusF Hthat so%e *itness+ not necessaril$ the 'hoto#ra'her+ be able to #ive so%e indication as to *hen+ *here and under *hat circu%stances the 'hoto#ra'h *as taken+ and the 'hoto#ra'h accuratel$ 'ortra$ the sub8ect or sub8ects illustrated.I 1he 'hoto#ra'h need onl$ be su00icientl$ accurate to be hel'0ul to the court and the 8ur$. Ditness Pentecost testi0ied that she reco#nized the back#round sho*n in the 'icture as that o0 the 0ood store+ and as alread$ %entioned+ she testi0ied as to the storeGs standard 'rocedure o0 Hre#isco'in#I each individual *ho cashed a check at the store. Also+ one Phili' Dale testi0ied at len#th concernin# the &e#isco'e 'rocess. 1he testi%on$ o0 these t*o *itnesses taken to#ether a%ounted to a su00icient authentication to *arrant ad%ission o0 the 'hoto#ra'h into evidence. 1he authentication su''lied b$ the testi%on$ su%%arized above+ o0 course+ did not 'reclude a''ellant 0ro% atte%'tin# to 'rove that the individual 'ortra$ed *as so%eone other than the a''ellant+ that the 'hoto#ra'h *as inaccurate in or %ore res'ects+ the a''ellant *as
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 3B 6

so%e*here else at the %o%ent the 'hoto#ra'h *as taken+ or an$ other such de0ense. ut these ar#u%ents #o to the *ei#ht rather than to the ad%issibilit$ o0 the e<hibits in .uestion. (n our o'inion+ the &e#isco'e e<hibits+ cou'led *ith the other evidence 'roduced b$ the state+ su00iced to establish a 'ri%a 0acie case o0 0irst de#ree o0 0or#er$. (: 'a(mond 6ose*C Ibon III. A. %ST %VID%&C% '=!%

RULE 13 , SEC. 2-8) SECTION 2. Documentary Evidence 2ocuments as evidence consist of ritings or any material containing letters, ords, numbers, figures, symbols, or other modes of ritten expressions offered as proof of their contents. (n) 1. $e,t E8i.ence R(le

SECTION 3. &ri%inal document must be produced; exceptions. Bhen the subject of in&uiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the follo ing cases= ii. Bhen the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, ithout bad faith on the part of the offeror? iii. Bhen the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against hom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice? iv. Bhen the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents hich cannot be examined in court ithout great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the hole? and v. Bhen the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. (!a) SECTION 4. &ri%inal of document. ( (a) The original of a document is one the contents of hich are the subject of in&uiry. (b) Bhen a document is in t o or more copies executed at or about the same time, ith identical contents, all such copies are e&ually regarded as originals. (c) Bhen an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are li.e ise e&ually regarded as originals. ("a)
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 3> 6

2.

Secon.+r9 E8i.ence

SECTION *. )"en ori%inal document is unavailable. Bhen the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability ithout bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of itnesses in the order stated. (,a) SECTION 1. )"en ori%inal document is in adverse party*s custody or control. (f the document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. (f after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. (:a) SECTION :. Evidence admissible #"en ori%inal document is a public record. Bhen the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (!a) SECTION 8. arty #"o calls for document not bound to offer it. ( ' party ho calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. (4a) RULE 132, SEC. 2# AND 27) SECTION 2*. )"at attestation of copy must state. Bhenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of the evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the cler. of court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (!4a) SECTION 2:. ublic record of a private document. 'n authori%ed public record of a private document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, ith an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. (!5a) ELECTRONIC CO!!ERCE ACT (R.A. 87"2), SEC. #, 5-1#)

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 3: 6

SECTION *. Definition of Terms. + @or the purposes of this 'ct, the follo ing terms are defined, as follo s= a. ,Addressee- refers to a person ho is intended by the originator to receive the electronic data message or electronic document. The term does not include a person acting as an intermediary ith respect to that electronic data message or electronic document. b. ,Computer- refers to any device or apparatus hich, by electronic, electro# mechanical or magnetic impulse, or by other means, is capable of receiving, recording, transmitting, storing, processing, retrieving, or producing information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of ritten expression according to mathematical and logical rules or of performing any one or more of those functions. c. ,Electronic Data Messa%e- refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means. d. ,.nformation and Communication System- refers to a system intended for and capable of generating, sending, receiving, storing or other ise processing electronic data messages or electronic documents and includes the computer system or other similar device by or in hich data is recorded or stored and any procedures related to the recording or storage of electronic data message or electronic document. e. ,Electronic Si%nature- refers to any distinctive mar., characteristic andCor sound in electronic form, representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated ith the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedures employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person ith the intention of authenticating or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. f. ,Electronic Document- refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of ritten expression, described or ho ever represented, by hich a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by hich a fact may be proved and affirmed, hich is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. g. ,Electronic /ey- refers to a secret code hich secures and defends sensitive information that crosses over public channels into a form decipherable only ith a matching electronic .ey. h. ,.ntermediary- refers to a person ho in behalf of another person and ith respect to a particular electronic document sends, receives andCor stores or provides other services in respect of that electronic document. i. ,&ri%inator- refers to a person by hom, or on hose behalf, the electronic document purports to have been created, generated andCor sent. The term
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 3= 6

does not include a person acting as an intermediary electronic document. j. ,Service rovider- refers to a provider of

ith respect to that

(i) 7n#line services or net or. access, or the operator of facilities therefore, including entities offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for online communications, digital or other ise, bet een or among points specified by a user, of electronic documents of the userDs choosing? or (ii) The necessary technical means by hich electronic documents of an originator may be stored and made accessible to a designated or undesignated third party? *uch service providers shall have no authority to modify or alter the content of the electronic data message or electronic document received or to ma.e any entry therein on behalf of the originator, addressee or any third party unless specifically authori%ed to do so, and ho shall retain the electronic document in accordance ith the specific re&uest or as necessary for the purpose of performing the services it as engaged to perform. C/APTER II LEGAL RECOGNITION O# ELECTRONIC !RITING OR &OCU3ENT AN& &ATA 3ESSAGES SECTION 1. 0e%al Reco%nition of Data Messa%es . # (nformation shall not be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely on the grounds that it is in the data message purporting to give rise to such legal effect, or that it is merely referred to in that electronic data message. SECTION :. 0e%al Reco%nition of Electronic Documents. Electronic documents shall have the legal effect, validity or enforceability as any other document or legal riting, and # (a) Bhere the la re&uires a document to be in riting, that re&uirement is met by an electronic document if the said electronic document maintains its integrity and reliability and can be authenticated so as to be usable for subse&uent reference, in that # (i) The electronic document has remained complete and unaltered, apart from the addition of any endorsement and any authori%ed change, or any change hich arises in the normal course of communication, storage and display? and (ii) The electronic document is reliable in the light of the purpose for as generated and in the light of all the relevant circumstances. hich it

(b) /aragraph (a) applies hether the re&uirement therein is in the form of an obligation or hether the la simply provides conse&uences for the document not being presented or retained in its original form.
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 75 6

(c) Bhere the la re&uires that a document be presented or retained in its original form, that re&uirement is met by an electronic document if # (i) There exists a reliable assurance as to the integrity of the document from the time hen it as first generated in its final form? and (ii) That document is capable of being displayed to the person to hom it is to be presented= rovided! That no provision of this 'ct shall apply to vary any and all re&uirements of existing la s on formalities re&uired in the execution of documents for their validity. @or evidentiary purposes, an electronic document shall be the functional e&uivalent of a ritten document under existing la s. This 'ct does not modify any statutory rule relating to the admissibility of electronic data messages or electronic documents, except the rules relating to authentication and best evidence. SECTION 8. 0e%al Reco%nition of Electronic Si%natures. # 'n electronic signature on the electronic document shall be e&uivalent to the signature of a person on a ritten document if that signature is proved by sho ing that a prescribed procedure, not alterable by the parties interested in the electronic document, existed under hich # (a) ' method is used to identify the party sought to be bound and to indicate said partyDs access to the electronic document necessary for his consent or approval through the electronic signature? (b) *aid method is reliable and appropriate for the purpose for hich the electronic document as generated or communicated, in the light of all the circumstances, including any relevant agreement? (c) (t is necessary for the party sought to be bound, in order to proceed further ith the transaction, to have executed or provided the electronic signature? and (d) The other party is authori%ed and enabled to verify the electronic signature and to ma.e the decision to proceed ith the transaction authenticated by the same. SECTION 4. resumption Relatin% to Electronic Si%natures. # (n any proceedings involving an electronic signature, it shall be presumed that # (a) The electronic signature is the signature of the person to hom it correlates? and (b) The electronic signature as affixed by that person ith the intention of signing or approving the electronic document unless the person relying on the electronically signed electronic document .no s or has notice of defects in or unreliability of the signature or reliance on the electronic signature is not reasonable under the circumstances.
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 79 6

SECTION 10. &ri%inal Documents. # (1) Bhere the la re&uires information to be presented or retained in its original form, that re&uirement is met by an electronic data message or electronic document if= (a) the integrity of the information from the time hen it as first generated in its final form, as an electronic data message or electronic document is sho n by evidence aliunde or other ise? and (b) here it is re&uired that information be presented, that the information is capable of being displayed to the person to hom it is to be presented. (!) /aragraph (1) applies hether the re&uirement therein is in the form of an obligation or hether the la simply provides conse&uences for the information not being presented or retained in its original form. (") @or the purposes of subparagraph (a) of paragraph (1)= (a) the criteria for assessing integrity shall be hether the information has remained complete and unaltered, apart from the addition of any endorsement and any change hich arises in the normal course of communication, storage and display? and (b) the standard of reliability re&uired shall be assessed in the light of the purpose for hich the information as generated and in the light of all relevant circumstances. SECTION 11. Aut"entication of Electronic Data Messa%es and Electronic Documents. # Entil the *upreme 6ourt by appropriate rules shall have so provided, electronic documents, electronic data messages and electronic signatures, shall be authenticated by demonstrating, substantiating and validating a claimed identity of a user, device, or another entity in an information or communication system, among other ays, as follo s= (a) The electronic signature shall be authenticated by proof that a letter, character, number or other symbol in electronic form representing the persons named in and attached to or logically associated ith an electronic data message, electronic document, or that the appropriate methodology or security procedures, hen applicable, ere employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person, ith the intention of authenticating or approving an electronic data message or electronic document? (b) The electronic data message and electronic document shall be authenticated by proof that an appropriate security procedure, hen applicable as adopted and employed for the purpose of verifying the originator of an electronic data message andCor electronic document, or detecting error or alteration in the communication, content or storage of an electronic document or electronic data message from a specific point, hich, using algorithm or codes, identifying ords or numbers, encryptions, ans ers bac. or ac.no ledgment procedures, or similar security devices.

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 74 6

The *upreme 6ourt may adopt such other authentication procedures, including the use of electronic notari%ation systems as necessary and advisable, as ell as the certificate of authentication on printed or hard copies of the electronic document or electronic data messages by electronic notaries, service providers and other duly recogni%ed or appointed certification authorities. The person see.ing to introduce an electronic data message and electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity by evidence capable of supporting a finding that the electronic data message and electronic document is hat the person claims it to be. (n the absence of evidence to the contrary, the integrity of the information and communication system in hich an electronic data message or electronic document is recorded or stored may be established in any legal proceeding # (a) 1y evidence that at all material times the information and communication system or other similar device as operating in a manner that did not affect the integrity of the electronic data message andCor electronic document, and there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the information and communication system? (b) 1y sho ing that the electronic data message andCor electronic document as recorded or stored by a party to the proceedings ho is adverse in interest to the party using it? or (c) 1y sho ing that the electronic data message andCor electronic document as recorded or stored in the usual and ordinary course of business by a person ho is not a party to the proceedings and ho did not act under the control of the party using the record. SECTION 12. Admissibility and Evidential )ei%"t of Electronic Data Messa%e and Electronic Documents. # (n any legal proceedings, nothing in the application of the rules on evidence shall deny the admissibility of an electronic data message or electronic document in evidence # a. 7n the sole ground that it is in electronic form? or b. 7n the ground that it is not in the standard ritten form and electronic data message or electronic document meeting, and complying ith the re&uirements under *ections 4 or + hereof shall be the best evidence of the agreement and transaction contained therein. (n assessing the evidential eight of an electronic data message or electronic document, the reliability of the manner in hich it as generated, stored or communicated, the reliability of the manner in hich its originator as identified, and other relevant factors shall be given due regard. SECTION 13. Retention of Electronic Data Messa%e and Electronic Document. # )ot ithstanding any provision of la , rule or regulation to the contrary #
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 73 6

(a) The re&uirement in any provision of la that certain documents be retained in their original form is satisfied by retaining them in the form of an electronic data message or electronic document hich i. 8emains accessible so as to be usable for subse&uent reference? ii. (s retained in the format in hich it as generated, sent or received, or in a format hich can be demonstrated to accurately represent the electronic data message or electronic document generated, sent or received? iii. Enables the identification of its originator and addressee, as determination of the date and the time it as sent or received. ell as the

(b) The re&uirement referred to in paragraph (a) is satisfied by using the services of a third party, provided that the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (a) are met. SECTION 14. roof 1y Affidavit. # The matters referred to in *ection 1!, on admissibility and *ection 3, on the presumption of integrity, may be presumed to have been established by an affidavit given to the best of the deponentDs .no ledge subject to the rights of parties in interest as defined in the follo ing section. SECTION 1*. Cross+Examination. # (1) ' deponent of an affidavit referred to in *ection 1, that has been introduced in evidence may be cross#examined as of right by a party to the proceedings ho is adverse in interest to the party ho has introduced the affidavit or has caused the affidavit to be introduced. (!) 'ny party to the proceedings has the right to cross#examine a person referred to in *ection 11, paragraph ,, sub#paragraph c.

RULES ON ELECTRONIC E6IDENCE (7REE8), RULE 2, SEC. 1) RULE 3) RULE 4.


RULE 2 &E#INITION O# TER3S AN& CONSTRUCTION SECTION 1. Definition of Terms. # @or purposes of these 8ules, the follo ing terms are defined, as follo s= (a) ,Asymmetric or public cryptosystem- means a system capable of generating a secure .ey pair, consisting of a private .ey for creating a digital signature, and a public .ey for verifying the digital signature. (b) ,1usiness records- include records of any business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every .ind, hether or not conducted for profit, or for legitimate purposes.

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 77 6

(c) ,Certificate- means an electronic document issued to support a digital signature hich purports to confirm the identity or other significant characteristics of the person ho holds a particular .ey pair. (d) ,Computer- refers to any single or interconnected device or apparatus, hich, by electronic, electro#mechanical or magnetic impulse, or by other means ith the same function, can receive, record, transmit, store, process, correlate, analy%e, project, retrieve andCor produce information, data, text, graphics, figures, voice, video, symbols or other modes of expression or perform any one or more of these functions. (e) ,Di%ital Si%nature- refers to an electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person having the initial untransformed electronic document and the signerDs public .ey can accurately determine= (i) hether the transformation as created using the private .ey that corresponds to the signerDs public .ey? and (ii) hether the initial electronic document had been altered after the transformation as made. (f) ,Di%itally si%ned- refers to an electronic document or electronic data message bearing a digital signature verified by the public .ey listed in a certificate. (g) ,Electronic data messa%e- refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means. (h) ,Electronic document- refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of ritten expression, described or ho ever represented, by hich a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by hich a fact may be proved and affirmed, hich is received, recorded, transmitted, stored processed, retrieved or produced electronically. (t includes digitally signed documents and any print#out or output, readable by sight or other means, hich accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. @or purposes of these 8ules, the term Felectronic documentG may be used interchangeably ith electronic data messageG. (i) ,Electronic 2ey- refers to a secret code hich secures and defends sensitive information that crosses over public channels into a form decipherable only ith a matching electronic .ey. (j) ,Electronic si%nature3 refers to any distinctive mar., characteristics andCor sound in electronic form. 8epresenting the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated ith the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person ith the intention of
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 7A 6

authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. @or purposes of these 8ules, an electronic signature includes digital signatures. (.) ,Ep"emeral electronic communication- refers to telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of hich is not recorded or retained. (l) ,.nformation and Communication System- refers to a system for generating, sending, receiving, storing or other ise processing electronic data messages or electronic documents and includes the computer system or other similar devices by or in hich data are recorded or stored and any procedure related to the recording or storage of electronic data message or electronic document. (m) ,/ey air- in an asymmetric cryptosystem refers to the private .ey and its mathematically related public .ey such that the latter can verify the digital signature that the former creates. (n) , rivate /ey- refers to the .ey of a .ey pair used to create a digital signature. (o) , ublic /ey- refers to the .ey of a .ey pair used to verify a digital signature. RULE 3 ELECTRONIC &OCU3ENTS SECTION 1. Electronic documents as functional e4uivalent of paper+based documents. Bhenever a rule of evidence refers to the term of riting, document, record, instrument, memorandum or any other form of riting, such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document as defined in these 8ules. SEC. 2. Admissibility. 'n electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies ith the rules on admissibility prescribed by the 8ules of 6ourt and related la s and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these 8ules. SEC. 3. rivile%ed communication. The confidential character of a privileged communications is not solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document. RULE 4 $EST EVI&ENCE RULE SECTION 1. &ri%inal of an electronic document. 'n electronic document shall be regarded as the e&uivalent of an original document under the 1est Evidence 8ule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, sho n to reflect the data accurately.
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 7B 6

SEC. 2. Copies as e4uivalent of t"e ori%inals. Bhen a document is in t o or more copies executed at or about the same time ith identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re#recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other e&uivalent techni&ues hich is accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the e&uivalent of the original. )ot ithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original if= (a) a genuine &uestion is raised as to the authenticity of the original? or (b) in the circumstances it lieu of the original. ould be unjust or ine&uitable to admit a copy in

CASES: Air $rance )s. Carrascoso 12 SC'A 1-- .1/,,1 est %)idence 'ule FAC1SF Carrascoso+ bou#ht a 0irst class ticket to #o to &o%e. Fro% Manila to an#kok+ 'lainti00 traveled in 0irst class but on their sto'6over in an#kok+ the Mana#er o0 the de0endant airline 0orced the 'lainti00 to vacate his seat in order to %ake roo% 0or a H*hite %anI+ *ho+ the Mana#er alee#ed+ had a better ri#ht to the seat. A0ter a brie0 co%%otion *herein Carrascoso said he *ould leave his seat on over his Hdead bod$+I he #ave it u'. 1he CF( decided in 0avor o0 Carrascoso + *hile the CA a00ir%ed the decision but reduced the a*ard 0urther. Durin# the trial+ one 'iece o0 evidence that *as ad%itted *as the alle#ed entr$ b$ the 'urser e%'lo$ed b$ the de0endant and testi0ied to b$ the 'lainti00. 1he alle#ed notebook entr$+ read HFirst class 'assen#ers *as 0orced to #o to tourist class a#ainst his *ill and that the ca'tain re0used to interveneI. De0endant char#es that such testi%on$ b$ Carrascoso is inco%'etent 0or bein# hearsa$. (t is clai%ed b$ Air France that such 'iece o0 evidence co%es *ithin the 'roscri'tion o0 the est "vidence rule the$ are clai%in# such entr$ could not have been 'roven b$ %ere testi%on$ but b$ 'resentin# the notebook itsel0. (SS/"F Dhether or not the entr$ in the notebook is inco%'etent as evidenceP &/L(-GF Ees. 1he sub8ect o0 in.uir$ is not the entr$ but the ouster incident. 1esti%on$ on the entr$ does not co%e *ithin the est "vidence rule. (t is ad%issible. esides+ 0ro% a readin# o0 the transcri't above %entioned+ *hen the dialo#ue ha''ened+ the i%'act o0 the startilin# occurrence *as still 0resh and continued to be 0elt. 1he
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 7> 6

e<cite%ent had not as $et died do*n. State%ents then+ in this environ%ent+ are ADM(SS( L" AS PA&1 OF 12" &"S G"S1A". For the$ #ro* out o0 Hthe nervous e<cite%ent and %ental and 'h$sical condition o0 the declarant.I 1he utterance o0 the 'urser re#ardin# his entr$ in the notebook *as s'ontaneous+ and related to the circu%stances o0 the ouster incident. (ts trust*orthiness has been #uaranteed. (t thus esca'es the o'eration o0 the hearsa$ rule. (t 0or%s 'art o0 the res #estae. (t is not *ithin the est "vidence &ule as the entr$ *as %ade outside the Phili''ines b$ the e%'lo$ee o0 Air France. (t *ould have been an eas$ %atter 0or 'etitioner to have contradicted CarrascosoGs testi%on$. (0 it *ere true that no entr$ *as %ade the de'osition o0 the 'urser could have cleared u' the %atter. (: 'a(mond 6ose*C Ibon Me(ers )s. =nited States 171 $.+d 288 .1/521 est %)idence 'ule FAC1SF Me$ers+ an o00icer o0 the /S ar%$+ or#anized a Cor'. called the Aviation "lectric Cor'. 0or the %anu0acture o0 'arts ; accessories 0or air'lanes ; 'aid into its treasur$ JA55 to cover the authorized ca'ital stock. 447 shares *ent to June allabu and the re%ainin# shares to David Johnson ; &obert Pine. (t had orders *orth J45+555 0ro% the Si#nal Cor's o0 the /S Ar%$. La%arre *as %ade Secretar$6treasurer and the 447 shares *ere trans0erred to hi% ; he later beca%e President. At the end o0 the *ar+ there *as reduced de%and and led to the dissolution o0 the cor'. 1he /S Senate created an investi#atin# co%%ittee to look into instances o0 *aste+ 0raud+ corru'tion+ e<cessive 'ro0its durin# the *ar. Me$ers testi0ied ?and so did La%arre@ thatF 9. Me$ers *as not 0inanciall$ interestedKconnected *ith Aviation "lectric Cor'. 4. A Cadillac auto%obile *as 'urchased 0or the cor'. ; 0or its use 3. the su% o0 J95+555+ 'aid b$ %eans o0 Aviation checks 0or 0urnishin# Me$erGs a'art%ent *as a H#i0t 0ro% La%arreI ased on this testi%on$+ Me$ers *as char#ed and convicted o0 the char#e o0 subordination 0or 'er8ur$ b$ the trial court. On a''eal+ he alle#es that the trial court took on a bizarre 'rocedure *hen it acce'ted the testi%on$ o0 Dillia% &o#ers *ho e<a%ined his co6 de0endant La%arre in the Senate investi#ation and also allo*ed the introduction o0 a steno#ra'hic note transcri't o0 La%arreGs testi%on$ on the sa%e hearin#. 1his is based on the theor$ that the transcri't itsel0 *as the best evidence o0 La%arreGs testi%on$ be0ore the Senate and there *as no need 0or &o#erGs testi%on$. (SS/"F Dhether or not the best evidence rule is a''licable &/L(-GF &o. 1he best evidence rule a''lies onl$ *hen contents o0 a *ritin# are to be 'roved *hich does not obtain in the case at bar.

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 7: 6

(n 'rosecution 0or 'er8ured testi%on$ #iven be0ore the Senate co%%ittee+ the testi%on$ b$ chie0 counsel o0 the senatorial co%%ittee as to *hat *itnesses had s*orn to *as not barred under the best evidence rule+ and it *as not un0air or 're8udicial to 'er%it transcri't o0 testi%on$ #iven be0ore the subco%%ittee to be introduced a0ter chie0 counsel had testi0ied+ thou#h counsel testi0ied earl$ in 'rotracted trial and transcri't *as introduced near its close+ since both %ethods o0 'rovin# the 'er8ur$ *ere 'er%issible+ and 'rosecution could 'resent its 'roo0 in an$ order it chose. 2ere+ there *as no atte%'t to 'rove the contents o0 a *ritin#. 1he issue *as *hat La%arre had said+ not *hat the transcri't contained. 1he transcri't *as evidence o0 *hat he had said but it *as not the onl$ ad%issible evidence concernin# it. 1he testi%on$ o0 &o#ers+ chie0 counsel to the co%%ittee+ *as e.uall$ co%'etent and ad%issible *hether #iven be0ore or a0ter the transcri't *as received in evidence. State%ents alle#ed to 'er8uries %a$ be 'roved b$ an$ 'erson *ho heard the%+ as *ell as+ b$ the re'orter *ho recorded the% in shorthand. (: 'a(mond 6ose*C Ibon Peo*le )s. Tan 18- PCil. 1+5+ .1/-/1 est %)idence 'ule FAC1SF Pacita Gonzales and others *ere char#ed *ith the cri%e o0 0alsi0ication o0 'ublic docu%ents in their ca'acities as 'ublic o00icials and e%'lo$ees. (t *as alle#ed that the$ have %ade it a''ear that certain relie0 su''lies *ere 'urchased b$ Gonzales 0or distribution to cala%it$ victi%s in such .uantities and at such 'rices and 0ro% such business establish%ents or 'ersons as are %ade to a''ear in the said 'ublic docu%ents+ *hen in truth and in 0act+ no such distributions o0 such relie0 and su''lies as valued and su''osedl$ 'urchased b$ said Pacita Gonzales in the 'ublic and o00icial docu%ents had ever been %ade. 1he 'rosecution 'resented to a *itness a booklet o0 recei'ts containin# blue invoices o0 the Metro Dru# Cor'oration. 1he booklet contained the tri'licate co'ies+ and accordin# to said *itness the ori#inal invoices *ere sent to the Manila o00ice o0 the co%'an$+ the du'licates to the custo%ers+ so that the tri'licate co'ies re%ained in the booklet. 1he *itness 0urther testi0ied that in 're'arin# recei'ts+ t*o carbons *ere used bet*een the three sheets+ so that the du'licates and the tri'licates *ere 0illed out b$ the use o0 the carbons. Dhile the *itness *as testi0$in#+ the trial court 8ud#e interru'ted and said that the tri'licates are not ad%issible unless it is 0irst 'roven that the ori#inals *ere lost and cannot be 'roduced. Another *itness *as 'resented b$ the 'rosecution to testi0$. 1he *itness testi0ied that the ori#inal 'ractice o0 kee'in# the ori#inal *hite co'ies no lon#er 'revails as the ori#inals are #iven to the custo%ers. A0ter the cross6e<a%ination o0 this last *itness+ the 'rosecution a#ain *ent back to the identi0ication o0 the tri'licate invoice. At this 'oint+ the 8ud#e told the 'rosecutor that the ori#inals %ust be 'roduced. 1he 'rosecution 0iled a 'etition 0or certiorari *ith the Su're%e Court. (SS/"F

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 7= 6

Dhether or not tri'licates 0or%ed b$ the use o0 carbon 'a'ers are ad%issible in evidence *ithout accountin# 0irst 0or the loss o0 the ori#inals. &/L(-GF 1he Court said that the ad%issibilit$ o0 du'licates or tri'licates has lon# been a settled .uestion. (t .uoted *ith a''roval the o'inion o0 Moran+ a co%%entator on the &ules o0 Court. Dhen carbon sheets are inserted bet*een t*o or %ore sheets o0 *ritin# 'a'er so that the *ritin# o0 a contract u'on the outside sheet+ includin# the si#nature o0 the 'art$ to be char#ed thereb$+ 'roduces a 0acsi%ile u'on the sheets beneath+ such si#nature bein# thus re'roduced b$ the sa%e stroke o0 the 'en *hich %ade the sur0ace or e<'osed the i%'ression+ all o0 the sheets so *ritten on are re#arded as du'licate ori#inals and either o0 the% %a$ be introduced in evidence as such *ithout accountin# 0or the non6'roduction o0 the others. (: %lon Cris C. Culan?en Seiler )s. !ucas $ilm3 !td. 7/7 $.+d 1-85 .1/2,1 est %)idence 'ule FAC1SF Lee Seiler+ an artist and desi#ner o0 science 0iction creatures and %achines brou#ht co'$ri#ht in0rin#e%ent action a#ainst the 'roducers and creators o0 the %ovie H1he "%'ire Strikes ack.I Seiler clai%ed that creatures kno*n as (%'erial Dalkers in0rin#ed his co'$ri#ht on his o*n creatures called Garthian Striders. 2e contended that he created and 'ublished his Garthian Striders in 9=>B and 9=>> and that Geor#e Lucas co'ied these. ecause Seiler 'ossessed no ori#inals o0 an$ *ork he contended *as co'ied+ he sou#ht to introduce secondar$ evidence in the 0or% o0 co'ies+ reconstructions+ and the like. 2e 'ro'osed to e<hibit his Striders in a blo*n6u' co%'arison to LucasG Dalkers at o'enin# state%ent. 1he district 8ud#e held an evidentiar$ hearin# on the ad%issibilit$ o0 the reconstructions o0 the Striders. A''l$in# the best evidence rule+ the court 0ound that Seiler lost or destro$ed the ori#inals in bad 0aith and conse.uentl$ no secondar$ evidence+ such as the 'ost6"%'ire Strikes ack reconstructions+ *as ad%issible. 1he court #ranted su%%ar$ 8ud#%ent to Lucas a0ter the evidentiar$ hearin#. Seiler a''ealed. (SS/"F Dhether or not SeilerGs dra*in#s constituted H*ritin#sI 0or 'ur'oses o0 the best evidence rule. &/L(-GF Ees. 1he Court o0 A''eals a00ir%ed the district 8ud#e. (t held that SeilerGs dra*in#s *ere H*ritin#sI *ithin the %eanin# o0 &ule 9559 ?9@ *hich de0ined *ritin#s and records as Hletters+ *ords+ or nu%bers+ or their e.uivalent+ set do*n b$ hand*ritin#+ t$'e*ritin#+ 'rintin#+ Photostattin#+ 'hoto#ra'hin#+ %a#netic i%'ulse+ %echanical or electronic recordin#+ or other 0or%s o0 data co%'ilation.I Accordin# to the Court+ SeilerGs dra*in#s consist not o0 Hletters+ *ords or nu%bersI but o0 Htheir e.uivalent.I

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 A5 6

1he Court said that to reco#nize SeilerGs *orks as *ritin#s does not run counter to the ruleGs 'reoccu'ation *ith the centralit$ o0 the *ritten *ord in the *orld o0 *ritten le#al relations. Co%'arin# SeilerGs dra*in#s *ith LucasG dra*in#s is no di00erent in 'rinci'le than evaluatin# a contract and the intent behind it. SeilerGs *orks are H*ritin#sI that a00ect le#al relationsL their co'$ri#ht abilit$ attests to that. A creative literar$ *ork and a 'hoto#ra'h *hose contents are sou#ht to be 'roved are both covered b$ the best evidence rule. (t *ould be inconsistent to a''l$ the rule to art*ork *hich is literar$ or 'hoto#ra'hic but not to art*ork o0 other 0or%s. (: %lon Cris C. Culan?en

Peo*le )s. Tando( 1/+ SC'A /2 .1//81 est %)idence 'ule FAC1SF On Ma$ 4>+ 9=:B+ detectives o0 the Makati Police conducted a bu$6bust o'eration at Solchua#a St.+ aran#a$ Sin#ka%as+ Makati. 1he tar#et area *as a store alon# the said street+ and detective Sin#a$an *as to 'ose as the bu$er. 2e stood alone near the store *aitin# 0or an$ 'usher to a''roach. Soon+ three %en a''roached hi%. One o0 the% *as Mario 1ando$ *ho saidF HPare+ #usto %o ban# u%iskorPI Sin#a$an ans*ered $es. 1he e<chan#e *as %ade then and thereSt*o rolls o0 %ari8uana 0or one P95.55 and t*o PA.55 bills %arked A-/ ?%eanin# Anti6-arcotics /nit@. 1he tea% then %oved in and arrested 1ando$. 1he %arked %one$ and ei#ht 0oils o0 %ari8uana *ere 0ound on 1ando$Gs bod$. An in0or%ation *as 0iled a#ainst 1ando$. 1he &1C o0 Makati 0ound hi% #uilt$ o0 violatin# &A B74A. 1ando$ a''ealed. (n his a''eal+ 1ando$ invoked the best evidence rule and .uestioned the ad%ission b$ the trial court o0 the Tero< co'$ onl$ o0 the %arked P95.55 bill. (SS/"F Dhether or not the Tero< co'$ o0 the %arked P95.55 bill is e<cludible under the best evidence rule. &/L(-GF -o. 1he Su're%e Court .uoted *ith a''roval the Solicitor GeneralGs Co%%ent *hich re0uted the contention o0 1ando$. 1he best evidence rule a''lies onl$ *hen the contents o0 the docu%ent are the sub8ect o0 in.uir$. Dhere the issue is onl$ as to *hether or not such docu%ent *as actuall$ e<ecuted+ or e<ists+ or in the circu%stances relevant to or surroundin# its e<ecution+ the best evidence rule does not a''l$ and testi%onial evidence is ad%issible. Since the a0oresaid %arked %one$ *as 'resented b$ the 'rosecution solel$ 0or the 'ur'ose o0 establishin# its e<istence and not its contents+ other substitutionar$ evidence+ like a Tero< co'$ thereo0+ is there0ore ad%issible *ithout the need o0 accountin# 0or the ori#inal. (: %lon Cris C. Culan?en

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 A9 6

=.S. )s. 9re?orio 17 PCil. -++ .1/181 est %)idence 'ule FAC1SF (n a case 0iled b$ Pedro Salazar+ as creditor+ a#ainst "usta.uio alisto$ 0or the 'a$%ent o0 a su% o0 %one$+ 8ud#%ent *as rendered *herein the debtor *as sentenced to 'a$ to the 'lainti00 P4>A.=4 *ith interest thereon. For the e<ecution o0 the 8ud#%ent+ t*o rural 'ro'erties o0 the debtor *ere attached. 1he date 0or the sale and ad8udication o0 the attached 'ro'erties to the hi#hest bidder *as set on Ma$ 4>+ 9=5:. On the 9: th o0 the sa%e %onth+ ernardo Gre#orio re.uested the de'ut$ sheri00 to e<clude the said realt$ 0ro% the attach%ent+ alle#in# that he *as the o*ner o0 one o0 the 'ro'erties levied u'on 0or the reason that he had ac.uired it b$ 'urchase 0ro% the debtor alisto$ in 9=5A+ 'rior to the 0ilin# o0 the co%'laint. ernardo 'resented to the sheri00 a docu%ent at the end o0 *hich a''ears a %e%orandu% *hich states that "usta.uio alisto$ bou#ht the land re0erred to in the said docu%ent 0ro% Luis alisto$ and sold it to ernardo Gre#orio. Subse.uentl$+ 0alsi0ication char#es *ere brou#ht a#ainst Gre#orio and alisto$. 1he co%'laint 0or 0alsi0ication alle#ed that the de0endants si%ulated a conve$ance o0 one o0 the attached 'ro'erties in 0avor o0 Gre#orio. 2o*ever+ the ori#inal docu%ent settin# 0orth the %e%orandu% *as not 'resented. Onl$ a co'$ thereo0 *as 'roduced in court. 1he trial court 0ound the de0endants #uilt$. 1he$ a''ealed. (SS/"F Dhether or not in a cri%inal case 0or the 0alsi0ication o0 a docu%ent+ the ori#inal docu%ent alle#ed to have been 0alsi0ied %ust be 'roduced &/L(-GF Ees. 1he Court reversed the lo*er court. De0endants *ere ac.uitted. (n a cri%inal case 0or the 0alsi0ication o0 a docu%ent+ it is indis'ensable that the 8ud#es and the courts have be0ore the% the docu%ent alle#ed to have been si%ulated+ counter0eited+ or 0alsi0ied+ in order that the$ %a$ 0ind+ 'ursuant to the evidence 'roduced at trial+ *hether or not the cri%e o0 0alsi0ication *as actuall$ co%%ittedL in the absence o0 the ori#inal docu%ent+ it is i%'ro'er to conclude+ *ith onl$ a co'$ o0 the said ori#inal in vie*+ that there has been a 0alsi0ication o0 a docu%ent *hich *as neither 0ound nor e<hibited+ because+ in such a case+ even the e<istence o0 such ori#inal %a$ be doubted. (: %lon Cris C. Culan?en $iscal of Pam*an?a )s. 'e(es -- PCil /8- .1/011 est %)idence 'ule FAC1SF 1he 0iscal o0 Pa%'an#a 0iled t*o in0or%ations 0or libel a#ainst Andres Guevarra. 1he in0or%ations alle#ed that Guevarra+ *ith %alicious intent+ 'ublished on 'a#e = o0 the *eekl$ 'a'er -ng .agumasid, a s.uib in verse+ o0 *hich a translation into S'anish *as included
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 A4 6

therein+ intended to i%'each the honest$+ inte#rit$+ and re'utation o0 Cle%ente Da$rit and o0 Mariano -e'o%uceno. 1he 0iscal atte%'ted to 'resent as evidence 0or the 'rosecution co'ies o0 the -ng .agumasid containin# the libelous articles *ith the innuendo+ another article in the vernacular 'ublished in the sa%e *eekl$+ and its translation into S'anish. De0endant GuevarraGs counsel ob8ected to this evidence+ *hich ob8ection *as sustained b$ the trial court. 1he 0iscal 0iled a 'etition 0or a *rit o0 %anda%us *ith the Su're%e Court to co%'el the lo*er court to ad%it the co'ies o0 the *eekl$ as evidence 0or the 'rosecution. 1he 'etitioner 0iscal contended that the e<hibits in .uestion are the best evidence o0 the libel+ the sub8ect %atter o0 the in0or%ation+ and should be ad%itted. &es'ondents %aintained that since the libelous article *as not .uoted in the in0or%ation+ said evidence cannot be ad%itted *ithout a%endin# the in0or%ation. (SS/"F Dhether or not the co'ies o0 the *eekl$ are ad%issible. &/L(-GF Ees. 1he #eneral rules re#ardin# the ad%issibilit$ o0 evidence are a''licable to cases o0 libel or slander. 1his bein# so+ the rule o0 'rocedure *hich re.uires the 'roduction o0 the best evidence is a''licable to the 'resent case. 1he co'ies o0 the *eekl$ *here the libelous article *as 'ublished+ and its translation+ constitute the best evidence o0 the libel char#ed. 1he ne*s'a'er itsel0 is the best evidence o0 an article 'ublished in it. (: %lon Cris C. Culan?en Vda. de Cor*us )s. raban?co -/ #.9. 2+,+ .1/,01 est %)idence 'ule FAC1SF De0endant 1iburcia raban#co is the o*ner o0 a certain 'arcel o0 land. Plainti00s+ the survivin# *ido* and children o0 the deceased Ger%an Cor'us alle#es that the land *as sold b$ de0endant 1iburcia raban#co to their 0ather Ger%an Cor'us 0or and in consideration o0 P7A5 o0 *hich P355 *as 'aid ri#ht u'on the e<ecution o0 the Deed o0 sale in due 0or% *itnessed b$ Pablo Albeza and oni0acio ,illareal ?no* deceased@ and ackno*led#ed be de0endant raban#co be0ore notar$ Public Jose 1irador ?also deceased@. At the sa%e ti%e+ Plainti00s Cor'us alle#e that their 'redecessor in interest *as and is in 'ossession o0 said lands u' to his death until De0endants *ith the aid and 'rotection o0 'olice%en entered the 're%ises and #ot ba%boos and corn. De0endants+ on the other hand+ alle#e that a sale never took 'lace. De0endantsG ans*er avers Hthat the$ si%'l$ acco%%odated and allo*ed the Plainti00s Cor'us to build their evacuation cotta#e *hen Ja'anese 0orces occu'ied the Phili''ines. Plainti00s 0iled a case a#ainst the de0endants. Dith re0erence to the deed o0 sale 0ro% *hich the 'lainti00sG case dra* its cause o0 action *as said to be lost durin# the *ar. 1he trial court ruled in 0avor o0 the 'lainti00s and u'held the sale. 1he de0endants a''ealed clai%in# that the sale never took 'lace since the docu%ent o0 sale could not be 'roduced and the 'lainti00 has 0ailed to establish the contents o0 the deed o0 sale as re.uired b$ &ule 935+ Sec. 3.
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 A3 6

(SS/"S ?9@ Dhether or not the Plainti00s have su00icientl$ 'roven the e<istence+ due e<ecution and subse.uent loss o0 the Deed o0 sale. ?4@ Dhether or not the 'lainti00s have adduced su00icient evidence to 'rove the contents o0 the loss deed o0 saleP &/L(-GF ?es. 1he 'lainti00 declared that the ori#inal deed o0 sale si#ned b$ de0endant 1iburcia *as lost durin# the *ar. 1he record o0 the 'resent case *ill bear that its e<istence *as convincin#l$ 'roven not onl$ b$ the testi%on$ o0 2eraclea ,da. De Cor'us+ the survivin# *ido*+ and b$ the environ%ental 0acts disclosed b$ the evidence+ but also b$ the disinterested testi%on$ o0 Pablo Albeza. A0ter 'ro'er 'roo0 o0 the due e<ecution ; deliver$ o0 the instru%ent ; its loss or destruction+ oral evidence %a$ be #iven o0 its contents b$ an$ 'erson *ho si#ned the docu%ent+ or *ho read it. As to the second issue+ it is not necessar$+ in order to ad%it evidence o0 the contents o0 a lost instru%ent+ that the *itness should be able to testi0$ *ith verbal accurac$ to its contentsL it is su00icient i0 the$ are able to state it in substance. Ditnesses cannot be e<'ected to recite the content *ord 0or *ord. (t is enou#h i0 intelli#ent *itnesses have read the 'a'er ; can state substantiall$ its contents ; i%'ort *ith reasonable accurac$. 1hus+ it *as held su00icient i0 the *itness can recollect and testi0$ to 0acts sho*in# the 'resence o0 essential ele%ents o0 a contract+ na%el$L consent+ sub8ect %atter+ consideration and 0or% in certain instances. (n the case at bar+ the evidence adduced b$ the 'lainti00s are %ore than enou#h to satis0$ the statutor$ re.uire%ents as to e<ecution and subse.uent loss o0 the deed o0 sale as *ell as to its contents. (: Abi?ail 6o( D. 9amboa Com*ania Maritima )s. Allied $ree >orBers =nion 77 SC'A +5 .1/771 est %)idence 'ule FAC1SF Plainti006a''ellee Co%'ania Mariti%a ?co%'an$@ and the De0endant6 a''ellant Allied Free Dorkers /nion ?union@ entered into a *ritten contract *hereb$ the union *ill 'er0or% arrastre and stevedorin# *ork 0or the co%'an$Gs vessels+ e00ective 0or 9 %onth+ rene*able u'on a#ree%ent. 1he co%'an$ could ter%inate the contract i0 the union 0ailed to render 'ro'er service. 1he union a#reed that the co%'an$ *ould not 'a$ 0or the loadin#+ unloadin# and deliveries o0 car#oes and that these *ould be 'aid b$ the o*ners and consi#nees o0 the car#oes as has been the 'ractice in the 'ort o0 (li#an. 2o*ever+ shi''ers and consi#nees re0used to 'a$ the union 0or the stevedorin# services because the bill o0 ladin# 'rovided that the unloadin# o0 the car#o *as at the shi' o*nerGs e<'ense. 1he co%'an$+ on the other hand+ re0used to 'a$ 0or the stevedorin# services because this *as 'rovided 0or in the contract bet*een the co%'an$ and the union. 1his beca%e the root o0 all the 'roble%s bet*een the t*o 'arties. Des'ite o0 the 0act that the set6u' *as disadvanta#eous on the /nion+ it did not ter%inate the contract because its %e%bers *ere in
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 A7 6

dire need o0 *ork+ *hich althou#h not ade.uatel$ co%'ensated+ *as 're0erable to havin# no *ork at all. 1hus+ u'on the e<'iration o0 the one %onth 'eriod+ the contract *as verball$ rene*ed. 1hen+ the union sent the co%'an$ a letter re.uestin# that it be reco#nized as the e<clusive bar#ainin# unit. 1he co%'an$ i#nored the de%and. 1he union then 0iled *ith the C(& a 'etition that it be certi0ied as the sole collective bar#ainin# unit. 1he co%'an$ then ter%inated the contract. 1he union 0iled an /n0air Labor Practice case. 1hen+ the co%'an$ entered into a ne* stevedorin# contract *ith (li#an Stevedorin#. On the 0ollo*in# da$+ the /nion %e%bers 'icketed the *har0 and 'revented the (li#an Stevedorin# 0ro% 'er0or%in# arrastre and stevedorin# *ork. 1he co%'an$ sued the union. 1herea0ter+ a le#al battle ensued *ith the trial court in the end rulin# in 0avor o0 the co%'an$. Also+ the 1rial court a*arded actual da%a#es+ a%ountin# to P7A5+ 555 and other da%a#es on the basis o0 the auditorGs re'orts+ "<hibits A to (. Plainti00 Co%'an$ to bolster its case 'resented 1eves+ the co%'an$Gs %ana#er *ho testi0ied in its 0avor. One o0 the 'ieces o0 evidence he 'resented *as a state%ent sho*in# the alle#ed cost o0 3 0orkli0ts+ 'allet boards+ *ire ro'e slin#s and tar'aulins in the su% o0 P4>+ 49A. ?1he co%'an$ alle#es that it *as 0orced to 'urchase the e.ui'%ent in order to i%'rove the arrastre ; stevedorin# services.@ 2e clai%s that the da%a#es to the co%'an$ b$ reason o0 de'reciation o0 the said e.ui'%ent a%ounted to P3:+ 3:A or %ore than the cost thereo0. Also 'resented *as Accountant De%etrio Ja$%e *ho *as a 'ersonal 0riend o0 1eves and co%'an$Gs branch %ana#er in Oza%is. 2is testi%on$ is basicall$ that the Co%'an$ due to the act o0 /nion %e%bers+ the co%'an$ su00ered losses as sho*n in the books o0 the as to unrealized 0rei#ht and 'assen#er revenue. 1he Co%'an$ also clai%s da%a#es on lost car#oes and 0rei#ht as set 0orth b$ Salvador Ma#ante+ the co%'an$Gs chie0 clerk in (li#an Cit$ in his state%ent. Ma#ante did not testi0$ on his state%ent+ instead it *as Ja$%e *ho testi0ied on behal0 o0 Ma#ante. (SS/"F Dhether the 1rial Court erred in a*ardin# to the 'lainti00 co%'an$ actual da%a#es+ %oral da%a#es+ and attorne$s 0ees on the #round that the Auditors re'ort on *hich the$ *ere based *ere hearsa$P &/L(-GF 1he co%'an$ ar#ues that the accountantGs ?auditorGs@ re'orts are ad%issible in evidence because o0 the rule that H*hen the ori#inal consists o0 nu%erous accounts or other docu%ents *hich cannot be e<a%ined in court *ithout #reat loss o0 ti%e and the 0act sou#ht to be established 0ro% the% is onl$ the #eneral result o0 the *hole+ the ori#inal *ritin#s need not be 'roduced. 1hat rule cannot be a''lied in this case because the volu%inous character o0 the records on *hich the accountantGs re'orts *ere based *as not dul$ established. Moreover+ in order 0or said rule to be a''lied+ the records and accounts should be %ade accessible to the adverse 'art$ so that the correctness o0 the su%%ar$ %a$ be tested on cross6e<a%ination. Dhat a''lies is the #eneral rule Hthat an audit %ade b$ or the testi%on$ o0 a 'rivate auditor is inad%issible in evidence as 'roo0 o0 the ori#inal records+ books o0 accounts+ re'orts or the like. 1he co%'an$ 0ailed to %ake a 'reli%inar$ sho*in# as to the di00icult$ or i%'ossibilit$ attendin# the 'roduction o0 the records in court and their e<a%ination and anal$sis as evidence b$ the court
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 AA 6

As to the state%ent 'resented b$ 1eves+ SC said that the best evidence on the cost o0 the e.ui'%ent *ould have been the sales invoice instead o0 his %ere oral testi%on$ o0. Also+ he should have 'roduced the sales invoice. 1he sa%e is true *ith re#ard to Ja$%eGs esti%ates as recoverable da%a#es. 1he 'ertinent records o0 the co%'an$ should have been 'roduced in Court. As to Ma#anteGs re'ort+ Ja$%e *as not co%'etent to take his 'lace since the state%ent *as 're'ared b$ Ma#ante and not b$ Ja$%e. More a''ro'riate still+ the docu%ents and records on *hich the state%ent *as based should have been 'resented as evidence or at least brou#ht to the Court 0or e<a%ination. Lo*er courtGs a*ard o0 da%a#es is reversed and set aside. (: Abi?ail 6o( D. 9amboa Villa 'e( Transit )s. $errer +- SC'A 25- .1/,21 est %)idence 'ule FAC1SF Jose ,illara%a *as an o'erator o0 a bus co%'an$ ?,illa &e$ 1ransit@ 'ursuant to CPCs #ranted hi% b$ the PSC. (n 9=A=+ he sold 4 CPCs to Pan#asinan 1rans'o. Co. ?Pantranco@ *ith the condition that ,illara%a shall not+ 0or 95 $ears+ a''l$ 0or an$ 1P/ service co%'etin# *ith bu$er. 3 %onths later+ ,illa &e$ 1ransit (nc. ?,&1(@ *as 0or%ed *herein the *i0e and relatives o0 Jose ,illara%a *ere the stockholders and the incor'orators. 1he Cor'oration. then bou#ht A CPCs 0ro% ,alentin Fernando. 1he Sheri00 levied 4 out o0 the A CPCs 'ursuant to a *rit o0 e<ecution in 0avor o0 "usebio Ferrer+ FernandoGs 8ud#%ent creditor. 1he 4 CPCs *ere sold at auction *ith Ferrer as hi#hest bidder. Ferrer then sold these 4 CPCs to Pantranco . 1hus+ ,&1( 0iled a co%'laint 0or annul%ent o0 the sheri00Gs sale o0 the CPCs in 0avor o0 Ferrer and its subse.uent sale to Pantranco. 1he CF( declared these sales as null and void. 2ence+ this a''eal. (t is the contention o0 Pantranco that Jose ,illara%a and the Cor'oration *ere one and the sa%e. 1here0ore+ the non co%'etition clause e%bodied in the deed o0 sale entered into b$ Jose ,illara%a is also bindin# to the Cor'oration. 1he evidence 'resented b$ Pantanco to 'rove its contention is Photostatic co'ies o0 led#er entries and vouchers. Jose ,illara%a has assailed the ad%issibilit$ o0 these e<hibits+ contendin# that no evidentiar$ value *hatsoever should be #iven to the% since Hthe$ *ere %erel$ 'hotostatic co'ies o0 the ori#inals+ the best evidence bein# the ori#inals the%selvesI. (SS/"F Dhether or not 'hotostatic co'ies o0 led#er entries and vouchers ?"<h. B to 9= and 44@ sho*in# that ,illara%a had co6%in#led his 'ersonal 0unds and transactions *ith those %ade in the na%e o0 ,&1( are ad%issible in evidenceP &/L(-GF ?es. "<hibits B to 9= and "<hibit 44 *hich are 'hotostatic co'ies o0 the led#er entries and vouchers sho*in# that ,illara%a had co6 %in#led his 'ersonal 0unds and transactions *ith those %ade in the na%e o0 the Cor'oration are ver$ illu%inatin# evidence. 1he re.uisites 0or the ad%issibilit$ o0 secondar$ evidence *hen the ori#inal is in the custod$ o0 the adverse 'art$ areF a.@ o''onentGs 'ossession o0 the ori#inalL b.@ reasonable notice to o''onent to 'roduce the
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 AB 6

ori#inalL c.@ satis0actor$ 'roo0 o0 its e<istenceL d.@ 0ailure or re0usal o0 o''onent to 'roduce the ori#inal in court. Said re.uisites have been co%'lied *ith. ,illara%a has 'racticall$ ad%itted the 4nd and th 7 . As to the 3rd+ he ad%itted their 'revious e<istence in the 0iles o0 ,&1( and had even seen so%e o0 the%. As to the 9st+ he said that the ori#inals *ere %issin# and that ,&1( *as no lon#er in 'ossession o0 the sa%e. 2o*ever+ it is not necessar$ 0or a 'art$ seekin# to introduce secondar$ evidence to sho* that the ori#inal is in the actual 'ossession o0 the adversar$. (t is enou#h that the circu%stances are such as to indicate that the *ritin# is in his 'ossession or under his control. -either is it re.uired that the 'art$ entitled to the custod$ o0 the instru%ent+ on bein# noti0ied to 'roduce it+ ad%it havin# it in his 'ossession. Secondar$ evidence is ad%issible *here he denied havin# it in his 'ossession. 1he 'art$ callin# 0or such evidence %a$ introduce a co'$ thereo0 as in the case o0 loss because a%on# the e<ce'tions to the best evidence rule is H*hen the ori#inal has been lost+ destro$ed or cannot be 'roduced in court.I 1he ori#inal o0 the vouchers %ust be dee%ed to have been lost as even ,&1( ad%it such loss. 1hus+ said evidence+ thou#h secondar$+ are ad%issible. (: Abi?ail 6o( D. 9amboa MicCael & Co. )s. %nriEue: 00 PCil. 27 .1/1-1 est %)idence 'ule FAC1SF 1his is an a''eal 0ro% a 8ud#%ent o0 the CF( o0 Cebu dis%issin# the action a0ter trial on the #round that the 'lainti00 did not 'rove 0acts su00icient to constitute a cause o0 action. 1his action is based on a sale *ith ri#ht to re'urchase %ade b$ "nri.uez in 0avor o0 ". Michael and ". Michael ; Co.+sociedad en co%andita+ o0 *hich Michael and Co%'an$ ?MC(@ clai%s to be a successor b$ reason o0 an instru%ent dul$ e<ecuted and deliverd b$ the 0or%er to the latter trans0errin# 'ro'ert$+ business and assets o0 ever$ kind includin# the land *hich is the sub8ect o0 this liti#ation. (t is alle#ed that the 'eriod to re'urchase had e<'ired thus consolidatin# o*nershi' in MC(. Durin# the trial+ MC( sou#ht to 'rove the e<ecution and deliver$ o0 the conve$ance trans0errin# to it the land described in the 'acto de retro. 1he 1C 'revented MC( 0ro% 'rovin# that 0act. MC( also atte%'ted to 'rove the 0act that the instru%ent so e<ecuted and delivered *as lost+ it bein# his 'ur'ose to la$ the basis 0or the introduction o0 secondar$ evidence as to its contents. 1he 1C also 'revented a''ellant 0ro% 'rovin# that. Dhile the e00orts o0 MC(Gs counsel to 'rove the e<ecution and deliver$ o0 the docu%ent *ere at ti%es rather in0or%al and ob8ections to such .uestions *ere 'ro'erl$ sustained+ at others the .uestions 'ut 0or the 'ur'ose o0 'rovin# those 0acts *ere *ell 0ra%ed and ans*ers should have been allo*ed to the%L but+ even in such cases+ the 1C also sustained ; ob8ections to the .uestions and the evidence sou#ht to be adduced *as e<cluded. (SS/"F

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 A> 6

Dhether or not the 1C erred in 'reventin# MC( 0ro% 'rovin# e<istence and the deliver$ o0 the conve$ance trans0errin# to it the land in .uestionP &/L(-GF 1rial courts do *ell in re0usin# at all ti%es to 'er%it the introduction o0 inco%'etent evidence and 'articularl$ secondar$ evidence o0 the contents o0 *ritten instru%ents unless the 0acts re.uired b$ the Code o0 Civil Procedure as the conditions 'recedent 0or such evidence are clearl$ sho*n to e<ist. Section 349 o0 the Code 'rovidesF HAn ori#inal *ritin# %ust be 'roduced and 'roved+ e<ce't as other*ise 'rovided in this Act. (0 it has been lost+ 'roo0 o0 the loss %ust 0irst be %ade be0ore evidence can be #iven o0 its contents. /'on such 'roo0 bein# %ade+ to#ether *ith 'roo0 o0 the due e<ecution o0 the *ritin#+ its contents %a$ be 'roved b$ a co'$ or b$ a recital o0 its contents in so%e authentic docu%ent or b$ the recollection o0 a *itness.I As *ill be seen in this section+ the *ritin# itsel0 %ust be 'roduced unless it has been lost or destro$ed in *hich case+ be0ore its contents %a$ be 'roved b$ other evidence+ it %ust be sho*n b$ the 'art$ o00erin# secondar$ evidence ?9@ that the docu%ent *as dul$ e<ecuted and delivered+ *here deliver$ is necessar$ ?4@ that it has been lost or destro$ed. 1he e<ecution or deliver$ o0 the docu%ent %a$be established b$ the 'erson or 'ersons+ *ho e<ecuted it+ b$ the 'erson be0ore *ho% its e<ecution *as ackno*led#ed+ or b$ an$ 'erson *ho *as 'resent and sa* it e<ecuted and delivered or *ho+ a0ter its e<ecution and deliver$+ sa* it and reco#nized the si#naturesL or b$ a 'erson to *ho% the 'arties to the instru%ents have 'reviousl$ con0essed the e<ecution thereo0. 1he destruction o0 the instru%ent %a$ be 'roved b$ an$ 'erson kno*in# the 0act. 1he loss %a$ be sho*n b$ an$ 'erson *ho kne* the 0act o0 its loss+ or b$ an$one *ho has %ade+ in the 8ud#%ent o0 the court+ a su00icient e<a%ination in the 'lace or 'laces *here the docu%ent or 'ares o0 si%ilar character are usuall$ ke't b$ the 'erson in *hose custod$ the docu%ent lost *as+ and has been unable to 0ind itL or *ho has %ade an$ other investi#ation *hich is su00icient to satis0$ the Court that the docu%ent *as indeed lost. (0 it a''ears + on an atte%'t to 'rove the loss + that the docu%ent is in 0act in e<istence + then the 'roo0 o0 loss or destruction 0ails and secondar$ evidence is inad%issible unless section 344 o0 the Civil code o0 Procedure should be a''licable. A0ter 'ro'er 'roo0 o0 the due e<ecution and deliver$ and its loss or destruction+ oral evidence %a$be #iven o0 its contents b$ an$ 'erson *ho si#ned the docu%ent+ or *ho read it+ or heard it read kno*in#+ or it bein# 'roved 0ro% other sources+ that the docu%ent so read *as the one in .uestion. Such evidence %a$ also be #iven b$ an$ 'erson *ho *as 'resent *hen the contents o0 the docu%ent *as bein# talked over bet*een the 'arties thereto to such an e<tent as to #ive hi% reasonabl$ 0ull in0or%ation as to its contentsL or the contents %a$be 'roved b$ an$ 'erson to *ho% the 'arties to the instru%ent have con0essed or stated the contents thereo0L or b$ a co'$ thereo0L or b$ a recital o0 its contents in so%e authentic docu%ent. (: Abi?ail 6o( D. 9amboa De Vera )s. A?uilar +12 SC'A ,8+ .1/201 est %)idence 'ule

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 A: 6

FAC1SF Petitioners ?all surna%ed De ,era@ and res'ondent Leona ?%arried to Mariano A#uilar@ are the children and heirs o0 the late Marcosa ernabe. Marcosa ernabe o*ned the dis'uted 'arcel o0 land. Such 'ro'ert$ *as %ort#a#ed b$ 'etitioners to ordador. Dhen the %ort#a#e had %atured+ the res'ondents S'ouses A#uilar redee%ed the 'ro'ert$+ and in turn ernabe sold the sa%e to the% as evidenced b$ a deed o0 absolute sale. 1hen+ an OC1 *as issued in their na%e. 1hree $ears later+ the 'etitioners *rote to the res'ondents clai%in# that as children o0 ernabe+ the$ *ere co6o*ners o0 the 'ro'ert$ and de%anded 'artition thereo0. 1he 'etitioners also clai%ed that the res'ondents had resold the 'ro'ert$ to ernabe. Petitioners De ,era 0iled a suit 0or reconve$ance o0 the lot. 1he 1C rendered its decision orderin# the reconve$ance o0 the lot. (n rulin# 0or the 'etitioners de ,era+ the 1C ad%itted+ over the ob8ection o0 the res'ondents A#uilar+ a Tero< co'$ o0 an alle#ed deed o0 sale e<ecuted b$ res'ondents in 0avor o0 ernabe. On a''eal to the CA+ the decision *as reversed. 1he CA 0ound that the loss or destruction o0 the ori#inal deed o0 sale has not been dul$ 'roven b$ 'etitioners+ so secondar$ evidence ?Tero< co'$ o0 deed o0 sale@ is inad%issible. 2ence+ this 'etition 0or revie* on certiorari. &/L(-GF Secondar$ evidence is ad%issible *hen the ori#inal docu%ents *ere actuall$ lost or destro$ed. ut 'rior to the introduction o0 such secondar$ evidence+ the 'ro'onent %ust establish the 0or%er e<istence o0 the instru%ent. 1he correct order o0 'roo0 is as 0ollo*sF e<istence+ e<ecution+ loss+ contents althou#h this order %a$ be chan#ed i0 necessar$ in the discretion o0 the court. 1he su00icienc$ o0 'roo0 0or the ad%ission o0 an alle#ed lost deed lies *ithin the 8udicial discretion o0 the 1C. (n the case at bar+ the 1C %erel$ ruled in the e<istence and d$e e<ecution o0 the alle#ed deed o0 sale. 1he e<istence o0 the alle#ed deed *as 'roved b$ the Tero< co'$. (n establishin# the e<ecution o0 a docu%ent+ the sa%e %a$ be acco%'lished b$ the 'erson?s@ *ho e<ecuted itL b$ the 'erson be0ore *ho% its e<ecution *as ackno*led#edL or b$ an$ 'erson *ho *as 'resent and sa* it e<ecuted or *ho+ a0ter its e<ecution sa* it and reco#nized the si#natures+ or b$ a 'erson to *ho% the 'arties had con0essed the e<ecution thereo0. 1he 'etitioners have su00icientl$ established the due e<ecution o0 the alle#ed deed throu#h the testi%on$ o0 the notar$ 'ublic. 1he loss or destruction o0 the deed %a$ be 'roved b$ an$ 'erson *ho kne* the 0act o0 its loss or b$ an$one *ho had %ade+ in the 8ud#%ent o0 the court+ a su00icient e<a%ination in the 'lace?s@ *here 'a'ers o0 si%ilar character are usuall$ ke't b$ the 'erson in *hose custod$ the docu%ent lost *as+ and has been unable to 0ind itL or *ho has %ade an$ other investi#ation *hich is su00icient to satis0$ the court that the instru%ent is indeed lost. 2o*ever+ all du'licates %ust be accounted 0or be0ore usin# co'ies. For since all the du'licates are 'arts o0 the *ritin# itsel0 to be 'roved+ no e<cuse 0or non6'roduction o0 the *ritin# itsel0 can be re#arded as established until it a''ears that all o0 its 'arts are unavailable. (n the case at bar+ the notar$ 'ublic testi0ied that the alle#ed deed o0 sale has about 7 or A ori#inal co'ies. 2ence+ all these %ust be accounted 0or be0ore secondar$ evidence can be #iven o0 an$ one. 1hese 'etitioners 0ailed to do. Decision a00ir%ed. (: Abi?ail 6o( D. 9amboa
3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 A= 6

3C 455364557 "vidence Pro8ect ,ol. 9 6 B5 6