REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE Sources: 4. Rules of Court, Rules 128-133 2. Constitution 3. Special Laws (¢.9. Anti-Wiretapping Act) 4. Revised Penal Code, Civit Code, etc. 5. Jurisprudence 6. Supreme Court Circulars RULE 128: GENERAL PROVISIONS. SECTION 4: EVIDENCE DEFINED Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the’ truth respecting 2 matter of fact Four component elements: 1, Evidence as @ means of ascertainment = includes not only the procedure or manner of ascertainment but also. the evidentiary fact from which the truth respecting 2 matier of fact may be ascertaines. 2, Sanctioned by these rules ~ not ‘excluded by the Rules of Court, 3. Ina judicial proceeding — contemplates ‘an action oF proceeding filed In @ court of law. 4, The truth respecting @ matior of fact ~ refers to an issue of fact and is both substantive (determines the facts 10 be established) and procedural (governs the manner of proving said facts). Purpose: Due to the presumption thet the court is not aware of the veracity of the facts involved in & case. It is therefore incumbent upon the parties to prove a fact in issue through the presentation of admissibie evidence (Risno, 2006 ed. p.3) When Evidence is Required 1. When the court has to resolve a question of fact. RECUTIVE CoMaTTER EVIDENCE 2 Doetrine of Processual Presumption = ‘When invoking a foreign law, evidence of ‘such law must be presented. Otherwise, ‘the court will presume that the foreign !aw is the same as the Philippine lew. When Evidence is NOT Required 1, Where no factual issue exists in a case. 2, Where the case presents only a question cf law, such question Is resolved by the mere application of the relevant statutes or rules to which no evidence Is required, 3. When the pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact. 4, Evidence may also be dispensed with by agreement of the partes, 5. Evidence is not also required on matters of judicial notice and on matters judicially admitted, “Tne propative effect of evidence and is the | conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from the consideration of the evidence, Itis the medium or means by which 2 | fact is proved or LZEGEL JOSHUR VILENA ova chnipirson, MINISITR A4015'S OU ehsinperson for academics, DIOARNAE JOMARE JUNASA. sussecr coment VAR NURCADI subject eat, MARIA DLSIRE FROTIO spt sect cha, WA FREY ERICA. CAVAWAR ep, JANHA HA frc A) YM LGHMANCLAS vex HANZEL SANTO spec co MRL EFALVAN sil ps RRASETLY Eta oy aril, Sly Grace Area. Mar ose Ayo, Kal alse, Grab Mise Bongos, Varco Burin, Dans Fjord, fn ancl Gala ke Gafego, Mec ore taxqaet Jamil, Frances Dyan Lin, ne Katrine im, A Loran Nanigue, Rone oz. Kevin Roxeol sar femila Guinn. Bovey Cuntos, Lae Paaino Reyes, Lyndon Peer, Eden Seon, Cala Tabslc, Noda Vianna Jocehogelo Davie Kaple anys ase, lyon atorsSan Beda College ot Lary . 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 4. Im criminal cases, when the accused enters a plea. Note: Generally, if a fact is admitted, there is no more FACTUM PROBANDUM because there is no fact in issue. However, the rules do net fix a standard in ascertaining the PROBANDUM. It depends on the NATURE OF THE CASE presented before the courts, + In CRIMINAL CASES, for instance, even if the accused enters 2 plea of guilly to a capital offense, the court must order & summary hearing to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full ‘comprehension of the consequences of his plea and for the prosecution to prove his “guilt and the precise degree of culpability (See. 3, Rule 116). In SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS for the probate of @ will, even if no person ppears to contest the allowance thereof, the courtis still required to grant allowance only if the will is proved to have been executed as Is required by law (Sec. 5, Rule 76). Factum Probans - the material evidencing the ‘proposition. It is the evidentiary fact by which the FACTUM PROBANDUM is established, ote ec Ulimate facts Intermediate facts | Proposition tobe | estaniisned _ Hypothetical Mateval evidencing the scoposition | Absence of Vested Evidence General Rule: No vested rights in the rules of evidence. Admissiblity or inadmissibilty of evidence is determined In accordance with the law in force at the time the evidence is prosented. Evidence otherwise inadmissible lunder the law at the time the action accrued, may be received in evidence provided that itis admissible under the law in force af the time it is presented. Exception: In criminal cases, if the alteration of the rules of evidence would, for instance, permit the reception of a lesser quantum of evidence than what the law required al the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict, then the retroactive application of such amendatory law would be ‘unconstitutional for being ex post facto, Rules of evidence are NOT self-executing. Confessions ‘made without the benefit of counse! are still admissible in evidence if appeliant failed to make timely objections before the trial court (People vs. Samus GR No, 195957-58, Sept 27, 2002) Construction of the Rules of Evidence Liberally construed: Ruies of Procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate rather than to frustrate the attainment of justice (Quiambso vs. CA, GR. No, 128305, March 28, 2008). May the Rules of Evidence be Waived? General Rule: Yes. The rules of evidence are established for the protection of the parties Exception: If the rule waived by the parties has been established by law on grounds of public policy, the, waiver is void. Accordingly, the waiver of the privilege against disclosure of secrets is void (Francisco, Ricardo J, 1996; p9). Classification of Evidence 4, Depending on its ability to establish the fact in dispute, evidence may be: a. Direct Evidence — evidence which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption b. Circumstantial Evidence — proof of fact or facts from which, taken either singly or collectively, the existence of the particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable ‘consequence (5 Moran). the Court vidence Becausesporsneater dear er) estab AUS son lbafenisiun fino evidengge tevegpirary appears Est312 REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE ~ As {0 the prima facie evidence in Section 2 of B.P. 22. If notice of non-payment by the drawee bank is not sent to the maker (oF drawer of the bum check, or if there is no proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer, then the presumption of knowledge as provided In Section 2 of B.P. 22 cannct arise, since [there] would simply be no way of reckoning the crucial five-day period (Rico vs. People, GR No. 137191, Nov. 18, 2002). b. Conclusive Evidence ~ evidence which is incontrovertible or one which the law does not allow to be contradicted. corroborative Evidence — adcltional evidence of @ diferent kind and character from’ that already given, tending to prove the same point. Under the Rule on the Examination of Child Witness, corroboration shall ot be required of a testimony of a child, His testimony if credible by tsatf, shall be sufficient to support a finding Lof fact, conclusion or judgment subject to the standard of proof required in criminal and non-criminal cases (A.M. No. 004-07-SC, Section 22). 4, Cumulative Evidence — additional evidence of the same kind and character proving the same fact. Depending on its weight and acceptability, evidence may be: a. Primary or Best Evidence — evidence which affords the greatest Certainty of the fact in question. b. Secondary or —_Substitutionary Evidence ~- evidence which is inferior to primary evidence and admissioie only in the absence of the latter. Depending on its nature, evidence may BL Object evidence — evidence directly addressed to the senses of the court and is capable of being exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court Also known as aufoplic proforency or real or physical evidence b, Documentary Evidence — supplied by written instruments or derved from conventional symbols and letters by which ideas are represented on ‘material substances. Testimonial Evidence — is verbal or oral evidence. It is evidence wich consists of the narration or deposition by one who has observed or has personal Knowledge of that to which he is testifying, = Positive Evidence — when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur, It is eniiled to greater weight since the witness represents of his personal knowlsdge the presence or absence of 2 fact, + Negative Evidence - when a witness states that he did not see cor know of the occurrence of @ fact, ‘and there is total disclaimer of personal knowledge. 5. Depending on its quality, evidence may a Relevant Evidence — evidence having value in reason as tending to prove any matter provable in an action. Note: A simple test of relevancy is the ablity of evidence to persuade or if it ‘can be of help to the factfinder in establishing the probability or improbablity of 2 fact in issue. Material Evidence - evidence directed to prove 2 fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings. tot ay Se Oe Erect Sacha heii sec, one that is ng Roles, ane Revider ing. ifort of ee. competent cue it's nat exuded by law inva particule caseSan Beda College of Lato _ 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS: 6. Rebuttal and Sur-rebuttal Evidence a. Rebuttal Evidence is that kind which is given to explain, repel, counteract or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party. It is evidence in denial of some affirmative case or fact which the adverse party has, attempted to prove. b. Surrebuttal Evidence is 2 reply to rebuttal evidence. When the plaintif in rebuttal is permitted to introduce new matter, defendants shouldbe permitted to introduce evidence in sur- rebuttal, and to decline to permit him to do so is error, especially when the evidence in sursrebuttal Is for the first time made competent by the evidence introduced by the plaintiff in rebuttal, but defendant should ask for the right to meet the new matter. Note: DNA testing results thet exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be Conclusive proof of non-paternty, Wf the value ‘of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results shall be considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of the Probability of Paternity 's 99.9% or higher, there shal be a disputable presumption of paternity SECTION 2. SCOPE ‘The rules of evidence shall be the seme in all courts and in all tals and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules Applicability of the Rules of evidence Goneral Rule: The rules of evidence are applicable to both civil and criminal cases (Sec, 2, Rule 128 and Sec. 3, Rule 1) Exception: When the law otherwise provides, such as those enumerated under Sec, 4, Rule Twhich are Election cases Land registration Gadastral proceedings Naturalization proceedings Insolvency proceedings and Other cases as may be provided for by law Note: The Rules of Evidence applies even in cases covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure in civil cases covered by the Rules on ‘Summary Procedure, where there is no trial land no testimonies are taken on the witness stand, thus obviating the appiication of the Rules on Evidence as to Testimonial Evidence, the rest of the Rules on Evidence still applies to evidence that will be presented In the course of the case. Therefore, any evidence presented by the parties in’ their respective position papers must still conform to the Rules on Evidence, In criminal cases covered by the Rules on ‘Summary Procedure, while the affidavits of the parties shall constitute their direct testimony, such testimonies may stil be subject to cross- examination, redirect or re-cross examination, ‘Therefore in these criminal cases the Rules on Evidence shall apply both as to the testimonies and the object evidence that the parties may submit fo the court. The rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies. ‘Administrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of lew (Bantoling v. Coca-Cola Bottiers Phils, Inc. GR. No, 153660, June 10, 2003) «Even if not bound by technical rules of procedure, the findings of facts of Administrative bodies are respected as tong as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if such evidence is not ‘overwhelming or preponderant (Avenido v. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 177666, April 30, 2008). SECTION 3, ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE Requisites for admissibility of evidence The evidence must be: 4. Relevant — suc lon to the fact in Igsue as tosing AEBRisience or “yop oustette’s : 2. Competent -—it-not ¢ cent les Boas law Eviderige on the éfeditiityor lack gfi'of a witness is saliayst, felevant, Insyery proceedina, the Gredbildy Ofte wiess Is : hwy on IssU8 Any objedlion,. defect , orsstgrenulaity allending. an. atest. MB" coneequences should be made before'dn, éntry of plea in 313REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE the arraignment; otherwise, the objection would be deemed waived (People vs. Llavore, GR No. 133892, Aug. 12, 2003). The rights enumerated in Sec. 12 (1), Art UV of the Constitution exist only in custodial investigations. Hence, admissions in a counter-affidavit during a preliminary investigation, even if made in the absence of @ counsel, are admissible in evidence, A person “undergoing preliminary investigation before the public prosecutor cannot be considered as being under custodial investigation (Ladiana vs. People, GR No. 144293, Des. 4, 2002). ‘Two Axioms of Admissibility a. Axiom of Relevancy ~ None but facts having rational probative value are admissible. + it merely prescribes that whatever is presented as evidence shall be Presented on the hypothesis that it Is. calculated according to the prevailing standards of reasoning, to effect RATIONAL PERSUASION. In short, it Just means that the evidence must be relevant, Components of Relevant Evidence: a. Materiality — whether the evidence is offered upon 2 matter properly in issue = ie. whether it is directed toward a fact within the range of allowable controversy b. Probativeness ~ the tendency of evidence to establish the proposition that itis offered to prove, Degree of probativeness required ~ to be relevant, it need net be conclusive, the evidence must merely help a ittle (5 Herrera, 1999 ect, p, 60) b. Axiom of Competency — Facts having fational probative value are admissible unless some specific mule forbids their admission + The rules of exclusion are rules of exception to the general admissibility Of all that is rational and probative Admissibility of Electronic Documents An electronic document Is admissibie in evidence it f complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the ‘manner prescribed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence. Kinds of Admissibility 1. Multiple — where evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes, such may be admissible if it satisfies all the requirements prescribed by law for its acimissibilty for the purpose for which itis presented, even if it does not satisfy the other requisites for its admissibility for other purposes. 2. Conditional — where evidence appears to be immaterial unless it is connected with other facts to be subsequently proved, such may be received on the condition. that the facts be afterwards proved. 3, Curative —where improper evidence was, admitted over the objection of the ‘opposing party, he should be permitted to contradict It with similar improper evidence. Otherwise it would result. in disparity of rulings to his prejudice (Fighting Fire with Fire). Rules of Exclusion vs. Exclusionary Rules 1. Rules of Exclusion — these are governed by the rules on evidence 2. Exclusionary Rules — these ere commonly used for evidence excluded by the Constitution’ In ts simplest form, these rules are applied to cases where the challenged evidence is quite clearly direct, or primary in its relationship to the prior arrest or search (5 Herrera, 1999 ed., 37). ‘Eien, ay beet sm te a derived from-an Hg gear {thet tree) must Bé suppress,San Beda College of Lato arrestee giving a confession, in such case, It is necessary to determine whether the derivative evidence is tainted with a constitutional violation, that is, whether the evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree. Likewise known as the “but for” test or “taint doctrine” which means that the evidence would riot have come to light but for the illegal action of the police. ro ARETAPPI oer) eg Unlawful Acts: 1 ‘Any person who, without authority from all the parties to the private communication or spoken word, does any. of the following: (Sec.1, par. 1) 2. To tap any wire; or b. To secretly overhear or intercept such ‘communication or spoken word by using any other. device or arrangement; or ¢, To record such private communication for spoken word by using a device ‘commonly known as dictaphone, or Gictagraph or detectaphone or waikie~ talkie or tape recorder or however otherwise described. ‘Any person, whether participant or not in the above penalized acts, who: (Sec. 1, par 2) 2. Knowingly possesses any tape record, wire record, disk record or any other such record or copies thereof, of any ‘eommunication or spoken word secured either bafore ot after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by lav: or b. To replay the €ame for any other person; or To communicate the contents therect, either verbally or in writing; or d. To. fumish transcriptions thereof, whether complete er partial, to any other person. Any person who shail ald, permit, or cause to be done any of the acis deciared to be unlawful (Sec.2) Any person who shall violate the provisions of Section b of the exempted acs below ar of an order issued thereunder, of aids, permits or causes ‘such viciations. (See.2) 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS Exempted Acts: 1. Use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses the ‘mentioned below; (Sec.1, par2) 2, Any peace officer, who is authorized by the writen order of the court, to execute any of the acis declared to be unlawful in cases involving the crimes of: (Sec.3, part) a. Treason; b. Espionage: ¢. Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war; 4. Piracy. fe. Mutiny in the high seas; £. Rebellion; 9. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion: fh. Inciting te rebellion; i. Sedition; i, Conspiracy to commit sedition; Inciting to sedition; Kidnapping as defined by the RPC: m. Violations of CA 616 punishing espionage and other offenses against national security. Admissibility: Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereot, or any information therein contained, obtained or secured by any person In violation of this Act shall be inadmissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative hearing or investigation. Note: An extension telephone line cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone, ictagraph or the other devices enumerated in ‘Section 1 of RA. No, 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered g the wire or cable of 3 ae Infiigiediate A 69868" Drover 16.1986). Poplist, Midi G. eses sase-8— i ct | ie Yet, while: gonstiiighal goles to clatesannes Hees the breach Of private 4 inalviduel 237 lead Abi c Sut for dae, arb Orig ao sie ri 1907, 747, cltossbbieerata, aeeberspectives of Eviience, 2005 EH, Pp-SF1). 315REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE Tape Recording The tape recording of the incident confirming the witness’ testimony is admissible in evidence since the heated argument in the police station between the accused and the deceased was not a private one. What RA. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) prohibits is the overhearing, intercepting or recording of private communication, Moreover, a voice recording is authenticated by the testimony of a witness: (a) That he personally recorded the conversation, (b) The tape played in court was the one recorded; and (6) That the voices in the tape are those of the persons such are claimed to belong (Navarra vs. CA, et al Aug. 26, 1999) Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications Under the Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No 9372) Under Section 7 of the Human Security Act of 2007, the provisions of RA 4200 rotwithstanding, a police or lew enforcement official may listen to, intercept and record any communication, message, conversation, discussion, or written or spoken words hetween the following: a. Members of judicially declared and outlawed terrorist. organization, association, or b. Group of ‘persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspyacy fo commit terrorism. Any of the above acts may not, however, be done without a written order of the Court of Appeals. SECTION 4, RELEVANC MATTERS. COLLATERAL the fact in Issue. These are matters outside the controversy, or are not directly connected with the principal matter or issue in dispute, a8 indicated in the pleadings of the parties. Evidence on collateral matters shal not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability fr improbabilty of the fact in issue. Kinds of collateral matters 1. ProspectanvAntecedent — those preceding the fact in issue but pointing forward to it (e.g. moral character, motive, conspiracy) 2. Concomitant — those accompanying the fact In issue and pointing to it. (e.g. alibi ‘opportunity, incompatibility) 3. Retrospectant or Subsequent — those succeeding the fact in issue but pointing backward to it. (e.g. flight, concealment, fingerprints, bioodstains) (RE seca eas eaneans Matters need NOT be proved: (ISA~ JP) 4. Immaterial allegations: 2. Facts admitted or not denied provided they have been sufficiently alleged (Sec. 1, Rule 8); 3. Agreed and admitted facts (Sec. 4, Rule 129); 4, Facts cubject to judicial notice (Secs. 1-3, Rule 123): 5, Facts legally presi Judicial Notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act tupen without proof, Judicial notice is based on considerations of expediency and convenience. It displaces the necessity for evidence on a settied matter to save time, labor and expense in securing and introducing such evidence, Note: Judicial notice is not equivalent to Judioia! knowledge. A fact may be of judicial ‘notice and not of a judge's personal knowledge and vice versa The rule refers to fagis which ought to be rego ok (ersbabnn is KAO sd ie in ques “4S dn€-which one er | The funefion no evidgnce because. jlelal Substitute for formal proof a. matey by evidence (Peosle viROwtahas P* Cals 238, 14 Cal Rpil 2 327. 29 ANY 2, EYEnce, S24, 1998) te SeeSan Beda College of Latu 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS SECTION 14. JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN MANDATORY Mandatory Judicial Notice (EPLACO — ung) “The ‘existence end territorial extent of states, 2. Ther political history, forms of government, and symbols of nationality; 3. The taw of nations; 4. The admiralty and maritime cours of the world and their seals; 5. The poltical constitution and history of the Philippines: 6. The official acts of the legistative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines; 7. The laws of nature; 8. The measure of time; anc, 9. The geographical divisions. ‘The Law of Nations is the compilation of rules which by common consent of mankind have been acquiesced in as lew. Foreign Municipal Laws General Rule: They must be proved as any other fact. They do not prove themselves nor ‘can courts take judicial notice of them. They must be alleged and proved. They.may be evidenced in accordance with Sec. 24, Rule 132 as an official record, Exceptions: 1. Foreign statute accepted by the government 2. Comman law. Doctrine of Processual Presumption: Lays down the presumption that the foreign law is the seme as the [aw of the forum, it arises if the foreign law, though properly applicable, is either not alleged, or #f alleged. is not duly proved before a competent court. When parties in 2 case agree on what the foreign law provides, these are admissions of fact which the other parties and the court are made to rely and act upon; hence they are in estoppel to. subsequently take a contrary position (Phit, Commercial & Industrial Bank, vs. Escolin, et al, GR. No, L-27896, March 29,1974). SECTION 2. JUDICIAL NOTICE, DISCRETIONARY WHEN Discretionary Judicial Notice 1.” Matters which are of public knowledge: or 2, Matters capable of _ unquestionable demonstration: or 3, Matters ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. Test of Notoriety for the courts to take Judicial notice of facts: Whether the fact Involved is <0 notoriously known as to make it proper to assume its existence without proof. ‘There: must be unconditional acceptance by the public, or hat segment of the public where ‘the factis of relevant importance. Note: The fact that a belief is not universal is rot controlling for itis seldom that any belief is accepted by everyone. It Is enough that the matters are familiarly known to the majority of mankind or those persons familiar with the Particular matter in question (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, G.R, No. 54886, September 10, 1981) Judicial Notice of Records of Another Case Previously Tried General Rule: Courts are not authorized to take Judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases. have been tried or aré pending in the same court and pending before the same judge (People vs. Hemandez, G.R.No. 106028, July 30, 1996). Exceptions: ‘When, at the initiate of the judge or of the parties, and without objection of any party, the teccrds of the previous action are tead and adopted into the present action, of attached to the records of the present action by court order, 2. When the present action is closely Io gaa ase_perdna botwoon ti Seg, 2 Sire ik mae t Note: The excebtigns’ ate" eS pnigaBle’ only is ‘AeBily referredst0-6r the original or part ahereof are acwual gpetroom ‘rom the archives ang, eam part of the record of the case then pen 317REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE Judicial Notice of Municipal Ordinances Inferior courts should take judicial notice of ‘municipal or city ordinances in force in their territorial jurisdiction. The RTC should take judicial notice of ‘municipal ordinances only when: 1. They are expressly authorized by statute; 2. On appeals of decisions by the inferior court when such courts had taken notice of a municipal ordinance. Rule before Appollate Courts: 1. An appellate court is without authority to take notice or take into consideration the judicial records of a case previously decided by the trial court upon which said court did not have the opportunity to pass; 2. An appellate court cannot consult the ‘records in another case to ascertain a fect not shown by the records of the case before it but could go te its other decisions for the low that is determinative of or applicable to the case under review, 3. The Supreme Court can also take judicial notice of its record in a previous case in connection. with the conduct of litigant or witness in a similar matter: 4. Lower courts, from the Court of Appeals down to the lowest level, must take judicial notice of decisions of the Supreme Court, 2s they are in fact duty bound to know the rulings of the high tribunal and to apply them in the adjudication of cases, they being part of the legal system, Judicial Notice of Other Matters 4, The trial court can take judicial notice of the general increase in rentals of real esiate especially of business establishments (Catungel v. Hao, G.A. No 134972, Merch 22, 2001). A court cannat take judicial notice of an administrative regulation or of a statute that is not yet effective (Stato Prosscutors v. Muro, 236 SCRA 505) In the age of modern technology. the court may take judicial notice that business transactions may be made by individuals through teleconferencing, However, there Is_no judicial notice that one was conducted ins particular case (Expentravel and Tours, inc, v. Court of Appeals, 469 SCRA 147) 4. The Court has likewise taken judicial notice of the Filipina’s inored modesty and shyness and Aer antipathy in publicly airing acts which blemish her honor and virtue, 318, 5. It is @ matter of judicial knowledge that persons have killed or committed serious offenses for no reason at all (People v. Zeta G.R. No. 178541, March 27, 2008). SECTION 3, JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN HEARING NECESSARY 1. During triat, the court, on its own Initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon. 2, Aftor trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. Purpose of Hearing: Not for the presentation of evidence, but to afford the parties reasonable opportunity to present information relevant to the propriety of taking such judicial notice or the tenor of the matter to be noticed, Prey Prinses ‘Court ie NOT compelled 10 take judicial notice ea Jadicial Notice ‘Courtis compelled to take jusiciat notice | ay be at cours own Iniative, or on request of party Takes place at court's own intiatve Needs hearing and eae Judicial notice of the age of the victim is Improper, despite the defense counsel's admission, the prosecution's, ’ ile. 123, take susicial_ notice, Tundlaigne Ro “13569 2oon)tes | | gallon SECTION. sea Sy ments 3 1 sae jase ee yo he 2, The ‘admie@htapast ghtBbde in the votesdings in the same course of t case; andSan Beds College of Law 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 3, There is no particular form for an admission - it may either be written or verbat Note: Lack of Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be admitted because jurisdiction ‘over the subject matter is conferred by law and ot by stipulation of parties. Judicial Admissions may be made in: }. The pleadings filed by the parties; 2. inthe course of the trial either by verbal or \writien manifestations or stipulations; 3, In other stages of the judicial proceeding, as in the pre-trial of the case; 4, Admissions obtained through depositions, written interrogatories or requests for admissions. ‘+ Judicial admission can be made by either 2 party or counsel. Note: Two situations in criminal cases: 1. Ifitis a criminal case undergoing trial, the « Jusiciat admission by counsel can be fecawed in evidence against the defendant even though against the conformity of said defendant or even \without his conformity 2. In the course of pre-trial conference, any acimission must be reduced in writing and signed by boib the defendant and his counsel before the admission can be received in evidence (Rulo 118, Sec. 2). Judiciat admissions may be contradicted ‘only when it is shown that’ Iwas made through palpable mistake; or 2. Thatno such admission was made. Remedy of a party who gave 2 judicial admission: 1. Incase of 2 WRITTEN judicial admission Motion to withdraw the pleadings, motion fF ather written instrument containing such admission 2. Incase of an ORAL, judicial admission ‘Counsel in open court may move for the exclusion of such admission Rule on Amended Pleadings: Admissions in superseded pleadings may be recsived in evidence against the pleacier (Sec. 8. Rule 10) Such agmissions are considered ‘a5 extrajudicial admissions. The original pleading must be proved by the party who Fees thereon by formally offering it in evidence (Torres vs. CA, L-37420-21, July 31, 1984). + Judicial admissions are always conclusive upon the admitter and do not require formal offer as evidence, unlike in the case of extra-judicial admissions. + Facts alleged in 2 party's pleadings are deemed admissions of that party and are binding upon him, but this is not an absolute and inflexible rule. An answer's a mere statement of fact which the party fling it expects to prove, but it is not evidence. (Ati Illv. CA, G.R No. 119053, January 23, 1997). Rule on Dismissed Pleadings ‘Admissions made In pleadings that have been dismissed are merely extrajudicial admissions (Servicowsie Specialists, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 643) Note: NOT all allegations or admissions in ‘adings in civil eases may be considered as judicial admission because the Rules on Civ Procedure alow a itigant to make hypotnetical ‘admissions in his pleadings, such as: 4. When a defendant sets up affirmative defense(s) in his answer; oF 2. When a defendant fies a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. + Judicial admissions made in one case are ‘Gdmissible at the tial of another case provided they are proved and are pertinent fo the issue involved in the istler, UNLESS: a. The sald admissions were made only for purposes of the frst case, as in the rule of implied admissions ‘and their 2 win the ‘Siig permigane a Sere ourtedseronetepenpe’ to reg SUP peawteeta® or tay Rules ofPleddingg not 1. If Sighied; bysthe, pi contaised ae i Ha fn Si juticlalladis Se 2 sands BPRS ane dmisstie. neater frakecstalonelision Heb only in 6p8n co in a ple’ fel. sae 319REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE Is the self-serving rule applicable to judicial admissions? NO. The self-serving rule which prohibits the admission or declaration of a witness in his favor applies only to extra-judicial admissions Mf the declaration is made in open court, such a8 raw evidence and is not self-serving It is, admissible because the witness may be cross- examined on that matter. However, whether it wil de credible or not, is a matter of appreciation on the part of the court ‘Admissions in on Sm ‘Admissions during ‘arraignment may be wwitherainn at any time: before the judgment of conviction becomes final, but such plea of guilty later withdrawn Is ol admissible in evidence against the ‘Bocused wha made the plea. Pry Admissions in & pleading which had been withdrawn oF superseded by an amended pleading are considered extrausicial aomission, 1s noteven considered an extrajudicial admission, RRR eee nnd Object Evidence (Sec. 1) is that which is addressed to the senses of the court. Itis not limited to view of an object. It extends to visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, olfactory (ATO), + Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence— where the physical evidence runs counter to the testmonial evidence, the physical evidence should prevail (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Reyes, G.R. No 157177, February 11, 2008). Object evidence is also known as (RDAP): 1. Real evidence 2. Demonstrative evidence 3. Autoptic preference: and 4. Physical evidence Real evidence may be: 1. Direct — evidence can prove directly the fact for which itis offered Eg, ina personal injury case, the direct real evidence of disfiguring injury would be an exhibition to the cour of the injury itself. 320 2. Circumstantial ~ facts about the object are proved as the basis for an inference that other facts are true. Eg. in a paternity case, 2 baby may be shown and asked to compare its appearance with that of the alleged father, if they look alike, the court may then draw an inference that the parental relationship exists. Requisits of Admissibility: (RAHPA) "The object must be relevant £0 the fact in issue; 2. The object must be authenticated before it is admitted; The object must not be hearsay; The object must not be privileged: Ik’ must meet any addtional requirement set by law. (Eg. il must nat be the result of an illegal search and seizure) Authentication — to be admissible in ‘evidence, the abject sought to be offered must be shown to have.been the very same thing in issue and is what itis claimed to be. Even though the object evidence may contain false Information such as falsified books kept bby the defendant, itis authentic in so far as it is Introduced by the prosecution for the purpose of showing falsity. Purposes of Authentication: ‘To prevent the introduction of an object different from the one testified about 2. To ensure that there has been no significant changes in the object's condition, Categories of Object Evidence For purposes ot. of an object, object eviden ‘ 1 Sidnique iy Ker Eabie ran eigtver.ilh te th 2 obi =e theth rs, fing marks and ¢aninot be 9, °888 6! hood of ofl-diugs in powder anlier a Under the thitdgdtegory.-the oroponent of the evidence fhust establish a chat ofSan Beda College of Law 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS custody. The links to the chain are the People who actually handied or had ‘custody of the object. Each of them must show how he received the object, how he handled it to prevent substitution ‘and how itwas transferred to another. Chain of Custody in Drug-related Cases Chain of Custody - means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized ‘drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources ‘of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizureconfiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person Who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody. were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as evidence, ‘and the final disposition (Section 1, DDB Regulation No. 1, Senles’ of 2002). The existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and, thus, 2 condition sine qua non for conviction. In order to establish the existence of the drug, its chain of custody ‘must be sufficiently established. The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence fare removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court (People vs. Martinez. et al, G.R No.191360, December 13, 2010) cular inspection or “View ‘The court can go te the place where the object is located, when the object evidence cannot be brought t cour because It is Immovable oF inconvenient to remove (5 Herrera, 1999 ext, 144-145). ‘View is Part of Trial — The inspection or view cutside the courtroom is a part of the tal Inasmuch as evidence is thoreby being recelved, such inspection should be made in the presence of the parties or at least with previous notice to them of the time and place set for the view. ray Eee “Tangible object hat played come actual fole in the matter that ‘gave rise to the | Mligaton Pert Ean "Tangible evicence that merely illustrates ‘a matter of importance inthe Itigation Limitations against the use of real evidence may be classified into: 1. Inherent Limitations When the object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. Thus, it excludes the following: fa. Irrelevant evidence; b.Ilegally obtained evidence. 2. Non — Inherent Limitations Relevant evidence may be excluded on the ground that although relevant and authentic, its probative value is exceeded by ils prejudicial effect such as the following: 2. Indecency and impropriety b. Undue prejudice; ©. Offensiveness to sensibilities; 6. Inconvenience and unnecessary expenses. Note: But when the exhibition is necessary 19 the ends of justice, notions of deceney and delicacy of fealing will not be allowed to prevail (Herrera, 5, 1999 ed., p. 157) A.M, No. 06-41-5-SC ‘October 2, 2007 Effectivity: October 15, 2007 ee in Soetom datier@or, is offered, used, SE proposed to: becofigred, oF: peg ae Biological saith) ane 0 wie atk donk © olson’ Gop even fn rironintesoeeie mat Ee suceeile DNA touting: Tag jpeiudes bidod, salva en: 30) contaiRe nied ard bafes DNA (Dediiibontieleie: Acid) = the:chain of sholecales foUbs in evry nulclegted eal of the body. The ttalliyset an indyadal's ONA is nine for the waiaual, except Ktent fies 322REMEDIAL LAW DNA Evidence ~ constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results and other genetic Information directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples. DNA Testing — verified and credibie scientific methods which ‘include the extraction of ONA from biological samples, the generation of DNA profiles and the comparison of the information obtained from the ONA testing of biological samples for the purpose of determining, with reasonable certainty, whether or nat the DNA obiained from two or more distinct biological samples originates from the same person (Direct Identification) cr if the biological samples. originate from related persons (Kinship Analysis) Application for DNA Testing Order ‘The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of @ person having a legal interest in the litigation, order 2 DNA festing upon 2 showing that 1. A Biological sample exists that has relevance to the case, 2, The Biological sample: a. Was not previously subjected to the DNA testing requested, or b. Wit was subjected to DNA testing, the results may require confirmation for good reasons. c. The DNA testing uses @ scientifically valid technique, d, The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case, and fe, The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy and Integnty of the DNA testing + Order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately executory and shall not be appealabie, © Petition for certiorari initisted therefrom shall not, in any way, stay the implementation thereof, unloss 2 higher court issues an injunctive order. + Grant of DNA tasting application shall not bbe construed as an automatic admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may be oblained as 2 result thereof Post-Gonviction DNA Testing Post-conviction DNA testing may be available, WITHOUT need of prior cour order. to the 322 EVIDENCE prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided that: 1. a biological ample exists; 2. such sample is relevant to the case; and 3. the testing would probably resuit in the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction, ONA Testing Results DNA ‘results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity. 2. Ifthe value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing shall" be considered as ‘corroborative evidence. 3, IFequivalent to 99.9% or highor there shail be a disputable presumption of paternity Remedy if the Results are Favorable to the Conv 1, The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a wnit of habeas corpus in the ‘court of origin. 2. if the court finds that the petition is meritorious, if shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the Felease of the convict, unless continued etention is justified for a lawful cause. 3, A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with any member of said courts, which may conduct 2 hearing thereon or remand the petition fo the court of origin and issue the appropriate orders, Note: ONA profiles and ail results or other information obtained from DNA testing shall be CONFIDENTIAL (may only be released upon order of the court). Applicability to, 5: shall apply Sg gees _ ie Ge slvity 35 pi iSechons-B/and 10 ef oe Eig vostcavctors owtestngh fe 2 contenfas cOnatiite objeckireal) ‘on’ the’ purpose for Tetendered. pod Weta Noto: & Bbcunsat bwrdence deport verse the aelment i eT te Blabees weno i@berd fo we message Pit contaite st is treated as vant documetiary evidence, In suchSan Beda College of Law 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS. case, the Best Evidence rule does not apa. + Tha document is offered fo prove what is twntten on, then the document wil be irsated as documentary evidence ‘Accordingly, the Best Evidence Rule may be invoked. Best Evidence Rule (Sec. 3) The term *best’ has nothing to do with the degree of its probative value in relation to other types of evidentiary rules. It is not intended to mean the “most superior’ evidence, More accurately, itis the “original document rule” or the “primary evidence rule.” This rule appliés to documentary evidence only, or a document presented as proof of its contents. It does not apply where there is no bona fide dispute on the contents of documents and no useful purpose would be served by its production. Note: The Best Evidence appears to be 2 misnomer since it permite intreduction of secondary evidence if non-production of the original Is covered by the exceptions to the rule. General Rule: When the subject of inquiry is the contents of & document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itset. Exeeptions: Those under Rule 130. Sec. 3: 4. When the orginal has been lost of destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, Without bad faith on the part of the offeror; When the criginal is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered. and the latter fails to produce i after reasonable notice. Even in criminal cases, there must sil be 2 request for production of document even if it be in the possession of the accused and if he refuses to pracuce it invoking his constitutional right’ against self- ‘nerimination, then the secondary evidenos may be introduced (People Bomping, GR. NoL-24787, Maict 1926), 3. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which ‘cannot he examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them Is only the general resutt of the whole, ‘Secondary Evidence may consist of the ‘summary of the voluminous documents or records (Herrera, Vol V, p.203). The voluminous records must, however, be made accessible to the adverse party so that the correctness of the summary may be tested on cross-examination; 4. When'the original is @ public record in the custody of 2 public officer or is recorded in a public office. Secondary Evidence may consist of the certified true copy of the document and official publication thereof (Herrera, Vol. V, p.203) Note: In addition to the Best Evidence Rule, if the document contains @ material alteration, the offeror must account for the alteration (Section 31, Rule 132) and if a portion of the document is introduced by a party, the adverse party can inquire on, oF introduce, the remaining portions of the document (Theory of indivisibility of the Evidence ~ Section 17, Rule 132). Purposes of the Best Evidence Rule: 4, To Prevent Fraud - if a party is in possession of such evidence and withholds it, and seeks to substitute inferior evidence in its place, the presumption neturally arises that the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes which its production would expose and defeat 2. To Exclude cee tn asgrimnal case, 8 ae Se shegadig hve ba re oahu wa , Samer 3 3 Fe Ree ues bibon of 8 22 "y 323REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE With respect to telegrams and cables, on the question as to whether the dispatch sent or the dispatch received is the best evidence of the message, the better rule is thal it depends on the Issue to be proved, ‘e,, ifthe issue is the ‘contents of the telegram as received by the ‘addressee, then the original dispatch received is the best evidence; and, on the issue as to the telegram sent by the sender, the original is. the message delivered for transmission. if the issue Is the inaccuracy of transmission, both telegrams as sent and received are originals. ‘The Best Evidence Rule Does NOT Apply in the Following Cases: 1, To the existence, execution or delivery without reference to its terms; 2. To make testimony coherent and Intetigible ; 3, To admissions as to contents of writing ‘and where subject of preliminary cross- examination, to lay’ the basis for ontrontatioy 4. Where there is no bona fide dispute on the contents of documents and no useful purpose would be served by its production, Original of Documents (Sec. 4) 1. One the contents of which are the subject otinquiry, 2. When a document isin two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals (duplicate originsis) 3. When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, ane being copied from another at of near the time of the transaction, all the entries ere equally regarded as originals. A copy of the original document may not be used without accounting for the other oricinal copies. it must appeer that all of them have been lost or destroyed or cannat be produced before secondary evidence can be given of anyone, ‘The Rule on Duplicate Originat When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents, er Is 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 equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces. the crriginal, such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original 324 Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies of duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original if 4. @ genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or 2. in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit a copy in lieu of the original Bost Evidence Rule as applied to Electronic Documents. Original of an electronic document ‘An electronic document shail be regarded as ‘the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately (Rules on Electronic Evidence, AM, No, 01-7-01-S0, Rule 4, Sec. 7). Secondary Evidence (Sec. 3 and Secs. 5 ~ 2 4. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court without bad faith on the part of the offeror secondary proof of its contents may be allowed. Requisitos for the presentation of secondary evidence: (EEL 0) 2° Proof of existence of orginal b. Proof of execution of eriginal © Cause af unavalebity or toss of origina 4. Proof of contents through secondary bricones, ‘The EXECUTION of a document may be proven by: (E-CAPS) a Any person's who executed the pamies 10 re ere we eee foe, hg RE = sab ae aS By persons of eo ited dF 2. Way nes se signatires (Michael (vigie 2 PMP 8 the Sect abc ilot 2 dgevment ney be pend “ee ison Who knew the fat of oss: 3 sufeient ‘where the fapers of similar character “re usually kept by theSan Beda College of Fawn 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS persons in whose custody the document lost was and has been unable to find it; ©. Anyone who has made investigation which is sufficient to satisty the court that the instrument is indeed lost (Michael & Co. v. Enriquez, 33 Phi 871) + The foss or destruction of the document need not be proved beyond the possibility of mistake; itis enough if the testimony satisfies the court of the fact with reasonable certainty ‘The CONTENTS of a document may be proven by: 2, Any person who signed the document; b. Any person who read it; ©. Any person who heard it read knowing ‘or it being proved from other sources that ihe document so read was the ‘one in question Any person who was present when the contents of the document were talked over between the parties thereto to such an extent as to give him reasonably full information as to its contents: fe. Any person to whom the parties to the instrument have confessed or stated the contents thereof When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the letter falls to produce it alter reasonable notice. + It is not necessary to show that the original is in the aclual possession of his adversary. It is enough that the circumstances are such as to indicate that the writing is in his possession. + If there is falure to produce the original despite reasonable notice, the adverse party is afterwards forbidden to produce the document in order to contradict the other party's copy or evidence of its contents or it may also be regarded as a judicial admission in advance of the correctness of the first party's evidence. It also gives rise 10 the PRESUMPTION OF SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE. + Even in criminal cases, there must stl be a request for production of document even if it be in the possession of the accused and if he Tefuses te produce it invoking his constitutional right against seit inccimination, then. the secondary evidence may be introduced (People vs. Tan Bomping, G.R. No.L-24187, March 18, 1926), Note: Under 1 and 2, secondary evidence may consist of ‘8. Copy of contents of original; b. Recital of contents in some authentic document; and ‘¢. Recollection of witnesses. Definite Evidentiary Rule The order does not apply where the law specifically provides for the class or quantum of secondary evidence to establish the contents of the document. xg. secondary evidence of 9 lost notarial wil should consist of the testimony of at Teast two credible witnesses who can clearly and distinctly establish its contents (See. 6, Rule 75); while the proof required in case the holographic will is lost appears to rule out any testimonial evidence of its contents (Sec. 5, ule 76). When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined without great 1033 of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole. Note: Secondary evidence may consist of Mtrnaty of he various docurnents of tesorde (8 Honora, To89 ec p.203). The ‘ererrices records muse, however, Be ‘rade accessible tothe averse party £0 thar ne correctness ofthe cummary Mey . ration be tested n geseagers gon. ypen the Spgs SUBIESERDY in the, Fett oon ore eeorieg Note;;Secondary evide! camara Sea Ges pate tice, caste theron tne Bee Va > Official publication. (6 Herrera, 1999.ed.-p. 203). When'the:onginal js outside the jurisdiction fof the" court, a8, when His" ingaaoteign eviderte 18 ‘county. acimissible, secondary 325REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE SECTION @ PARTY WHO CALLS FOR DOCUMENT NOT BOUND TO OFFER IT Where a document is produced, such document is not necessarily admissible in evidence, unless the requisites for admissibility are present; nor is the party who ‘sought its production obliged to offer it as evidence. Production of Documents: for purposes of ‘evidence vis-a-vis as a mode of discovery paren ia ‘Procured by mare notice tothe adverse ary, which is 2 Made by proper motion tonditon precedent for | in the trial court and is the subsequent permitted only upoa Introduction of | good cause shown, secondary evidence by | the proponent. Soniemplstes = Presupposes that ine | situation wherain the ocument to be Socument is etor produced is intended | assumed to be as evidence for tho | favorable tothe party Proponent whe is in possession thereot Presumed tohave | or that the party knowiedge of ts } Seeking its production contents. = | isnot sufitently infories of tne Parol Evidence Rule (See. 9) General Rule: When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to wing, it is considered as containing all the tarms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement Exceptions: A party may present evidence to ‘modify, expisin or add to the terms of the written’ agreement if he PUTS IN ISSUE IN. HIS PLEADING: (FIVE) ‘The failure cf the written agreement to express the true intent of the parties thereto; 2. An Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or Imperfection in the written agreement ‘The validity of the written agreement; ‘The existence of other terme agreed to by the parties or their suocessors in interest afier the execution of the witlen agreement. Note: The term “agreement” includes wills 326, Purpose of the Rute: 4, To give stability to a writen agreement; 2. To remove the temptation and possibilty of perjury 3. To prevent possibie fraud. Requisites: 1. There must be @ valid contract; 2. The terms of the agreement must be reduced to writing; 3. The dispute Is between parties and their successors in interest; andior 4. There is dispute as to the terms of the agreement. © When no timely objection or protest is made (0 the admission of parol evidence, and when the motion to stike out said evidence came too late and if the other party against whom such evidence was presented cross-examined the witness who teslifed in respect to the contract, said party will be understood to have waived the benefits of the law. Parol evidence under those facts is competent and admissible (Abrenioa vs Gonda, No. 10100, August 15, 1916). Parol Evidence ~ Any evidence aliunde which Js intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement ‘embodied in a document Evidence Aliunde (Extrinsic Evidence) li may refer to a testimonial, real or documentary evidence Note: No express trusi conceming an immovable or any interest therein may be proved by parol evidence (Ait. 1449, Civil Codie). hen Parol eas 9 a aaa acs exclusive: iter mgmoralg e = integrated ana. matgen instrument hich they have fa. the Msbertten fate ven tie, “pail thet” rogue agreement to. writing, tis presumed hat they fidve made ying he On fBBEstoy anc memorial of the-tnithe-and Whstever is notSan Beda College of Lav found in the writing must be understood to ave been waived and abandoned, Exception: Parol Evidence Rule may also apply to collateral oral agreements. = A contract made prior to or contemporaneous with another agreement and IF ORAL and NOT INCONSISTENT with the written contract 1S ADMISSIBLE within the exception fo parol evidence rule. Requirements: 1. It is not a part of the integrated written agreement in any way: 2. It is not inconsistent with the written agreement in any way, including both the express and implied’ provisions of the written agreement; and 3. It is not closely connected with the principal transaction as to form part and parcel thereof, Note: The Parol Evidence Rule DO=S NOT apply when the collateral ora! agreement refers to separate and distinct subjects. Ratio: The parties to 2 contract cannot be presumed fo have embodied in a single writing all the agreements which they had on different subjects Rule on Intrinsic Ambiguity Intrinsic or Latent Ambiguity — when the writing on its face appears clear and Unambiguous but there are collateral matters oF circumstances which make the meaning uncertain. Extrinsic or Patent Ambiguity — ambiguity ig apparent on the face of the writing itself and requires something to be added in order to ascertain the meaning of the words used. Farol evidence cannot be used to ratify or Supplement a void contract Imermediate Ambiguity — where the ambiguity consists in the use of equivocal words designating the person or subject matter, parol evidence of collateral or extrinsic hatter may be intraduoed for the purpose of siding the court in asriving at the meaning of the language used (This kind of ambiguily resus from the use of words susceptible of wo Integpretations.). INTRINSIC and = INTERMEDIATE AMBIGUITIES are curable by evidence jlinnds oF extraneous evidence. 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS + A PATENT AMBIGUITY cannot be cured by evidence aliuade, Principle of “Falsa Demonstratio non nocet ‘cum de corpore constat” “an act. rroneous description does not spoil the ‘+ False description does not injure or vitiate a cocument, provided that the thing or person intended has once been sufficiently described + Where there are two descriptions in a deed, the one having been superadded to the other, and one description being complete and sufficient of itself while the other which Is subordinate and superadded is incorrect, the incorrect description or feature of circumstance of the description is rejected as surplusage, land the complete and correct description ig allowed to stand alone, Rule on Mistake Paral Evidence is admissible to prove: mistake in the execution of a written agreement. Ratio: It would be unjust and inequitable to allow the enforcement of a written instrument which does not reflect or disclose the real meeting of the minds of the parties. Elements of Mistake: 4. It should be @ mistake of fact and rot a mistake of law, 2. W should be mutual or common to both parlles to the instrument; It should be alleged and proved by clear ‘and convincing evidence. pot caused Mistake of Jaw haps nating foi eto to ah’ prrbneous leaalefoct. ets «Tn GiGura ube tela fet fails to’ expressathe’ Sbisthe (asco: can soeth Be ef ked, wtiaertne entra is eral lor fake terms aA EUaRNS” od intention’ “gt “thempartes” cannot be Uhdretoda fromm thee mere red tnsvumere Sh, 327REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE Rule on Imperfection Where 2 writing, although embodying an agreement, is manifestly incomplete, and is ‘not intended by the parties to exhibit the whole agreement, but only to define some of its terms, the writing is conclusive as far as it ‘goes. But such parts of the actual contract as are not embraced within its scope may be established by parol (5 Herrera, 1999 ed, P2385), Imperfection incides_ an _—_ Inaccurate statement in the agreement or incompleteness. in the writing, or the presence of inconsistent provisions therein, Rule on Conditional Agrooments 1. Conditions Precedent — méy be established by parol evidence because there is no varying of the terms of the written contract by extrinsic agreement for the reason that there is no contract in existence; there is nothing to which to apply the excluding rule 2. Conditions Subsequent — may not be established by parol evidence. Ss aes TContemplates & | situation where the Presupposes that the | orignal is aot avalable orginal is avaiabie in| in court andlor there is court a dispute as to wl Prohibits the varying of | the terms of @ waten agreement ‘evidence in Feu of the ‘original document regardless of whether | Staak vanes the | contents the orginal | | | [Canta iavexed ony ‘whan the controversy is | between the parties to | the wnten agreement, | thei privies. cr any Gan be Invoked by any party to sn aclion regardless of whether ‘uch party participated | ornotin the wating invowved With the exception of suis, applies only 10 ecumente whi lu | pies to kn of ce Note: The Parol Evidence Rule is not applicable to a mere receipt, unless that receipt can quaiy as a valid and enforceable contract, Hence, as to 3 receipt being given for the payment of rent due on the lease, parot evidence is admissible to show that the 328 payment was made by note (Peralta, J Perspectives of Evidence, 2005 Edition, page 142, ting 10 McKinney, Ruling Case Law,1916 Edition, page 859, and Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, ‘G.R. No. 79962, December 10, 1990). Testimonial Evidonce 7 ‘Testimonial or oral evidence is evidence alicited from the mouth of a witness as distinguished from real end documentary evidence (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5° Ed., 7323). It is sometimes called viva voce which literally means ‘living voice” or by word of mouth, The person who gives the testimony is called a “witness” SECTION 20, QUALIFICATIONS, WITNESSES; THEIR General Rule: ALL persons who can perceive, and perceiving, and can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses, ‘+ Religious or poitical belie, interest in the ‘outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime shall NOT be a ground for disqualification, Exceptions: Unless otherwise provided by iawor the Rules, such as inthe following: t Those disqualified under Soos. 27 ~ 24, Rule 130, 2. Art 834 of the New Civil Code disqualifies those who have been convicted of falstication of a document, perjury or false testimony from being witnesses to 2 vl 3, Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court Tequites that the accused sought to be Gischarged to be state witness has oot at any ime been convicted of any offense involving “The seme se peared “Sacer Re my and Banat BEERS A to fnbg SS! EXCEPT igs should tie counsel (Fanct General ai winece. standagh-presuen,i@ possess the cwalfications (eysstimption of Zompotency), gySan Beda Colleae of Lav 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS Qualifications of witnesses: A prospective witness must show that he has the following abiities: (OR’) 1. To gbserve — the testimonial quality of perception; 2. To remember ~ the testimonial quality of memory; 3, To felate — the testimonial quality of narration: and 4, To recognize a duty to tell the truth — the testimonial quality of sincerity. Exception: Prima facie evidence of incompetency in the following 1. The fact that a person has been recently found of unsound mind by a court of ‘competent jurisdiction; 2. That one is an inmate of an asylum for the insane, - = The qualifications and disqualifications of witnesses are determined as of the time they are produced for examination in court or at the taking of their depositions, Test of Competency: Whether the individual has sufficient understanding to appreciate the nature and obligation of an oath and sufficient capacity to observe and describe the facts in Fegard to which he is called to testiy + Auwitness is presumed to be competent The objection to the competency may be raised at any time during the examination or cross-examination; but it should be made as soon as the facts tending to show Incompetency are discovered. Voir Dire Examination — a preliminary examination conducted by the trial judoe where the witness is duly swom to answer as to his competency (Competency Examination). Citizen's Testimonial Duty General Rute: Every competent person under the process of subpoena by the duly constituted courts of the country may be compelled to appear and testify. Exception: The following are not bound even. if suspoenaed: (C4 MAC-WP) Chief Executive ‘Judges of Superior Courts ‘Members of Congress during sessions Ambassadors, Consuls and other diplomatic officials when there is a treaty holding them exempt (Herrera, Vol. V., P.277). 6. Witness who resides more than 100 ‘lometers away from his residence to the place where he is to testify by the ordinary course of travel, or 7. A detention prisoner if'no permission of the court in which his case Is pending was obtained (Rule 21, Sec.10, Ruies. of Coun). ‘Two Kinds of Incompetoncy to Testify 1. Absolute Disqualification ‘A person is forbidden to testify on any matter. This includes: @, Disqualification by reason of mental Incapacity or immaturity (Sec. 21): b. Disqualification by reason of marriage (Seo. 22), 2. Relative Disqualification A parson Is forbidden to teslity only on certain matters specified under Sections 23 and 24 of Rule 130 due to interest or Felationship or to privileges of other parties. a, Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party (Dead Man's Statute, Sec. 23), b, Disqualification.” on ground of privileged commitnication (Sec 24) SECTION 21. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MENTAL INCAPACITY OR IMIMATURITY ‘The following CANNOT be witnesses: 4, Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of inteligentiy rmiaking known their perception to others, 2. Chilren whose mertal matty e such 8 (oronder them ivanghlggl perceiving he fact ves ee amined sie or ogee eronntten ora casa veares teligent WETS tol ie ewe ‘she Is 3 competent witneds'evenif she is Yeeble- inde eae A De. desis. £39087, Presumption:dt Sanity The law presuljes. that every ipeisen is of sound mind, in proof to the 88 alone does 329REMEDIAL LAW not per se disqualify a withess, It must be of such degree that the person's ability to perceive, recall, and testify are so impaired that the witness's testimony is worthless (Horrera, 5, 1999 ec, p.285) Exception: if the witness is a lawful inmate of ‘an asylum for the insane (Torres vs, Lopez, 48 Phil. 72) Rules on Time of insanity 1. At the time of tit - incompetent 2. At the time of transaction - competent but may affect the witness’ credibility 3. Atsome other period - no effect © Deatinutes are competent witnesses when they can understand and appieciate the sanctity of an oath, can comprehend facts they are going to testify to and can communicate their ideas through 2 qualified interpreter (People vs. Hayeg. L- 38635, Novembor 17, 1980), Sirs hrotc eked tea Pisise (A.M, Ho, 00-4-07-SC) Effectivity: December 18, 2000 Applicability of the Rule Unless otherwise" provided, this Rule shall govern the examination of child witnesses who are victims of crime, accused of 2 crime, and witnesses to crime. It shall apply in al criminal proceedings and non-criminal_ proceedings involving child witnesses (Sec. 1). Presumption of Competency - Every child is. presumed quaitied to be a witness. However, the court shall conduct a competency examination of a child, motu proprio or on mation of a party, whan it finds that sunstantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court (Sec. 6). Examination of a child as to his competence shall be conducted ONLY by the judge. Counsel for the parties, however, can submit questions to the judge that he may. in his discretion, ask the child (Ses. 6 {a} Definitions, Child Witness — is any person who at the time of giving testimony is below eighteen (13) years, In child abuse cases, 2 child includes fone over eighteen (18) years but is found by 330 EVIDENCE the court as unable to fully take care of himself oF protect himsaif trom abuse, neglect, cruelty, ‘exploitation, or discrimination because of physical or mental disability or condition (Sec. 4 (ay) Facilitator — means @ person appointed by the court to pose questions (0 a child (Sec. 4 (o). The facilitator may be a. child psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, guidance counselor, teacher, religious leader, parent or relative ‘Support Person — is a persori chosen by the child to accompany him to testify at or attend a judicial proceeding or deposition to provide ‘emotional support for him (Sec. 4 (9) Best Interests of the Child - the totallty of the Circumstances and congitions as are most congenial to the survival, protection and feelings of security of the chili and most encouraging to his physical, psychological and emotional development. It also means the feast detrimental available alternative for safeguarding the growth and development of the child Developmental level ~ refers to the specific growth phase In which most individuals are expected to behave and function in relation to the advancement of their physical, socio- emotional, cognitive, and moral abilities. + The public may be excluded from the courtroom when they do not have a direct Interest in the case. The court may also, ‘an mation of the accused, exclude the public from trial, except court personnel ‘and the counsel of the parties. rect | olay mahgeouipg) of any other ‘evies jo aesist him ins (esber 4, Abang Ula to habe an ter of his ino panes (erotigital es ia 5, low Oi chideastiatle periods of relief ‘while uaderabi iss, examinations, as"San Meda College of Law 6. Allow that the testimony of the child be taken in a room outside the courtroom and be televised to the courtroom by live-link television, 7. Permit that a deposition be taken of the testimony of the child and that it be recorded and preserved on videotape, Corroboration shall NOT be required of a testimony of a child. His testimony, if credible by Iisel, shall be sufficient to support a finding ‘of fact, conclusion, or judgment subject to the standard of proof required In criminal and nor= criminal cases. ‘Sexual Abuse Shield Rule General Rule: The following evidence is not admissible. in any criminal proceeding invalving alleged child sexual abuse. 1. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged In other sexual behavior; and 2. Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim Exception: Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that @ person other than the accused was the source of the semen, injury, or other physical evidence shal be admissible. +t is likewise settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child-viclins are given full weight and credit. When @ woman or 3 child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all thal is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed (People v. Putanco, GR, No. 141186, Nov. 27, 2003) Hearsay Exception in Child Abuse Cases A statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse, not otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in evidence in any criminal of non-criminat proceeding. Rules in the adinissibilty of such statements: 1. Before such hearsay statement may be admitted, ifs proponent shall make known to the adverse party the intention to offer such Statement and ils particulars to rovise him 2 fair opportunity to object. if the child is available, the court shall, upon motion of the adverse party, require the child to be present at the prasentation of the hearsay statement for cross examination by the adverse party. When the child is unavailable, the fact of suct 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS circumstance must be proved by the proponent. 2. In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall consider the time, content and Circumstances thereof _ which provide sufficient indicia of reliability. When is a child witness considered unavailable? ‘A child witness is. deemed unavailable under the folowing stations: Is deceased, suffers from _ physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness, or wil be exposed to severe psychological injury; or 2, Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by process or olher reasonable means, hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corraborated by other admissible evidence. Protective Orders + Any videotape or audiotape of a child that i part of the court recerd shall be under @ protective order. + The court may, motu proprio or on motion of any parly, the child, his parents, legal guardian, or the guardian ad lifer, issue ‘additional orders to protect the privacy of the chile ee Only the judge is ‘Opposing counsels are afowod cask cuss a ‘oa child winessig@ana) | prélmry examaor! ae ee ii atic a sonra to glove Ceadinigfyestions af slowed 17 Testimsnie @ rartatve form is aU REASON. OF IMMUNE jage, neither General Rule: Busing their rap tssiy for oF the husband rér'the. wife, nt 333REMEDIALLAW EVIDENCE against the other without the consent of the affected spouse. Purpose: To obviate perjury and to prevent domestic disunity and unhappiness. Who May Object Only the spouse-party and not the other spouse who is offered as a witness. Requisite: That the spouse for or against whom the testimany is offered Is a party to the case; 2. That the spouses are /egally married (valid until annulled); 3. Testimony is offered during the existence of mariage; 4, The case is not one of the exceptions provided in the rule. (5 Herrera, 1999 ed, p.302) Exceptions: The rule on disqualification does not apply in the following: 4. Where the testimony was made outside ‘the mariage: 2, Ina civil case by one spouse against the other: 3, Ina criminal case for a crime committed by one spouse against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendant ‘+ The disqualification does not apply where an offense directly attacks or directly and vitally impairs the conjugal relations, + It does not also apply in the case of estranged spouses, where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there Is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed (Alvarez v. Ramirez, 473 SORA 72 [October 14, 2005] citing People v. Castaneds, 271 SCRA 504}. Ratio: Identity of interest disappears and the consequent danger of peijury based on that identity is non-existent Seria Reagan of Ramage Can be invoked only if one of the spouses fe 8 party fo the action ‘Biples ony tthe marriage is exsting at the time the testimony is Can be clamed whether fF nal the other spouse apart othe acton, | we claenes even Saaurge Petesemeny's | aescives | Conetiuias a tal RS ASS only prohibition for or against | conviential | | the spouse of the. | sot icatons | Pee Reason of Marital Privilege (Sec. 244) ) [wirese | Betoon he soos Tie aon woU Tasca fate pron! rremage. "The arid Trot woul ate owed ge re Songat st boca o fe dequalfeaton Bren tater fecaragenattne Sate spone the Sehise odes carat ei err a ey cr “The married person Is fon the stand bur the ‘ebjection of privilege is raised when confidential ‘mantal communication is inquired int, Nature of the Prohibition tt is an absolute prohibition against the spouse's testifying to any fact affecting the husband or the wife however the knowledge of these facts may have been acquired. However, res gestae declarations of husband ‘and wife are admissible for or against each ‘other, even though each Is incompetent to testify (68 Am. Jur. 139). Marrying the Witness ‘An accused can effectively “SEAL THE LIPS” ‘of 2 witness by marrying the witness. As long as a valid marriage is in existence at the time of the tral, the witness-spouse cannot be ‘compelied fo testify even where the crime charged is ageinst the witness’ person, and evan though the marriage was entered into for the express purpose of suppressing the testimony. Duration of the Privitege The privilege lasts only during mariage, It terminates upon divorce or annulment or mw Ge ge eri as gat cr incompeteige, ore ramet or the cin ae Hemet earn atl egasy aren aesSan Beda College of Lato 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS Requisites: (PECT) 1. The witness Is a party or assignor of 2 party to a case or persons in whose betralf a case is prosecuted: 2. The action Is against an exeoutor or administrator or other representative of 2 deceased person or a person of unsound mind; 3. The subject-matter of the action is a elaim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against a person of ‘unsound mind; 4, The testimony refers to any matter of fact Which occurred before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. + Incompetency to testify applies whether the deceased died before or after the commencement of the action against him if at the time the testimony was given he Was already dead and cannot disprove it. Assignor pertains to the essignor of a cause ‘of action which has already arisen and not the assignor of a right before any cause of action accrued, Matters Prohibited — those occurring in the presence and within the hearing of the decedent to which he might testify of his personal knowledge if he were alive, Facts favorable to the deceased are NOT prohibited: As the statutes are designed to protect the Interest of a deceased or insane person, they do not exclude testimonies which ‘are favorable to the representative of such person. When Deadman's Statute cannot be invoked: 1. Testimony of mere witnesses who. are either party plainiifis, nor their assignors, her persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, nor to 2 nominal party, nor to ffficers and stockholders of 2 plaintit ‘corporation: If the plaintiff is the executor” or ‘administrator or other representative of a deceased person, of the person of unsound mind 3. Iman action against a parinershi 4. Ifthe person or persons mentioned under the rue fle 8 counterclaim, When the testimany refeis to faudulent transactions committed by the persons mentioned in the rule, provided that fraud has bean clearly established by other evidence, 6. When there Is waiver: 7. When the testimony of a plaintiff refers to the non-occurrence of a fact, because in that case, the plaintiff does not testify on the occurrence of a fact but on its non- occurrence; 8. In cadastral cases since there is neither plaintif nor defendant, nor in tand registration cases instituled by the decedent's representatives, asthe ‘oppositors are considered defendants and may, therefore, testify against petitioner: 9. Testimony on the possession by witness of a written instrument made by the deceased, as such fact exists even after the decedent's demise; 10. Where the deceased contracted with the plaintif through an agent and said agent is live and can testify, but the testimony of the plaintif should be limited to acts performed by the agent SECTION 24. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON ‘OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION Privilege is a rule of law that, to protect a paricular relationship or interest, either permits @ witness to refrain from giving fectimony he otherwise could be competied 10 Give, or permits someone, usually one of the parties, 10 prevent the witness from revealing certain inform: Who May Assert Privilege? 4. Holder of privilege; 2. Authorized persons; and 3. Persons fo whom the privileged communication were made, + We apply the privileged communication to oth cu and ea except 28 0 the ee ce Srohicn ‘acon: ae g Spied remains. even alter, the, vat ceGedeblnce Rave eee Note: Terpiltead ognrat Concent corp made it'¢Eontemplation furtherariog;or perpetuation’ot eee A. Privileged Cor Husbane ana Requisités’ z tora waa vit mack 2 the prvidde guivo to a confidenti: 333,REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE between the spouses during said marriage; and 3. The spouse against. whom such evidence is being offered has_not given his or her consent to such testimony, a presumption of ‘on all communication between husband = and wife: Communications overheard by _ third persons without knowledge of spouses are Stil confidential but the third party is not disqualified to testify ‘+ Where there Is collusion and voluntary disclosure to third party, the latter becomes an agent and cannot testify a ene eee ‘witness not Completely equaiea | His 3 complete and but is only prohibited disqualification. from testifying on the maters therein ‘specified ‘Applies (9 @ avi or citinal case, subiect only tothe two ‘exceptions provides ‘herein: (1) except in a chull ease by one. | Applies only toa civt case or special proceeding over the bate of a deceased fF insane person against the other or (yin 9 criminal case by one against the other or the latter's | tirect descendants or escender 8. Privileged Communication Between Attornay and Client 1, There is an attorney and client relationship or a kind of consultancy relationship with a prospective client; 2. The privilege is invoked with respect to. a confidential communication between them made in the course of or with 2 view to professional employment, and 3, The client nas nol given consent to the attorney's testimony thereon; or if the attomey’s secretary, stenographer or clerk is sought to be examined. that 334 both the client and the attomey have not given their consent thereto. Purpose: To encourage full disclosure by client to his attorney of all_pertinent matters so as to further the administration of justice Test: Whether the communications are made to an attorney with a view of ‘obtaining from him professional assistance or advice regardless of whether there is pending or merely impending litigation or any itigation. Preliminary communications made for the purpose of creating the attorney-client felationship are within the privilege. However, if the communications were not made for the purpose of creating that relationship, they will not be covered by the privilege even If thereafter the lawyer becomes couneel of the party in a case involving sald statements, CASES where disqualification based on the attomey-client privilege does NOT ly: 41 Intended to be made public; 2. intended to be communicated to others; 3. Received from third persons not acting in behalf of or as agents of the client; Intended for an unlawful purpose; Made in the presence of third parties who are strangers to the attorney: client relationship, {tig not within the profession of a lawyer to advice a client as to how he may commit a crime as a lawyer is not Odor egies storey. es Sic an Biilinen. tere ip Sing ne pre eeraFemoyen ? fine stietsease (Gest ve Slag Sle ese Best 078 ZOO te « Se sie afples: Sie Atteeney-Cliedt Prillege’a8-Applied to ae Se ete ie in onet RAG: A leita novticke the pmieae™ sues ave the name-ctigentiyothis client PF Exceptions: g T° finete s Slonaoosblty exete at revealing ye clieni’s name wouldSan Beda College of Law 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS implicate the dlient in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's advice; 2. Where disclosure would open the cient to civil ability; and 3. Where the prosecutors have no case against the client unless by revealing the clien’s name, the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual for a crime (Regala_vs. Sandiganbayan, GR. 105998, September 20, 1996). Privileged Communication Between Doctor and Patient Requisite: "The physician is authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics; 2. The information was acquired or the advice or treatment was given by him in his professional capacity for the purpose of testing or curing the patient: 3. The Information, advice or treatment, if revealed, would blacken the reputation of the patient, and 4, The privilege is invoked in a civil case, whether the patient is @ party ‘thereto oF not, Purpose: Intended to facilitate and make safe, full and confidential disclosure by the Patient to the physician of ali facts, Circumstances and_——_symptoms uuntrammeled by apprehension of their subsequent and enforced disclosure and publication on the witness stand to the end that the physician may form a correct opinion and enabled safely and efficaciously to treat his patient When is the physician acting in his professional capacity? When he attends to the patient for curative, preventive or palliative treatment. Note: It is essential that at the time the communication wos made the professionat felationship of physician and patient existed. However, itis NOT necessary that the physician-patient relationship was created through the voluntary act of the patient Thus, the Weatment may have been given at the behest of another, the patient being i oxtremis. When privilege does not apply: Where the communfeation was not given in confidence 2. The communication is iretevant to the professional employment, 3. The communication was made for an uniawiul purpose: 4, The information was intended to be made public, ¢9. under Rute 26 of th Rules of Court, the results of the physical and mental examination of a pperson when ordered by the court and also, the resus of autopsies or postmortem examinations, 5, There was a waiver of the privilege either by provisions of contract or law, 6.9. In Se0. 4 of Rule 28 under which if the party examined obtains a report on seid examination or takes the eposition of the examiner, he thereby waves any privilege regarding any ‘ther examination of said physical or mental condition conducted or to be conducted “on him by any other physician Dentist, pharmacist or nurses are disqualified if acting as agents. Test: Whether a third person was an agent of the doctor in a professional capaci. ‘Scope of Prohibition: Applies not only to communication but also to opinions or prescriptions, © Not all information —_obiained confidentially by the physician from the patent and necessary for his treatment are within the privilege. The information a to. be privileged Is that 1 ig Sih, The bor ee ‘a Ae oe 6 thats. prvleged, Ber commanicati ile ito, oni ng tims ori14 September 2 buraién of ne Pron eoeSues iter déath bukit may Be ee xy the porsnalepretenve one docket Note: Pasig was of tha, view that the piniloge 15 -etemal,Homever. passages from Ruling Case baw, suggest he 335F. 336 REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE necessity of continuity of the bond between the patient and the physician and it follows that the physician is not hampered from testifying as to information respecting a patient which he acquired either before the relation began or after its termination (Peralta, Jr, Perspectives of Evidence, 2008 Edition, page 216, citing 1 Padilla, Evidence Annotated, 1971 Edition, page 358 and 28 Ruling Case Law, pp. 639-540). Privileged Communication Between Priest and Penitent Roquisites, ‘The confession must have been made: to the pnest in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which he belongs; 2. The communications confidential and character. made were penitential in ‘The rationale for the rule is to allow and encourage individuals to fulfil their religious, emotional or other needs by protecting confidential disclosures to religious. practitioners (Peraite, Jr, Perspectives of Evidence, 2005 Edition, page 220, citing Evidence, Oregon State Bar Committee on Continuing Legal Education). Privileged Communication to Public Officers Requiaites: ‘The holder of the privilege Is the government, acting through @ public officer, 2. The communication was given to the public officer in confidence, 3. The communication was given during the term of office of the public officer but the privilege may be invoked not ‘oniy during the term of office of the public officer but also after; 4, The public interest would Suffer by the disclosure of the communication, thor Privileged Matiore The guardian ad fen» shell not testify in any. proceeding concerning aay information, statement, or opinion received from the child in the course of serving as a _guercian ad litem, Unless the court finds it necessary to promote the best interests of the child (See. 5 (@) of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness); The publisher, editor or’ duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news report (or information which was related in confidence te him, unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State (RAS3,.as amended by R.A.1477); Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted: Trade secrets; Bank Deposits; Informer’s Privilege — the prosecutor may not be compelled to present an informer to protect his identity and when his testimony would be merely cumulative and corroborative (Herrera, Vol. V, p.363); Conellators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any matter taken up at the Conciliation proceedings conducted by them (Art.233 of the Labor Code). SECTION 25. PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. Ratio: Te preserve family cohesion. Note: Article 215 of the Family Code (FC) provides that "No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to teslfy against his parents and ‘when such ctige, esaing om neo not Bie aa age Spple treat ph ent sneduea creates tock ee Cocke tc argued that. thé tor latter is - Subetanty provision ig character. Rules of CB ‘Supre fie rag onl in 1989!as cov pragediiral in ins, the aia by theSan Beda College of Lato 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS EXTRAJDICIAL CONFESSIONS ADMISSIONS AND. SECTION 26. ADMISSIONS OF A PARTY ‘Admission is any extra-judicial statement or ‘conduct by a party to the present litigation that is inconsistent with the position the party presently takes. Rule on Admissions The act, declaration or omission of a party 99 toa relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. eer pec Rule £30, Soo. 26 utotcourt eclaration Rule 128, Sec. 4 Tn the course of a proceeding in the Same case “Does not require proof_| Requires proof ‘Ganclusive upon the admitier Rebuttable ‘Admissible oven if | Admissible only i seltserving disserving [Subjectto Not subject to crossexamination __| crose-examination Self-serving Declaration refers to one which has been made extra-judicially by the party to favor his interest. If is not admissible in evidence because they are _ inherently untrustwortyy and would open the door to fraud and fabrication of testimony When Are Admissibto? 4. When they form part of the res gestae, 2. When they are in the form of complaint and exclamations of pain and suffering: 3. When they are part of 2 confession offered by the prosecution; 4. Where the credibility of a party has been assailed on the ground that his testimony is a recent fabrication, in which case his prior declaration, even if self-serving, may be admitied (Testimonial Rehabilitation); 5 Where they are offered by the opponent; 6. Where they are offered without objection Self-Serving Statements Admission vis-é-vis Confession — Every confession isan admission, but not all admissions are confessions. Admission is something less than 2 confession fond is but an acknowledgement of some fact OF circumstance which in itself is insufficient to ‘authorize a conviction, and which tends only to establish the uitimate fact of guilt (People vs. Corsino, G.R. No. 110107, January 26; 1995). = — _ a a inich does not involve | which involves en Gn acknowledgment of | acknowledgement of ‘uit guilt. May ba maze by tird | Can ba made only by persons. the party himsot Express or implied. | Always express. © Conduct and demeanor of @ party at the trial tending to show consciousness of fiablity may be admitted against such party 1+ Flight of the accused after the commission of the offense is evidence of guilt (Adame vs. CA, GR No, 139830, Nov. 21, 2002). Ratio: The wicked flee, even when no man pursueth: but the rightoous are as bold as a fon, However, the fact that the accused did not flee from the scene of the crime is not Sufficient ground to exculpate @ person from laity, + te an administrative complaint against a lawyer for his negligence inthe performance of duties as counsel pe Respondent's failure to fle an answer to the complaint despite notice from the IBP amounts to an admission of the allegations therein...’ (Pilspi vs. Cari, ‘AC No, 5843, Jan 74, 2003). SECTION 27. OFFER OF COMPROMISE NOT ADMISSIBLE In CIVIL CASES, an offer of compromise 18 pilly..and is not : a. ros Ne ge a cettlementing digpuites’: te Fo8" aerate eee Ste in cRIMINALEASEE EAR ofr ot cchpbronise by the accueil gay Meeovotven iaeanience Shan motets enon 337REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE Exceptions: Those involving quastoffenses or criminal pegligence (Reckless Imprudence); 2. Those covered by the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, Plea of guilt later withdrawn; ‘An unaccepted offer of ple of guilly to & lesser offense; 5. Anoffer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury; 6. Tax cases, as the law provides that the payment of any internal revenue tax may be compromised, and all criminal violations may likewise be compromised, except those already filed in court and those involving fraud (Sec. 204 RA. 2424) + An offer of compromise that may be ‘considered an implied admission need NOT be made by the accused himself, it may be made by his lawyer or relatives, provided it Is made with the consent of the accused or with his knowledge and he does not stop it ‘The Good Samaritan Rule ‘An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital and other expenses occasioned by an injury is net admissible in evidence as proof of civil and criminal liability for the Injury (Section 27, par 2, Rule 130) Ratio: To encourage the giving of charitable ‘and meritorious ald to the victims of accidental hharm plus @ concern that such payment may have been prompted solely by humanitarian motives, a Offer of Compromise vs. Ordinary Admission COM rhe proposals tereaive ard any sistement made Soonecton with tis Iypothet peace ar 5 Eontempiation of | mutual e ‘The intention le apparently to acmit Tiabilty and to sek to buy or secure relief ‘sgblnet a lisbity | recognized as euch © Although a judicial or an extrajudicial ‘amicable selilement does not bear the court's approval, ‘the agreement can become the source of rights and Obligations of the parties. (lcilo Traders Finznce Inc. vs, Heirs of Sostano, G.R. No. 149683, June 16, 2003) 338 No compromise is allowed in the following cases: Civil status of persons; Validity of a marriage or legal separation; ‘Any ground for legal separation; Future support: Jurisdiction of courts; Future legitima; and Habeas corpus and election cases. Nogpene Principle of Res Inter Alios Acta Alteri ‘Nocere Non Debet (Things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to i) 1" PART: Sec. 28: The rights of a party CANNOT be prejudiced by an act, declaration, ‘or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided such as Vicarious Admissions. 2° PART: Sec. 34: Similar acts as evidence. The above rule has reference only to EXTRAJUDICIAL DECLARATIONS. Hence, Statements made in open court by a witness Implicating a person aside from his own judicial admissions, are admissible as declarations from one who has personal knowledge of the facts testified to A. Admissions by a Co-Partner or Agent (Sec.29) Requistion: “The act or declaration of @ partner or agent of the party must be within the ‘scope of his authority 2 During the existence of the parinership or agency; and 3. After the partnership or agency is ‘shown by evidence other than such act or declaration, seme 1 TES a onegieesen Jointly. interestec a ee me in inlet, ane Ser aclthat he acts abd detlardbos of he an a ae rscove oftbe bu vider ogainstte theris. 6 oo + where Sifeyicicng GBmede In connectiof with thee ig up of the partnership atis, sei admissions are uhSan Beda College of Law 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS: b stil admissible as the partner is acting as ‘an agent of his co-partners in said winding up Admission by Conspirator (Sec. 30) Itrefers to an extrajudicial declaration of a conspirator, and not to his testimony given on the stand which is subject to ‘cross-examination. Requisites: 1, Conspiracy must be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself 2. Admission relates to the conspiracy itself, and 3, Ithas been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. zy ‘The arrest of the declarant is often found to terminate the declarants’ participation the conspiracy so that the declarant’s post-arrest statements do not quailly as ‘admissible co-conspirator statements. ‘Admission by Privies (Sec. 31) Privies refers to those who have mutual or successive relationship to the same rights of property or subject matter such as personal representatives, heirs, devisees, legates, assigns, voluntary grantees, of judgment creditors or purchasers. from them with notice of the facts, ‘+The declarant was so situated that his Interest were such that he would not have made the admission to the Prejudice of nis title or possession unless they were true, The declarant need nol be presented as witness. His statement may be proved by those who have knowledge of them. Requisites: 4. There must be privily between the party and the deciarant; 2. The declarant as predecessor in interest_made the declaration while nolding the title o the property; and 3. The admission relates to the pranerty Admission by Silence (Sec. 32) Requisites: 1. He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other person: 2. He must have had the opportunity to deny i, 2. He must statement; 4, He must have an interest to object, such that he would naturally have done so, ifthe statement was not tue; 5, The facts were within his knowledge; and 6. ‘The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is material to the issue. have understood the Qui facet consentire videtur: He who is silent appears to consent. Note: The accused's right to remain silent prevails over this section. Doctrine of Adoptive Admission ‘An adoptive admission is a party's reaction tova statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party's reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person (Estrada vs, Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710- 15, April 3, 200). In this case, Estrada’s adimission of his resignation as President was based on the diary of Angara. Instances Where There is No Implied Admission ‘Allegations of unliquidated damages; 2. ‘Allegations which are not material to the ‘cause of action; Conclusions of facv law; Allegatons of usury other than in a complaint; 5, ifdefendant has not fled his answer and is declared in default Note: it has, however, been held that the reenactment of the crime fs not part of a formal reenactment is a fiegetoraast the ed y SECTIONS3. CONFESSION: 3° + the. abel ais the aot eben, 339REMEDIAL LAW justification therefor, the same is merely ‘an admission. Judicial Confession is one made by the ‘accused before a court in which the case is pending and in the course of legal proceedings therein and, by itself, can sustain a conviction. However, in Capital Offenses, the prosecution is required to present evidence otwithstanding the plea of guitt by the accused and the court must be satisfied that Such plea was entered voluntarily and with full comprehension of the consequences of such act (Rule 176, Sec. 3). Extravudicial Confession is one made in any other place or eccasion end cannot sustain a convicton UNLESS its voluntariness js proven and UNLESS corroborated by evidence of the corpus delict. Requirements for an ExtraJudicial Confession to be Admissible 1, The confession must involve an express. ‘and categorical acknowledgment of guilt 2, The fact admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense. 3. The confession must have been given voluntary 4. The confession must have been inteligently made, the accused realizing the importance or legal significance of his act ‘There must have been no violation of ‘Sec. 12; Art I of the 1987 Constitution. 6 it must be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valié waiver, and In the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district schoot supervisor, or priest or ‘minister of the gospel as chosen by him (RA 7438, Section 2(¢)). General Rule: An extra-judicial confession is admissible against the confessor only. It is incompetent evidence against his co-accused for being hearsay and because of the res inter afios acta rule, Exceptions: Whon admissible agaist the co- defendants If the co-defendants impliedly acquiesced in or adopted said confession. 2. Interlocking Confessions — If the accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical confession without Collusion, 2nd corroborated by other evidence; 340, EVIDENCE 3. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after being ‘apprised of such confession: 4, Ifthey are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which was confessed by one of the accused and said confession is used only as corroborating evidence; 5. Where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probablity of participation by’ the co- conspirator; 6. When the confessent téstified for his co- defendant; 7. Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is corroborated by other evidence of record, + In line with the 1987 Constitution, ilegal confessions and — admissions are inadmissible against the confessant or the admitter BUT are admissible against the persons who violated the constitutional prohibition in obtaining such illegal confessions or admissions Custodial Investigation is a questioning initiated by the law enforcement officers after 2 perscn has been taken into custody or ‘otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, It is present where the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved orime land begins to focus on a particular suspect ‘who is taken into cuistedy and asked questions that lead into elicting incriminating statements. Note: The presumption of regularity of official acts does not apply during in-custody investigation. SECTION 34. SI EVIDENCE THigip the sebond ran of Ry InleEgios Acta, and. appiesiteseoth cl eich ea OEAY PRORENSITY kul Sot 8 GeneralgRule: said Sere ccrdi “1 adriissib exceptions: (SiRs-SeHGh" Reon: Si I 4. Specifieintentarkgowicge” Gare eels 2 3 BI 4. System, 5. Scheme;San Beda College of Raw 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS Eg. evidence of the other crimes, acts or ‘wrongs of the accused is admissible to show that the offense for which he is currently charged and the said previous similar acts show the “signature” or “handiwork” of the accused, because of identical modus operandi SECTION 35. UNACCEPTED OFFER Aa offer in writing to pay @ particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is, ifrejected without valid cause, equivalent’ to the actual production and tender of the money, Instrument, oF property SECTION 96. TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE; HEARSAY RULE, A witess can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided In these rulas, Hearsay includes all assertions which have ot been subject to opportunity for cross examination by the adversary at the trial in which they are being offered against him, Nts probative value depends, in whole or in part, on the competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom its sought to produce it (Esirada v. Desierto, 358 SCRA 108). Specific Elements of Hearsay 1, There must be an out of court statement, whether oral or wtiten, or 3 conduct intended as an assertion; and That statement made ‘out of court, i repeated and offered by the witness in court to prove the truh of the matters asserted by the statement Reason for Excluding Hearsay: tis not subject to the test of truth because thore is no opportunity for cross-examination In other words, the witness cannot swear 2s to the truth beyond what was told to him, heard of ead. Also, this will be a violation of the ‘constitutional right to confrontation, Classifications of OuLOF-Court Statements 1 Hearsay ~ Those which are considered as hearsay and therefore inadmissicie This, occurs when the purpose for introducing the outof-court statement is to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. 2. Non-Hearsay — Admissible. This occurs when the purpose for introducing the statement Is not to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein but only the making ‘of the statements and are admissible in evidence when the making of the statemant is relevant. These are so-called independently relevant statements. 2. Exceptions to the hearsay rule — Those ‘which are hearsay but are considered as exceptions to the hearsay rule and are therefore admissible. These are from Sections 97 to 47 of Rule 130. ‘Two Concepts of Hearsay Evidence 4. Any evidence, whether oral or documentary, Is hearsay if its probative value 's fot based on the personal knowledge of the witness but on the Knowiedge of some other person not on the witness stand (Regalado, p.736). 2. Hearsay evidence also includes all assertions which have not been subject to cross-examination by the adversary at the trial in which they. are being offered against him (Herrera, Vol. V.;p-564). + It is the loss of opportunity to cross examine, and not the loss of cross. examination itself which makes an assertion hearsay evidence. Non-human Evidence i the testimony of @ witness as to statements made by non-human declarants (machines, etc.) it dees not violate the rule against hearsay. The law permits the so-called ‘non-human evidence’ on the ground nike humans, that machines and, subjeett, ah 5 except td (DOP Fx REE 341REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE 10, Leamed treatises; 11. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. Note: It is NOT correct to say that the exceptions to the hearsay rule are not hearsay. They are hearsay evidence but they are deemed admissible for certain reasons, tar Exceptions: ‘Section 28 of the Rules on Examination of a Child Witness A statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse, rot otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in evidence in any erlminal of non-crlminal proceeding subject to the following rules: 8. Before such hearsay statement maybe admitted, its proponent shall_ make known to the adverse party the Intention to offer such statemant and Its particulars to provide him a fair ‘opportunity to object. If the CHILD IS AVAILABLE, the court shall, upon motion of. the adverse party, require the child fo be present at the. ‘presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-examination by the adverse party, When the CHILD IS UNAVAILABLE, the fact of such circumstance must be proved by the proponent, b. In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall consider the time, content and Circumstances thereof, based on various factors provided by the fay, which provide sufficient indicia of reliability Note: When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other admissible evidence, 2. Rule & of the Rules on Electronic Evidence: Business Records as Exception to the Hearsay Rule A memorandum, report, record or date compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions or diagnoses, made by electronic. ‘optical, or other similar means at or near the time of oF from transmission or supply of information by a person with knowiedge theteof, and kept in the regular course or 342 conduct of business activity, and such was the regular practice to make the memorandum, ‘report, record or data compilation by elecironic, optical, or similar means, all of which are shown by the testimony’ of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the fle on hearsay evidence. ‘This presumption may be overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of the: ‘a. Source of information; or b. The method or circumstances of the preparation, transmission or storage thereof, Reason for the Exceptions: They are admissible by reason of NECESSITY and TRUSTWORTHINESS. + Hearsay evidence not objected to may be admissible but, whether objected to or not, it has no probative value and as opposed to direct and primary evidence, the latter always prevail. Independently Relevant Statements ‘An out of court dectaration which while naving certain characteristics of hearsay evidence, is, not actually hearsay but is original evidence. These are statements which are relevant independently, whether they are true or not. it is also called as the apparent hearsay Two classes of Independently Relevant Statements: 1, Those statements which are the vary fact in issue (e.g. Slander) Those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the fact in issue. It includes the followingSan Beda College at Lato 2017 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS SECTION 37. DYING DECLARATION ‘The ante, mortem statements made by @ person ater the mortal wound has been inflicted under the belief that death is certain, stating the facts concerning the cause of and the circumstances surrounding the attack. W applies to any case where death of the declarant is the subject of the inquiry. Requisite: 7. That death is imminent and the dectarant Is conscious of that fact, 2. That the declaration refers to the cause and the surrounding circumstances of such death; 3. That the declaration relates to the facts which the victim is competent to testify to 4, That the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarant’s death is subject of the inguiry (the victim necessarily must have died); 5. That the Statement is complete in itself (People vs. De Joya, GR. No. 75028, November 8, 1991), 6. The declarant should have died (if the declarant survives, his deciaration may be admissible as part of the res gastae). Reason for the Rule +. Necessity. the declarant's death renders impossible his taking the witness stand. 2. Trustworthiness- a men at the point of death not prone to Invent a story. + Truth sits on the lips of the dying man. Bt the point of death, every motive for falsehood Is silenced. The mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to ‘speak the truth. + There must be a settled, hopeless expectation that death is at hand. It is sufficient that he believed himself in imminent danger of death at the time of ‘such deciaration, Dying Declarations +) May be oral or written or made by signs which could be interpreted and testified to by a witness thereto, + Which are favorable to the accused are admissible, + May also be regarded os part of the res gestae as they were made soon after the starting occurrence without the ‘opportunity for fabrication oF concoction. + Are not considered confidential ‘communication between spouses, = May be attacked on the ground that any of the requisites for its admissibility are not present and the same may be impeached in the same manner as the testimony of ‘any other witness on the stand. Doctrine of Completeness A dying declaration to be admissible must be complete in itself. To be complete in itself does not mean that the declarant must recite everything that constituted the ses gestae of the subject of his statement, but that his statement of any given fact should be 2 full expression of all that he intended to say as ‘conveying his meaning in respect of such fact SECTION 38. DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST ‘Declaration Against eee Brcepten oe | Coveredby he fearsayrue ana | Covered by sdmssibie. | | Secondary evidence | 28 acmissitte only i the declerant is slready dead or | tnavalable to tasty Primary evidence and admissible even the declarant is available fas a nliness, ‘made at any. time, before‘euring the tea Need not be considered by tha declarant as opposed to hie intarest at the | time when made, itis | Musthave boon made | May ‘ante Hem molar, 6, ‘The fact assorted in the declaration must have been atthe time itvras made so far ccontary fo the enough itis eciarant's own inconsistent with his interest. | present clsim and when! Sebaicbentnas erestis a r ES ' ‘ay beaut soarnoutenoel of seme) | ano ose peg ac testify se a Ae interests larant, SAAS iets ceca ONEREMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE 3. That at the time he made sald declaration the declarant was aware that it was contrary to his aforesaid interest; and 4, That the dectarant had no motive to falsity and he believed such declaration to be true, Reason for the Rule 1. Necessity- such declarations are the only mods accessible. 2, Trustworthiness- there is presumption ‘that men will not falsify to their pecuniary prejudice, + Persons do not make statements that are disadvantageous to themselves without substantial reason to believe that the statements are true. SelFinterest induces men to be cautious in saying anything against themselves. In other words, we can safely trust 2 man when he speaks against his interest. Interest Covered: pecuniary and penal Proprietary, © per ‘The declarant must realize at the very time of making the declaration that his deciaration is against his interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true. © It is essential that at the time of the statement, the deciarant’s interest affected theraby should be actuaireaifapparent and NOT merely contingent, future or conditional, otherwise, the “declaration would not in reality be against interest. = If the declarant is stil alive and available as 2 witness, his declaration would be admissible only as an admission againsi himself or privies or if he testifies, his statement against interest which he now denies would be admissible against him es ‘prior inconsistent statement in some instances. SECTION 39. ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE Requisites: 4, The actor or declarant is dead or unable to testy 2, The act or declaration is made by 8 person related to the subject by bith or marriage 3, The relationship between the dectarant or the actor and the subject is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration; 344 4, The act or declaration was made ante |tem motam or prior to the controversy. Reason for the Rule ‘These declarations are natural expressions of persons who must know the truth. Although hearsay, it is best that the nature of the case , admite and because greater evil might arise from the rejection of such proof than from its admission, Family Reputation or tradition in respect to one’s pedigree may be establishes 4, Through testimony in open court of a witness who must be @ member of the fomily elther by consanguinity or affinity; 2. Through entiies in Family bible: b. Family books or charts; , Engravings on rings; d. Family portraits and the like. +The reputation between the decarant and the person subject of the inquiry must be legitimate, unless the issue is the legitimacy itself. SECTION 40. FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING PEDIGREE PEDIGREE includes relationship, farmly genealogy. birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these facts ‘occurred, and the names of the relatives. it embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedisree. Reason for the Rule They are admissible by reason of necessity since tradition is often the sole method by which proof of matters of pedigree can be obtained, Act Bafta ° seen Ret sects paren iB | feauy | Stabienedy, “Se independent-v> 2 | fatepensont te JadsbersenteWsce his elationshyps heSan Beda Callege of Lato 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS Testimony is about what declarant, wiho Is ‘dead oF unable 0 Testimony is abou | mee | tetty nas sat” | ait covet ceneiing fe rots of pedaree Seclerant's family. SECTION 41. COMMON REPUTATION ‘The following may be established by common reputation: 1. Matters of public interest more than 20 yrs. oid; 2. Matters of general interest more than 30 years old; 3. Matters respecting mariage or moral character and related facts; 4, Individual moral character; Reason for the Rule Because of public interest in such statements Of reputation, there is good reason to believe that falsity can’ be exposed or corrected by testimony, eo ‘Common only 103 | single community or to | 2 considerable number ‘f persons forming part | fof the community ‘Common fo al citizens of the state or to the centre people ‘Common Reputation is the dafinite opinion of the community in which the faci to be proved ig known or exists. it means the general of substantially undivided reputation, es distinguished from partial or qualified one, although it need not be unanimous + As @ general rule, the reputation of person should be that existing in the place fof his residence, it may also be that existing in the piace where he is best known, CHARACTER means that which a person really is, while REPUTATION fs that which he ie reputed to be (Francisco, p.301). Evidence of Negalive Good Repute Where the foundation proof shows that the withass was in such position that fe would have heard reports derogatory to one’s character, the reputation testimony may be predicated on the absence of reports of bad reputation or on the fact that the winess had heard nothing against the person, SECTION 42. PART OF THE RES GESTAE Res Gestae literally means things done: it includes the circumstances, facts, and declarations incidental to the main fact or transaction necessary to ilustrate its character, ‘and also includes acts, words or dectarations which are closely connected therewith as to ‘constitute part of the transaction ‘May be made by the killer himself after or ‘luring the fling OR that of a3" person, May precede |_| Made ony after te accompany or homicidal attack has, made ater tne | been commited, committed, Trustworthiness Justification in the spontaneity ofthe statement ‘Two Types of Res Gestae 1. Spontaneous Statements Statements made by 2 person while & Starling occurrence is taking place of immediately prior or subsequent thereto ‘with respect to the clreumstances thereof; Admissibility of Requisites of Spontaneous Statements 2, There mustbe a starting occurence; b. The statement must relate to the circumstances ‘occurrence; and of the — starting gence alate depen, senda ene corn ron 345REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE Reasons for Admissibility of Spontaneous Statement Necessity — natural and spontaneous tutlerances are more convincing than the testimony of the same person on the stand, 2. Trustworthiness — the statement is made instinctively: The facts speaking through the party not the party talking about the facts. is essential that they should have been caused by something starting enough to produce nervous ‘excitement, The declarant must be 2 witness to the event to which the Utlerance relates. He must have personally observed the fact. © What the law distrusts is nol the "after speech” but “afterthought.” 2. Verbal Acts - Statements accompanying ‘an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving ita legat significance. Thus, in bribery, the declaration made by the third person accompanying the delivery of money is admissibie. Requisites of Admissibility of Verbal Acts. a, The act or occurrence characterized must be equivocal; b. Verbal acts must characterize of explain the equivocal act; 6. Equivocal act must be relevant to the issue, and Verbal acts must be contemporaneous with the equivocal act. pad es eos The res gestae is the equivocal act. The res gestae is the st Verbal act must be | mniempacarienus ‘uth or must Statements may be made prior. oF immediately after the Staring occurrence. SECTION 43. ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. ‘otherwise known as the SHOP-BOOK RULE, Requisites: {That the entrant made the entry in his professional capacity or inthe performance of a duty; 346 2. That the entry was made in the ordinary course of business or duty: 3. The entries must have been made at or hear the time of the transaction to which they relate: 4, The entrant must have been in a position to know the facts stated in the entries; 6, The entvant must be deceased or unable to testify. Reason for the Rule Reliability is furnished by the fact that regularly kept records typically have a high degree of accuracy, + The law does not fix any precise moment when the entries should be made. it is Sufficient if the entry was made within a reasonable period of time so that it may appear to have taken place while the memory of the facts was unimpaired How regularity of the entries proved: It may bbe proved by the form in which they appear in the corresponding book. There is no overriding necessity to bring into cours all the clerk or employees who individually made the entries in a long account. Its sufficient that the person who supervises them testify that: 4. The account was prepared under his supervision; and 2. The entries were regularly entered in the ordinary course of business (Regalado, p.751} SECTION 44. ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS Requisites: 1 That itwas made by a publc offices oF by epigined by law Reasofiafér te adiieai 1 Neck ihe pita Sealencades VEIN iene juuierable tonsa Bots in re, e& ornisSan Beda College of Lato 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2. Trustworthiness ~ there is @ presumption Eq mortalty tables and accepted of regularity in the performance of official duty. Probative value: only prima facie evidence of the fact stated therein. |The person who made | the entvies mustte ‘dead of unable to testy. Needs authentication Bost evidence rule applies. ‘The entries are made pursuant to a duty, It is not essential for the officer making the official statement to have a personal Knowledge of the facts stated py him, it being sufficient that the officia information ‘was acquired by officers who prepared the reports from persons who do not only have personal knowledge of the facts stated but must have the duty fo give such statements for the record (Africa vs. Caltex, G.R. No, 12986, March 31, 1966). It is well settied that entries in the police blotter should not be given due significance or probative value as they are ot conclusive evidence of the truth of their contents but merely of the fact thet they were recorded. Hence, they do not constitute conclusive proof (People vs. Cabrera, Jr GR, No. 138266, April 30, 2003). peereeat pen © Course There is 09 such requirement Weed nate authenticated Exception te bast eudence rule | Karemovabity of “The entrant is a public officer, orf a private iter tepat inter ust ave Scien ertoe_ | Ser oe reliocs Specie lnpal ag Ba pores pects lenl ae 2. TAR wonninede: = the bined Tae yo elie lerepHesene Pe SECTION 45. COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE * 1 persone engaged an oceoton aba 2. The cetera, must be contained ih 8 eae Tee retion orocicat or ciner poblhed—* Nar ete wre Sarr a6 hal compiaton is pubished for use by wi os aga Seng persons engaged in that occupation 37 member é 4, TS generat teed upon by tem, sal be Si ‘Statements of matters of interest to actuarial and annuity tables. Reasons for its admission 1 Necessity — because of the usual inaccessibility of the persons responsible for the compilation of matters contained in 2 list, register, periodical or. other published compiation and tremendous Ineonvenience it would cause to the court #f i would issue summons to these numerous individuals. 2, Trustworthiness — they have no motive to deceive and they further realize that tunless the list, register, periodical or other published compilation are prepared with Bare and accuracy, their work will have no ‘commercial or probative value. SECTION 468. LEARNED TREATISES In order that a pubished treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of law, history. science br at may be admissible, it is necessary ‘other: {That the court can take judicial notice of it; 2, A witness, expert in the subject, testifies that the writer of the statement in the eatise, periodical, or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling a8 expert in the subject. Reasons for Admissibility 1. Necessity — the ordinary expert witness has no knowledge derived from personal observation. He virtually reproduces, jiterally or in substance, conclusions of others which he accepts’ on the authority GF the eminent mames responsible for them it would be.gpaly i coluse to accent ee Sygedy ot NRG SREB BA 2 theyliney be Biased Ihe mean ol ie oa as Mey seevit Png. moses Sean Hover ahr fawsull? menos 347REMEDIALLAW EVIDENCE matter if his conclusions are found to, be invalid SECTION 47. TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER PROCEEDING Requiates: ‘The testimony or depositions of a witness. deceased or unable lo testify; 2. The testimony was given in a former case (oF proceeding, judicial or administrative; Involving the same parties: Relating to the same subject matter: The adverse party having had an opportunity to cross-examine him. Note: In criminal cases, elther party may Utiize as part of its evidence the testimony of 2 witness who is deceased, out of or cannot with due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or ‘administrative, Involving the same parties and subject matier, the adverse party having the opportunity to ‘cross-examine him (Rule 115, Sec. 1(9). SECTION 48: OPINION RULE Opinion (san inference or conciusion drawn, from facts observed. General rule: Witnesses must give the facts and not their inferences, conclusions or opinions. Exceptions: 1. Opinion of expert witness On a matter requiring SPECIAL Knowledge, skill, experience or taining which he is shown to possess (Sec. 49). 2. Opinion of ordinary wines a. The Identity of 3 parson about whom he has adequate knowledge (Seo Sofa) b. A handwriting with which he has sufficient farniliarty (Seo. 50 fo) ©. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted (Seo. 50 fo) 4. The wilness' impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person (See. 56 (a) Reasons for the Rute: ! form an opinion coneerni ‘of which evidence is offered. for the court to the facts in proof 348, Witness must testify to facts within their knowledge and may nat state their opinions. SECTION 49: OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS Export Evidence is the testimony of one possessing in regard to a particular subject or Gepartment of human activity, knowledge ‘which is not usually acquired by other persons. ‘Test: Whether the opinion called for will aid the fact finder in resolving an issue. + There sno definite standard of determining the degree of skill_or knowledge that @ witness must possess in order to qualify as an expert. Itis sufficient that the following factors be present: (a) training and education; (b) particular, first- hand familiarity with the facts of the cas ‘and. (€)_ presentation of authorities or Standards upon which his opinion is based, + An expert witness may base his opinion either on the firsthand knowledge of the facts or on the basis of hypothetical ‘questions where the facts are presented to him hypothetically and on the assumption that they are true, formulates his opinion ‘on the hypothesis. Expert evidence is admissible only if: 4. The matter to be testified requires expertise; anc 2. ‘The witness hae been qualified 35 an expert In Presenting an Expert Witness: 4. Introduce and qualify the witness; 2. Let him give his factual testimony, if he has knowiedge,ct 34, Begin heap asking in 10 i ota ite te ene Sbrsfust asking ei ses : : oe spore ee e 5. has stbtes 5 cack fin to Hypo! ues Je 2 iypalhelical quedtens ns) "belied of ‘an expert, to “eli his opinigade Courts, Fowaver, are NOT neceseansbound by the expert sssSan Beda College of Zaw = A proper hypothetical question places before the expert witness assumed facts which have heen proved. It then calls for fan opinion based thereon (Herrera, Vol. V. p794), = Hypothetical questions must include only facts that are supported by evidence (Francisco,p.352), SECTION 50, OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESS. Ordinary Opinion Evidence is that whieh is given by a witness who is of ordinary capacity and who has by opportunity acquired 3 particular knowledge which is outside the limits ‘of common observation and which may be of Value in elucidating a” matter under consideration. Shorthand rendering of facts This. is. also known as instantaneous conclusions of the mind. The witness may testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition and appearance of a person (5 Herrera, 1999 ed, p.827). + The memory may retain no single detail indeed. One may never have recognized ¢ Single detail yet the appearance of the man may have left upon the mind an indelidle impression as to his physical end ‘mental condition ‘+ In truth, that which we cali opinion is fact, ‘The impression or conclusion is the sum of what he saw and im its finat analysis, the offer is to prove a fact and not an opinion SECTION 51: CHARACTER EVIDENCE Character is the aggregate of the moral qualties which belong to and distinguish an individual person, General Rule: Character evidence is not admissible In evidence under Seo. 51 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rulles or: Evidence. Ratio: The evidence of a person's character does not prove thal such person ected in ceonformity with such character or trait in @ particular occasion 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS Exceptions: Criminal cases: 1. Accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charge. * Eg. in prosecutions for estafa, perjury or {else testimony wherein the person's moral trail for honesty or probity is involved. 2, The prosecution may riot prove bad moral character of the accused uniess in Febuttal when the latter opens the issue by introducing evidence of his good moral character. “This prevents @ pronouncement of guitt not because there exists sufficient evidence of his guif, but because he is a “bad” man. 2. As to the offended party, his good or bad moral character may be proved as long as it tende to establish the probability or improbabilty of the offense charged. e.g. if the theory of the accused is that he folad in self defense, the character of the Victim. for violence, turbulence, Fevengefulness and the ‘like may throw light on the probabilty of his having been the aggressor. Excoptions to the exception: Te Prost of the bad character of the victim ina murder case 18 not Jamissibe # the crime was commited through treachery and premedtation, ane in prosecution for rape, evidence of Complainants past. sexual conduct, Spinion thereof of gbhisther reputation shat to the! such evidg fame case sees The more oer the issue! ‘i e.g. in anil actions for, onses of hel slanber on oR charact ¥ by ether party evidence of his 6 349REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE such character has been impeached. (Sec. 14, Rute 132) + Specific conduct of the party exhibiting character is not allowed to prove the character of such person for three reasons: undue prejudice, unfair surprise and confusion of issues (Francisco, p. 373). RULE 131: BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS SECTION 1. BURDEN OF PROOF (ONUS PROBANDI) Burden of Proof/Risk of Non-Persuasion — the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law, Proof is the establishment of a requisite degree of belief in the mind of the trier of fact 28 to the fact in issue. Two separate burdens in burden of proof Burden of going forward — that of producing evicence. 2. Burden of persuasion - the burden of persuading the tier of fact that the burdened party is entitled to prevail Ei incumbit probatio qui dlc, no qui negat — He who asserts, not he who denies, must prove, Upon Whom BURDEN OF PROOF Rost A. In Givil Cases 1. The plaintiff has the burden of proof to show the truth of his allegations if the defendant raises a negative defense; 2. The defendant has the burden of proof it he raises an affirmative defense on the complaint of the plaintif. Note: In 2 civil case, the plaintiff Is alwaye compelled! to allege affirmative assertions in is complaint. When he alleges a cause of action, he will be forced to allege that he has @ right and such right was violated by the other party. Thus, he has the duty to prove the existence ofthis affirmative allegation, ‘+ When the defendant files his anewer and sels up purely 2 negetive defense and a0 evidence is presented by both sides, it fs the defenaant who wil win the case since the plainti has not presented the quantum of evidence required by law, asa (On the other hand, when the defendant in his answer sets up an affirmative defense. if there is no evidence presented by both sides, itis the defendant who will lose the B. Criminal Cases ‘+ The burden of proof is with the prosecution by reason of the presumption of innocence. © Itis required that courts determine fist if the evidence of the prosecution has at least shown a prima facie case before considering the evidence of the defense. Ifthe prosecution does not have a prima facie case, it Is futile to waste time in considering the evidence presented by the defense. Should the prosecution succeed in establishing a prima facie case against the accused, the burden is shifted upon the accused to prove otherwise. ‘+ Under the Speedy Trial Act, ifthe accused is NOT brought to trial within the time Fequired, the information shall be dismissed on the motion of the accused. In this case, the BUROEN OF PROOF of supporting such motion is with the accused (Sec, 13, RA 8493). Degree of Proof that satisfies the Burden of Proot A. CIVIL CASES - Preponderance of evidence 8. CRIMINAL CASES enn ee Prepon Substantialgrdentey,REMEDIALLAW EVIDENCE this rule is to continue the burden of persuasion on him who initially had the benefit fof the presumption. in ojher words, te presumption does not shift the burden. Classification of Presumptions 1. PRESUMPTION OF Law (Praesumptiones Juris): is a deduction which the law expressly ditects to be made from particular facts. 2. PRESUMPTION oF FACT (Praesumptiones Hominis): Misa ‘deduction which reason draws from facts proved without an express direction from the law to that effect, pene oe Certain inference must. | Discretion is ves ‘be made whenever the | the tribunal 2s to ‘acts appear which drawing the inference. furish the basis of the Infarence. eat Roduced to xed rales and form a part of the Darivad wholly and directly from the circumstances of the particular case by means of the common experience of mankind, Presumption Juris may be divided into: 1. Conclusive Presumption (juris ot de jure) — which is a presumption of faw that is, not permitied to be overcome by any proof to the contrary; and 2. Disputable Presumptions (juris tantum) — Is that which the law permits to be overcome ar contradicted by proofs to the contrary; otherwise, the same remains satisfactory Classes of Conclusive Presumptions under Rule 131 1. ESTOPPEL IN PAIS (Rule 131, Seo. 2 (per. a) — whenever a party has, by his own declaration, actor omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe 2 particular thing to be true and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such deciaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it Requisites as to the party to be estopped (clk) 2 Gonduct amounting to false Feprasentation or concealment, b, Intent or at least expectation that the conduct shall be acted upon; and 352 c. Knowledge, actual or consttuctive of the real facts (Kalalo v. Luz, 34 SCRA 337). Requisites as to the party claiming estoppel: (LRA) a. Lack of knowledge of truth as to the facts in question; b. Reliance in good’ faith upon the conduct or statements of the party to be estopped; c. Action or inaction based thereon to his dettiment or prejudice. (Kalalo v. Luz, 34 SCRA 337) + Through estoppel_an admission or fepresentation is rendered conclusive upon the person making It, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon (Art. 1431, Civil Code) Estoppel is effective only as between the parties thereto or their successors in interest (Art. 149, CC). Laches — failure or neglect. for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that whieh, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable length of time warranting @ presumption that the arly entited to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29). 2, ESTOPPEL BY DEED (Rule 131, Sec. 2 (par. b) — the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landiord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them sfauep cof ie Note: Weare isi Ef ste commantsnent ot relation Shia. Mths Sleged to havetbeer Sue net! relationSan Beda College of Lay 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS Disputable Presumptions (Sec. 3) 1 Presumption of innocence = Applies to both civil and criminal cases, + This presumption accompanies the accused throughout the trial down to the moment of conviction. This, presumption disappears after ‘conviction and the appellate court then, will presume the accused guilty. + By reason of this presumption, an arcused is not called upon to offer evidence on his behalf for his freedom. is forfeited only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence, Basis: Founded on the principle of justice and is intended nat to protect the guilty but to prevent the conviction of an innocent person. Equipoise Rule - Where the evidence gives rise to two probabilties, one consistent with defendant's innocence and ‘another indicative of his gui, that which is favorable to the accused should be considered. Presumption that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns All men are presumed to be sane and normal and subject to be moved by substantially the same motives. Wnen of ‘age and sane, they must teke care of themselves. Courts operate not because fone person has been defeated or ‘overcome by snother but because he has been defeated or overcome illegally. There must be a violation of law, the commission cof what the law knows as an actionable ‘wrong, before the courts are authorized to jay hold of the situation and remedy it (Vales vs. villa, No, 10028, December 16, 1916). Presumption of Evidence The natural conclusion is that the proot if produced. instead of rebutting would Support the inference against him and the court is justified In acting upon that conclusion. Suppression of Requisites: 8, That the evidence fs mat 5. That the party had the opportunity to produce the same; and cc. That the said evidence Is available only to said party. ‘When presumption will not apply: ‘a, When the suppression of evidence is not wilful, b. When the evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative; 6. When the evidence is at the disposal of both parties: d. When the suppression is an exercise of privilege. Presumption from Possession of Stolen Goods This is not in conflict with the presumption of innocence. At the start of the criminal ‘case, the court will apply the presumption Gf innocence. But once the prosecution is ‘Sble to prove that @ certain object has been unlawfully taken, that there is a crime of theft committed and that the prosecution fhas also proven that the accused is in possession of this object unlawfully taken, then the presumption of innocence disappears. The new presumption of guift ‘will now take place. Presumption that a Person in a Put Office was regularly appointed or lected to it Ratio: It would cause great inconvenience if in the first instance strict proof were required of appointment or election t0 office in all cases where it might be collaterally in issue. The burden of proof is on the adverse party to show that he was not appointed oF designated. : Fens mot survive ond unless’ a fepit 1s cars ign eine oversiee end Getian aac edad gontsence peposedyin Gach Sieimentllidepriment or-aBent at eo the, erent Gie—-sucn ‘Anerteig eaty fe aot ‘oir a 353354 REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE + The presumption of regularity and jegaliy of official acts is applicable in criminal as well as in civil cases. Note: In wit of amparo cases, the presumption of _ regularity in the performance of official duty may not be Invoked by the respondent therein who is a public officer or employee (Tho Rule on the Wril of Amparo, A.M. No, 07-9-12-SC). Neither does the presumption epply in custodial investigations, ‘This presumption of authority is not confined to official appointees. It has bean extended to persons who have been appointed pursuant to 2 local or special statute to act in quasi-public or qu: official capacities and to professional men e.g. surgeons and attomeys. Omnia” praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta dones probetur in contrarium ~ All things are presumed to have been done regularly and with due formality uns the contrary is proved While ordinary, irregularity will not be presumed, an adverse presumption may arise where the official act in queetion ‘appears to be irregular on its face. Presumption of Regularity of Judicial Proceedings A court, of judge acting 2s such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, is act ina LAWFUL EXERCISE OF SURISDICTION. The court rendering the judgment is presumed to have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties and to have rendered a judgment vatid in every respect “Jurisdiction is presumed in all cases, be it the superior or inferior court. However, jurisdiction to render a judgment ina particular case or against a particular case of against particular persons msy not be presumed where the record itself shows that jurisdiction has nol been acquired or where thera is something in the fecord showing tre absence of urisdiction Presumption that Private Transactions have been done fairly and with regularity ‘An individual intends to do right rather than wrong and intends to do oniy what he has the right to do. In the absence of proof to the contrary, there is a presumption that all men act fairly, honestly and in good faith 9, Presumption that the ordinary course of business has been followed ‘Those who are engaged in a given trade or business are presumed to be acquainted with the general customs and usages of the occupation and with such ‘ther facts as are necossarily incident to the proper conduct of the business. SECTION 4. NO PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY OR ILLEGITIMACY There is no. presumption of legitimacy or ilieghimacy of a child born afer 300 days following the dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the spouses, Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation. Under the Rules on DNA Evidence: 1. DNA results that exclude the putative parent fom paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity: 2. Ifthe value of the Probability of Paternity is less. than 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence; 3. if equivalent to 99.9% oF higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity oy teatonie ‘ aan tance wt Underle RUG “ha “Ueethe link television thy ae child in chavibers orSan Beda College of Lat 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS comfortable place other than the courtroom, in the presence of the support person, guardian ad item, prosecutor and counsel for the parties. Purpose: To enable the court to judge the credibility of te witness by the witness’ manner of testifying, their intelligence and their ‘eppearance. General Rule: Testimony of witnesses shall ‘be given under oath or affirmation, ‘Two-fold object 1. By affecting the conscience of the witness to compel him to speak the truth 2. If he wilfully falsifies that truth, that he may be punished for his perjury. requiring a witness to be The right fo have the witness sworn may be waived, if 2 party falls to object to the taking of the testimony of a witness without the ‘administration of an oath, he will be deemed to have waives his objection, ‘Questions propounded to a witness must: Be relevant, Not be indefinite or uncertain Not be argumentative; Not eal for conclusion of law; Not call for opinion or hearsay evidence: Not call for illegal answer, ‘Not call for self-incriminating testimony: Not be leading; 8. Not be misleading; 10, Not tend to degrade reputation of witness; 11. Not be repetitious 42. Not call for a narration. Conditional examination of witnesses in jinal Cases. 1. With respect to @ prosecution witness, the conditional examination takes place where the ease is pending (Seo. 15, Rule 179). 2. In case of defense witness, il can be before another judge, a member of the |BP when designated by the court, or before an inferior court if designated by a superior court (Sees. 12-13, Rule 119) SECTION 2. RECORDED PROCEEDINGS 7O BE SECTION 3. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. OF A WITNESS: Rights of a Witness (P — DESS) 4. To be protected from irrelevant, improper oF ingulling questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor, 2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require; 3. Not to be examined except only as to ‘matters pertinent to the issue: 4, Right Against Selt-incrimination - Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless ‘otherwise provided by law; 5, Right Against Solf-Degradation - Not to give an anawer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it be to the very fact at issue oF to a fact from which the fact at issue would be presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final convietion for an offense. Right of a witness to be free from personal violence ‘The action of the judge in seizing the witness by the shoulder and turning him about {to look to the judge) was unwarranted and an Interferenice with that freedom from untawful personal violence to which every witness is entitled while giving the testimony in court, Which his attorney had the right to protest and to demand that the Incident be made of record (in Re: Aguas, No. 12, August 8. 1901) ‘Scope of right against selt-incrimination: 4, No person shall be compelied to be @ witness against himself, 2. The rule may be invoked in any court or proceedings; 7 3. The rule only covers testimoniat compulsion and. production by him of incriminating documents and articles. + It does not exclude the body when it can furnish relevant and competent evidence. ‘compel even by subpoeye. 9 bihes procs ororder ottre co He can se requred ate fhe posestuanetor eased or eater hinset 2b Rationale against Tee court may not frofr'the defendant's 355REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE ‘own lips and against his will an admission of his gultt Whon is an act testimonial: If it explicitly or implicily relates a factual assertion or discloses information. When is there computsion: itis present only Wa witness has asserted a right to refuse to disclose selFincriminating information and this refusal has been overridden, Forced Re-Enactment Comes within the ban on testimonial compulsion since the prohibition against it ‘extends to those communicative in nature. Limitation If a witness is a party in a civil ‘action: Before the plaintiff could compel the defendant to be 2 witness, the plaintiff must first prove that he has, submitted writen interrogatories to the defendant (Rule 25, Sec.6). Classification of Immunity Statutes 4. USE IMMUNITY ~ Only prohibits the use of witness’ compelied testimony and its frult in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness. It does not render a witness immune trom prosecution, 2. TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY - grants immunity to the witness from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimony relates, + For purposes of evidence, right against selt-incrimination refers only to testimonial compulsion, + Right against seltincrimination is granted nly in favor of individuais. + Right against seltincrimination extends to administrative proceedings with a criminal ‘or penal aspect. reese etiam Botan ame) Who may be admitted? (Sec. 3) ‘Any person who has witnessed or has knowledge or information on the commission of a crime and has testified or Is testifying or about to testify before any judicial or quasi- Judicial body, or before any investigating authority, may be acimitied into the program: Provided, that: 1L. the offense in which his testimony will be used is a GRAVE FELONY as defined 356 under the RPC or its equivalent under special laws; 2. his testimony can be SUBSTANTIALLY CORROBORATED in its material points 3. he of any member of his family within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity is subjected TO THREATS TO HIS LIFE ‘OR BODILY INJURY; 4, he is nota lew enforcement officer. A STATE WITNESS Js 2 person who has participated in the commission of a crime and Gesires to be @ witness for the state shai! be ‘admitted into the program whenever the following circumstances are present 4. The offense in which his testimony will be used Is a GRAVE FELONY as defined under the RPC or Its equivalent under special laws; 2. ABSOLUTE testimony; @. There is NO DIRECT EVIDENCE available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed: 4, Mis testimony can be SUBSTANTIALLY CORROBORATED on its material points: 5, He does NOT appear to be the MOST GUILTY: and 6 He has not, at any time, been CONVICTED of any crime involving MORAL TURPITUDE. (Sec. 10) NECESSITY for his + Sworn Statement = Before any person is ‘admitted into the program ne shall execute a swom statement describing in detail the manner the offense was committed and his participation therein. (Sec. 11) + if his application is denied, said sworn statement and other testimony given in ‘support of said application shall not be entitle IF Re‘testifes falsely a crintiiagt pro’ ed oo 1. Direct exaii ese cnaminaterSan Bers College of Lao 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 3. Redirect examination; 4. Re-cross examination. SECTION 5. DIRECT EXAMINATION Direct Examination is the examination-in- chief of a witness by the party presenting him fon the facts relevant to the issue SECTION 6, CROSS- EXAMINATION Cross-Examination: The most reliable and effective way known of testing the credibility __ and accuracy of testimony. Purposes of Gross-Examination: 4. To discredit the witness; 2. To discredit the testimony of the witness; 3. To clanfy certain matters; 4. Toelicit admissions from a witness. ‘Scope or Limits of Cross-Examination 4. English Rule — where a witness is called to testify to 2 particular fact, he becomes a ‘witness for all purposes and may be fully cross-examined upon all matters materiat to the issue, the examination not being confined to the matters inquired about in the direct examination 2. American Rule — restricts cross. examination to facts and ciscumstences Which are connected with the matters that have been stated in the direct examination of the witness. Under Philippine jurisdiction, we follow the two rules, specifically under the following instances: + In general, we follow the ENGLISH RULE, which allows the cross-examination (0 elicit all important facts bearing upon the Issue (Sec. 6), but this does not mean that a party by doing so is making the witness his own in accordance wilh Section 5. = We follow the AMERICAN RULE as to the ACCUSED of a HOSTILE WITNESS, who may only be cross-examined on matters covered by direct examination. Doctrine of Incomplete Testimony: When crossexamination cannot be done of completed due to causes ottributabie to the pany who offered the witness. the incomplete testimony is rendered incompetent and should be stricken from the record. + Except where the prosecution witness was extensively cross-examined on the material points and thereafter failed to ‘appear and cannot be produced despite @ Warrant for his arrest (People vs. Gorospe, GR 51513, May 15, 1984) When to strike out for lack of cross- ‘examination Itdepends on who is at faut. 4. ifitis the party presenting the witness who is at fault, then the direct examination can bbe expunged. 2. if the inability to cross-examine ‘Was attributable to the adverse party (cross ‘examiner), then there can be no forfeture of the direct testimony. General Rule: A party who voluntarily offers the testimony of a witness in the case is bound by the testimony of said witness, Exceptions: -A”party is not bound when calling the following: 1. Adverse party, 2. Hostile witness: 3. Unwiling witness; 4. Witness required by law to be presented. Hostile Witness: A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so Geclared by the court upon adequate showing of 1, His adverse interest; oF 2. Unjustiied reluctance to testi; or 3. His having misled the party into caling him to the witness stand. SECTION 7. RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION Principal Object: to prevent injustice to the witness and the party who has calied him by aifording an opportunity to the witness to Sxpan or arty tne textieny which he has giyen on crosgggxat jin any shirt ‘cor rinconsis in hi ‘ SE oR ronan neko cg coral 3. : inh -3adas. is, © exami WEL SBS, Rw Note: itn he exercise’ot Hideretion, wie eourt admits nei matt syainaticysoe it explanation ebne sights aiven is néeaeory the court may germ#arte-cross exaltation. 387REMEDIALLAW EVIDENCE SECTION 8. RE-CROSS EXAMINATION Purpose: to overcome the other party's attempt to rehabilitate 2 witness or to rebut damaging evidence brought out on cross- examination. Note: ft is not 2 matter of right on re-cross ‘examination for counsel to touch on rnatters not brought on the re-direct examination of the witness. © Re-cross examination of the witness is limited to new matters brought out on the redirect examination of the witness and ‘also on such other matiers as may be allowed by the court in its discretion, SECTION 9. RECALLING WITNESS: General Rule: After the examination of @ witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of court. Ratio: A witness cannot be detained Ionger than the interest of justice requires. Exception: Recall has been expressly reserved with the appraval of the court SECTION 10. LEADING AND MISLEADING ‘QUESTIONS Leading Question is one which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires, it Is GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED. Exceptions: 4. On cross-examination; 2. On preliminary matters; 3. When there is dificully in getting direct and inteligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, ar a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind: Unwilling or hostile witness; or Witness Is an adverse party or an office director, or managing agent of a public oF private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party. Reason for allowing ieading questions on cross-examination: The wines is not the cross-examining party's witness. He is expected to be adverse or hostile to the cross- examiner. He is not expected te cooperate. For exceptions Nos. 3 and 4: The party producing the said witnesses may interrogate 358 him by leading questions and contradict him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, There is no need of a preliminary showing of hostilty before leading ‘questions can be asked, Misleading Question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to that which he has previously stated. itis NOT ALLOWED. Exceptions: 1. When waived, 2. Asking hypothetical questions to am expert witne is. Only one counsel should be allowed to examine a witness in a single stage. However, the other counsel may make objection tc the testimony. Ratio: 4. To protect the witness from undue and confusing interrogation, and 2, To secure system and brevity by giving the control of the interrogation to a single hand, When is a Question Proliminary? When the ‘question does not touch on any issue. ‘A question that merely suggests a subject without suggesting an answer or a specific thing is not a leading question. Example: “State whether anything occurred between you and the defendants on the evening of January 9, 2003." SECTION 11. IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE PARTY'S WITNESS ways issue, Lis never, i ah iEcscope” of clas Ways 6 's Witnesei 1. Bye ; ey 2. By Biidénce.ffal the general tobutaian for trutshbne: inte gniiyfof the witness Is eee Mee ee ee 3. By progigonsisient siatements ASR. 14}San Beda College of Zao 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS Carer Etre Terefers to other testimany of the SAME winess, or other evidence presented by him in the SAME case, but not the testimony of ‘anothor wines, Itrefers to statements, oral or documentary, ‘made by the witness sought fo be lmpeached on ‘oceasions OTHER “THAN the trial in white he is testifying Other Modes of Impeachment Aside From Sec. 11 41. By involving him during cross examination in contradictios 2. By showing. the — impossibillly or improbabilty of his testimony; 3. By proving action or conduct of the witness inconsistent with his testimony; 4, By showing bias, interest or hostile feeling against the adverse party Note: The impeachment is limited to bad reputation and the bad reputation must be for Jack of veracity and does not extend to bad reputation for lack of morals (e.g. you may discredit a witness because he is a well known liar but not ithe Is @ well known sex adler) Rehabilitation of witnesses When the cross-examiner has attempted to impeach a witness, the party who called the winess is allowed on redirect to attempt to “rehabilitate” (to restore the witness’ credibiliy). It must appear, however, that the witness’ credibility has been attacked. Unless credibility is atlacked, there is netting to rehabilitate. + The fact that a witness has been impeached does not mean her testimony willbe stricken or disregarded SECTION 12. PARTY MAY NOT IMPEACH HIS OWN WITNESS Generai Rule: A party is not allowed to impeact hisiher awn witnesses. Ratio: By cal his credibility ng a witness, the party cxrtines Exceptions: 1. Witness required by law e.g. In the probate of 3 will, if the will is contested, the law requires that the proponent should present ail the aitesting ‘nitnesses to the wil if they are sti alive. IF any or all of them testy against the due execution of the wi or do not remember having attested fo i or are otherwise of ‘doubttul crediblliy, the proponent can start impeaching these witnesses; 2. Witness is an adverse party; 3. Witness is an unwilling or hostile witness. + Mere relationship to one of the parties does not make one a hostile witness. ‘There must be showing of (a) adverse interest; (b) unjustifiable reluctance to testify; and (c) such witness misied the party from calling him to the witness stand. Ratio: Without the exception, the party calling the witness will be at the mercy of TREACHEROUS witness. SECTION 13. HOW WITNESS IMPEACHED BY EVIDENCE OF INCONSISTENT ‘STATEMENTS ‘The Process of Impeachment ing the witness oF his, testimony may be elicited from the witness himsetf upon cross-exemination; 2. The facts discreciting the witness are proved by extrinsic evidence ic. the Boverse party in rebuttal proves by Snother witness or documentary evidence the facts ciscrediting the testimony of the witness under attack 7 + ‘The process of cross-examining a witness upon the point of prior contradictory statements is called in the practice of the American courts ‘laying the predicate” for the Intraduction of contradictory statements. it is almost universally ‘accepted that unless a ground js thus laid upon oross-examination, evidence of oo oe oat ese parte Se Ue testilndny, itis gpeesdaty atenion ot Hine! whine ween tedee nefodin evisenees Inthe Saterienls writingithey myst be: 'sholwn:td thet wt 3S before ‘any question $18 put oie im concerning then ES ‘Thus, for instance, if the aitoiney for the accused hac informatign that a-certain witness had made and sigied a -sworn statement 359)REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE before the fiscal materially different from that tiven in his testimony before the court, the sttomey in cross-examining the witness should direct his attention to the discrepancy and ask him if he did or did not make a statement delivered in court (People v. Badiila, G.R. No. 1-28792, Feb. 17, 1926) ‘A.witness is impeached by prior inconsistent ‘statements by ‘laying the predicate," ie. +. By confronting him with such statements, with the circumstances under which they were made; 2. By asking him whether he made such statements; 3, By giving him the chance to explain the inconsistency. + ‘The rule that the attention of the witness be called to the time, place and circumstances, does not apply where the impeaching evidence is in writing. The writing must 8e shown to the witness. so that he may read it or it may be read to him. He must be asked if he wrote it or Signed it and if he admits this, his attention must be called to the inconsistencies, rn Epindation or Basis refers to situation ‘where an evidence \which is otherwise incompetent will be introduced in evidence because it fells under the exceptions to the ‘le on exclusion, (6.0 Under the best evicence rule, fa party desires to introduce ‘secondary evidence, he Imust frst prove that the wring was daly executed and that the Driginal has be0n fost or ostroyad. Without frst laying the foundation, | secondary evidence wil not oe actniad By the (ee ees teeters onty to impeactment of 2 vwiness through prior inconsisient| | statements Ratlo for Laying the Predicate: 1. To avoid unfair surprise to the adversary; 2. To save time, as an admission by the witness may ‘make the extrinsic proof unnecessary; and 3. To give the witness, in feimess to him, 6 chance to explain the discrepancy. Effect of Witness’ Deniat of Making ‘Statement ~ if the witness denies making the prior statement or seys that he does not 360 remember making it, the adverse party should call in rebuttal a witness to prove that such ‘statement has in fact been made (Herrera, Vol. Vi, p. 233). + Prior contradictory statement of a witness which is admissible as. independent evidence may be shown without laying the predicate (og. Where said testimony contains admission against interest The admission is presented as original or independent evidence. This must be offered in evidence-in-chief and not on rebuttal). SECTION 14. EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER OF WITNESS. NOT ADMISSIBLE except when such character has been impeached. SECTION 15. EXCLUSION AND SEPARATION OF WITNESS Placing Witnesses under the Rule (On any trial or hearing, the judge upon motion may exclude from the court any witness not at the time under examination, so that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses. The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept Separate and to be prevented from conversing with one another until all shall have been examined. Purpose: So that the testimony of a witness, shall not be influenced by the statements of caiher witnesses. If the witness violates the order of exclusion, the court may bar him from testifying or give lite weight to his testimony, aside from his si ty The oitnaag Si eee ee a cong nnSan Beda College of Law 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS Present Momory Revived or Revival of Present Memory A witness may be allowed to refresh his ‘memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or later so long as the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that itwas correctly recorded. The evidence is stil testimonial in ter The memorandum wil not be ‘considered as documentary evidence. Past Recollection Recorded or Revival of Past Recollection ‘Awitness may also testify from such writing or record, though he retains no recollection of the particular facts, if he Is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made, but such evidence must be received with caution. Note: Since there Is complete loss of recollection or memory on the part of the ‘witness, then it is the memorandum itself that wil serve as evidence. It will now be considered as documentary evidence. + The memorandum from which the witness may be permitted to reffesh his memory need NOT be an original writing. It is sufficient if i Is shown that the witness knows the copy to be a true one, and his memory refreshed thereby enables him to testify from his own recollection of the facts, independent of his confidence in the accuracy of the copy. SECTION 17. WHEN PART OF TRANSACTION, WRITING OR RECORD GIVEN IN EVIDENCE, THE REMAINDER ADMISSIBLE Rule of Completeness/ Rule of Indivisibility 1. When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the ‘same subject may be inquired into by the other; and 2. When a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing, or record is given in, evidence, any other act, declaration, ‘conversation, writing or record necessary to ils undersianding may also be given in evidence, AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS. SECTION 18. RIGHT TO INSPECT WRITING ‘SHOWN TO WITNESS n and Proof of documents ‘Authentic: Authentication means the process of PROVING the due execution and genuineness of the document . A DOCUMENT Is 2 deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by which something is proved, evidenced or set forth Classes of Documents For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either PUBLIC or PRIVATE (Sec. 19). Public Documents are: +. The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, o of a foreign country; 2. Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments, and 3. Public records, kept in the Philippines, or private documents required by law to be entered therein All other watings are private. tea ‘As to ‘A public ‘Apivate witing | ‘uthenticiy | document must be proved aomigsibie in| relative tots evidence, ‘due execution without finer} and on Asta Seb aervate wrnggph aoe ie sont tes Bounds, ries wh. ‘any vail 361REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE 7 =A pubjic document is a document in the execution of which a person in authority or a notary public takes part. = A public document can be received in ‘evidence without giving any proof of their ‘due execution and authenticity = A private witing Is not setf-authenticating. it requires proof of their due execution and authentication before they can be received in evidence. Church registries of birth, marriages and deaths made subsequent to the promulgation, of General Orders no, 68 (December 12, 4889) and Act No. 190 (August 7, 1901) are no longer public writings nor are they kept by duly authorized public officials. They are private writings and their authenticty must therefore be proved, es are ali other private writings in accordance with the Rules of Evidence (iemos v. Liemos, GR. No. 150462, January 26, 2007). SECTION 20. PROOF OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT ‘The due execution and authenticity of a private document must be proved either by: 1. Anyone who e2w the document exécuted or writen; 2. Evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. ‘The following are private writings which may be admitted in evidence without previous proof of its authenticity and due ‘execution: 4, When the genuineness and due execution fof the document is admitted by the adverse party; 2. When such’ genuineness and due execution are immaterial to the issue; 3. When the document is an ANCIENT DOCUMENT. Anolent Gocumment Rule applies only if there fare no other witnesses to determine ‘authenticity. ‘= In addition to the modes of authenticating a private document under Ses. 20, ‘American jurisprudence also gives the doctrine of self-authentication. that is, where the facts in writing could only have been known by the writer, and also the ine of authentication by tie adverse party that is, where the reply of the adverse to and affirms the sending to is receipt of the letter in 362 question, a copy of which the proponent is offering as evidence (Regalado, p. 872) SECTION 21. WHEN EVIDENCE BY AUTHENTICITY OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT NOT NECESSARY Requirements for Ancient Document Rule: 4. The private document is more than 30 years old; 2. It'is produced from custody in which it ‘would naturally be found if genuir 2. itis unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicions. ‘An ancient document is said to be in proper ‘custody if iti in the place in which and under the care of the person with whom it would naturally be. Ratio: The fact of its coming from the natural and proper place tends to remove presumptions of fraud and strengthen the belief ofits genuineness. = By merely producing the document, it establishes prima facie its. own ‘authentication. The burden then shifts to the adverse party to prove that the document is not what it purports to be or otherwise not authentic. SECTION 22, HOW GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING PROVED Methods of Authentication 1. Testimony of the purported writer, 2. The testimony of a witness who has seen the writer sign his name or actually make the writing whether the witness attested the instrument oF not; is farniiar agaifist it or eprover 48 vbe™ gehuid Chustaston Bt ie cde,»San Beda College of Law 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS Weight of expert testimony: It depends upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writings which would ordinarily escape notice or detection by an untrained observer. SECTION 23. PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE It is admissible without further proof of their due execution and genuineness. Ratio: 1. Necessity — practical impossibility of fequiring the official's attendance as a witness to testify te the innumerable transactions occurring in the course of his. duty. 2. Trustworthiness — there is a presumption of regularity, legality and accuracy. SECTION 24. PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD 1, If it is a domestic record, it may be evidenced by: a. An official publication; or ©. A copy thereof attested by the officer having the custody of the record or his, deputy, with 2 cerfificate that such officer has the custody. If it is a foreign record, it may be evidenced by: 2. An official publication; or b. A copy thereof attested by the officer having the custody of the record or his cepuly, accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody. which may be made by the secretary of the embassy or legation, consuk general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or foreign service officer and with a seal of his office SECTION 25. WHAT ATTESTATION OF COPY MUST STATE It must state that it le 2 correct copy of the original or a specific part thereof, as the case may be It must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any or if he be Clerk of coun having @ seal, under the seal of such court SECTION 26. PUBLIC RECORD IRREMOVABILITY OF Ratio: +. To enable others to use the records; 2. To prevent the serious risk of loss; 3. To prevent its exposure to wear and tear. ‘Only Exception: upon order of the court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case. SECTION 27. PUBLIC RECORD OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT Ha private writing is inserted offically into @ public record, its record, recording oF Incorporation into the public record becomes public document, but that does NOT make the private writing itself 2 publfe document so as to make it admissible without authentication. SECTION 28. PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD ‘Awiltten statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his eputy that after diligent search no record or tenity of @ specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by @ certificate as above provided, is admissible a5 evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. SECTION 29. HOW JUDICIAL RECORD IMPEACHED 1. By evidence of want of jurisdiction in the ‘court or judicial officer, ‘allusion between the parties; Fraud in the party offering the record, in sg, EE, a Refit scetbin dur slopes re a Sue Sree noua buble i onegeis escent 4A not be proved, oe Note: The “peison. ror =k current must feally ‘bee notaryapyC na. nelaizad in aceoldance wih te Probative value of a.gotariahdectiment: It is Guilence ofthe facie expressed therein 363,REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE SECTION 31. ALTERATIONS — IN DOCUMENT, HOW TO EXPLAIN ‘The party producing @ document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He must show that: 4, The alteration was made by another, without his concurrence; or 2, Was made with the consent of the parties affected by it; or 3, Was otherwise properly or innocently made; or 4. That the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument, SECTION 32. SEAL SECTION 33. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN AN UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless ‘accompanied with a translation into English er Filipino, To. avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their attomneys are directed to have such transtation prepared before trial Teede ka Electronic Document refers to information of the representation of information, data, figures, symbols by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is recsived, recorded, tansmiled, stored, processed. retriaved or produced electronically Electronic Data Message refers to Information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means. Electronic Signature refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic andlor sound in electronic form, representing the identity of a person and attached 10 of logically associated electronic deta message or document of any methodology or procedures employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating or approving an electronic data message or electronic document, Digital Signature - refers to an electronic signature consisting of a transformation of 2 electronic document or an electronic data message using an asymmettic or public ‘eryptosystem such that 2 person having the 364 initial untransformed electronic document and the signer’s public key can accurately determine: 4. Whether the transformation was created using the private key that corresponds to the signer's public key; and 2. Whether the initial electronic document had been altered after the transformation was made Asymmetric or public cryptosystem ~ means a system capable of generating a secure key pair, consisting of a private key for creating a digital signature, and a public key for verifying the digital signature Requisites for the admissibility of Electronic Document (Sec. 7) 1, Where the law requires a document to be in writing, the requirement 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 subsequent reference: a. The electronic document has remained complete and unaltered, apart from the addition of any endorsement and any authorized ‘change or any change which arises in the normal course of communication, storage and display; and b. The electronic document is reliable in the light of the purpose for which it ‘was generated and in the light of all relevant circumstances. 2. Paragraph (1) applies whether the requirement therein Is in the form of an obligation or whether the law simply provides consequences for the document ot being presented or retained in its ‘original form, stor ee oS fasSan Beda College of Lato 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS For evidentiary purposes, an _olectronic cocument shall be the functional equivalent of ‘a written document under existing laws. Burden of Proof: The person seeking to Introduce an electronic data message or electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity by evidence capable of supporting @ finding that the electronic data message or electronic document is what the person ciaims it to be. Ponta EID) Note: Under A.M, No, 01-7-01-SC the rules shail apply to all criminal and civil actions and Proceedings, as well as quastjudicial and administrative cases (Effective: October 14, 2002). Electronic documents as _ functional ‘equivalent of paper-based documents ‘Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term ‘of writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing, such term shal be deemed to inchise an electronic document, + An electronic document is admissible in evidence If it complies with the rules on admissibilty prescribed by the Rules of Cour and related laws and is ‘authenticated in the manner prescribed by these rules. When is electronic evidence regarded as being the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule? (Bar Question 2003) An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent af an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if itis. a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown (o reflect the data acourataly Manner of Authentication of an Electronic Document +. By evidence that it has been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed tha same; 2, By evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for the authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document: 3. By other evidence showing its integrity and Feliability to the satisfaction of the judge. ‘Authentication of Electronic Signatures: 4. By evidence that a method or process was ttiized to establish a digital signature and verify the same; By any other means provided by law; By any other means satisfactory to the judge a8 establishing the genuineness of the electronic signature. Disputable presumptions in relation to electronic signature: (Rule 6, Section 3) 4. The electronic signature is that of the person to whom it correlates: 2. The electronic signature was affixed by the person with the intention of authenticating for approving the electronic document to which it ig related or to indicate such person's consent to the transaction ‘embodied therein; and 3. The methods or processes ullized to affix of very the electronic signature operated without error or faut. Disputable presumptions relating to digital signatures (in addition to the foregoing) (Rule 6, Section 4) {the information contained in the certificate is correct, 2. the digital signature was created during the operational period of a certificate; 3, the message associated with the digital signature has not been altered from the time it was signed; and 4. a cettiicate has been issued by the ‘certification authority indicated therein. Method of Proof: All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of electronic document may be established by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic, he affidavit must areratively wot the of it cross ie ian 8RWiRRE open Eacdye matter ot 7 365REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE All of these must be shown by the testimony of the custodian or other quaified witness (Rule 8, Saction 1) This presumption may be overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source of information or the method or Circumstances of the preparation, transmission or storage thereof (Rule 8, Section 2), Audio, video and similar evidence — Aucio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be admissibi provided it shall be shown, presented or Gisplayed to the court and shal! be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof (Rule 11, Section 1). Ephemeral Electronic Communication — This refers to telephone conversations, tex! messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, ‘streaming video and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which Is not recorded or retained, Communications of this type shall be proven by the testimony of 2 person who was 2 party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. In the absence or unavailability of ‘such witnesses, other competent evidence may be admitted (Rule 11, Section 2). ©. OFFER AND OBJECTION SECTION 34. OFFER OF EVIDENCE Procedure Formal offer of evidence Gijecion gems General ~mmatara or iralevans pe a — — ‘Sustained Overruted Evidence offered Evidence will be will not be allowed to be presented in allowed to be presented in court [Remedy of offeror Tender of excluded evidence evicence offered 36 Why purpose of offer must be specified: To determine whether that piece of evidence should be admitted or not Because such evidence may be admissible for several purposes under the doctrine of multiple ‘admissibility, or may be admissible for one purpose and not for another, otherwise the adverse party cannot interpose the proper objection. Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be considered for any other purpose by the judge Note: Where the evidence is inadmissibie for the purpose stated in the offer, it must be rejected, though the same may be admissible for another purpose, The reason is that the adverse parly is prevented from objecting to the admissibility thereof on grounds other than those available to meet the stated purpose. In Mata Vda. De Onate vs. CA, GR. No. 116149, November 23, 1995, ‘the Court allowed evidence not formally offered to be admitted and considered by the trial court provided the following requirements are present 4. The same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded; 2, The same must have been incorporated in the records of the case. SECTION 35. WHEN TO MAKE OFFER When to Make Offer of Evidence: The proper time to offer evidence denends on its form, Sera een cr) ees oes ~ ‘Afler the party has. Atthe time the witness | presented his is called to testy. festimonial evidence, Here morass r ‘Se ska ‘oesiong ie Siectent qucstion’the satiBet trusting aed Poet, area thors her oe Thus, oa ete ays cong tetas ange eS | Pheer the wih elias 20San Beda College of Law 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS ra aT at Cimriets 2 Every tine question is asked of him, Procedure before Documentary and Object Evidence can be considered by the Court: Marking; Identification; Authentication; Formal offer; and if the evidence is exckided, an offer of proof. peeps Authentication and identtication can be dispensed with if there is 2 stipulation on the due execution and genuineness of the PRIVATE DOCUMENT, If it is @ PUBLIC DOCUMENT, then there is. NO NEED for authentication. ‘Stages in the Presentation of Documentary Evidence 1. Identification By identification is meant proof that the document being presented is the same fone referred {0 by the witness in his testimony, 2. Marking 7 All exhibits should be marked to facitate ‘their identification. ‘The marking may be made at the pre-trial or during the trial The plaintiff and the prosecution use capital letters ('A’, °B", °C", etc.) and the accused use Arabic numbers ("1",°2", "3" etc). Hf the exhibit is presented in connection with an affidavit, like in support or in ‘opposition ta.a motion to dismics, tne words "Motion to Dismiss’ should be Added after the letter or number 3. Authentication ‘The proof of 3 document's due execution and genuineness, ifthe purpose is to show that it is genuine, or the proof of its forgery, if the purpose ls to show that the document is a forgery 4. Inspection Under Section 78 of Rue 132, whenever writing is shown to a witness. it may be inspected by the adverse party 5. Formal Offer ‘After the termination of the testimonial evidence, the proponent will then make 2 formal offer and state the purpose for which the document is presented (Rule 132, Sec, 34), 6. Objections ‘The objection to the introduction or presentation cf the document shall be frade when it is formally offered in evidence (Rule 132, Sec. 36) aed Formal offer of eats Toentifeation of documentary evidence | documentary evidence Is done in the course of | as an exhibits done the tal and is accompanied by the ‘marking of the evidence as an exhibit when the party has. presented his {estimonial evidence. Note: The mere fact that 9 particular document is identifiad and marked as an Exhibit does not mean that it will be or has been offered 2s part of the evidence of the party. The party may decide to formally offer it frit believes this will advance its cause, or it may decide not to do so at all. itis only when the proponent rests his case snd formally offers the evidence that an objection thereto may be made. Any objection prior thereto is premature. = Documents which may have been marked fas exhioits during the hearing but which were not formally offered in evidence Cannot be considered as evidence nor can they be given any evidentiary value, SECTION 36. OBJECTION tas suncooteiieeiene Sy $ ees! Te Se Eehot og a censongy the evderes. yep ea arty ioos Rot ing ae “oe SPER, the argunds BE oouEhS 5 Seana spebitit Objection iby Shon the eileende ig relevant oF inaonipelant Exatinye: Objsetion, tothe. question “tor evidence: © 2 1. One hasté.abject to the evideiig 2. The objectiOrimmistine timelyimade; and bomailgacingg es 6 ‘ See ee Requirements, to" ingonpissibteREMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE 3, ‘The grounds for the objection must be specified (Specific Objections), Reasons why an objection must be specific 4. So that the judge may understand the question raised and that the adversary may have an opportunity to remedy the defect, if possibie 2, To make a proper record for the reviewing ‘court in the event of an appeal. + As.arrule, failure to specify the grounds for the objection is in effect @ waiver of the objection. Every other objection which is not particularly stated is to be considered abandoned, except where the evidence could not have been legally admitted for ‘any purpose whatever. + When evidence is excluded upon a mere general objection, the ruling will be upheld, if any ground in fact existed for the exclusion. it will be assumed, in the absence of any request by the opposing arly or the court to make the objection definite, that the ruling was made upon the right ground, When to make objection ‘The proper time to make 2 protest or objection. against the admission of evidence depends on the manner the evidence i offered. Made immedintely fier tho offers mace Evidence offered orally For questions propounded in the ‘ourse of te oral examination of & witnese. Made 28 soon 28 the grounds therefere shal! ne reasonably apparent Within 3 Saye after notice of the cif unless a different period & allowed By Incase of an offer of viene fn wating + A. protest or objection against the ‘admission of any evidence must be made at the proper time, and if not so made, it will be understood fo have been waived SECTION 37. WHEN REPETITION OF OBJECTION UNNECESSARY Rule on Continuing Objections When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of @ witness that the questions being propoundax! sre of the same class as those to which obj een made, whether such objection was sustained 368 ‘or overruled, it shall NOT be necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing ‘objection to such class of questions. SECTION 38. RULING “The court may take a reasonable time to study the questions raised by the objection, but a ruling should always be made during the tral If no ruling is made dusing the course of the tal, counsel would have no means of knowing ‘whether or not he would be compelled to meet ‘any evidence at al, hence it would prejudice the substantial rights of hs client SECTION 39. STRIKING OUT ANSWER Modes of Excluding inadmissible Evidence 1. Objection - when the evidence is offered, 2. Motion to strike out or Expunge — proper in the following cases: a. When the witness answers prematurely before there is reasonable opportunity for the party to abject (See. 39); b, Unresponsive answers Answers that ate _ incompetent, irrelevant, or improper (Sec: 39); Note: There must be objection before motion to strike, 4, Uncompleted testimonies where there was no opportunity for the other party to cross-examine, &. Conditionally admitted evidence not later substantiated. SECTION 40, TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE, este tll Sag « Whaasn attorney:ie notalioyed, by the op Qe to ‘Bigsenttestinany whieh oa a Compas Hateriot- Wid pecaaga nis caaaiche must make ig to the éaathat the adbstions purposksiat review (Carag Evicenbe2004 ad. p. 337)" a) Ser Tes EER LD viregez© 2. So that tneappeilate court mapigglermine ftom the. febgrd whethey" the *propased evidence is competent.San Beds College of Lao 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS It may have the same attached to or mad patt of the record 2. As to oral evidence: itmay state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony, Cora Beg Tact eee leanne Refers to testimonial, ocumentary or abject fevidenoe that are presented or offered in Sourt by a party sa that the cour can consider his evidence when it commas to the preparation of the Gecision Only resorted to it ‘admiscion is refused by the court for purposes of review on ‘appeal ‘The “por lo que puedo valer” principle ‘The Supreme Court encourages the admission of borderline evidence for whatever it is worth oF por lo que puedo valer. + It is impossible for a judge, in the early stages of the development of proof, te know with certainty wheiher the testimony ig relevant or not: and where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the attorney offering the evidence, the court may, 26 a rule, safely accept the testimony upon the statement of the attomey that the proof offered will be connected later (Prats & Co. vs, Phoenix Insurance Co., G.R. No, 28607, February 21, 1929). ‘+The rulings of the trial court on procedural questions and on admissibility of evidence during the course of a tial are interlocutory in nature and may not be the subject of Separate appeals or review on certiorari. These are assigned as errors land reviewed in the appeal taken from the ‘ial court on the merits of the case (Gatdula vs, People, GR. No, 140688, January 26, 2001) An offer of proof may be made: 1. Before the court has ruled on the objection, in which case its function is to persuade the cour, to overrule the objection or deny the privilege invoked: Alter the court has sustained the objection, in which case ils funchon 's to preserve for the appeal the evidence excluded by the privilege invoked, 3. Where the offer of proof includes the introduction of documents, or any of the physical evidence, the same should be ‘matked for identification so that they may become a pat of the record (Herrera, Vol. Vi, p. 344) When offer of proof not required: 4. When the question to which an objection has been sustained clearly reveals on its face the substance, purpose and relevancy of the excluded evidence; 2. When the substance, purpose and relevancy of the excluded evidence were made known to the court earlier in the proceedings and such part appears on record; 2. Where evidence is inadmissible when offered and excluded, but thereatter becomes, it must, be re-offered, unless the court indicates that a second offer would be useless (Horrera, Vol. VI, pp.344-346) English Exchequer Rule: it is a species of mid-1800 English rule pursuant to which ‘a trial court's error as te the admission of evidence was presumed to have caused prejudice and therefore, almost automatically Fequired a new trial” (LaFave and /sreel, op. cit, p. 1960). + This rule has tong been laid to rest for even English appellate court now disregard an error in the admission of evidence “unless in its opinion, some Substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has been occasioned,” known as the HARMLESS ERROR RULE. + In our jurisdiction, we follow the Harmless Error Rule, for in dealing with evidence improperly admitted in the trial, we examine its Sareea ree Gupetes : Woight & credit that 269)REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE Hierarchy of Evidentiary Values 1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt = I is required for conviction of en ‘accused in a criminal case. + That which is the logical and inevitable result of the evidence on record, exclusive of any other consideration, of the moral certainty of the guilt of the accused or that degree of proof which produces conviction in. an unprejudiced mind. 2, Clear and Convincing Evidence + This is adduced fo overcome a prima fecio case or a disputable presumption. © That degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the tier of facts a firm belisf or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established 3, Preponderance of Evidence = The degree of proof required in civil cases. + That which Is of greater weight or more convincing than that: which: is offered in opposition to it. 4 Substantial Evidence © Required to reach a conclusion in ‘administrative proceedings or to establish a fact before edirinistrative/ quasi-judicial bodies. + Such relevant evidence as a Feasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Note: Evidence to be believed must not only come from a credible witness but must also be credible. in itself. The evidence must be natural, reasonable and probable as fo make it easy to believe. Rule (Equiponderance of Evidence) The doctrine refers to a situation where the evidence of the parties are evenly bslanced or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates. In such case the decision should be against the party with the burden of proof (Marubeni Corp. vs. Lirag, GR. No, 130998, August 10, 2001) Paraffin Tests Paraffin tests are inconclusive. The abeence of powder burns in a suspect's hand is NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF that he has not fired 2 dun. In fact, the traces of nitrates can easily be Femoved by the simple act of washing one’s hand (Abaios vs, CA, December 22, 1999). 370 Polygraph Tests ‘A polygraph is an __clectromechanical instrument that simultaneously measures and records certain physiological changes in the human body thet are believed to be involuntarly caused by an examinee’s conscious attempt to deceive the questioner (West's Legal Thesaurus Dictionary, Special Detixe Edition, 1986). American Courts almost uniformly reject the results of polygraph tests when offered in evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence of one accused of a crime, whether the accused or the prasecution seeks. its introduction, for the reason that polygraph has not yet attained scientific acceptance as @ reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception (29 Am. Jur. 2d Evidenci $. 1008). The rule is the same in thi jurisdiction, + Where the evidence of the parties in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence should tif the scales in favor of the accuses. ‘The rule is different in @ civil case; the party who will lose is the party who has the burden of proot, SECTION PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE In order to have:the evidence which bears on the Issue preponderate in his favor, a party must have presented in support of his contention pract which appears to have overcome opposing presumptions as well 25 ‘opposing evidence. Ratio: He) Sn adi remember exactly the, cifcumstance’gen which febanee NeBcngh oe nis ania)San Beda Callege of Lay 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS: SECTION 2. PROOF REASONABLE DOUBT BEYOND © In determining the existence of proot beyond reasonable doubt, only the existence of moral certainty is required ‘+ Prosecution must present evidence that is strong enough to convince the court that the prisoner must be punished not because he cannot prove that he is innocent but because it has proved that he is guilty, ‘© For the defendant, it is enough that he is able to prove his defenses by preponderance of evidence since it will create @ reasonable doubt as to his guit. Thus, whenever there is a reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to an acquittal Alibi - must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence. To be exonerating. the defense of alibi must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception, © One of the weakest defenses because of the facility with which it can be fabricated, just like a mere denial (People vs. Esperanza, G.R. No. 199217-24, June 27, 2005), + However, alibi assumes significance and strength ‘where the evidence for the prosecution is aiso intrinsically weak. Requisites: 1. The presence of the accused in another place at the time of the commission of the ‘offense: and 2. The physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission (People vs. Laranaga, GR. Nos. 138874-75, July 21, 2008) Motive Genoral Rule: The prosecution need not prove motive on the part of the accused when the fatler has been positively identified as the author of the crime, Exception: |t becomes relevant only when the accused has not been positively identified and proof thereof becomes essential anly when the evidence of the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial or is inconclusive, Fright ight from the scene of the crime is a circumstantial evidence which is admissible against him and, if not explained in 8 manner consistent with his innocence, is to be considered 2s tending to show that he was the person who committed the deed, ‘Out of Court Identification: The Supreme Court has held that the admissibilty and reliabilly of outof-court identification of suspects, the ‘TOTALITY — (OF CIRCUMSTANCES test, which utilizes the following factors: + The witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; 2. The witness’ degree of attention at that time; 3. The’ accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; 4. The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; 5. The length of time between the crime and the identification; and 6. The suggestiveness of the identification procedure. ‘When the identity of the appeliant is not established beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal necessarily follows. Conviction for'a crime rests on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, never on the weakness of that of the defense. + In every criminal prosecution, the prosecution must prove two things: (1) the Commission of the crime and (2) the identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. Cursory identification does not suffice to convict the accused. What is needed is positive identification made with moral certainty as to the person of the offender (People vs. Maguing, GR No, 144090, June 26, 2003). + Eyewitness identitication is often decisive ial of an gente ccused ‘siousn ft {ebtened co rel. Ho P impionss : nothing he photon‘ allgalion on sexing! + A police Inewup is, merely 2 parcel the investigation, semfecées: Ruby pale investigators io aseeifain, the idenbiy of blfenders"or conser shéirikentificgdsn by a rwiness io thecrime. Police ofibets are not obliggd-to assemble @ police line-up as 2. cond rove the identity of an the basis of the evidence og hand: Bolice officers are 371REMEDIAL LAW certain of the identity of the offender, they need not require any police line-up anymore (Tapdasan, Jr. vs. People, GR No. 141344, Nov. 21, 2002). Res Ipsa Loquitur (The thing speaks for itself) - A maxim for the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surtounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise @ presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff's prima facie case, and present a question of fact for the dotendant to meet with an explanation. The doctrine is simply a recognition of postulate that as a matter of common knowledge and experience, the very nature of certain types of occurrences may justify an inference of negligence on the patt of person who controls the instrumentality causing the injury, in the absence of some explanation by him. However, it does not dispense with the requirement of proof of negligence. Credibility of Witnesses In the assesement of the credibility of witnesses, we are guided by the following well- entrenched rules: (1) that evidence to be believed rust not only spring from the mouth of a credible witness but must itself be credible, and (2) findings of facts and assessment of credibilly of witness are matters best left to the trial court who had the opportunity to personally evaluate the witnesses’ demeanar, conduct, and behavior viile testifying. Rule on Partial Credibility Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus (False in ‘one thing, false in everything) + If the testimony of the witness on 2 material issue Is wilfully false and given with an intention to deceive, the court may disregard all the witness’ testimony. Nevertheless, the court may accept as admissible portion er portions of the testimony believed to be tue and set aside the fabricated ones, ‘¢ This is NOT a mandatory cule of evidence but is applied by the cours in its discretion Important: 4, Deals only with the weight of evidence end not a positive rule of law 2. The winesses' false or exaggerated statements an other matters. shall not preclude the acceptance of such evidence {8 is relieved from any sign of falsehood, 372 EVIDENCE 3, The court may accept and reject portions of the witness’ testimony depending on the inherent credibility thereof. + The credibility of witnesses is best determined by the trial judge, who has the direct opportunity to observe and evaluate their demeanor on the witness stand. The trial court's findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal, unless there is a clear showing that it plainly overlooked matters of substance which, if considered, might affect the results of the review (People vs. Pacuancuan, GR No. 144589, June 16, 2003). = “ln rape cases, the lone testimony of the offended party, if free from serious and material contradictions, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction..." (People vs, Esperanza, GR Nos. 139217-24, June 27, 2003) Ratio: No young Filipina of decent repute would undergo the expense, trouble, inconvenience of @ public trial, exposing herself to public sheme and ridicule; suffer scancal, embarrassment and humiliation of @ public trial and publicly admitting that she was criminally abused unless itis the uth (People vs. Avero, G.R. No. 76728, August 30, 1988). +The sole, uncorroborated testimony of an accused who' turned state witness may suffice to convict his co-accused if it 1s given unhesitatingly and ina straightforward manner and is full of details which by their nature could not have been the result of deliberate afterthought, otherwise, it needs corroboratigy # tie. pros Ggdused (People 1VE-SSpilya, GR 726020, innodent. to disprove: “eae” That in ipw OF the ining crime oPrepe, whsre oniy Sweyperson are camplainant is serutin caution, andSan Beda College of Law 3. That the evidence of the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to drew strength from the weakness of the defense. (People vs. Mahinya, February 1, 1999) ‘Sweetheart Theory ‘Accused admits that he had sexuat intercourse with the complainant that fateful day, but ‘argues thal they were lovers and the act is consensual, However, other than his bare allegations, he adduced no independent proof that he was the sweetheart of the victim. His sweetheart defense was neither corroborated by any other witness nor substantiated by any memento, love note, picture or token Furthermore, even assuming that they were lovers, thelr relationship did not give him 2 license to sexuaily assault her. Love is not a license to rape. SECTION 3 EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION, NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR CONVICTION An extrajudicial confession is_not sufficient ‘ground for conviction UNLESS corroborated by evidence of corpus delict, Corpus delicti is the actual commission by ‘someone of the particular crime charged. Two Elements: 1. That a certain result has been proved: 2. That someone is criminally responsible for the act. Note: The identity ef the accused is not 2 necessary element of the corpus detict © Corpus dalicti in its legal sense refers to the fact of the commission of the crime, riot to the physical body of the deceased of to the ashes of a burned building or—as in the present case—to the smuggied cigarettes. The corpus deticti may be proven by the credible testimony of a sole witness, not necessarily by physical evidence such as those aforementioned (Rinorin vs. Pople, GR No 140461, Apr 30, 2008). + Corpus deen Is not synonymous with the whole charge so as to require that all the elements of the crime be established independently of the extranjudicial confession. I means there should be some evidence apart from the confession fending 1o show the commission of the 2011 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS: SECTION 4, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHEN SUFFICIENT. 4. There is more than one circumstance; 2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and 3. The combination of all the circumstances Js such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (People vs. Guinama, GR. No, 126113, June 25, 2003) = All the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, and they are to be taken together as proved. They must point unerringly to the direction of guilt and mere suspicions, probabilities, oF suppositions do not warrant a conviction, A conviction based on circumstantial evidence must exclide each and every hypothesis consistent with innocence. Reason for its admission: It is due to necessity, especially in a criminal case. If only direct evidence ie allowed, very few conviction ‘could be had, Besides circumstantial evidence js. Dased on sound rational grounds of everyday logic. + Direct proof of previous agreement to commit'a crime is not necessary to prove ‘conspiracy as it may be deduced from the acts of the perpetrators before, during and after the commission of the crime which are indicative of 2 common design, concerted action end concurrence of sentiments (Serrano vs. CA, GR No. 123696, Jun. 25, 2003). Note: Circumstantial evidence can be lized not only in @ criminal case but in a evil case as well. “ ood a Creer eee cevistenbe of 2 2ct in iesue wits the old bi ‘any infelenge of presumaben, Sas | The wingsges te | deecty of knowledge: fects te proved 373REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE Positive Identification as Direct Evidence and as Circumstantial Evidence Positive identification pertains essentially to proof of identity and not per se to that of being ‘an eyewitness to the very act of commission of ‘the crime, ‘The two types of positive identification are: 4. A witness may identify a suspect or accused as the offender as an eyewitness: to the very act of the commission of the crime. This constitutes. DIRECT EVIDENCE, 2. The second type is when, although a witness may not have actually witnessed the very act of commission of a crime, he may still be able to positively identity a Suspect o accused as the perpetrator of a crime as when, for instanoe, the latter is the person or one of the persons last seen with the victim immediately before and right after the commission of the crime. ‘The second type of positive identification forms part of | CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Note: in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to _adducing ckcumstantial. evidence to discharge is burden. SECTION 5. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Factual findings of quasijudic'al agencies which have acquired expertise in specific matters within their jurisdiction are generally accorded not only respact but at all times even finality, i such findings are supported by substantial evidence. Note: If the allegations in the petition for writ lof ampato are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and propriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied (The Rule on the Writ of Amparo, AM. No.07-9-12-S0). The same rule applies to petitions for wrt of habeas data (The Rule on the Wri of Hebeas Data, A.M.No.08-1-16-SC), When May Supreme Court Review Findings The evaluation of testimonial evidence by tial courts is accorded great respect hecause of its chance to observe first-hand the demeanor of witnesses. The rule is not inflexible but adinits ‘of exceptions Exceptions to Conclusiveness of Facts 4. When the finding is grounded entirely on specufations, surmise or conjecture: 374 2. When inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken or impossible: 2. When the judgment is premised on a isrepresentation of facts, 4. When there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; ‘8. When the findings of fact are conflicting, 6. When the CA in making its findings wont beyond the issues of the case and the ‘same is contrary to both the admissions of appellants and appellees; 7. When the findings of fact of the CA are at variance with those of the tal court, the SC has to review the evidence in order to arrive at the correct findings based on the record: 8, When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; 9. When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents, 40, The findings of fact of the CA is premised on the supposed evidence end is contradicted by the evidence on record; and 41, When certain material facts and Circumstances have been overtooked by the thal court which, if aken into account, would alter the result of the case in that they would entitle the accused to acquittal. SECTION 6, POWER OF THE COURT TO STOP FURTHER EVIDENCE. The court has the power to stop the introduction of testimony which, will merely be cumiative SECTION 7, EVIDENCE ON MOTION ica, oon the ede ie bee sinwings‘of facteand ee: So thatthe, cou can deedeyaom (0 believe {Se imueva, L- 27673, NOV