Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
1|Patio,Erica
Negative Evidence: when the witness did not see or know of the
occurrence of a fact.
o Lesser weight since there is a total disclaimer of personal
knowledge, hence without any representation that the fact
could or could not have existed or happened.
o It is admissible only if it tends to contradict positive
evidence of the other side or would tend to exclude the
existence of fact sworn to by the other side.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
2|Patio,Erica
3. Curative Admissibility
- The right of the party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf
where the court has admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by
the adverse party.
- 3 Theories of Curative Admissibility cited by Wigmore
o American rule the admission of incompetent evidence
w/out objection by the opponent, does not justify rebutting it
by similar incompetent evidence.
o English rule if inadmissible evidence is admitted, the
adverse party may resort to similar inadmissible evidence
o Massachusetts rule similar incompetent evidence may be
admitted in order to avoid a plain and unfair prejudice
caused by the admission of the other partys evidence
- What should be determined to apply the curative admissibility
rule?
1. w/n the incompetent evidence was seasonably objected to
Lack of objection: waiver of the right to object admissibility
BUT does NOT deprive him to introduce similar rebutting
evidence
2. w/n the admission of such evidence will cause a plain and
unfair prejudice to the party against whom it was admitted
When the admissible evidence has been improperly
excluded, the other party should not be permitted to
introduce similar evidence
Stonehill, et al. v. Diokno: Documentary evidence illegally obtained, is
inadmissible on a timely motion or action to suppress. (Applies to illegally
obtained confessions)
Collateral Matters, defined: Matters other than the facts in issue and which
are offered as a basis for inference as to the existence or non-existence of the
facts in issue
- GR: Collateral matters are INADMISSIBLE or not allowed
- EXC: when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue (Circumstantial
Evidence or evidence of relevant collateral facts)
Note: What is prohibited IRRELEVANT collateral facts
4 Main Divisions of the Rules of Evidence: (1) Admissibility of Evidence
Rule 130; (2) Burden of proof and what need not be proved Rule 131 & 129;
(3) Presentation of Evidence Rule 132; (4) Weight and Sufficiency of
Evidence Rule 133; Note: Rule 134 has been transposed to Part I as Rule 24
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
3|Patio,Erica
[RULE 129]
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
Sec 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory.
A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence:
- of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political
history, forms of government and symbols of nationality,
- the law of nations,
- the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals,
- the political constitution and history of the RP,
- the official acts of legislative,
- executive and judicial departments of the RP,
- the laws of nature,
- the measure of time, and
- the geographical divisions. (1a)
Notes:
Judicial Notice (JN), Defined: cognizance of certain facts which judges
may properly take and act on without proof.
- JN is based on convenience and expediency.
- JN relieves the parties from the necessity of introducing evidence to
prove the fact noticed. The fact is proven by JN.
- The stipulation and admission of the parties or counsel cannot
prevail over the operation of the doctrine of judicial notice, and such
are all subject to the operation of the doctrine.
Two kinds of JN:
- Mandatory
- Discretionary
How JN May be Taken by the Court:
1. On its own initiative or motion
2. When it is requested or invited by the parties
Note: In Either Case, the court may allow the parties to be heard on the
matter in question
- The purpose of the hearing: NOT for the presentation of evidence
o but to afford the parties reasonable opportunity to present
information relevant to the propriety of taking such JN or to
the tenor of the matter to be noticed
o Also to notify them of the courts intention to take JN
(no notice = improper JN)
What stage may the court take judicial notice of a fact?
- During trial;
- After trial and before judgment;
- On Appeal
Republic v. CA: JN must be exercised with caution and every reasonable
doubt on the subject must be resolved in the negative.
Judicial Notice of Laws
- GR: courts of justice are required to take JN of the laws
- EXC: In case of ORDINANCES, the rule is different
o MTCs: Required to take JN of the ordinances of the
municipality or city wherein they sit.
o RTC however, they must take such JN ONLY when:
Required to do so by statute (ex. city charter); and
In a case on appeal before them and wherein the
inferior court took JN of an ordinance involved in
said case. (only to determine the propriety of taking
JN)
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
4|Patio,Erica
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
5|Patio,Erica
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
6|Patio,Erica
[RULE 130]
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
Sec 1. Object as evidence.
Objects as evidence are:
- those addressed to the senses of the court.
When an object is relevant to the fact in issue:
- it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. (1a)
Notes:
- When an object is relevant to a fact in issue, the court may acquire
knowledge thereof by actually viewing the object the object is
called real evidence
- Also known as autoptic proference, physical or demonstrative
evidence
- It is the highest form of evidence
- Even if other evidence have been introduced, it will not prevent the
court from viewing an object to resolve the issue
- Also, the fact that an ocular inspection has been held does not
preclude a party from introducing other evidence on the same issue.
Requirements of an Ocular Inspection (OI)
- An OI conducted by the judge w/o notice to or the presence of the
parties is invalid, as an OI is part of the trial.
- W/N an OI is to be made lies in the discretion of the court.
When can a Court Refuse the Introduction of Object (real) Evidence and
Rely on Testimonial Evidence Alone:
1. When the exhibition of such object is contrary to public policy,
morals or decency
2. When to require its being viewed in court or in an ocular inspection
would result in delay, inconvenience, unnecessary expense out of
proportion to the evidentiary value of such object
3. When such object (real) evidence would be confusing or misleading,
as when the purpose is to prove the former condition of the object
and there is no preliminary showing that there has been no
substantial change in said condition
4. The testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly
portrays the object in question as to render a view thereof
unnecessary
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
7|Patio,Erica
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
8|Patio,Erica
Rules on Telegrams and Cables W/N the dispatch sent or the dispatch
received is the best evidence of the message (depends on the issue)
- IF the issue is the contents of the telegrams
o as received by the addressee - original dispatch received is
the best evidence
o as sent by the sender the original is the message delivered
- IF the issue is the inaccuracy of the transmission
o BOTH the sent and received dispatch are originals.
Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga v. Reyes: in case of libel IF the issue is:
- On the contents of the articles sent by the accused for publication
o The manuscript is the best evidence
- On what was actually published
o A copy of the newspaper is the best evidence
2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE
Sec. 5. When original document is unavailable.
When the original document:
- has been lost or destroyed, or
- cannot be produced in court,
the offeror, upon proof of:
- its execution or existence and
- the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part,
may prove its contents:
- by a copy, or
- by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or
- by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (4a)
Notes:
1st Exception to the Best Evidence Rule: When the original is lost or
destroyed
What Must be Proved by Satisfactory Evidence in Order for Secondary
Evidence May be Admissible:
1. Due execution of the original : proved through the testimony of either:
a. The person/s who executed it
b. The person before whom its execution was acknowledged or
c. Any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered or
who thereafter saw it and recognized the signatures, or
d. One to whom the parties previously confessed its execution
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
9|Patio,Erica
Notes:
2nd Exception to the Best Evidence Rule: Original is in the custody or under
the control of the adverse party who fails to produce it
Facts Which Must be Shown by the Party Offering Secondary Evidence
1. The adverse partys custody or control of the original document;
o No need to prove actual possession. It is enough to show the
circumstances that would indicate his possession.
2. That reasonable notice was given to the adverse party who has the
custody or control of the document;
3. Satisfactory proof of the documents existence;
4. Failure or refusal by the adverse party to produce it in court.
Requirement of Notice Demanding the Original Document:
- No particular form of notice is required, as long as it fairly apprises
the other party as to what papers are desired. Even an oral demand in
court will suffice.
- HOWEVER, notice must be given to the adverse party or his
attorney even if the document is in the actual possession of a 3rd
party
- Notice is done by: Motion or Subpoena duces tecum
Notice is NOT Required:
- When the receipt of the original document is acknowledged on a
carbon copy. (The duplicate itself is an original copy and the only
issue is the receipt of the original)
- When the nature of the action is in itself a notice, as when it is for the
recovery or annulment of documents wrongfully obtained or
withheld by the other party
*See Notes on Section 8 as it relates to Section 6
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
10 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
11 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
12 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Note: When the terms of the agreement are clear the courts have no right to
interpret it
Mistake means Mistake of Fact
- Such mistake may be a mutual mistake between the parties OR
- Where an innocent party was imposed upon by unfair dealing of the
other.
- Such mistake should be alleged and proved by clear and convincing
evidence
Imperfection Includes:
- An inaccurate statement in the agreement or
- Incompleteness in the writing or
- Presence or inconsistent provisions therein
Note: Art. 1363 NCC: When one party was mistaken and the other party
knew that the instrument did not state the real agreement and concealed such
fact the instrument may be reformed.
2nd Exception to the Parol Evidence Rule: Failure of the written agreement
to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
Purpose: to enable to court to ascertain the true intention of the parties or the
true nature of the transaction
3rd Exception to the Parol Evidence Rule: The validity of the written
agreement
In the inquiry into the Validity if the Agreement, Parol Evidence may be
Admitted to Show:
- The true consideration of the contract or the want or illegality thereof
- The Incapacity of the parties
- W/n the contract is fictitious or absolutely simulated
- W/n there was fraud in inducement
4th Exception to the Parol Evidence Rule: The existence of other terms
agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest AFTER the execution
of the written agreement
Note: Amendment in Section 9
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
13 | P a t i o , E r i c a
4. INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
Sec. 10. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning.
When:
- the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be
deciphered, or
- the language is not understood by the court,
the evidence:
- OF persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand
the language
- is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the
language. (14)
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
14 | P a t i o , E r i c a
C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
1. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
Note: According to Judge B (different view from other authors) You must
consider the qualifications of the witness BOTH at the time of the occurrence
to be testified to and at the time the witness is offered to determine his/her
competency.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
15 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Ordinary Witness
Opposing counsels are allowed
ask
They are generally not allowed
It is NOT allowed
An ordinary witness is not assisted
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
16 | P a t i o , E r i c a
to
Who may Object: Only the other spouse who is a party to the case.
- Note: Objections to the competency of the witness-spouse may also
be waived. (Ex. Testimony against a spouse is a waiver of a
testimony in rebuttal)
Rationale For Having Such Rule
- Considering the identity of interest between the spouses, there is
consequent danger of committing perjury
- Also, the rule is in order to guard marital confidence and to prevent
domestic disunion
Notes:
This should NOT be confused w/ Marital Privilege (see sec 24 notes)
Rule on Marital Disqualification (Spousal Immunity):
- GR: During the marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may
testify for or against the other w/o the consent of the affected spouse
EXCEPTIONS: Rule on Disqualification does NOT Apply When:
1. When the testimony was made outside the marriage
2. In a civil case by one spouse against another
3. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one spouse against the
other or the latters direct descendants or ascendants
o Reason: The crime may be considered as having been
committed against the spouse and hence, the conjugal
harmony sought to be protected no longer exists)
o Limited only to direct ascendants and descendants + spouse
4. People v. Castaeda: A complaint filed by a wife against her
husband for falsification of her signature in a deed of sale involving
their conjugal property.
5. Ordonio v. Daquigan: When the marital relations are so strained,
there is no more consideration for applying the said rule. To apply
the exception there must be an offense that directly attacks, or
directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal relations.
6. When there is imputation of a crime by one spouse against the other
Note: Direct Ascendants and Descendants = Parents and Children ONLY
Nature of Prohibition: Absolute disqualification or prohibition against the
spouses testifying to any fact affecting the other spouse however the fact
may have acquired
Requisites in Order for Marital Disqualification Rule to Apply:
1. The marriage is valid and existing at the time of the offer of
testimony; and
2. The other spouse is a party to the action.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
17 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Requirement No. 3: The case is upon a claim or demand against the estate
of such person who is deceased or of unsound mind
-
Such plaintiff must be the real party in interest and not a mere
nominal party.
The disqualification does NOT apply:
o when the counterclaim has been interposed by the defendant
as the plaintiff would thereby be testifying in his defense
o when the deceased contracted with the plaintiff through an
agent and said agent is alive and can testify, but the
testimony of the plaintiff should be limited to acts performed
by the agent.
Assignor, defined: Assignor of a cause of action which has arisen,
and not the assignor of a right assigned before any cause of action
has arisen
Interest in the outcome of the suit, per se, does not disqualify a
witness from testifying
The rule does not apply where it is the administrator who brings an
action to recover property allegedly belonging to the estate or the
action is by the heirs of a deceased who represented the latter
This is restricted to debts or demands enforceable by personal
actions upon which money judgments can be rendered.
An action for damages for breach of agreement to devise property for
services rendered is a claim against an estate
Negative testimony (testimony that a fact did not occur during the
lifetime of the deceased) is NOT covered by the prohibition as
such fact exists even after the decedents demise
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
18 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
19 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Disqualification By Reason of
Marriage (Sec 22)
Can be invoked ONLY if one of the
spouses is a party to the action
Applies ONLY if the marriage is
existing at the time the testimony is
offered
Constitutes a vital prohibition for or
against the spouse of the witness
Objection would be raised on the
ground of marriage. Even if the
testimony is for or against the other
spouse.
Disqualification By Reason of
Marital Privilege (Sec 24a)
Can be claimed w/n the other spouse
is a party to the action
Can be claimed even after the
marriage is dissolved
Applies ONLY to confidential
communication between spouses
The objection of privilege is raised
when
confidential
marital
communication is inquired into.
Note: Waiving Sec 22 does not prevent the spouse from invoking sec 24 and
vice versa. So even if the information is not confidential, the spouse may still
invoke sec 22 which is an absolute disqualification.
[ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE]
Note: The client owns the privilege and therefore he alone can invoke it.
Prohibition is also applicable even to a counsel de oficio.
Basis: public policy
Confidential Communication: The attorney must have been consulted in
his professional capacity EVEN if no fee has been paid.
- It includes preliminary communications made for the purpose of
creating the A-C relationship. (But if it is not for the purpose of
creating the A-C relationship it will not be protected even if the
client subsequently hires the same attorney)
- Includes verbal statements as well as documents or papers entrusted
to the attorney
[PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE]
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
20 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Note: It is not necessary that the P-P relationship was created through the
voluntary act of the patient. Death of the patient does not extinguish the
relation.
Note: The privilege extends to all forms of communications as well as to the
professional observations and examinations of the patient
The P-P Privilege Does NOT Attach:
1. The communication was not given in confidence;
2. The communication is irrelevant to the professional employment;
3. The communication was made for an unlawful purpose, as when it is
intended for the commission or concealment of a crime;
4. The information was intended to be made public;
5. There was a waiver of the privilege either by provisions of contract
or law.
6. Under Rule 28 of the Rules of Court,
o The results of the physical and mental examination of a
person, when ordered by the court, are intended to be made
public, hence not privileged.
o Also, result of autopsies or post mortem examinations are
generally intended to be divulged in court.
The Privilege May Also be Waived:
- Ex. Section 4 of said Rule 28: if the party examined obtains a
report on said examination or takes the deposition of the
examiner, he thereby waives any privilege regarding any other
examination of said physical or mental condition conducted or to be
conducted on him by any other physician.
- Ex. Waiver of the privilege by contract may be found in stipulations
in life insurance policies.
Art. 233 of the Labor Code - All information and statements made at
conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communications
and shall not be used as evidence in the NLRC, and conciliators and
similar officials shall not testify in any court regarding any matter taken
up at the conciliation proceedings conducted by them.
Anti-Graft Cases
[MINISTER/PRIEST-PENITENT PRIVILEGE]
Requisites for the Disqualification Based on Minister/Priest-Penitent
Privilege to Apply
1. That the same were made pursuant to a religious duty enjoined in the
course of discipline of the sect or denomination to which they
belong; and
2. They must be confidential and penitential in character.
- Ex: under seal of the confessional
Note: It is the person making the confession who can invoke the privilege.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
21 | P a t i o , E r i c a
2. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
Sec. 25. Parental and filial privilege.
No person may be compelled to testify against his:
- parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.
(20a)
Notes:
- It is not a rule of disqualification but was a privilege NOT to testify
- hence it was referred to as filial privilege
- However, under the Family Code, the descendant may be compelled
to testify against his parents and grandparents, if such testimony is
indispensable in prosecuting a crime against the descendant or by
one parent against the other (Art. 215).
- Both parental and filial privileges are granted to any person
Reason for the Rule: The reason for the rule is to preserve family
cohesion
Note: The privilege may now be invoked in both civil and criminal cases.
3. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
Admission
An admission is a statement of fact
which does not involve an
acknowledgement of guilt or liability
It may be express or tacit
May be made by third persons
Confession
It involves an acknowledgment of
guilt or liability
Must be express
Can be made only by the party
himself and in some instances, is
Admission
An admission need not be against
ones proprietary or pecuniary
interest,
Made by the party himself, and is a
primary evidence and competent
though he be present in court and
ready to testify
Admission can be made any time
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
22 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Notes:
Compromise, defined: An agreement made between two or more parties as
a settlement of the matters in dispute.
Civil Cases
GR: An offer of compromise is not a
tacit admission of liability and is not
admissible in evidence against the
offeror. It cannot be proved over the
objection of the offeror.
EXC: Unless the offer is not only to
buy peace but amounts to an
admission of liability (compromise
directed only to the amount to be
paid).
Ratio in Civil Cases: It is the policy
of the law to favor the settlement of
disputes, to foster compromises and
to promote peace.
Criminal Cases
GR: An offer of compromise by the
accused may be received in evidence
as an implied admission of guilt.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
23 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Notes:
Requisites for This Exception To Apply:
1. That the partnership, agency, or joint interest is established by
evidence other than the act or declaration
o Partnership relation must be shown;
2. The act or declaration is within the scope of the partnership, agency
or joint interest
o With regard to a non-partnership affair: The fact that each
partner has individually made a substantially similar
admission does not render the aggregate admission
competent against the firm.
3. Such act or declaration must have been made during the existence of
the partnership, agency or joint interest.
o Statements made after the partnership has been dissolved do
not fall within the exception
o BUT if they are made in connection with the winding up of
the partnership such admission is STILL admissible.
Rule on Admission Made By Counsel
- GR: They are ADMISSIBLE against the client as the counsel acts
in representation and as an agent of the client
- EXC: It must not amount to a compromise or confession of
judgment (Because in compromise, the rule requires the consent of
the client)
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
24 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Joint Debtor, defined: It does not refer to mere community of interest but
should be understood according to its meaning in solidum and not
mancomunada.
Sec. 30. Admission by conspirator.
The act or declaration of a conspirator:
- relating to the conspiracy and
- during its existence,
may be given in evidence:
- against the co-conspirator
- AFTER the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of
declaration. (27)
Notes:
Application of the Requirement that the Conspiracy must Preliminarily
be Proved by Evidence other than the Conspirators Admission
- Applies ONLY to extrajudicial acts or statements
- NOT to judicial admission as to a testimony given on the witness
stand at the trial where the party adversely effected has the
opportunity to cross examine the declarant
An Admission by a Conspirator is Admissible Against his Coconspirator
- Such conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde
o Conspiracy must be established by prima facie proof in the
judgment of the court;
- The admission was made during the existence of the conspiracy
o After the termination of a conspiracy, the statements of one
conspirator may not be accepted as evidence against any of
the other conspirators;
- The admission related to the conspiracy itself
o Should relate to the common object.
Existence of the Conspiracy May be Inferred:
- From the acts of the accused
- From the confessions of the accused
- Or by prima facie proof thereof
Note: If there is no independent evidence of the conspiracy the
extrajudicial confession CANNOT be used against his co-accused (res inter
alios rule applies to both EXJ and J admissions)
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
25 | P a t i o , E r i c a
DOES NOT Apply IF: the statements adverse to the party were
made in the course of an official investigation, as where:
o he was pointed out in a custodial investigation and was
neither asked to reply nor comment on such imputations or
o when the party had a justifiable reason to remain silent, as
when he was acting on advice of counsel
- It May Apply: To adverse statements in writing IF the party was
carrying on a mutual correspondence with the declarant.
o However, if there was no mutual correspondence, the rule is
relaxed since such prompt response can generally not be
expected if the party still has to resort to a written reply.
Basis of Rule: It is basic instinct or a natural reaction to resist or deny a false
statement
Doctrine of Adoptive Admission: A partys reaction to a statement or action
by another person when it is reasonable to treat the partys reaction as an
admission of something stated or implied by the other person.
Instances Where There is NO Implied Admission
1. Allegations of unliquidated damages
2. Allegations which are not material to the cause of action
3. Conclusions of fact/law
4. Allegations of usury other than in a complaint
5. If defendant has not filed his answer and is declared in default.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
26 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
27 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
28 | P a t i o , E r i c a
An offer in writing:
- to pay a particular sum of money or
- to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property
is, IF rejected without valid cause, equivalent to:
- the actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or
property. (49a)
Notes:
- This section complements the rule on tender of payment (Art. 1256,
NCC) by providing that said offer of payment must be made in
writing.
- Such tender must, however, be followed by consignation of the
amount in court in order to produce the effects of valid payment.
5. TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE
Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay
excluded.
A witness 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 rules. (30a)
Notes:
Hearsay Rule (HR), defined: Any evidence, whether oral or documentary is
hearsay of its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the
witness but on the knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand.
(Including: all assertions not subjected to cross-examination)
- GR: Hearsay evidence is excluded or INADMISSIBLE as evidence
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
29 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
30 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
31 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Notes:
Declaration Against Interest - DAI
DECLARATIONS Against Interest
Made by a person who is neither a
party nor in privity with a party to the
suite.
Secondary Evidence
Exception to the Hearsay Rule
Admissible
ONLY
when
the
declarant is UNavailable as a witness
Must be made ante litem motam
(before the controversy)
May
be
admitted
against
himself/successor in interest and
against 3rd parties
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
32 | P a t i o , E r i c a
4. The act or declaration was made ante litem motam or prior to the
controversy
Pedigree May be Established or Proved By:
1. The act or declaration of a relative (sec 39)
2. The reputation or tradition existing in his family (sec 40)
3. Entries in Family Bibles (sec 40)
4. With respect to marriage, by common reputation in the community
(Sec 41)
Note: The relationship must preliminarily be proved by direct or
circumstantial evidence.
- No specific degree of relationship is required
- BUT the weight to which such act or declaration is entitled may be
affected by the degree of relationship
Note: Reputation between the declarant and the person subject of inquiry
must be legitimate unless the issue is the legitimacy itself.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
33 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Note: A statement as to ones date of birth and age as learned from parents or
relatives is an ante litem motam declaration of family tradition
- Such statement prevails over a mere opinion of a trial judge
- BUT cannot prevail over a secondary statement of the father
Section 39
Act or declaration against pedigree
Witness need not be a member of
the family
Testimony is about what declarant,
who is dead or unable to testify,
said concerning the pedigree of the
declarants family
Relation bet the declarant and the
person subject of inquiry must be
established by independent evidence
Section 40
Family reputation or tradition regarding
pedigree
Witness is a member of the family
Testimony is about family reputation or
tradition covering matters of pedigree.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
34 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Notes:
Res Gestae which means things done, TYPES:
1. Spontaneous statements: Statements in connection with a startling
occurrence relating to that fact and in effect forming part thereof
2. Verbal Acts: Statements accompanying an equivocal act, on the
theory that they are the verbal parts of the act to be explained.
Requisites for Res Gestae No 1:
Requisites for Res Gestae No 2:
Spontaneous Statements
Verbal Acts
1. The principal act, the res gestae, be 1. The res gestae or principal act or to
a startling occurrence;
be characterized must be equivocal;
2. The statements were made before
2. Such act must be material to the issue
the delcarant had the opportunity to 3. The statements must accompany the
contrive
equivocal act.
3. The statements must refer to the
4. The statements give a legal
occurrence in question and its
significance to the equivocal act
attending circumstances
4. The statement must be
spontaneous.
The res gestae is the startling
The res gestae is the equivocal act.
occurrence
Statements may be made prior,
Verbal act must be contemporaneous
during or immediately after the
with or accompany the equivocal act.
startling occurrence.
Requisites for Admissibility of Res Gestae, The statement must:
1. Be Spontaneous
2. Made while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately
prior or subsequent
3. Relates to the circumstances of the startling occurrence.
4. Must be involuntary and simultaneously wrung from the witness by
the impact of the occurrence
Reasons for Admission:
1. Necessity natural and spontaneous utterances are more convincing than
the testimony of a person on the stand.
2. Trustworthiness the statement is made indistinctively. The facts speaking
thru the party and not the party speaking thru the facts.
Res Gestae in connection with a
homicidal act
Dying Declarations
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
35 | P a t i o , E r i c a
1. The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify.
2. The entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to which
they refer;
3. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
4. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the
performance of a duty whether legal, contractual, moral or religious;
and
5. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business
or duty;
Rules for Admissibility of Business Entries
- If the Entrant is Available as a Witness the entries will be
INADMISSIBLE as an exception to the hearsay rule.
o They may be used as a memo to refresh his memory while
testifying in the transaction
- There is no necessity to bring into court all the clerks or employees
who individually made the entries
- It is sufficient that the person who supervises the work of the
employees testify:
o That the account was prepared under his supervision
o That the entries were entered in the ordinary course of
business
- There is no precise moment required when the entries should be
made it is sufficient if it is made w/in a reasonable time while the
memory of the facts is unimpaired
- Probative Value: Prima Facie of the facts stated therein
EXCEPTION NO. 8: ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
Note: The entrant must have been competent with respect to the facts stated
in his entries.
- Entries made by a priest in the register of the facts of baptism are
NOT admissible to prove the date of birth or its relation to persons
o A priest is not competent to testify to the truth of these facts.
- BUT church registries are ADMISSIBLE as evidence of the facts
with respect to marriage solemnized by the priest (BUT needs to be
authenticated)
- If the certificate is transmitted to a public officer it is admissible
w/o a need for prior authentication.
Entries in Official Records May be Proved: See Sec 24 and 25 Rule 132
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
36 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Notes:
Notes:
Requisites for Admissibility
1. Statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an
occupation;
2. The statements must be contained in a list, register, periodical or
other published compilation;
3. The compilation was published for use by persons engaged in that
occupation; and
4. Is generally relied upon by them.
Reasons for Admission:
1. Necessity because of the unusual accessibility of the persons
responsible for the compilation of matters contained in a list,
register, periodical or other published compilation and tremendous
inconvenience it would cause to the court if it would issue summons
to these numerous individuals.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
37 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Notes:
Requisites for Admissibility
1. The witness is dead or unable to testify
2. His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or
proceedings, judicial or administrative between the same parties or
those representing the same interests
3. The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case
although on different causes of action
4. The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same
issue involved in the present case
5. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross examine the witness in
the former case.
Inability to Testify: Inability proceeding from a grave cause, almost
amounting to death (ex. Losing ones power of speech)
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
38 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Reason for the Rule: It is for the court to form an opinion concerning the
facts in proof of which evidence is offered. Witnesses must testify to facts
w/in their knowledge and not their opinions.
7. OPINION RULE
Sec. 48.General rule.
Notes:
Opinion, defined: An inference or conclusion drawn from facts observed.
- GR: Sec 48: Witnesses must give the facts and not their inference,
conclusions, or opinions. Opinions are INADMISSIBLE
- EXCEPTIONS: Opinion of the Witness is Admissible (Sec 49 &50)
1. On a matter requiring SPECIAL knowledge, skill, experience or
training which he is shown to possess, that is when he is an expert
(Sec 49);
2. Regarding the identity or the handwriting of a person, when he has
knowledge of the person or handwriting, whether he is an ordinary or
expert witness (Sec 50 a & b)
3. On the mental sanity of a person, if the witness is sufficiently
acquainted with the former or if the latter is an expert witness (Sec
50c)
4. On the emotion, behavior, condition, or appearance of a person
which he has observed; and (Sec 50d)
5. On ordinary matters known to all men of common perception, such
as the value of ordinary household articles (Galian v. State
Assurance Co., Ltd.)
Notes:
Expert Witness, defined: One who belongs to the profession or calling to
which the subject matter of the inquiry relates to and who possesses special
knowledge on questions on which he proposes to express an opinion.
Test: Whether the opinion called for will aid the fact finder in resolving an
issue
Degree of Skill or Knowledge Required of an Expert Witness
- There is no definite standard of determining the degree of skill or
knowledge that a witness must possess in order to testify as an
expert.
- It is sufficient that the following factors are present:
1. Training and education
2. Particular, first hand familiarity with the facts of the case
3. Presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based.
Requisites for Admissibility of Expert Evidence - only if:
1. The matter to be testified to is one that requires expertise, and
2. The witness had been qualified as an expert
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
39 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
40 | P a t i o , E r i c a
(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14, (46a, 47a)
Notes:
Ordinary Opinion Evidence, defined: That which is given by a witness
who is of ordinary capacity and who has by opportunity acquired a 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: Instantaneous conclusions of the mind. The
witness may testify as to the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a
person
8. CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Notes:
Character, defined: The aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to
and distinguish an individual person.
Rules on the Admissibility of Character Evidence:
- GR: Character evidence is NOT admissible in evidence
Ratio: The evidence of a persons character does not prove that such person
acted in conformity with such character or trait in a particular occasion.
In Criminal Cases
- GR: The prosecution may not prove the BAD Moral Character (MC) of
the accused which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged.
- EXCEPTION:
o The prosecution may prove BAD MC at the rebuttal stage - IF
the accused, in his defense attempts to prove his GOOD MC.
o GOOD or BAD MC of the offended party may always be proved
if such evidence tends to establish the probability or
improbability of the offense charged.
- EXC to the EXC:
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
41 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
42 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Criminal
Cases
To Sustain
Conviction
Proof
beyond
reasonable
doubt
Preliminary Investigation
Evidence as to engender a
well-founded belief as to
the fact of the commission
of the crime and the
respondents probable guilt
Issuance of Warrant
of Arrest
Probable Cause:
Reasonable ground to
believe that the
accused has committed
the offense .
Hierarchy of Evidence
1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
2. Clear and convincing evidence
3. Preponderance of evidence
4. Substantial evidence
2 Separate Burdens in Burden of Proof
1. Burden of Going Forward: Burden of Producing evidence
2. Burden of Persuasion: The burden of persuading the trier of fact that
the burdened party is entitled to prevail.
Upon Whom BURDEN OF PROOF Rests:
Civil Cases
Criminal Cases
On the party who would be defeated if no
The burden of proof is
evidence were given on either side.
always with the prosecution.
Plaintiff
[RULE 131]
BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS
Defendant
Cross
Claimant
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
43 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Defendant
In his counterclaim
and in his
affirmative defenses
Burden of Proof
Does not shift and remains
throughout the entire case
exactly where the original
pleadings placed it.
Generally determined by the
pleadings filed by the party.
Defense
As to the justifying,
exempting, mitigating, and
absolutory circumstances
Burden of Evidence
Shifts from party to party depending upon the
exigencies of the case in the course of the trial
Generally determined by the developments of
the trial, or by the provisions of substantive law
or procedural rules which may relieve the party
from presenting evidence on the facts alleged.
(ex. Presumptions, judicial notice)
PRESUMPTIONS
Presumption, defined: An inference as to the existence or non-existence of
a fact which courts are permitted to draw from the proof of other facts.
Note: A presumption shifts the burden of going forward with the evidence.
It imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going
forward with evidence to meet or rebut the presumption.
Presumptions
The proponent still has to introduce
evidence of the basis of the presumption
(evidence of the existence and nonexistence of the facts from which the court
can draw the inference of the fact in issue
Classifications of Presumptions
Presumptions of Law
(praesumptiones juris)
Definition: A deduction which the
law expressly directs to be made
from particular facts.
A certain inference must be made
whenever the facts appear which
furnish the basis of the inference
Reduced to fixed rules and form
part of the system of jurisprudence
Presumptions of Fact
(praesumptiones hominis)
Definition: A deduction which reason draws
from facts proved without an express direction
from the law to that effect
Discretion is vested in the tribunal as to
drawing the inference.
Derived wholly and directly from the
circumstances of the particular case by means
of the common experience of mankind
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
44 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
45 | P a t i o , E r i c a
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
46 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
47 | P a t i o , E r i c a
(4) If a married person has been absent for 4 consecutive years, the
spouse present may:
- contract a subsequent marriage IF he or she has well-founded belief
that the absent spouse is already death.
In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death under the
circumstances hereinabove provided:
- an absence of only 2 years shall be sufficient for the purpose of
contracting a subsequent marriage.
However, in any case, before marrying again, the spouse present must:
- institute a summary proceedings as provided in the Family Code and
in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
- without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.
Ordinary But Continued Absence: (First 2 subpars) The absentee is
presumed to have died at the end of the said period
Qualified Absence: (In danger of death under the 3 instances contemplated)
The absentee is presumed to have died at the time he was exposed to such
danger or peril, at the start of the period.
Note: Distinction is important for successional rights
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was
conformable to the law or fact;
(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and
ordinary nature habits of life;
(z)That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartneship;
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have
entered into a lawful contract of marriage;
(bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman:
- who are capacitated to marry each other and
- who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife
w/out the benefit of marriage OR under void marriage,
has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
48 | P a t i o , E r i c a
(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property
to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him
- when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such
person or his successor in interest;
(dd) That IF the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another
marriage:
- within 300 days after such termination of the former marriage,
these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:
(1) A child born BEFORE 180 days after the solemnization of the
subsequent marriage:
- is considered to have been conceived during the former marriage,
- PROVIDED it be born within the 300 days after the termination of
the former marriage.
(2) A child born AFTER 180 days following the celebration of the
subsequent marriage:
- is considered to have been conceived during such marriage,
- even though it be born within the 300 days after the termination of
the former marriage.
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with
things of the nature;
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published
by public authority, was so printed or published;
(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting to contain reports of cases
adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is published, contains
correct reports of such cases;
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
49 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
50 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Notes:
Rules For Admissibility
- GR: The testimony of the witness must be given in open
- EXC: Such requirement may be supplanted
o In civil cases, by depositions pursuant to and under the
limitations of Rules 23 and 24
o In criminal cases, by depositions or conditional
examinations, pursuant to Sec 12 to 15 Rule 119 and Rule
123, or by the records of the preliminary investigation
[RULE 132]
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Purpose: to enable the court to judge the credibility of the witness by the
witness manner of testifying, their intelligence, and appearance.
GR: Testimony of witnesses shall be given under oath or affirmation.
- Two fold object in requiring a witness to be sworn:
1. By affecting the conscience of the witness to compel him to
speak the truth;
2. If he willfully falsifies that truth, that he may be punished by
perjury.
- The right to have the witness sworn may be waived
o If a party fails to object to the taking of the testimony of a
witness without the administration of an oath, he will be deemed
to have waived his objection.
How Testimony of the Witness Should be Elicited
- By question of counsel
- The court may also propound questions either on the direct or crossexamination of the witness or suggest questions to counsel.
Note: The testimony of a witness cannot be considered self-serving if he is
subjected to cross-examination.
Questions propounded to a witness must:
1. Not be indefinite or uncertain;
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
51 | P a t i o , E r i c a
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Be relevant;
Not be argumentative;
Not 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;
Not be misleading;
Not to tend reputation of witness;
Not to be repetitions;
Not call for a narration.
Notes:
GR: A witness cannot refuse to answer questions material to the inquiry
even if it may tend to establish a claim against him
EXC: He may validly refuse to answer:
1. Under the right against self-incrimination (If it will subject him to
punishment for an offense)
- Available in civil, criminal and administrative cases
- May be with reference to the offense involved in the same case
where he is charged or in another case
Rationale against testimonial compulsion: The court may not extract from
the defendants own lips and against his will an admission of his guilt.
Limitation if a witness is a party in a civil action: Before the plaintiff can
compel the defendant to be a witness, the plaintiff must first prove that he has
submitted written interrogatories of the defendant.
Right of Self-Incrimination Distinguished
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
52 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Accused
Cannot be compelled to testify or produce
evidence even by subpoena or other
process or order of the court. He cannot
be required either for the prosecution, for
co-accused or even for himself.
Ordinary Witness
May be compelled to testify by
subpoena having only the right to
refuse to answer a particular
incriminating question at the time it
is put to him.
1.
2.
3.
4.
UPON the termination of the direct examination the witness may be crossexamined BY the adverse party
- as to many matters stated in the direct examination, or connected
therewith,
- with sufficient fullness and freedom
o to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias, or the reverse, and
o to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (8a)
Notes:
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
53 | P a t i o , E r i c a
When direct-examination may be stricken out for lack of crossexamination: Depends on who is at fault:
- IF it is on the party presenting the witness it may be expunged
- IF it is on the adverse party: There can be no forfeiture of direct
testimony.
Sec. 8. Re-cross-examination.
UPON the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse party may:
- re-cross-examine the witness
o on matters stated in his re-direct examination, and also
o on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its
discretion. (13)
Leading Question, defined: One which suggests to the witness the answer
desired.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
54 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Notes:
GR: One who voluntarily offers a witness testimony is bound by such (i.e.
cannot impeach or contradict),
EXCEPTIONS:
1. In case of a hostile witness or an unwilling witness
2. Where the witness is an adverse party or the representative of a
juridical person which is the adverse party or
3. When the witness required is NOT voluntarily offered but is required
by law to be presented (ex. Subscribing witness to the will)
A Party Can Impeach a Witness of the Adverse Party BY:
1. Contradictory evidence from testimony in same case
2. Evidence of prior inconsistent statement
3. Evidence of bad character and
4. Evidence of bias, interest, prejudice or incompetence
5. Evidence of mental, sensory derangement or defect
6. Evidence of conviction of an offense which affects credibility of
witness. (People v. Givera 349 SCRA 573 (2001)
Other Modes of Impeaching Aside From Sec 11
1. By involving him during Cross-E in contradiction
2. By showing the impossibility or improbability 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: Impeachment is LIMITED to bad reputation for lack of veracity and
NOT for lack of morals
Rehabilitation of Witnesses: An impeached witness may be allowed on
redirect to attempt to rehabilitate (to restore the witness credibility) by the
party who called the witness to the stand
Note: An impeached witness does not stricken his testimony
Sec. 12. Party may not impeach his own witness.
EXCEPT with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of
Section 10:
- the party producing a witness is NOT allowed to impeach his
credibility.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
55 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Notes:
Contradictory Evidence: Refers to other testimony of the same witness, or
other evidence presented by him in the same case
Prior Inconsistent Statement: Refers to statements oral or documentary,
made by the witness sought to be impeached on occasions other than trial in
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
56 | P a t i o , E r i c a
So, also, a witness may testify from such writing or record, though he
retain 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. (10a)
Notes:
Notes:
Application of the Power of Exclusion: Applies only to the witnesses and
not to the parties to a civil action.
Power Does NOT Apply:
- To Parties: They have a right to be present at the trial either by
themselves or their attorneys, as well as reasonable notice of the time
fixed thereof. Parties CANNOT be divested by an exclusion order.
- To an Accused in a Criminal Case: He has the right to be present
and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the
proceedings.
If the Witness Violates the Order of Exclusion: Court may:
- Bar him from testifying
- Give little weight to his testimony aside from his liability for
contempt
Note: It is within the power of the judge to refuse to order the exclusion of
the principal witness during the hearing of a criminal case
Sec. 16. When witness may refer to memorandum.
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
- at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew
that the same was correctly written or recorded;
but in such case:
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
57 | P a t i o , E r i c a
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
RP, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public:
- EXCEPT last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the RP, of private documents required by law to be
entered therein.
All other writings are private. (20a)
Notes:
Authentication, defined: The process of proving the due execution and
genuineness of the document
Sec. 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the
remainder, the remainder admissible.
Classes of Documents
- Public Documents: A document acknowledged before persons
authorized to administer oaths. Official Documents
o A document to be public must be an official written act of a
public officer
o A foreign decision purporting to be the written record of an
act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country is a
public writing.
- Private Documents: Includes commercial documents
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
58 | P a t i o , E r i c a
As to
Persons
Bound
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
59 | P a t i o , E r i c a
of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the
latter. (24a)
Notes:
Public documents are admissible w/o further proof of their due execution and
genuineness
Ratio:
- Necessity: practical impossibility of requiring the officials attendance as
a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions occurring in the
course of his duty
- Trustworthiness: There is a presumption of regularity, legality and
accuracy
Sec. 24. Proof of official record.
The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19,
when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced:
- by an official publication thereof or
- by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the
record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, IF the record is not kept in the RP, with:
- a certificate that such officer has the custody.
IF the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country:
- the certificate may be made BY a secretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by
any officer in the foreign service of the RP stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept, and
- authenticated by the seal of his office. (25a)
Whether the Record if Domestic or Foreign It may be Evidenced By:
1. An official publication
2. A copy thereof duly attested by the proper officers
Note: Absent the attestation of the proper officer, a mere copy of the foreign
document is not admissible as evidence to prove the foreign law.
Sec. 25. What attestation of copy must state.
Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of
evidence, the attestation must state, in substance:
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
60 | P a t i o , E r i c a
A written statement:
- signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his
deputy
- that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is
found to exist in the records of his office,
- accompanied by a certificate as above provided,
is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record
or entry. (29)
Ratio:
1. To enable others to use the record;
2. To prevent the serious risk of loss;
3. To prevent its exposure to wear and tear
Sec. 27. Public record of a private document.
An authorized public record of a private document may be proved:
- by the original record, or
- by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with
an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. (28a)
Note: If a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public record, its
record, its recordation or its incorporation into the public record becomes a
public document BUT that does NOT make the private writing itself a public
document so as to make it admissible w/o authentication.
Sec. 28. Proof of lack of record.
Every instrument:
- duly acknowledged or proved and
- certified as provided by law,
may be presented in evidence:
- without further proof,
- the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the
execution of the instrument or document involved. (31a)
Notes:
Notarial Document, defined: One which is duly acknowledged before a
notary public. (It is a public document)
- The notary must be duly authorized and must have notarized said
document in accordance with the Notarial Law.
Probative Value of a Notarial Document: It is evidence of the facts
expressed therein
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
61 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
62 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
63 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
64 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
65 | P a t i o , E r i c a
[RULE 133]
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
Sec 1.Preponderance of evidence, how determined.
In civil cases, the party having burden of proof:
- must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.
In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on
the issues involved lies, the court may consider:
- all the facts and circumstances of the case,
- the witnesses' manner of testifying,
- their intelligence,
- their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are
testifying,
- the nature of the facts to which they testify,
- the probability or improbability of their testimony,
- their interest or want of interest, and also
- their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear
upon the trial.
The court may also consider:
- the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily
with the greater number. (1a)
Sec. 2.Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Notes:
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
66 | P a t i o , E r i c a
2 Witnesses w/ Conflicting
Testimonies
The court shall adopt the
testimony which he believes
to be true
Bias, defined: That which motivates the disposition to see and report matters
as they are wished for rather than as they are
- It is present when a witnesses relation to the cause or to the parties
is such that he has an incentive to exaggerate or give false color to
his statements or to suppress or pervert the truth, or to state what is
false.
- Bias is NOT a factor: When the witnesses on both sides are equally
interested or biased, especially if there is no numerical
preponderance on either side.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
67 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
68 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Non-Payment of Taxes: Indicative of the fact that the claimant does not
believe himself to be the owner of the property.
Continuous Payment: Great weight in favor of ownership
Tax declarations: NOT conclusive evidence of ownership BUT if
accompanied by open, adverse and continued possession in the concept of an
owner they constitute evidence of great weight
On the Motive of the Accused in a Criminal Case
GR: Motive is immaterial and since it is not an element of a crime it need
not be proved
- Mere proof of motive, no matter how string, cannot sustain a
conviction if there is no other evidence establishing the guilt of the
accused
EXC: Evidence of motive is relevant or essential in the ff instances:
1. When the identity of the assailant is in question
2. To determine the voluntariness of the criminal act or the sanity of the
accused
3. To determine from which side the unlawful aggression commenced, as
where the accused invoked self-defense wherein unlawful aggression on
the part of his opponent is an essential element
4. To determine the specific nature of the crime committed (ex. When
murder is during a rebellion)
5. To determine whether a shooting was intentional or accidental
6. When the accused contends that he acted in defense of a stranger since
he must not have been motivated by revenge
7. When the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive and there is a doubt
whether a crime has been committed or whether the accused has
committed it.
8. When it is an element of the offense (ex. To show malice in libel)
Rule on Identification of Suspects: The Totality of Circumstances Test
- Such test utilizes the following factors
1. The witness opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the
crime
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
69 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Note: Not only prior and coetaneous actuations of the accused in relation to
the crime but also his acts or conduct after thereto can be considered as CE of
Guilt
Note: Motive becomes important when the evidence of the crime is purely
circumstantial
Sec. 5.Substantial evidence.
In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be
deemed established IF:
- it is supported by substantial evidence, or
- that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (n)
Note: Substantial Evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof as
required in ordinary civil cases, but:
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
70 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
71 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
72 | P a t i o , E r i c a