Ate Ruby

Nelson
Mia
Erickvann
Diane
Manilyn
James
Rhea
Ceejay
Ryan
Domz
EVIDENCE

(Outline of Topics and Related Jurisprudence)

RULE 128:GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 1. Definition (memorize)

1.a) Factual vs. Legal issues
1.b) Judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative proceedings
 Ong Chia vs. Republic - Ate Ruby
 Sasan, Sr. vs. NLRC, GR No. 176240, Oct. 17, 2008 - Ate Ruby
1.c) Classification of Evidence
material evidence vs. relevant evidence
direct evidence vs. circumstantial evidence
competent evidence vs. incompetent evidence
primary/best evidence vs. secondary evidence
positive vs. negative evidence
expert evidence vs. ordinary evidence
cumulative vs. corroborative evidence
prima facie evidence vs. rebutting evidence
conclusive evidence
object evidence
documentary evidence
testimonial evidence
1.d) “Factum probandum” vs. “factum probans”
1.e) Construction of the Rules of Evidence
Quiambao vs. C.A., 454 SCRA 17 - Ate Ruby
 Barcenas vs. Tomas, 454 SCRA 593 - Ate Ruby
SSS Chemicals Corp. vs. C.A., Feb. 28, 2001 - Ate Ruby

Sec. 2. Scope
2.a) Evidence in Civil cases vs. evidence in criminal cases

Sec. 3. Admissibility of Evidence (memorize)

 PP vs. Valdez, 342 SCRA 25, Sept. 25, 2000 - Nelson
 Zulueta vs. CA, 253 SCRA 699 - Nelson
 Pp vs. Ador 432 SCRA 1, June 14, 2004 - Nelson
 Salcedo Ortanez vs. CA, 235 SCRA III, Aug. 4, 1994 - Nelson
R.A. No. 9372 (Exemption to the anti-wire tapping act, its requisites)
Bank Secrecy Law vs. Anti-Money Laundering Act
 Pentagon vs. CA, 591 SCRA 160 (2009) - Nelson
Types of Admissibility
1) Multiple Admissibility of Evidence
 Uniwide Sales vs. Titan Ikeda, G.R. No. 126619. Dec. 20, 2006 - Mia
2) Conditional Admissibility of Evidence
3) Curative Admissibility of Evidence

Sec. 4. Relevancy of Collateral Matters

Classification of Collateral Evidence
1) Prospectant or antecedent collateral matter
2) Concomitant collateral matter
3) Retrospectant collateral matter
 PP vs. Yatar, May 19, 2004 - Mia
Admissibility vs. Credibility

RULE 129:WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

Sec. 1. Mandatory Judicial Notice (memorize)
 Sienna Realty Corporation vs. Gal-lang (Whether the courts shall take
judicial notice of amendments of the Rules of Court) - Mia
 DENR vs. DENR Region 12 Court Employees, 409 SCRA 359 - Mia
 Mactan-Cebu International Airport vs. Heirs of MarcelinaSero, GR No.
174762, April 16, 2008 - Mia
 Suplico vs. NEDA, GR No. 178830, July 14, 2008 - Erickvann
 Candido vs. CA, 253 SCRA 78 - Erickvann
Sec. 2. Discretionary Judicial Notice (memorize)
 Expertravel and Tours, Inc vs. CA, 459 SCRA 147 - Erickvann
 People vs. Tundag, 342 SCRA 704 - Erickvann
 State Prosecutors vs. Muro, 236 SCRA 505 - Erickvann
 Landbank vs. Wycoco, 419 SCRA 67 (Judicial Notice vs. judicial
knowledge) - Diane
  Garcia vs. Garcia-Recio, 366 SCRA 437 (Doctrine of Processual
Presumption) - Diane
 Northwest Orient Airlines vs. CA, 241 SCRA 192 (do) - Diane
 Laureano vs. CA, 324 SCRA 266 (do) - Diane
 PCIB vs. Escolin, 56 SCRA 266 (do) - Diane
 City of Manila vs. Garcia, 19 SCRA 413 (Municipal Ordinances) -
Manilyn
 Republic vs. Court of Appeals 277 SCRA 633 (Court Records) -
Manilyn
 Tabuena vs. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 650 - Manilyn
 Jumamil vs. Café, GR No. 144570 - Manilyn
 Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 107 SCRA 504 (Post Office Practices) -
Manilyn
 Solidbank Corporation vs. Mindanao Ferroalloy Corporation, 464 SCRA
409 (Banking Practices) - James
 La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Assoc. vs. Ramos, 445 SCRA 1 (Financial Condition
of the Government) - James
Sec. 3. Judicial Notice, when hearing necessary:
 Landbank of the Philippines vs. Banal, GR No. 143276, July 20, 2004 -
James

Sec. 4. Judicial Admission:

Effects and consequences:
 Alfelor vs. Halasan, GR No. 165987, March 31, 2006 - James
 Arroyo Jr. vs. Taduran, 421 SCRA 423 - James
Requisites
 Camitan vs. Fidelity Insurance Corporation, GR No. 1636 - Rhea
 SpsBinarao Vs. Plus Builders, Inc. GR No. 154430, June 16, 2006 - Rhea
 Cuenco vs. Talisay Tourist Sports Complex, G.R. No. 174154, Oct. 17, 2008
- Rhea
 Spouses Santos vs. Spouses Lumbao, GR No. 169129, March 28, 2007-
Rhea
 Republic vs. Sarabia, 460 SCRA 142 (2005) - Rhea
 St. Mary’s Farm vs. Prima Real Property, 560 SCRA 704 (2008) -
Ceejay
 People vs. Abello, 582 SCRA 378, (2009) - Ceejay
 Vidar vs. People, 611 SCRA 216 (2010) - Ceejay
 People vs. Villanueva, 629 SCRA 720 (2010) - Ceejay
Averments in the pleadings which are not deemed admissions:
Read Sections 1, 8, 11, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court
 PNB vs. Refrigeration Industries, Inc. G.R. No. 156178, Jan. 20, 2006 -
Ceejay
 Ramos vs. Spouses Dizon, GR No. 137247, Aug. 7, 2006 - Ryan
  PP vs. Hernandez, GR No. 108028, July 30, 1998 - Ryan
 People vs. Hernandez, GR No. 108028, July 30, 1996 - Ryan
 Silot vs. Dela Rosa , GR No. 159240, Feb. 4, 2008 - Ryan
Sec. 2, Rule 118 of the Rule on Criminal Procedure
Judicial admission vs. extrajudicial admission (Sec. 26, Rule 132)

RULE 130: ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

A- OBJECT EVIDENCE
Section 1. Definition of Object Evidence (memorize)
Tests for admissibility:
a) Relevancy
 Tijing vs. CA, March 8, 2001 (facial similarity to prove kinship) - Ryan
 People vs. Rulepa, March 5, 2003 (appearance to establish age) - Domz
 People vs. Ulzoron, March 2, 1998 (absence of marks of physical violence)
- Domz
 Abalos vs. CA, Dec. 22, 1999 (absence of gun powder) - Domz
Read: Rule of DNA Evidence
b) Competency
Read: Art. III, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
“fruit of a poisonous tree doctrine”
Exceptions:
1) customs searches;
2) search of moving vehicles (Caballes vs. CA, 2002; - Domz
Mustang Lumber vs. CA, 257 SCRA 430); - Domz