1. Pursuant to Rule 18 Sec. 6 of The Rules of Civil Procedure and A.M. No.

03-1-09-SC on
"Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of
Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures," Pre-Trial Brief must be submitted at
least three (3) days before the pre-trial and must contain the following:

1) A statement of their willingness to enter into an amicable settlement indicating the

desired terms thereof or to submit the case to any of the alternative modes of dispute
resolution;

2) A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;

3) The issues to be tried or resolved;

4) The documents or exhibits to be presented, stating the purpose thereof. (No evidence
shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial in support of a party's
evidence-in-chief other than those that had been earlier identified and pre-marked during
the pre-trial, except if allowed by the court for good cause shown);

5) A manifestation of their having availed or their intention to avail themselves of

discovery procedures or referral to commissioners; and

6) The number and names of the witnesses, the substance of their testimonies, and the
approximate number of hours that will be required by the parties for the presentation of
their respective witnesses.

2. RULE 27

Production or Inspection of Documents or Things

Section 1. Motion for production or inspection; order. — Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor,
the court in which an action is pending may (a) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying
or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts,
letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to
any matter involved in the action and which are in his possession, custody or control, or (b) order any party to
permit entry upon designated land or other property in his possession or control for the purpose of inspecting,
measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any designated relevant object or operation thereon. The
order shall specify the time, place and manner of making the inspection and taking copies and photographs, and
may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just. (1a)

Case: AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. PENNSWELL, INC. G.R. No.

172835, December 13, 2007) We now take a look at Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules
of Court, which permits parties to inspect documents or things upon a showing of
good cause before the court in which an action is pending. Its entire provision reads:

SECTION 1. Motion for production or inspection order. Upon motion of any party
showing good cause therefore, the court in which an action is pending may (a) order
any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by
or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books,
accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged, which
 constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and
which are in his possession, custody or control; or (b) order any party to permit
entry upon designated land or other property in his possession or control for the
purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any
designated relevant object or operation thereon. The order shall specify the time,
place and manner of making the inspection and taking copies and photographs, and
may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just.

A more than cursory glance at the above text would show that the production
or inspection of documents or things as a mode of discovery sanctioned by the Rules
of Court may be availed of by any party upon a showing of good cause therefor
before the court in which an action is pending. The court may order any party: a) to
produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing of any designated
documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things,
which are not privileged;[25]which constitute or contain evidence material to any
matter involved in the action; and which are in his possession, custody or control; or
b) to permit entry upon designated land or other property in his possession or control
for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property
or any designated relevant object or operation thereon.

Rule 27 sets an unequivocal proviso that the documents, papers, books,

accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things that may be produced and
inspected shouldnot be privileged.[26] The documents must not be privileged against
disclosure.[27] On the ground of public policy, the rules providing for production and
inspection of books and papers do not authorize the production or inspection of
privileged matter; that is, books and papers which, because of their confidential and
privileged character, could not be received in evidence.[28] Such a condition is in
addition to the requisite that the items be specifically described, and must constitute
or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in
the partys possession, custody or control.

Section 24[29] of Rule 130 draws the types of disqualification by reason of

privileged communication, to wit: (a) communication between husband and wife;
(b) communication between attorney and client; (c) communication between
physician and patient; (d) communication between priest and penitent; and (e) public
officers and public interest. There are, however, other privileged matters that are
not mentioned by Rule 130. Among them are the following: (a) editors may not be
compelled to disclose the source of published news; (b) voters may not be compelled
to disclose for whom they voted; (c) trade secrets; (d) information contained in tax
census returns; and (d) bank deposits.
RULE 130 of Revised Rules on Evidence, Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. —
The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:

(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the
other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a
civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or
the latter's direct descendants or ascendants;

(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the
client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor
can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity;

(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent
of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may
have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to
enable him to act in capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient;

(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to
any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline
enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs;

(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to communications made
to him in official confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. (21a)

3. Same as #2
4. 7. Opinion Rule

Section 48. General rule. — The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as indicated in the following
sections. (42)

Section 49. Opinion of expert witness. — The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge,
skill, experience or training which he shown to posses, may be received in evidence. (43a)

Section 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. — The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may
be received in evidence regarding —

(a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;

(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and

(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.

The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a
person. (44a)
 The factual witness is an individual who is knowledgeable towards the facts of
the case through a direct participation or observation of the intricacies involved.
For example in a murder case, a factual witness would be an observer of the
actual murder or an acquaintance of the individuals involved in the case. The
factual witness simply delivers truthful statements regarding the character of
those involved or an account of what they saw take place.

In contrast, an expert witness is an individual who holds a specialized knowledge

in a particular educational field concerning the case. For example, an expert
witness can be a doctor who is well-versed in a particular field of medicine. As an
expert witness the individual will use his or her advanced knowledge of a
particular subject to elucidate on a piece of information regarding the trial to
facilitate an appropriate verdict.

5. Case: PEOPLE v. PRECIADOS G.R. No. 122934, January 5, 2001

On the second issue, appellant submits that the trial court erred when it admitted and gave
much weight to the probative value of theante mortem statement of Antonio.[61] Appellant
contends that the statement can neither be considered as dying declaration under Rule 130,
Sec. 37[62] nor part of the res gestae under Rule 130, Section 42[63] of the Rules of Court. It is
inadmissible for being hearsay.Furthermore, he avers it was error for the trial court to give
weight to the first affidavit of Antonio,[64] since Antonio repudiated the same, stating that its
contents were false. According to appellant, Antonio claimed said affidavit was given under
duress.
The Solicitor General, for its part, argues that Antonios actions during and immediately after
the incident were completely inconsistent with those of a person who allegedly wanted to
commit suicide. Hence, his retraction should be looked at with jaundiced eye, following our
ruling in People v. Junio, 237 SCRA 826 (1994), where we held that retractions are generally
unreliable and looked upon with considerable disfavor.
A dying declaration is the statement which refers to the cause and surrounding circumstances
of the declarants death, made under the consciousness of an impending death.[65] It is admissible
in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule[66] because of necessity and trustworthiness.
Necessity, because the declarants death makes it impossible for him to take the witness
stand[67] and trustworthiness, for when a person is at the point of death, every motive for
falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the
truth.[68] The requisites for the admissibility of a dying declaration are: (1) the death is imminent
and the declarant is conscious of that fact; (2) the declaration refers to the cause and
surrounding circumstances of such death; (3) the declaration relates to facts which the victim
is competent to testify; (4) the declarant thereafter dies; and (5) the declaration is offered in a
criminal case wherein the declarants death is the subject of inquiry.[69]
In the present case, the foregoing requisites were not met. A dying declaration is essentially
hearsay, because one person is testifying on what another person stated. This is because the
declarant can no longer be presented in court to identify the document or confirm the statement,
but more important, to be confronted with said statement by the accused and be cross-examined
on its contents.[70] It was patently incorrect for the trial court to have allowed prosecution
witness PO3 Leonardo Inoc to testify on Antonios so-called dying declaration because Antonio
was alive and later even testified in court.
But was the purported ante-mortem statement part of the res gestae? Where a victims
statement may not be admissible as an ante mortem declaration, it may nonetheless be
considered as part of the res gestae, if made immediately after a startling occurrence in relation
to the circumstances thereof and when the victim did not have time to contrive a
falsehood.[71] For res gestae to be allowed as an exception to the hearsay rule, the following
requisites must be satisfied: (1) that the principal act or res gestae be a startling occurrence;
(2) the statement is spontaneous or was made before the declarant had time to contrive or
devise, and the statement is made during the occurrence or immediately prior or subsequent
thereto; and (3) the statement made must concern the occurrence in question and its
immediately attending circumstances.[72]
In this case, the element of spontaneity is lacking in the alleged ante-mortem statement.
Antonios statement was taken by PO3 Inoc at around 3:00 oclock P.M., May 14, 1992 or some
thirty-nine (39) hours after the incident. Thirty-nine hours is too long a time to be
considered subsequent immediately (stress supplied) to the startling occurrence. Even as
contemplated by the rules, statements given a day after the incident in answer to questions
propounded by an investigator cannot be considered part of the res gestae.[73] Furthermore, the
testimony of the declarant, that the statement was made under threats and with coaching from
losing candidates Ermac and Viva in order to get even with the winning candidate, Mayor
Aana, is uncontroverted.[74]
Dying declarations and statements which form part of the res gestae are exceptions to the
hearsay rule, thus they must be strictly but reasonably construed and must extend only insofar
as their language fairly warrants.[75] Thus, doubts should be resolved in favor of applying the
hearsay rule, rather than the exceptions. Under said rule, Antonios so-called ante-
mortem statement should not have been admitted in evidence, for it is neither a dying
declaration nor a part of res gestae.

6. Previous Conduct as Evidence

Section 34. Similar acts as evidence. — Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not
admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time; but it may be received to
prove a specific intent or knowledge; identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like. (48a)

Where the credibility of a witness is an issue, the established rule is that

great respect is accorded to the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses
by the trial court. It is in the best position to determine the issue of
credibility of a witness, having heard his testimony and observed his
deportment and manner of testifying. [39] But, where there is a showing
that the trial court overlooked material and relevant facts, which could
affect the outcome of a case, [40] the Court will not hesitate to set aside
 the lower court’s findings and assessments regarding the credibility of
witnesses. chan robles virtual law library
In giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, the trial court explained:
The findings of the court relative to the credibility of the witnesses militate
in favor of the prosecution witnesses (citations omitted). The court took
into consideration ‘the most important factor(s) (of) each witness, his
manner and behavior on the witness stand and the general characteristics,
tone, tenor and inherent probability of his statement (citations omitted)’
for in most instances‘ the demeanor of a witness on the witness stand is
often a better evidence of his veracity than the answer he gives (citations
omitted)’ and ‘it is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a
witness with respect to other parts. Everytime when witnesses are found
to have deliberately falsified some material particulars it is not required
that the whole of their uncorroborated testimony be rejected but some
portions thereof deemed worthy of belief may be credited.(emphasis
ours). [41]

6. 2. Testimonial Privilege

Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. — No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other
direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. (20a)

Rule 130

Section 22. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MARRIAGE – During their marriage, neither the husband nor
the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by
one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct
descendants or ascendants

7. OFFER AND OBJECTION

Section 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider n.o evidence which has not been formally offered. The
purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (35)

Section 35. When to make offer. — As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the
witness is called to testify.

Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Such offer
shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. (n)

Section 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made.

Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the
grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.

An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of the unless a different period is
allowed by the court.

In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)
Section 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary. — When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the
examination of a witness that the question being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has
been made, whether such objection was sustained 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. (37a)

Section 38. Ruling. — The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made, unless the court
desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented; but the ruling shall always be made
during the trial and at such time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation
presented by the ruling.

The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. However, if the objection is based on two or
more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied
upon. (38a)

Section 39. Striking out answer. — Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the
opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and such objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall
sustain the objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the record.

On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise
improper. (n)

Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. — If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court,
the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror
may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the
proposed testimony. (n)

7. a ruling, based upon a U.S. Supreme Court decision in a 1966 case, that law-
enforcement officers must warn aperson taken into custody that he or she has the right to remain
silent and is entitled to legal counsel

8. An extension of the exclusionary rule established in Silverthorne Lumber

Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920). This doctrine holds that
evidence gathered with the assistance of illegally obtained information must
be excluded from trial. Thus, if an illegal interrogation leads to the discovery
of physical evidence, both the interrogation and the physical evidence may be
excluded, the interrogation because of the exclusionary rule, and the physical
evidence because it is the “fruit” of the illegal interrogation. This doctrine is
subject to three of important exceptions. The evidence will not be excluded (1)
if it was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity; (2) its
discovery was inevitable; or (3) if there is attenuation between the illegal
activity and the discovery of the evidence