Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
laintiffs counsel sent written A(. 4 cannot invo#e the privilege which
interrogatories to 3ly, as#ing whether belongs to the child. C may testify if he
statements of witnesses were obtained9 if want to although he may not be compelled
written, copies were to be furnished9 if oral, to do so.
the e1act provisions were to be set forth in
-riest.inister, -enitent -rivile(e
detail. 3ly refused to comply, arguing that
the documents and information as#ed are /TE
privileged communication. Is the
contention tenable& 31plain. $he privilege e1tends not only to a
confession made by the penitent but also
A: $he contention is not tenable. $he to any advice given by the minister or
documents and information sought to be priest. $he confession and the advice must
disclosed are not privileged. $hey are have been made or given pursuant to the
evidentiary matters which will eventually course of discipline of the denomination or
be disclosed during the trial. 4hat is sect to which the minister or priest
privileged under sec. (Hb of * +) is 'a- belongs. $hus, the minister or priest must
the communication made by the client to be duly ordained or consecrated by his
the attorney, or 'b- the advice given by the sect.
attorney, in the course of, or with the view
to professional employment. $he =ot every communication made to a
information sought is neither a minister or priest is privileged. $he
communication by the client to the communication must be made pursuant to
attorney nor is it an advice by the attorney confession of sins. As clearly provided in
to his client. the rule. $he advice given as a result of the
confession, must be made in the ministers
-h&sician, -atient -rivile(e processional character or in his spiritual
capacity. Accordingly, where the penitent
Bar $$%
discussed business arrangements with the
+: C is the child of the spouses 0 and 4. 0 priest, the privilege does not apply.
sued his wife for %udicial declaration of
-rivile(ed Communication under the
nullity of marriage under Art. of the <C.
rules on electronic evidence
In the trial, the following testified over the
ob%ection of 4: C 0 and D, a doctor of riv. Comm apply even to electronic
medicine who used to treat 4. *ule on 4"s evidence. Jnder sec. rule of the rules
ob%ection which are the ff: on e5evid, the confidential character of a
privileged communication is not lost solely
'C.+.-. D cannot testify against her
on the ground that it is in the form of an e5
because of the doctrine of privileged
document.
communication.
ther -rivile(ed Communication not the witness is incapacitated to spea#, or
#ound in the $ules o# Court the question calls for a different mode of
answer. =one of the e1ceptions apply to
,editors may not be allowed to disclose the the case under consideration. $he court
source of published news therefore, acted in e1cess of %urisdiction
amounting to lac# of %urisdiction when it
5voters may not be compelled to disclose
allowed the presentation of the affidavits
for whom they voted
without an oral e1amination of the witness.
5trade secrets
$i(hts and 'li(ations o# a itness
5info. contained in ta1 census returns9 and
Bar 200&
ban# deposits
Q: Jnder *epublic Act =o. 2K, one may
5under Art. ( abor Code information and
be charged with and found guilty of
statements made at conciliation
qualified rape if he #new on or before the
proceedings shall be treated as
commission of the crime that he is afflicted
confidential. AA, institutions covered by
with 0uman Immuno5Deficiency irus
the law and its officers and employees who
'0I-LAcquired Immune Deficiency
communicate suspicious transactions to
6yndrome 'AID6- or any other se1ually
AC are barred from disclosure the fact of
transmissible disease and the virus or
such report to other persons.
disease is transmitted to the victim.
E%amination o# itnesses
Jnder 6ection +B'a- of *epublic Act =o.
E%amination o# itness and $ecord 2K)H the court may compel the accused to
-roceedin(s submit himself to a blood test where blood
samples would be e1tracted from his veins
Bar $!% to determine whether he has 0I.
Q: After the accused himself had testified a- Are the rights of the accused to be
in his defense in a murder case, the trial presumed innocent of the crime
%udge over the ob%ection of the fiscal, charged, to privacy, and against
allowed the defense counsel to file and self5incrimination violated by such
merely submit the affidavits of the other compulsory testing& 31plain.
witnesses of the accused in lieu of their
direct testimony but sub%ect still to cross A: $he rights of the accused are not
e1amination by the prosecution. $he fiscal violated by such testing"s. $his is a settled
thus filed with the 6C a petition for rule. $here is no testimonial compulsion
certiorari and prohibition to nullify the involved by e1tracting blood from the
order of the trial court %udge allowing such accused for testing purposes. $here is
a procedure. hence, no violation of the right to privacy
and the right to be presumed innocent.
6hould said petition be granted&
Bar 200#
A: $he petition should be granted. $he
provisions of the *ules of Court require that Q. At the scene of a heinous crime, police
the e1amination of the witnesses shall be recovered a man"s shorts with blood stains
done in open court and their answers be and strands of hair. 6hortly afterwards, a
given orally, not in writing unless the warrant was issued and police arrested the
e1ceptions mentioned therein apply to with suspect. AA during his detention, a medical
tech e1tracted blood sample from his finger =!$3: if the witness is the accused, he may
and cut a strand from his hair, despite AA"s totally refuse to ta#e the stand. A mere
ob%ections witness cannot altogether refuse to ta#e
the stand. /efore he refuses to answer, he
During AA"s trial for rape and murder, the must wait for the incriminating question.
prosecution sought to introduce D=A
evidence against AA, based on forensic 3eadin( "uestions
matching of the materials found at the
crime scene and AA"s hair and blood Q: $he case is a collection case. $he
samples, AA"s counsel ob%ected, claiming defendant contends that the debt has been
that D=A evidence is inadmissible because paid. 0e calls a witness to testify to the
the materials ta#en from AA were in fact of payment.
violation of his constitutional right against
5while the plaintiff and the defendant were
self5incrimination as well as his right of
engaged in a conversation on the date and
privacy and personal integrity.
time you mentioned, did you see the
6hould the D=A evidence be admitted or defendant deliver K)# to the plaintiff&
not&
0ere, the question of ob%ectionable on the
A: $he D=A evidence should be admitted. ground that it is leading. 0ere the
$he right against self5incrimination applies e1aminer obviously wants the witness to
only to testimonial evidence. 31tracting directly testify that money was delivered
blood samples and cutting strands of hair by the defendant to the plaintiff in his
do not involve testimonial compulsion but presence. $he question could have been
purely mechanical acts which neither properly framed in this manner: “what
requires discretion or reasoning. have you observed if any, while the
plaintiff and the defendant were engaged
Bar $$% in a conversation”
Q: A was accused of having raped E. rule Q. $he fact situation is a robbery case. $he
on admissibility of the ff. pcs. !f evidence: accused claims innocence and that a
couple of hours after the alleged robbery,
- A pair of short pants allegedly left he is arrested by the police while in the
by A at the crime which the court, par# with his children. $he defense counsel
over the ob%ection of A, required calls the accused to the stand.
him to put on and when he did, it fit
him well. 5 4hat where you doing in the par#& I was
ta#ing a stroll with my two adolescent
A: $he pair of short pants may be children,
considered as circumstantial evidence
when ta#en with other circumstances. =o 5 4hile you were in the par# with your
valid ob%ection may be interposed over the children, the police officers arrived to
order of the court to put on the pair of arrest you, is that true.
pants. $he right against self5incrimination
does not apply to a physical and $he question is leading. It suggests
mechanical act. It applies only to the ne1t event which the witness should
testimonial compulsion which is not the testify to. $he atty. Could convert the
case under the facts. question into a non5leading one by ta#ing
the suggestive element our of the question.
$hus “What happened if any, while you and C0A$3*
your children were at the park?”
E*$)*6 EVI!E/CE
pinion Evidence
+7 4hat is the hearsay rule&
pen o# an rdinar& itness hen
*dmissi'le In relation to the hearsay rule, what do the
following rules of evidence have in
/ar ())K common&
Q: Dencio barged into the house of +. $he rule on statements that are part of
arcela, tied her to a chair and robbed her the res gestae9
of assorted pieces of %ewelry and money.
Dencio then brought Candida, arcela"s (. $he rule on dying declarations9
maid, to a bedroom where he raped her.
. $he rule on admissions against interest.
arcella could hear Candida crying and
pleading.M0uwag> Aawa #a sa a#in> A: +. 6ec. *.+)
After raping Candida, Dencio fled from the (. $hey are e1ceptions to the rule that
house with the loot. Candida then untied hearsay evidence is inadmissible. $hey are
arcela and rushed to the police station in other words, admissible hearsay
about a #ilometer away and told olice
!fficer *oberto aawa that Dencio had Bar 200#
barged into the house of arcela, tied the
latter to a chair and robbed her of her Q: Distinguish hearsay evidence and
%ewelry and money. Candida also related to opinion evidence
the police officer that despite her pleas,
A. 0earsay evidence is one that is not
Dencio had raped her. $he policeman
based on one"s personal perception
noticed that Candida was hysterical and on
but based on the #nowledge of
the verge of collapse. Dencio was charged
others to prove the truth of the
with robbery with rape. During the trial,
matter asserted in an out5of5court
Candida can no longer be located.
declaration 'sec*+)-
b- If the police officer will testify that
An opinion evidence is based n the
he noticed Candida to be hysterical
personal #nowledge or personal
and on the verge of collapse, would
conclusions of the witness based on
such testimony be considered as
his s#ill, training or e1perience 'sec.
opinion, hence, inadmissible&
H * +)-
31plain.
Independentl& $elevant )tatements
A: $he testimony would be admissible even
if it would be an opinion. $he opinion of an Bar 200'
ordinary witness is admissible when such
testimony refers to his impressions of the Q: $he prosecution presented in evidence a
emotion, behavior condition or appearance newspaper clipping of the report to the
of person. reporter who was present during the
presscon stating that E admitted the
robbery. Is the newspaper clipping
admissible against E&
55555555155555555o555555555555555o55555555551
A: $he newspaper clipping is admissible as may be considered as a dying declaration.
non5hearsay if offered for the purpose of Is the ruling correct&
showing that the statement of E was made
to a reporter regardless of the truth or A: $he ruling is correct. 4hile declaration of
falsity of the statement. $he admissibility Carlos is hearsay evidence, the declaration
depends now on whether the fact that the is admissible as a dying declaration and
statement was made is relevant to the hence, admissible as an e1ception. $he
case. It is relevant, it is admissible as an declaration of Carlos contains all the
independent relevant statement. It would elements of a during declaration 'should
be hearsay if offered to prove the truth that enumerate the elements-.
1 was the robber.
Bar $%&
=ote: $he statement of E to a reporter may
Q: <allen by a bullet upon being fired at,
be admitted as an admission under sec (.
6antos before e1piring told *omero, a
of *+). $his answer should also be
passerby who came to his rescue, “I was
considered by the e1aminer because it has
shot by ablo, our neighbor”
a clear legal basis.
ay *omero"s testimony o what was told
Bar $$
him by 6antos be offered and admitted in
Q: 4hat are the requisites to the evidence in the separate civil action for
admissibility of a dying declaration& damages brought by the heirs against
ablo Cru?& Discuss
6ee sec B of *ule +)
A: $he statement is admissible. A dying
Q: !ne evening at :)) %ust as he reached declaration, as in the facts in the case at
the gate of his house in Apas, Cebu city, bar, may be offered in a civil case provided
and as soon as he alighted from his car to that the cause and circumstances of the
open the gate, Carlos was shot by tito, who death of the declarant are the sub%ects of
had been waiting behind a coconut tree inquiry.
nearby, with a .2 caliber revolver, Carlos
was hit at the sternum of the second rib.
0earing the shot, arilyn, Carlos9 wife ran
$es 8estae
out toward the gate and found Carlos lying
on the ground, with blood splattered on his )pontaneous )tatement
chest. 4ith her son 7, she brought Carlos
to the Cebu Doctors 0ospital. In the car, Bar 200&
although he was in a semi)conscious state,
Carlos told arilyn that it was $ito who shot Q: Dencio barged into the house of
him. Carlos was brought to the 3*. arcela, tied her to a chair and robbed her
0owever, two hours later, he e1pired. $ito of assorted pieces of %ewelry and money.
was then charged with murder before the Dencio then brought Candida, arcela"s
*$C of Cebu. arilyn was presented as maid, to a bedroom where he raped her.
witness for the prosecution by her arcela could hear Candida crying and
testimony regarding the above statement pleading: 80uwag> aawa #a sa a#in>M
of Carlos was ob%ected to under the After raping Candida, Dencio fled from the
hearsay rule. $he court overruled the house with the loot. Candida then untied
ob%ection on the ground that the statement arcela and rushed to the police station
about a #ilometer away and told olice
!fficer *oberto aawa that Dencio had
barged into the house of arcela, tied the +: !ist: /urden of proof and burden of
latter to a chair and robbed her of her evidence
%ewelry and money. Candida also related to
the police officer that despite her pleas, A: /urden of proof is the obligation of a
Dencio had raped her. $he policeman party to present evidence on the facts in
noticed that Candida was hysterical and on issue necessary to establish his claim or
the verge of collapse. Dencio was charged defense by the amount of evidence
with robbery with rape. During the trial, required by law.
Candida can no longer be located.
/urden of evidence is the duty of a party to
a- If the prosecution presents olice go forward with the evidence to overthrow
!fficer *oberto aawa to testify on any prima facie presumption against him.
what Candida had told him, would
Bar $$&
such testimony of the policeman be
hearsay& 31plain. Q: 31plain the equipoise doctrine in the law
of evidence and cite its constitutional basis.
A: $he testimony would be hearsay if
offered to prove the truth of the statement A: $he equipoise doctrine is based on the
of Candida, but an admissible hearsay as principle that no one shall be deprived of
an e1ception to the hearsay rile. Jnder the life, liberty or property without due process
rules of court, statements made by a of law.
person while a startling occurrence are
ta#ing place or immediately proper or $he doctrine refers to a situation where the
subsequent thereto with respect to the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced
circumstances thereof, maybe given in or there is doubt on which side the
evidence as part of the res gestae. $he evidence preponderates. In this case the
statements made by Candida to the police decision should be against the party with
officer falls within the res gestae rule. the burden of proof. 0ence, where the
burden of proof is on the plaintiff and the
If the statement of Candida is offered evidence does not suggest that the scale of
merely to prove the tenor of the statement, %ustice should weigh in his favor the court
i.e. what Candida told the police officer should render a verdict for the defendant.
without regard to whether the statement is
true or not, it may be considered as an )u'stantial Evidence
independently relevant statement and this
not hearsay. Bar 200'