Qualification of Witnesses

* Witness
one who, being present, personally sees or
perceives a thing, a beholder, spectator or
eyewitness; one who testifies to what he has seen or
heard, or otherwise observed.
* Prosecution witness
- It is a person who is not an accused
and who is called to testify relating to a criminal case.
* State witness
It is one of two or more persons jointly
charged with the commission of a crime but who is
discharged with his consent so he that he can be a
witness for the state.
RULES:
1. All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
known their perception to others may be witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the
case, or conviction of a crime shall be a ground for
disqualification unless otherwise provided by law.
2. Exception: When a person is disqualified:
a. By reason of his mental condition or mental maturity;
b. Be reason of public policy;
c. By reason of confidential communication; or
d. When disqualified by law or these Rules.
SEC. 20: WITNESSES; THEIR
QUALIFICATIONS.
SEC. 20: WITNESSES; THEIR
QUALIFICATIONS.
WHEN DEAF MUTES ARE COMPETENT WITNESSES
a. where they can understand and appreciate the
sanctity of an oath;
b. can comprehend facts they are going to testify
on; and
c. can communicate their ideas through a qualified
interpreter.
SEC. 20: WITNESSES; THEIR
QUALIFICATIONS.
While an accused may voluntarily
take the witness stand to testify on his
behalf in a criminal case filed against
him and be cross examined thereby,
he cannot be compelled to be a
witness for the prosecution.
TYPES OF IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
GRANTED TO A WITNESS:
a. Transactional immunity A witness can no longer be
prosecuted for any offense whatsoever arising out of the
act or transaction.
b. Use-and-derivative-use immunity A witness is only
assured that his or her particular testimony and evidence
derived from it will not be used against him or her in a
subsequent prosecution.
QUALITIES OR ABILITIES A WITNESS
MUST POSSESS
a. to observe
b. to remember
c. to relate
d. to recognize a duty to tell the truth
SEC. 21: DISQUALIFICATION BY
REASON OF
MENTAL INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY.
Definition:
1. Voir Dire literally means to speak the truth.
2. Voir Dire Examination denotes the preliminary
examination under oath which the court may make
of one presented as a witness (or juror), where his
competence, interest, etc. is objected to.
SEC. 21: DISQUALIFICATION BY
REASON OF
MENTAL INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY.
RULES:
1. Generally, the following persons cannot be
witnesses:
a. Insane, unless his testimony is offered during a lucid interval;
b. Minor, subject to exceptions.
When the court subjects the witness to voir dire, the court reminds him or
her
about the consequences of the truth. When the court is satisfied that the
influence of fear or hope has been ruled out, then the confession of the
witness
can be deemed voluntary.
2. Test of Competency:
a. Sufficiency of understanding to appreciate
the nature and obligation of an oath,
b. Sufficiency of capacity to observe, and
c. Describes correctly the facts in regard to
which he is called to testify.
3. The Rule on Examination of a Child Witness; Presumption of
Competency: Under the new Child Witness Rule, every child is
presumed qualified to be a witness. Only when substantial
doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive,
remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood or
appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court will the court,
motu proprio or on motion of a party, conduct a
competency examination of a child. The court mayappoint a
guardian ad litem to promote the childs best interest.
SEC. 22: DISQUALIFICATION BY
REASON OF MARRIAGE.
RULES:
1. Marital Disqualification Rule neither
husband nor wife may testify for or
against the other without the consent
of the other spouse during the
marriage.
2. Requisites:
a. Spouses are legally married, and
b. Either spouse must be a party to
the case.
3. Exceptions:
a. In a civil case by one against the other, or
b. In a criminal case for a crime committed
by one against the other.
The right to invoke this disqualification
belongs to the spouse-party, therefore, he or
she alone can claim or waive it.
SEC. 23: DISQUALIFICATION BY
REASON OF
DEATH OR INSANITY OF ADVERSE
PARTY.
1. Dead Mans Statute or Survivor Disqualification Rule provides that
if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by
death, insanity or other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not
entitled to undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and
unexplained account of the transaction.
To guard against the temptation to give false testimony
on the part of the surviving party, and put the parties to the suit upon
the terms of equality in regard to opportunity to produce evidence.
Purpose:
a rule of law that, to protect a particular
relationship or interest, either permits a
witness to refrain from giving testimony he
otherwise could be compelled to give, or
permits someone, usually one of the
parties, to prevent the witness from
revealing certain information.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE
A. Marital Privilege Rule/Spousal Immunity
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE
1) Requisites:
(a) That the spouses must have been legally married;
(b) That the privilege is claimed, with regard to
communication, oral or written, made during the marriage;
(c) That said communication was made confidentially; and
(d) That the action or proceedings where the privilege is
claimed is not by one spouse against the other.
2) Exemptions:
(a) In a civil case instituted by one against the
other, and
(b) In a criminal case for a crime committed by
one against the other.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE
B. Attorney-Client Privilege Rule
Requisites:
a) There must be a relation of attorney and client,
b) Communication by client to attorney, or advice
given thereon by the latter to the former; and
c) Communication or advice must have been
made to the attorney in the course of or with a view
to professional employment.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE
C. Physician-Patient Privilege Rule
Requisites:
a) The action in which the advice or treatment given or any Information is
to be used is a civil case;
b) The relation of physician and patient existed between the person
claiming the privilege or his legal representative and the physician;
c) The advice or treatment given by him or any information was acquired
by the physician while professionally attending the patient;
d) The information was necessary for the performance of his professional
duty; and
The disclosure of the information would tend to blacken the reputation
of the patient.
Persons Disqualified in the Rule
a) Any person authorized to practice medicine,
surgery, or obstetrics
b) Dentists
c) Pharmacists
d) Nurses
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE
D. Priest-Penitent Privilege Rule
Requisites:
a) The minister or priest must be so according to
the sect or denomination to which he belongs;
b) the communication is made to him in his
professional capacity or character; and
c) it is made in the course of discipline enjoined by
the rules or practices of his sect or denomination.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE
E. Privileged Communication to Public Officer
Requisites:
a) The communication must have been
made to a public officer;
b) The communication was made in
official confidence; and
c) Public interest would suffer by the
disclosure of the communication.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE
F. Other Privilege Matters
1) Bank deposits, except: upon written permission of the
depositor, in cases of impeachment, upon order of
competent court in cases of bribery, dereliction of duty of
public officials, in cases where the money deposited is the
subject matter of litigation and, in cases of unexplained
wealth.
2) Sources of information by newspaperman
3) Informers
4) Trade secrets
MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE VS.
MARITAL PRIVILEGE RULE
Marital Disqualification Privileged Communication
1. Prohibits adverse testimony 1. Prohibits only as to
knowledge obtained through
confidence of the marital
relation
2. Exists only when a party to
the action is the husband or
wife
2. Exists whether the husband
or wife is a party to the action
or not
3. Ceases upon the death of
either spouse
3. Continues even after the
termination of the marriage
TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
1. Admission is a voluntary
acknowledgement of some fact or
circumstance which tends to establish the
ultimate fact in issue in a civil case or of the
guilt of an accused.
Form of Admission
1) Judicial, in which case it is conclusive.
2) Extrajudicial, in which case it is rebuttable.
2. Evidentiary Admission When the term
admission is used without any qualifying
adjective, the customary meaning is an
evidentiary admission, that is, words in
oral or written form or conduct of a party
or a representative offered in evidence
against a party.
3. Judicial Admission refers to an
admission, verbal or written, made by a
party in the course of the proceedings in
the same case, which does not require
proof. The admissions may be
contradicted only by showing that it was
made through palpable mistake or that
no such admission was made.
SEC. 26: ADMISSION OF A PARTY.
1. The act, declaration or omission of a party
as to a relevant fact may be given in
evidence against him.
2. Self-serving declarations, which are unsworn
statements made by the declarant out of
court and which are favorable to his interest
are not admissible.
SEC. 27: OFFER OF COMPROMISE
NOT ADMISSIBLE.
Definition:
1. Compromise an agreement made between two or
more parties as a settlement of matters in dispute.
2. Privies denotes the idea of succession not only by
right of heirship and testamentary legacy, but also that
of succession by singular title, derived from acts inter
vivos, as by assignment, subrogation or purchase in
fact any act whereby the successor is substituted in the
place of the predecessor in interest.
SEC. 27: OFFER OF COMPROMISE
NOT ADMISSIBLE.
Compromise in Criminal Cases:
In criminal cases, except those involving
quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those
allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of
compromise by the accused may be received
in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
SEC. 27: OFFER OF COMPROMISE
NOT ADMISSIBLE.
Criminal Cases Where Compromise Allowed
a. Violation of the NIRC (Tax Code)
b. Quasi-offenses under Art. 365, RPC
The Good Samaritan Rule: An offer to pay or the
payment of medical, hospital or other
expenses occasioned by an injury is not
admissible in evidence as proof of civil or
criminal liability for the injury.
(SEC. 28)THE RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA RULE
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act, declaration, or omission of another.
It is based from the maxim res inter alios acta alteri
nocere non debet (things done between strangers
ought not to injure those who are not parties to it)
It is well-settled that a party is not bound by any
agreement of which he has no knowledge and to which
he has not given his consent and that his rights cannot be
prejudiced by the declaration, act or omission of another,
except by virtue of a particular relation between them.
(SEC. 28)THE RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA RULE
Exceptions
Admissions made:
a. By a co-partner or agent (Sec. 29)
b. By a conspirator (Sec. 30)
c. By privies (Sec. 31)
d. By Silence (Sec. 32)
Sections 29, 30 and 31 are collectively classified as
vicarious admissions.
(SEC. 28)THE RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA RULE
Requisites of Admission by Co-Partner:
a. The partnership be previously proven by
evidence other than the admission itself.
b. The acts or declarations refer to a
matter within the scope of his authority.
c. The acts or declarations were made
during the existence of the partnership.
(SEC. 28)THE RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA RULE
Principle of Conditional Admissibility:
Inasmuch as it must often happen that the
admission of only one partner can be proved at
a time, declarations may be received where
the existence of a partnership is alleged without
proof of the partnership at that time. Here, as in
other cases, the order of the testimony is within
the discretion of the judge.
(SEC. 28)THE RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA RULE
Requisites of Admission by Agent:
a. The agency be previously proved by
evidence other than the admission
itself.
b. The admission refers to a matter
within the scope of his authority.
c. The admission was made during the
existence of the agency.
(SEC. 28)THE RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA RULE
Requisites of Admission by Joint Owner, Joint
Debtor, or other Person Jointly Interested with
the Party:
a. There exists a joint interest between the
joint owner, joint debtor or other person jointly
interested with the party and such party,
which joint interest must first be made to
appear by evidence other than the act or
declaration itself.
b. The act or declaration was made
while the interest was subsisting.
c. The act relates to the subject matter
of the joint interest for otherwise it
would be immaterial and irrelevant.
(SEC. 28)THE RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA RULE
Requisites of Admission by coconspirator:
a. The conspiracy be first proved
be evidence other than the
admission itself.
b. The admission relates to the
common object.
c. It has been made while the
declarant was engage
(SEC. 28)THE RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA RULE
The Principle of Implied Conspiracy:
Conspiracy may be justified by circumstantial
evidence, that is, their community of purpose and
their unity of design in the contemporaneous or
simultaneous performance of the act of assaulting
the deceased. Although the intent may be classified
as instantaneous, it sprung from the turn of events,
thereby uniting the criminal design of the slayer
immediately before the commission of the offense.
Principle of Adoption:
Where one joins a conspiracy after its
formation and actively participates in it,
he adopts the previous acts and
declarations of his fellow conspirators, so
that such acts and declarations, although
done or made before he joined the
conspiracy are admissible against him.
Interlocking confessions:
Where several extrajudicial confessions had been
made by several persons charged with the same
offense and without the possibility of collusion among
them, the fact that the statements are in all respects
identical is confirmatory of the confessions of the
codefendants and are admissible against other
persons implicated therein. This is an exception to the
hearsay and res inter alios acta rule.
(SEC. 28)THE RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA RULE
Extrajudicial confession is binding only
against the confessant, except:
a. If the co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or
adopted said confession by not questioning its
truthfulness;
b. In cases of interlocking confession
corroborated by other evidence;
c. Where the accused admitted the facts stated
by the confessant after being apprised of such
confession;
d. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the
crime which was confessed by one of the
accused and said confession is used only as a
corroborating evidence;
e. Where the confession is used as circumstantial
evidence to show the probability of participation
by the coconspirators;
f. Where the confessant testified for his co-
defendant;
g. Where the co-conspirators extrajudicial
confession is corroborated by
otherevidence.
(SEC. 28)THE RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA RULE
Admission by Privies:
Where one derives title to
property from another, the act,
declaration, or omission of the latter,
while holding the title, in relation to
the property, is evidence against the
former.
Admission by Silence.
Basis: The maxim Qui tacet consentire
videtur (he who is silent appears to
consent) is received on the theory that
the failure to deny what is asserted in
the presence of a party is an implied
admission of the truth of the statement.
Admission by Silence.
(SEC. 28)THE RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA RULE
Requisites:
1) Hearing and understanding of the statement by the party,
2) Opportunity and necessity of denying the statements,
3) Statement must refer to a matter affecting his right or
interest,
4) Facts were within his knowledge, and
5) Facts admitted or the inference to be drawn from his
silence would be material to the issue.
PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE
SEC. 34: SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE.
1. 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.
It is well-settled that evidence is not admissible
which shows, or tends to show, that the accused in a
criminal case has committed a crime wholly
independent from the offense for which he is on trial.
A man may be a notorious criminal, and may
have committed many crimes and still be innocent of
the crime charged on trial.