EVIDENC1

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS
Personal copy of ATTY. RENE CALLANTA, jr
EVIDENCE
SCOPE OF LAW ON EVIDENCE 1. Prescribes the manner of presenting evidence (Burden of Proof, rules 131-132); 2.Fixes the qualification and privilege of witnesses and the mode of examining them (Rule 132); 3.Determines among the probative matters, things which are logically and in their nature evidential, and what classes of things shall not be received. This excluding function of rules of exclusion is the chief characteristic of our law on evidence (Rules of Admissibility 128-130).
*** The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. [Section 2, Rule 128]
TWO PRINCIPAL PROBLEMS IN EVIDENCE: 1. How to determine which evidence is admissible; and 2. Having determined that the evidence is admissible, how to present that evidence in a manner that would make the court admit it once it is offered.
*** Plaintiff must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the defendants claim *** It becomes necessary to present evidence in a case when the pleadings filed present factual issues.
SOURCES OF THE RULES ON EVIDENCE: 1. Constitution 2. Rules of Court 3. Resolutions of the Supreme Court 4. Substantive and remedial statutes 5. Judicial decisions NO VESTED RIGHT IN RULES OF EVIDENCE: *** There is no vested right of property in rules of evidence. Hence, any evidence which is inadmissible according to the laws in force at the time the action occurred, but admissible according to laws in force at the time of the trial is receivable. > The reason is that the rules of evidence are merely methods for ascertaining facts. It must be supposed that change of law merely makes it more likely that the fact will be truly ascertained. EXCEPTIONS: 1. However, in criminal cases, if the alteration of the rules of evidence would, for instance, permit the reception of a lesser quantum of evidence than what the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict, then the retroactive application of such amendatory law would be unconstitutional for being ex post facto. 2. A constitutional provision sanctioning a rule of evidence cannot be altered by ordinary legislation, i.e.: a. The privilege against self-incrimination; b. The accuseds right to confrontation or cross-examination of witnesses; c. The rule for two witnesses in treason; d. The accuseds right to process for compelling the attendance of witnesses; and e. The right of testifying without regard to theological belief
3. Legislature has the power to alter or create the rules of evidence MAY THE RULES OF EVIDENCE BE WAIVED? GENERAL RULE: Yes. There are rules of evidence established merely for the protection of the parties. If according to the well-established doctrine, the parties may waive such rules during the trial of the case, there is no reason they cannot make the waive in a contract. EXCEPTION: No. If the rule of evidence waived by the parties has been established by law on grounds of public policy, the waiver is void, i.e., waiver of the privilege against the disclosure of state secrets.
Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

*** Admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence is determined in accordance with the law in force at the time the evidence is presented. Therefore, there is no vested right in rules of evidence. Evidence otherwise inadmissible under the law at the time the action accrued, may be received in evidence provided that it is admissible under the law in force during the trial.
Rule 128 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 1. Concept of Evidence EVIDENCE is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact
EVIDENCE VS. PROOF *** Proof is the effect or result of evidence while evidence is the medium of proof. *** When the requisite quantum of evidence of a particular fact has been duly admitted and given weight, the result is called the proof of such fact.
*** Every evidential question involves the relationship between the factum probans and the factum probandum. FACTUM PROBANDUM - the ultimate fact sought to be established. *** Ultimate fact (factum probandum)- principal, determinate and constitutive facts upon the existence of which the plaintiffs cause of action rests.
*** does not refer to the details of probative matter or particulars of evidence by which these material elements are to be established *** proposition to be established, necessarily hypothetical
It may be ascertained in: a) pleadings submitted by the parties b) pre-trial order c) issues which are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties. (Sec. 5, Rule 10) FACTUM PROBANS - the material evidencing the proposition. It is the fact by which the factum probandum is established. *** Evidentiary facts (factum probans) facts which are necessary for the determination of the ultimate facts
*** Premises upon which conclusions of ultimate facts are based. *** Brought forward as a reality to convince the tribunal that the factum probandum is also real
Factum probandum "ultimate facts" Proposition to be established Hypothetical
Factum probans "intermediate facts" Material evidencing the proposition Existent
WHAT DO THE RULES OF EVIDENCE DETERMINE? *** All rights and liabilities are dependent upon and arise out of facts. *** Every judicial proceeding, whatever, has for its purpose the ascertaining of some right or liability. *** In order to effect this result, provision must be made by law for the following objects: 1. First, the legal effect of particular classes of facts in establishing rights and liabilities must be determined. - substantive law or relief 2. Second, a course of procedure must be laid down which persons interested may apply the substantive law to particular cases. - remedial law or remedy

TWO BRANCHES OF LAW ON PROCEDURE 1. The law of pleading, which determines what in particular cases are the questions on dispute between the parties. 2. The law of evidence, which determines how the parties are to convince the court of the existence of that state of facts which, according to the provision of substantive law, would establish the existence of the right or liability which they allege to exist. Consequently the rules of evidence determine the following: [RPP] 1. The Relevancy of facts, or what sort of facts may be proved to establish the existence of the right, duty, or liability defined by substantive law. 2. The Proof of facts, that is, what sort of proof is to be given of those facts. 3. The Production of proof of relevant facts, that is, who is to give it and how it is to be given; and the effect of improper admission or rejection of evidence. DIFFERENCES IN RULES OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES AND CIVIL CASES: *** In civil proceedings, the parties attend by accord, while in criminal proceedings, the accused attends by compulsion. *** In civil proceedings, there is no presumption as to either party, while in criminal proceedings, the presumption of innocence attends the accused throughout the trial until the same has been overcome by prima facie evidence of his guilt. *** An offer of compromise in civil cases does not, as a general rule, amount to an admission of liability, whereas, in criminal cases, it is an implied admission of guilt. *** Preponderance of evidence in civil cases and proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: Depending on its ability to establish the fact in dispute, an evidence may be: 1. Direct evidenceevidence which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption. 2. Circumstantial evidencesuch evidence from which the existence of a particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence.
*** Circumstantial Evidence is established by simple deduction based on a reasonable inference from a series of facts or circumstances.
Depending on the degree of its value in establishing a disputed fact, an evidence may be: 1. Prima Facieevidence which suffices for the proof of a particular fact until contradicted and overcome by other evidence. 2. Cumulative evidenceevidence which is of the same kind and character as that already given and tends to prove the same proposition. 3. Corroborative evidenceevidence which is of a different kind and character as that already given and tends to prove the same proposition. 4. Conclusive evidenceevidence which is incontrovertible or the law does not allow it to be contradicted.

Depending on its weight and acceptability, an evidence may be: 1. Primary or best evidenceif it affords the greatest certainty of the fact in question. 2. Secondary evidenceevidence which is inferior to the primary evidence. Depending on its nature, an evidence may be: 1. Object evidenceif it is addressed to the senses of the court and is capable of being exhibited to examined or viewed by the court. Also known as autoptic proference. 2. Documentary evidenceevidence which consists of writings, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents. 3. Testimonial evidenceevidence which consists of the narration or deposition by one who has observed or has personal knowledge of that to which he is testifying. Depending on its quality, an evidence may be: 1. Relevant evidenceif it has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. 2. Admissible evidenceif is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by law or the Rules of Court. This is also known as Competent evidence. 3. Credible evidenceif it is not only admissible evidence but also believable and used by the court in deciding a case. POSITIVE VS. NEGATIVE EVIDENCE: > Evidence is positive when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur. > Evidence is negative when the witness states that he did not see or know the occurrence of a fact. > When a witness declares of his own knowledge that a fact did not take place, that is actually positive testimony since it is an affirmation of the truth of a negative fact. > Positive testimony is entitled to greater weight since the witness represents of his personal knowledge the presence or absence of a fact; whereas in negative testimony, there is a total disclaimer of personal knowledge, hence without any representation or disavowal that the fact in question could or could not have existed or happened. REBUTTAL AND SUR-REBUTTAL EVIDENCE: *** Rebuttal Evidence is that kind which is given to explain, repel, counteract or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party. It is also defined as evidence in denial of some affirmative case or fact which the adverse party has attempted to prove. *** Sur-rebuttal evidence is a reply to rebuttal testimony. When the plaintiff in rebuttal is permitted to introduce new matter, defendants should be permitted to introduce evidence in sur-rebuttal, and to decline to permit him to do so is error, especially when the evidence in sur-rebuttal is for the first time made competent by the evidence introduced by the plaintiff in rebuttal, but defendant should ask for the right to meet the new matter. EXPERT EVIDENCE: *** Expert evidence is the testimony of one possessing in regard to a particular subject or department of human activity, knowledge, not usually acquired by other persons.
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: *** Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

RELEVANT EVIDENCE VS. MATERIAL EVIDENCE: *** Relevant evidence is evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove any matter provable in an action. *** Evidence is relevant when it has a tendency in reason to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue. *** Material evidence is evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings. *** Materiality has been used interchangeably with relevancy. TEST OF RELEVANCY AND MATERIALITY: *** The rules of substantive law and of the pleadings are what determine immateriality *** To determine the relevancy of the evidence, the pleadings of the parties must first be looked to for the purpose of ascertaining the issue. *** The test of relevancy is the logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact in issue, i.e., whether the former tends to establish the probability or improbability of the latter. *** On the other hand, the materiality of evidence is determined by whether the fact it intends to provide is an issue or not. *** As to whether a fact is in issue or not is in turn determined by the substantive law, the pleadings, the pre-trial order and by the admissions or confessions on file. *** Consequently, evidence may be relevant but may be immaterial in the case. Section 2. Scope EXAMPLES OF INSTANCES WHERE RULES OF EVIDENCE DO NOT APPLY TO JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS: 1. Rules on Summary Procedure in civil actions; 2. In the Rules of Summary Procedure in criminal cases, where the witnesses submit their affidavits and counter-affidavits, subject only to cross-examination; 3. In agrarian cases; and 4. Rules regarding the testimony of witnesses fron examinations, etc., in cases under the MTC (where the parties merely submit their position papers and their witnesses affidavits and counteraffidavits. GENERAL RULE: The rules of evidence are applicable to both civil and criminal cases because the law does not distinguish. EXCEPTION: When the law specifically provides the procedure in receiving evidence. Section 3. Admissibility of Evidence *** The quality of the evidence presented by the parties in an action which can serve as the basis of the judgment of the court and determined by the concurrence of its competency and relevancy. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE: The evidence must be 1. RELEVENT - has a logical connection with the fact in issue. 2. COMPETENT - not excluded by the law or the rules. CREDIBILITY/WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE: > The degree of credit that the court in its discretion assigns to a particular evidence. *** An evidence may have a weight but it does not follow that it is admissible. *** Only admissible evidence can be given weight.

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE VS. WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE *** Objections to the admissibility of evidence which merely refer to the weight of the evidence should be overruled, for facts which have distinct probative value are not to be rejected merely because they are not, in themselves, convincing. Admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value. *** The admissibility of a particular item of evidence has to do with whether it meets the various facts by which its reliability is to be determined, so as to be considered with other evidence admitted in the case in arriving at a decision as to the truth. *** The weight has to do with the effect of evidence admitted, its tendency to convince and persuade.
*** The rules governing the admissibility of evidence are not concerned with the weight to be accorded the testimony or pertinent materials introduced. *** Although evidence may by itself, be admissible, the court may not admit or consider it in the resolution of the case UNLESS the evidence was properly presented. *** When the evidence offered is admissible, its probative value or weight to be given to it is a matter to be determined by the court when it decides the case
RELEVANCY AND COLLATERAL MATTERS: Collateral Matters matters other than the facts in issue and which are offered as a basis merely for inference as to the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue. KINDS OF COLLATERAL MATTERS: 1. Prospectant >Those preceeding of the fact in issue but pointing forward to it ex. Moral character, motive & conspiracy 2. Concomitant > Those accompanying the fact in issue and pointing to it ex. Alibi, opportunity & incompatibility 3. Retrospectant > Those succeeding the fact in issue but pointing backward to it ex. Flight, concealment & fingerprints *** Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence. [Section 4, Rule 128] *** Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. [Section 4, Rule 128] *** Not all collateral matters are prohibited by the Rules. Where the collateral matters are relevant to the fact in issue because they tend in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue, evidence of such collateral matters is admissible. What the rules prohibit is evidence of irrelevant collateral facts.
PRINCIPLES OF ADMISSIBILITY
2 AXIOMS OF ADMISSIBILITY: 1. Axiom of Relevancy -None but facts having rational probative value are admissible ; and 2. Axiom of Competency - All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rule forbids their admission.

KINDS OF ADMISSIBILITY: 1. MULTIPLE - evidence will be received if it satisfies all the requirements prescribed by law in order that it may be admissible for the purpose for which it is presented, even if it does not satisfy the other requisites for its admissibility for other purposes.
*** When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible in so far as it satisfies all rules applicable to it when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy some other rule which would be applicable to it offered for another purpose does not exclude it. *** When the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or all the purposes for which it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for its admissibility therefore.
2. CONDITIONAL - A fact offered in evidence may appear to be immaterial unless it is connected with other facts to be subsequently proved. In such case, evidence of that fact may be received on condition that the other facts be afterwards proved.
*** evidence is admissible only in dependence upon other facts. It is received on the express assurance of counsel, when objection is manifested, that other facts will be duly presented at a suitable opportunity before the case is closed. *** Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may be received on condition that the other facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence already given will be stricken out. *** When two or more evidentiary facts are connected under the issues that the relevancy of one depends upon another not yet evidenced, and the party is unable to introduce them both at the same time, the offering counsel may be required by the court, as a condition precedent: 1. to state the supposed connecting facts; and 2. to promise to evidence them later. *** If a promise thus made is not fulfilled, the court may strike out the evidence conditionally admitted if a motion is made by the opposite party.
3. CURATIVE - an improper evidence is offered and admitted by the court over the objection of the adverse party; in such case, the adverse party is likewise entitled to introduce a similar improper evidence to counteract that already given.
*** A party has the right to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by the adverse party. This is to prevent manifest injustice. *** What should determine the application of the rule of curative admissibility are: (1) Whether the incompetent evidence was seasonably objected to, and (2) whether, regardless of the objections vel non, the admission of such evidence will cause a plain and unfair prejudice to the party against whom it was admitted. Lack of objection to incompetent evidence constitutes waiver by the party against whom it is introduced but does not deprive the opposing party to his right to object to similar rebutting evidence. PRATS & CO. vs. PHOENIX INSURANCE CO. (52 PHIL 807) The practice of excluding evidence on doubtful objections to its materiality or technical objections to the form of the questions should be avoided. In a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of first instance, in the early stages of the development of the proof, to know with any certainty whether testimony is relevant or not; and where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the attorney offering the evidence, the court may as a rule safely accept the testimony upon the statement of the attorney, that the proof offered will be connected later. PEOPLE vs. YATCO. ETC., ET AL. (97 PHIL 940) Under the rule of multiple admissibility of evidence, even if an accuseds confession may not be competent as against his co-accused, being hearsay as to the latter, or to prove conspiracy between them without the conspiracy being established by other evidence, the confession is nevertheless, admissible as evidence of the declarants own guilt and should be admitted as such
WHEN ADMISSIBILITY DETERMINED: > The admissibility of evidence is determined at the time it is offered to the court. *** As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify. [Section 35, Rule 132]

*** Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a partys testimonial evidence. [Section 35, Rule 132] OBJECTION TO ADMISSIBILITY: *** Every objection to the admissibility of evidence shall be made at the time such evidence is offered, or as soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibility shall have become apparent otherwise the objection shall be considered waived.
RULE 129 WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

What do not need to be proved: [NAPITAS] 1) Matters of judicial notice 2) Judicial admissions 3) Facts presumed 4) Allegations in complaint or answer which are immaterial to the issue 5) Facts admitted or not denied in the answer, provided they have been sufficiently alleged 6) Those which are the subject of an agreed stipulation of facts between the parties, as well as judicial admissions made in the course of the proceedings 7) Technical admission when defendant fails to specifically deny the allegations of plaintiff
JUDICIAL NOTICE
Section 1. Judicial Notice *** Cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act without proof. They are based on considerations of expediency and convenience. it may be mandatory or discretionary. *** Matters of judicial notice have 3 requisites: 1) matter of common knowledge; 2) it must be authoritatively settled; 3) and known to be w/in the limits of jurisdiction of the court. *** Judicial notice is not equivalent to judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis of his action. Judicial notice cannot be taken of a statute before it becomes effective. A law not yet in force and hence still inexistent, cannot be of common knowledge capable of unquestionable demonstration. PURPOSE OF JUDICIAL NOTICE: > The object of judicial notice is to save time, labor and expense in securing and introducing evidence on matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute and are not actually bona fide disputed, and the tenor pf which can be safely be assumed from the tribunals general knowledge or from a slight search on its part. > Based upon convenience and expediency. EFFECT OF JUDICIAL NOTICE: *** The direct effect of judicial notice upon the burden of proving a fact is to relieve the parties from the necessity of introducing evidence to prove the fact noticed. > Judicial notice stands for proof. When MANDATORY: The facts pertain to: 1. the existence and territorial extent of states; 2. their political history, form of government, and symbols of nationality; 3. the law of nations; 4. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals; 5. the political constitution and history of the Philippines; 6. the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines; 7. the laws of nature; 8. the measure of time; and 9. the geographical divisions

THE LAW OF NATIONS - The law of nations which is the subject of judicial notice is the law which regulates the relations of the dominant powers of the earth. It is not a foreign municipal law which our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of but the compilation of rules which by common consent of mankind have been acquiesced in as law. *** The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court; judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters which are commonly known. JUDICIAL NOTICE: MANDATORY VS. DISCRETIONARY 1. M compelled to take judicial notice (shall) D not compelled (May) 2. M takes place at courts own initiative D courts initiative, or on request of a party 3. M no hearing D needs hearing and presentation of evidence DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE: matters which are 1. of public knowledge; or 2. capable of unquestionable demonstration; or 3. those that judges ought to know by reason of their judicial functions. MATTERS OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE: > A fact is said to be generally recognized or known when its existence or operation is accepted by the public without qualification or contention. *** The test is whether sufficient notoriety attaches to the fact involved as to make it proper to assume its existence without proof. MATTERS CAPABLE OF UNQUESTIONABLE DEMONSTRATION: > capable of immediate and accurate demonstration by resort to easily accessible resources of indisputable accuracy. Newspaper reports not subject to judicial notice Courts cannot take judicial notice of custom. Custom must be proved as a matter of fact. *** Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned. WHEN HEARING NECESSARY: *** During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon. *** After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. [Section 3, Rule 129] WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A HEARING? > A hearing may be necessary, not for the presentation of evidence, but to afford the parties reasonable opportunity to present information relevant to the propriety of taking such judicial notice or the tenor of the matter to be noticed. JUDICIAL NOTICE OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN OTHER PROCEEDINGS: *** As a general rule, courts should not take judicial notice of the evidence presented in other proceedings, even if these have been tried or are pending in the same, or have been heard and are actually pending before the same judge. This is especially true in criminal cases, where the accused has the constitutional right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. [People vs. Kulais, et. Al., G.R. No. 00901-08, July 16, 1998, 292 SCRA 551]

WHEN JUDGE MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF RECORDS OF ANOTHER CASE PREVIOUSLY TRIED: 1. When, either at the initiative of the judge or that of the parties, and without objection of any party, the record of the previous action are read and adopted into the present action. 2. When, without objection on the part of any party, the records of the previous case are actually withdrawn from the archives and attached to the records of the present action, by court order.
*** Courts are required to take judicial notice of the decisions of the appellate court, BUT not of the decisions of coordinate trial courts. *** the SC does not take judicial notice of proceedings in the various courts of justice in these islands
Occidental Land Transportation v CA *** As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice, in adjudication of cases pending before them, of the contents of the records of other cases. *** Exception > in the absence of objection, with the knowledge of the opposing party, or at the request or with the consent of the parties, records of previous case may be admitted as part of the present case. RULE ON MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES: 1. MTC > Should take judicial notice of municipal ordinance within their jurisdiction. 2. RTC > Will not take judicial notice. EXCEPT: > On appeal from a judgment of the MTC in any case where the MTC took judicial of such municipal ordinance. *** judicial notice not applicable to affidavits. *** Courts may take judicial notice of administrative regulations. RULE REGARDING FOREIGN LAW: *** Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. > They must be alleged and proven. DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION: *** In the absence of proof of a foreign law, the procedural presumption is that it is the same as the law of the forum. HOW TO PROVE A FOREIGN LAW 1) Official publication 2) Duly attested & authenticated copy JUDICIAL NOTICE VS. JUDICIAL ADMISSION AND STIPULATION OF FACTS
Judicial notice, judicial admission and stipulation of facts set forth facts and things which need not be proved for one reason or another. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them. It may either be mandatory or discretionary. An admission is any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him. A judicial admission is one made in connection with a judicial proceeding in which it is offered, while an extra judicial admission is any other admission. A stipulation of facts is one of the subjects of a pre-trial conference, either in civil or criminal cases, and where the parties to the case agree to a stipulation of facts to help clarify the issue and facilitate the speedy disposition of the case. These facts need no further proof during the trial and are deemed admitted insofar as the pre-trial agreement is reduced into writing and signed by the parties and their counsel. Stipulation of facts are also considered as judicial admissions considering that they were agreed upon during the course of the trial.
notice
10

ADMISSIONS
Section 4. Judicial Admission JUDICIAL ADMISSION--the admission made in the course of the proceedings in the same case by a party. (does not require proof). *** Judicial admissions are always conclusive upon the admitter and does not require formal offer as evidence, unlike in the case of extra-judicial admissions. Judicial Admissions May Be Made in: 1. the pleadings filed by the parties; 2. in the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or 3. in other stages of the judicial proceeding, as in the pre-trial of the case; 4. admissions obtained through depositions, written interrogatories or requests for admissions. *** To be considered a judicial admission, the admission must be made in the proceedings of the same case, otherwise, it is an extra judicial admission. *** It is not essential that an admission be contrary to the interest of a party at the time it was made, it is enough if it be inconsistent with the position which a party takes either in pleadings or at the trial. *** A judicial admission need not be offered in evidence, since it is not evidence. - it is superior to evidence and shall be considered by the court as established. *** An allegation not denied is considered not controverted and the silence of a pleader is usually treated as an admission against him for purposes of the action *** An admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and is conclusive upon him *** A judicial admission does not have to be proven, neither can it be contradicted by the party making the admission *** Judicial admissions made by counsel during the trial are binding and conclusive on his client *** Admissions made in a responsive pleading to claims that have been dismissed are not judicial notice, but they are merely extra-judicial admissions FORMS OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS: 1) Oral admission 2) Written admission EXAMPLES OF AN ORAL ADMISSION: 1. Verbal waiver of proof made in open court 2. A withdrawal of a contention 3. A disclosure made before the court 4. An admission made by a witness in the course of his testimony or deposition EXAMPLES OF WRITTEN ADMISSION: 1. Pleading 2. Bill of particulars 3. Stipulation of facts 4. Request for admission 5. A judicial admission confirmed in an affidavit used in a case.
IN CRIMINAL CASES: *** Admissions or stipulations made by the accused during the PRE-TRIAL cannot be used in evidence against him UNLESS reduced to writing and signed by him and his counsel. > BUT this rule does not apply to admissions made in the course of the trial.
11

Judicial admissions may be contradicted only when it is shown that: 1. it was made through palpable mistake; or 2. that no such admission was made.
Atillo v CA *** The general rule is that judicial admissions are conclusive upon the party making it and does not require proof. Exception to the rule is when there is palpable mistake or when no such admission was in fact made. Such means that the statement is not in the sense in which the admission is made to appear.
REMEDY OF A PARTY WHO GAVE A JUDICIAL ADMISSION: 1. In case of a written judicial admission > Motion to withdraw the pleadings, motion or other written instrument containing such admission stating that the same were made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made and pray that he be allowed to change/amend his answer. 2. In case of an oral judicial admission > The counsel in open court may move for the exclusion of such admission for being made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Judicial admissions in pleadings later amended In civil cases, an amended pleading becomes a judicial admission and the contents of the pleading it amends not included in the amended pleading becomes extrajudicial admissions which must be offered in evidence for it to be considered by the trial court. In criminal cases, the accuseds plea of guilty later withdrawn cannot be offered in evidence against the accused as it will not be in the interest of justice and fairplay to allow the accused to withdraw his plea and thereafter use this against him. A stipulation made during a criminal proceeding is tantamount to a judicial admission and need not be signed as required by R118, 4 to be binding on the accused. RULE ON UNFILLED PLEADING: > NOT a judicial admission. 1. If signed by the party: > considered as extra judicial admission. 2. If signed by the attorney > NOT admissible - An attorney has authority to make statements on behalf of his client only in open court or in a pleading actually filed. EXTRA JUDICIAL ADMISSION: > Extra judicial admissions are those made out of court or in a judicial proceeding other than the one under consideration. JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS VS. EXTRA JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS: *** Judicial admissions are conclusive upon the party making them, while extra judicial admissions or other admissions are, as a rule and where the elements of estoppel are not present, disputable. IS SELF-SERVING RULE APPLICABLE TO JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS? No. The self-serving rule which prohibits the admission of declaration of a witness in his favor applies only to extrajudicial admissions. If the declaration is made in open court such is raw evidence, it is not selfserving. It is admissible because the witness may be cross-examined on that matter. However, whether it will be credible or not, is a matter of appreciation on the part of the court.
BELL CARPETS INTL TRADING CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS (185 SCRA 35) The failure of a party to specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document in accordance with section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court gives rise to a judicial admission on his part of the genuineness and due execution of the instrument. Judicial admission of this sort do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have made through palpable
12

mistake. Thus, any evidence presented by the admitter, even without the admission by the adverse party, tending to contradict or otherwise negate or modify the judicial admission will be disregarded in the absence of a prior showing that the admission has been made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. COURT OF APPEALS (196 SCRA 94) Pleadings that have been amended disappear from the record, lose their status as pleadings and cease to be judicial admissions. While they may nonetheless be utilized against the pleader as extra-judicial admissions, they must, in order to have such effect, be formally offered in evidence. LUCIDO vs. CALUPITAN (27 Phil 148) An extrajudicial admission is not conclusive but disputable and must be formally offered in evidence before the court may consider the admission as evidence. Thus, when pleadings as well as the admissions contained therein disappear from the records as judicial admission which must have to be formally offered in evidence before the court may consider the admission as evidence.
Rule 130 RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY

OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
Sec. 1. Object (Real) Evidence that which is addressed directly to the sense of the court without the intervention of a witness, as by actual sight, hearing, taste, smell or touch. A.K.A autoptic proference.
*** Not a rule of exclusion thus other kinds of evidence may be presented even if there is an object evidence.
REQUISITES TO BE ADMISSIBLE (OBJECT EVIDENCE): 1. It must generally be marked as an exhibit 2. It must be identified as object evidence 3. Its purpose must be specified 4. It must have testimonial sponsor 5. It must be formally offered as object evidence
*** When the evidence is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be EXHIBITED, EXAMINED or VIEWED by the court.
REMEDIES when object evidence cannot be brought to court: 1. Ocular inspection or viewthe court can go to the place where the object is located. View part of the trial - The inspection or view outside the courtroom should be made in the presence of the parties or at least with previous notice to them in order that they may show the object to be viewed. Such inspection is a part of the trial, inasmuch as evidence is thereby being received. The parties are entitled to be present any stage of the trial, and consequently they are entitled to be at least notified of the time and place set for the view. 2. Actual representations authenticated or identified by testimonial evidence. Example, a photograph of dilapidated building identified by the photographer or by any other person who can testify to its exactness and accuracy. OCULAR INSPECTION: > Ocular inspection is discretionary on the part of the trial court. - to make the inspection himself or appoint a commissioner (land cases) INSTANCES WHEN OCULAR INSPECTION BE DENIED: 1. too expensive 2. viewing would only cause delay 3. viewing would serve no useful purpose
13

GROUNDS FOR EXCLUDING OBJECT EVIDENCE: INHERENT LIMITATIONS: 1) irrelevancy / immateriality 2) illegally obtained evidence NON-INHERENT LIMITATIONS: 1. Undue prejudice 2. Indecency or impropriety 3. Offensiveness to sensibilities 4. Inconvenience and unnecessary expense of litigation.
RULE ON EXPERIMENTS: > the court permits experiments to be performed in court or out of it, when said experiments are made under similar conditions and like circumstances to those existing in the case under inquiry for the purpose of proving facts in issue. *** Evidence as to the result of LIE DETECTOR TEST has been held not admissible in evidence. SISON vs. PEOPLE (250 SCRA 58) The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when presented in evidence must be identified by the photographer as to its production and testified as to the circumstances under which they were produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the original and its admissibility of determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time crime. The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can identify the picture he has taken. The correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of the object for trade can be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who has seen it or by other competent witnesses after which the court can admit it subject to the impeachment as to its accuracy.
WHEN COURT MAY REFUSE THE INTRODUCTION OF OBJECT EVIDENCE: 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 delays, inconvenience or unnecessary expenses out of proportion to the evidentiary value of such object. 3. When such object 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. When the testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the object in question as to render a view thereof unnecessary.
PRESENTATION OF REPULSIVE OR INDECENT EVIDENCE: > Even if the object is repulsive or indecent, if a view of the same is necessary in the interest of justice, such object evidence may still be exhibited, but the court may exclude the public from such view. Such view may not be refused if the indecent or immoral objects constitute the very basis for the criminal or civil action, as in the case of obscene pictures or exhibits.
DOCUMENTS AS OBJECT EVIDENCE: Documents are object evidence if the purpose is to prove 1. their existence or condition, or 2. the nature of the handwritings thereon, or 3. to determine the age of the paper used, or the blemishes or alterations thereon, as where falsification is alleged.
> They are considered documentary evidence, i.e., if the purpose is to establish the contents or tenor thereof.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sec.2. Documentary Evidence documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents
*** Before a private document may be received in evidence, its due execution & authenticity must be proved
14

REQUISITES TO BE ADMISSIBLE (DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE): 1. It must be generally be marked as an exhibit 2. It must be identified as documentary evidence 3. Its purpose must be specified 4. It must be authenticated or proving its genuineness and due execution 5. It must be formally offered as documentary evidence Production of documents under this rule distinguished RULE 130 Production is procured by mere notice to adverse party, and requirements for such notice must be complied with as a condition precedent for the subsequent evidence by the proponent Presupposes that the document to be produced is intended as evidence for the proponent who is presumed to have knowledge of its contents, secondary evidence thereof being available in case of its non-production and Under Rule 27 (modes of discovery), RULE 27 Production is by proper motion in the trial court, and is permitted only upon good cause shown (mode of discovery) Contemplates situation wherein document is either assumed to be favorable to the party in possession thereof OR that the party seeking its production is not sufficiently informed of the contents of the same
BEST EVIDENCE RULE

Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. General Rule: When the subject of an inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself.
*** Only applied to prove the CONTENTS of a document, NOT the TRUTH thereof *** If only the fact of execution/existence/surrounding circumstances only is involved, or when the event is memorialized and the writing is only incidental, the Rule does not apply. *** Merely assures presentation of the original document and bars non-original documents, etc.. BUT not evidence aliunde or parol evidence *** Refers only to the factum probandum but not to the interpretation of the document. *** Original must be presented first before evidence aliunde may be presented
*** The best evidence rule, applied to documentary evidence operates as a rule of exclusion, that is, secondary evidence cannot inceptively be introduced as the original writing itself must be produced in court, with four exceptions. The non-production of the original document, unless justified under the exceptions, gives rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence.
*** The rule does not apply to object evidence. Thus, in the case of object or real evidence, secondary evidence of the fact in issue may readily be introduced without having to account for the non-production of such primary evidence.
EXCEPTIONS TO BEST EVIDENCE RULE: a. Original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court without bad faith on the part of the offeror; b. When the original is in the custody of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice; c. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the only fact sought to be established is the general result of the whole; and
*** Fact sought to be established is only the general result of the whole > Submit a summary
d. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. > Submit certified true copy
15

PURPOSES: 1. TO PREVENT FRAUD--The purpose of the best evidence rule in requiring the production of the original document as the best evidence is THE PREVENTION OF FRAUD, because if a party is in possession of such evidence and withholds it, and seeks to substitute inferior evidence in its place, the presumption naturally arises that the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes which its production would expose and defeat. 2. TO EXCLUDE UNCERTAINTIES IN THE CONTENTS OF A DOCUMENTThe best evidence rule accepts the document itself as the best evidence of its contents, because it is certain; and rejects a copy thereof, because of the uncertainty of its contents caused by the hazards of faulty duplication, or an oral description thereof, because of the uncertainty caused by the frailties of human recollection. COLLATERAL FACTS RULE: > A document or writing which is merely collateral to the issue involved in the case on trial need not be produced. > Thus, where the purpose of presenting a document is not to prove its contents, but merely to give coherence to or to make intelligible, the testimony of the witness regarding a fact contemporaneous to the writing the original of the document need not be presented.
Contents of the document are not sought to be proven BUT are simply incidental to the fact being testified to.
GENERAL RULE: When there is no proof as to the authenticity of the writers signature appearing in a private document such private document must be excluded. EXCEPTION: 1. Ancient document 2. Acknowledged private writings 3. Documents admitted to have been executed by adverse party.
*** A party presenting a document must explain any alteration during the presentation of document, NOT afterwards.
THREE (3) CONCEPTS OF ORIGINAL UNDER THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE (Sec. 4) 1. One the contents of which is the subject of inquiry; 2. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about same time with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals; 3. When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction.
*** Not all notarial documents are public documents (only those which are acknowledged) *** The testimony of the notary & the parties who signed the lost document is the best evidence as to the correctness of a copy thereof RULE ON MESSAGES BY TELEGRAPH: 1. The original paper sent to a telegraph paper office is primary evidence of the messages sent as against the sender, BUT NOT of the message received at the place delivered. 2. The telegram delivered to the person addressed is primary evidence as against him of the communication received BUT ONLY secondary evidence of the message that was sent to him. BAPTISMAL AND MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE *** Baptismal and marriage certificate are considered only proof of the administration of the sacraments on the date specified therein. *** Baptismal certificate is not conclusive proof of filiation being hearsay. *** ACCOUNT BOOKS while considered as self serving evidence it may be admitted if proven to have prepared in the ordinary course of business.
*** The effect of non production of original document as best evidence, gives rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence. > HOWEVER, the justified refusal or failure of the adverse party to produce said original does not give rise to such presumption BUT only authorizes him to introduce secondary evidence thereto.
16

U.S. vs. GREGORIO (17 PHIL 522) In a criminal case for falsification of a document, it is indispensable that the judge have before him the document alleged to have been simulated, counterfeited or falsified in order that he may find, pursuant to the evidence produced at trial, whether or not the crime of falsification was actually committed. *** The rule on inadmissibility of forged document is not applicable when what is found to be false is the signature of a witnessing official. GOVT. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS vs. MARTINEZ (44 PHIL 817) While it is true that the record of any document in a public registry is a public document, yet before the record or a certified copy of the recital made in a public registry of the contents of a deed of sale may be admitted as evidence of the contents of the said deed, it is indispensable to establish first that said deed really existed and was duly executed and was lost; for while it may be true that said document was really presented to the registry, as stated in the entry or the books of the registry, yet the document actually presented may have been falsified or simulated, and may not have really been executed by the parties appearing thereon to have signed the same. And if it really existed, it should be presented unless it is proven to have been lost, in which case, and only then, may secondary evidence be introduced. ALFONSO VALLARTA vs. COURT OF APEALS (163 SCRA 587) Affidavits are not considered the best evidence, if the affiants are available as witnesses. The use of affidavits should be regulated by the hearsay rule (Rule 130, Rules of Court, Section 30) to safeguard every opportunity to cross-examine the affiants with regard to their contents and due execution. A signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document executed at the time as the original is known as a duplicate original and may be introduced in evidence without accounting for the non-production of the original. But an unsigned and uncertified document purporting to be a carbon copy is not competent evidence. It is because there is no public officer acknowledging the accuracy of the copy. The non-production by the accused of the original document, unless justified under the exceptions in Section 2, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, gives rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence (Rule 131, Section 5, Rules of Court) adverse to him (the accused). PEOPLE vs. TAN (105 PHIL 1242) When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of written paper so that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature of the party to be charged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being reproduced by the same stroke of pen which made the surface or expose impression, all of the sheets so written are regarded as duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in evidence as such without accounting for the non-productions of the others.
SECONDARY EVIDENCE
Section 5. When original document is unavailable. SECONDARY EVIDENCE - that which shows that better or primary evidence exists as to the proof of the fact in question.
*** It is that class of evidence which is relevant to the fact in issue, it being first shown that the primary evidence of the fact is not obtainable
In order that such secondary evidence may be admissible, there must be proof by satisfactory evidence of: 1. The due execution of the original; 2. Loss, destruction or unavailability of such original; and 3. Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to produce original.
*** It is not necessary to prove its loss beyond all possibility of mistake. > A reasonable probability of its loss is sufficient.
3 Kinds of Secondary Evidence that may be presented: in the following order 1) copy of the writing 2) recital of its contents in some authentic document 3) recollection of witnesses in the order stated If original is unavailable:
Order of proof (but can be changed at courts discretion): 1) Existence

2) Execution:
17

Established by: a. Person who executed it; b. The person before whom its execution was acknowledged c. Any person who was present and saw it executed, and recognized the signature; d. Any person to whom the parties to the instrument had previously confessed the execution thereof 3) Loss or Destruction If there are several original copies, all copies must be accounted for before secondary evidence may be received. 4) Contents *** In case of loss or destruction of the original document, the following are admissible after proving EXECUTION or EXISTENCE, CAUSE OF ITS UNAVAILABILITY without bad faith on the part of the offeror, and REASONABLE EFFORT: 1. a copy; 2. a recital of the contents in some authentic document; or 3. the testimony of witnesses. These secondary parole evidence should be presented in the order stated. *** The order does not apply where the law specifically provides for the class or quantum of secondary evidence to establish the contents of the document. (DEFINITE EVIDENTIARY RULE). What must be proven if original in possession of adverse party 1) Opponents possession of original 2) Reasonable notice to opponent to produce the original 3) Satisfactory proof of its existence 4) Failure or refusal of opponent to produce original in court By opponents failure to produce the document on demand, he is now forbidden to produce the document in order to contradict the other partys copy/evidence of its contents
*** Secondary evidence may also be presented when the original is in possession of a person living beyond the jurisdiction of the court.
EFFECT OF JUSTIFIED REFUSAL TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENT: > The justified refusal or failure of the adverse party to produce the document does not give rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence, or create an unfavorable inference against him. It only authorizes the introduction of secondary evidence.
VILLA REY TRANSIT INC. vs. FERRER (25 SCRA 845) It is not necessary to show that the original is in the actual possession of his adversary. It is enough that the circumstances are such as to indicate that the writing is in his possession or control. Neither is it required that the party entitled to the custody of the instrument should, on being notified to produce by, admit having it in his possession. Hence, secondary evidence is admissible where he denies having it in his possession. PEOPLE vs. TAN BOMPING (48 PHIL 877) The certified true copies of falsified documents were allowed because of the refusal of accused to produce the original in his possession. It would seem therefore that in this jurisdiction, even in criminal cases there must still be request for production of document even if it be in the possession of the accused and if he refuse to produce it invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination, then the secondary evidence may be produced.
EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS A PUBLIC RECORD: > When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. [Section 7, Rule 130]
*** Photographs of records which can be brought into court may also be received in evidence. Authentic document merely means that the document should be genuine. It need not be a public document
18

RULE: A party who calls for the production of a document & inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence
*** It is not until the party who demanded the production of the papers examines them & offers them in evidence that they assume the status of evidentiary matters U.S. vs. ONG SHIN (28 PHIL 242) It is universally accepted that when a secondary or incompetent evidence is presented and accepted without any objection on the part of the other party, the latter is bound thereby and the court is obliged to grant it the probative value it deserves.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

PAROL EVIDENCE is any evidence aliunde, whether oral or written, which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE *** Forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by testimony purporting to show that, at or before the signing, of the document, other or different terms were orally agreed upon by the parties GENERAL RULE: When the terms of an agreement have been reduced into writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon, and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement
*** Has nothing to do with the manner of proving agreements. *** Strangers or 3rd persons not bound *** The term agreement includes wills *** The PER renders oral evidence inadmissible to vary the terms of written instruments only when applied in suits between the parties or to their successors in interest. *** The existence of a separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a written contract is silent and which is not inconsistent with the terms may be proven by parol.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE: - when a party puts in issue in his pleadings: [FIVE] 1) Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement 2) Failure of the written agreement to express the true intent of the parties; 3) Validity of the written agreement; OR 4) Existence of other terms agreed upon subsequent to the execution of the written agreement
*** The exceptions must be put in issue either in the answer or the complaint before a party may present parole evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement
PRESUMPTION: > Whatever is not found in the writing must be understood to have been waived or abandoned. PURPOSE OF THE RULE: > To give stability to written agreements and remove the temptation and possibility of perjury, which would be afforded if parol evidence was admissible. *** The parol evidence rule is based upon the consideration that when the parties have reduced their agreement on a particular matter into writing, all their previous and contemporaneous agreements on the matter are merged therein, hence evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreements is generally not admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the operation of a valid instrument.
19

REQUISITES FOR APPLICABILITY OF PAROL EVIDENCE RULE: 1. There must be a valid contract; 2. The terms of the agreement must be reduced to writing; 3. The dispute is between parties and their successors in interest; and 4. There is dispute as to the terms of the agreement.
*** In order that parol evidence may be admissible, the exceptional situation, including the fact of a subsequent agreement, MUST BE PUT IN ISSUE in a pleading.
*** Rule applies only to INTEGRATED AGREEMENTS: > This rule prohibits parol evidence only where it is sought to be used to vary or contradict the terms of an integrated (finalized) written agreement. Thus, unless the written instrument was intended by both parties as the final and exclusive memorial of their dealings, the rule does not apply. PAROL EVIDENCE NOT APPLICABLE WHEN ONE PARTY IS NOT PRIVY TO DOCUMENT: *** The parol evidence rule does not apply, and may not properly be invoked by either party to the litigation against the other, where at least one party to the suit is not a party or privy of a party to the written instrument in question and does not base a claim or assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby. Thus, if one of the parties to the case is a complete stranger to the contract involved therein, he is not bound by this rule and can introduce extrinsic evidence against the efficacy of the writing.
VICTORIA LECHUGAS vs. COURT OF APPEALS (143 SCRA 335) The parol evidence rule does not apply, and may not properly be invoked by either party to the litigation against the other, where at least one of the parties to the suit is not party or a privy of a party to the written instrument in question and does not base a claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby.
THEORY OF INTEGRATION OF JURAL ACTS Under this theory, previous acts and contemporaneous transactions of the parties are deemed integrated and merged in the written instrument which they have executed. When the parties have reduced their agreement to writing, it is presumed that they have made the writing the ONLY REPOSITORY and MEMORIAL OF THE TRUTH, and whatever is not found in the writing must be understood to have been waived and abandoned. EXCEPTION: COLLATERAL ORAL AGREEMENT - A contract made prior to or contemporaneous with another agreement and IF ORAL and NOT INCONSISTENT with written contract IS ADMISSIBLE within the exception to parol evidence rule. An Agreement is COLLATERAL if it meets the following requirements: 1. it is not a part of the integrated written agreement in any way; 2. it is not inconsistent with the written agreement in any way, including both the express and implied provisions of the written agreement; and 3. it is not closely connected with the principal transaction as to form part and parcel thereof. The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply when COLLATERAL ORAL AGREEMENT refers to SEPARATE and DISTINCT SUBJECTS. REASON: The parties to a contract cannot be presumed to have embodied in a single writing all the agreements which they had on different subjects.
MACTAN CEBU INTL AIRPORT AUTHORITY V CA (263 SCRA 736) *** Where a parol contemporaneous agreement was the moving cause of the written contract, and it appears that the written contract was executed on the faith of the parol contract or representation, such evidence is admissible. Proof is admissible if any collateral parol agreement that is not consistent with the terms of the written contract although it may relate to the same subject matter. The rule excluding parol evidence to vary or contradict a writing does not extend so far as to preclude the admission of existing evidence to show prior or contemporaneous collateral parol agreements between the parties, but such evidence may be received regardless of WON the written agreement contains any reference to such collateral agreement and WON the action is at law or equity.
20

A Receipt or a Deed is not an exclusive memorial and facts contained therein may be shown irrespective of the terms of the document. Distinction must be made between statements of fact expressed in an instrument and the terms of the contractual act. The former may be varied by parol evidence. Parol Evidence Rule not applicable to strangers to the contract or to third parties Rules governing admissibility of parol evidence to explain ambiguity 1) where the instrument itself seems clear and certain on its face, and the ambiguity arises from some extrinsic or collateral matter, the ambiguity may be helped by parol evidence (latent ambiguity) 2) where the ambiguity consists in the use of equivocal words designing the person or subjectmatter, parol evidence of collateral or extrinsic matter may be introduced for the purpose of aiding the court in arriving at the meaning of the language used (intermediate ambiguity) 3) where the ambiguity is such that a perusal of the instrument shows plainly that something more must be added before the reader can determine what of several things is meant, the rule is inflexible that parol evidence cannot be admitted to supply the deficiency (patent ambiguity) Intrinsic or Latent Ambiguitywhen the writing on its face appears clear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters or circumstances which make the meaning uncertain. Example: if a devise in a will were made to Loi Velarde, sister of Joseph Velarde, an intrinsic ambiguity would exist if Loi Velarde is actually not the sister of Joseph Velardebut the wife of Joseph Velarede while his sisters name is Joy. Extrinsic or Patent Ambiguityambiguity is apparent on the face of the writing itself and requires something to be added in order to ascertain the meaning of the words used. Intermediate AmbiguityWhere the ambiguity consists in the use of equivocal words designating the person or subject matter, parol evidence of collateral or extrinsic matter may be introduced for the purpose of aiding the court in arriving at the meaning of the language used. INTRINSIC and INTERMEDIATE AMBIGUITIES are curable by evidence aliunde or extraneous evidence. PATENT AMBIGUITY is not cured by evidence aliunde. RULE: If the words of a document are so defective or ambiguous as to be UNMEANING, no evidence can be given to show what the author of the document intended to say.
*** Prior conversations and negotiations may be referred if the written contract is doubtful in meaning for purpose of interpreting it.
Under the Parol Evidence Rule, the evidence aliunde is either testimonial evidence or documentary evidence. Principle of Falsa Demonstratio non nocet cum de corpore constai > False description does not injure or vitiate a document, provided that the thing or person intended has once been sufficiently described. Elements of MISTAKE as a ground for REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENT: 1. the mistake should be of fact; 2. the mistake should be mutual or common to both parties to the instrument; and 3. the mistake should be alleged and proved by clear and convincing evidence. Rule on CONDITIONAL AGREEMENTS: 1. Rule on Conditions Precedent - Parol Evidence Allowed. Reason: there is no varying of the terms of the written contract by extrinsic agreement for the reason that there is no contract in existence; there is nothing to which to apply the excluding rule. Rule on Conditions Subsequent - Parol Evidence Not Allowed.
2.
21

Rule on SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS - Parol Evidence Allowed. The rule forbidding the admission of parol evidence to alter or contradict a written instrument does not apply so as to prohibit the establishment by parol evidence of an agreement between the parties in writing, entered into subsequent to the time when the written instrument was executed, notwithstanding such agreement may have the effect of changing the contract of the parties as evidenced by the writing; for parol evidence merely goes to show that the parties have exercised their right to change the same, or to make a new and independent contract, provided such contract is not invalid under the statute of frauds or otherwise. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEST EVIDENCE RULE AND PAROL EVIDENCE RULE Situation Best Evidence Rule Contemplates a situation when the original is not available in court and/or there is a dispute as to whether said writing is the original. Prohibits the introduction of substitutionary evidence in lieu of the original document regardless of whether or not it varies the contents of the original; Can be invoked by any party to an action regardless of whether such party participated or not in the writing involve. All kinds is is Secondary evidence; copies Only originals 1. Lost or destroyed; 2. in the possession of the adverse party; or 3. in the possession of a public officer 1. Existence 2. Execution 3. Loss 4. Contents *objection should be made ASAP 1. To compel litigants to present only the originals. 2. For the parties to always keep the originals Issue 1. Ambiguity; 2. Does not express the true intent of the parties; 3. Validity is in question; 4. Subsequent changes Exception must be put in issue in the complaint or answer ( as an affirmative defense) Parol Evidence Rule Presupposes that the original available in court; is
Limitation
Prohibits the varying of the terms of a written agreement;
When Used
Documents What excluded What included Exceptions
Can be invoked only when the controversy is between the parties to the written agreement, their privies, or any party directly affected thereby. Agreements, contracts, wills Any oral, written evidence to prove contents; prior/ contempora-neous with the contract
Procedure
Purpose
1. To preserve agreements 2. Draft the contract carefully
3. Go into the interpretation of the contents of the contract Contents of the writing No issue as to the contents of the writing Secondary evidence is offered The purpose of the offer of parol to prove the contents of a evidence is to change, vary, modify, writing which is not allowed qualify or contradict the terms of a unless the case falls under any complete written agreement which is of the exceptions not allowed unless the case falls under any of the exceptions
22

INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
Interpretation of Documents *** Construction is the process or the art of determining the sense, real meaning, or proper explanation of obscure or ambiguous terms or provisions in a statute, written instrument or oral agreement, or the application of such subject to the case in question *** Interpretation is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning of a statute, will, contract or other written document RULES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS a. legal meaning the writing bears in the place of its execution; b. all provisions must be given effect; c. intention of the parties must be pursued; d. a particular intent will control a general intent inconsistent with it; e. circumstances of execution may be shown; f. terms are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation; - but evidence is admissible to show an otherwise peculiar signification; g. written words control printed; h. experts & interpreters can be used to explain characters difficult to be deciphered or language not understood by the court; i. when terms were intended in different senses, that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it; j. when different constructions are otherwise equally proper, the one most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made will be taken; k. construction in favor of natural right; l. instrument may be construed according to usage *** The laws in force at the time the contract was made must govern its interpretation. > Prospective application GENERAL RULE:Contracts should be enforced as they are read. (LITERALLY) EXCEPTION: > Where the contract contains obscure words they shall be so interpreted as not to favor the party who caused the obscurity. *** Previous, simultaneous and subsequent acts of the parties are properly cognizable indicia of their true intention. *** Intention cannot prevail over the clear and express terms of the contract. *** In the construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. [Section 12, Rule 130] PECULIAR SIGNIFICATION OF TERMS: *** The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation but evidence us admissible to show that they have a local, technical, or otherwise, peculiar signification, and were so used and understood in the particular instance, in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly. [Section 14, Rule 130]
23

OF TWO CONSTRUCTIONS, WHICH PREFERRED *** when the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it, the sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it, and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made. [Section 17, Rule 130]
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
RULES ON TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE: 1. Qualification of witnesses 2. Testimonial privilege 3. Admissions and Confessions 4. Previous Conduct as Evidence 5. Testimonial Knowledge 6. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule 7. Opinion Rule 8. Character Evidence 3 ELEMENTS OF TESTIMONIAL ASSERTIONS 1. Observation 2. recollection 3. narration
QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. WHO MAY BE WITNESSESExcept as otherwise provided in the rules, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, and can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. *** In determining values & credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed not numbered. *** A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge, that is, which are derived from his own perception, with some exceptions. TEST OF COMPETENCY TO TESTIFY *** The witness will be deemed competent, if he has the ability to observe, recollect, and communicate the essentials about which he is called to testify with accuracy sufficient to make the narration correspond to the knowledge and the recollection.
PEOPLE vs. BERNARDO GONZALES (210 SCRA 44) It has been held that eyewitnesses are commonly naturally reluctant to get involved in criminal investigations; if these eyewitnesses do not come forward immediately without delay, the fact of delay should not, by itself, be considered as seriously affecting their credibility. Rather, credibility should be assessed independently, on the basis of the substance of the testimony offered and the surrounding circumstances.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the following shall not be a ground for disqualification: 1. Religious or political belief; 2. Interest in the outcome of the case; or 3. Conviction of a crime. PERJURY General rule: Persons who have been convicted of perjury are not excluded from being a witness Exception: They cannot be 1) state witnesses or 2) witnesses to a will Who cannot be witnesses? Those persons who, under the law, labor under: 1. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity; 2. Disqualification by reason of marriage; 3. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party; 4. Disqualification on ground of privileged communication.
24

2 WAYS OF EXCLUDING TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE 1. By way of objection 2. By a motion to strike out
DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MENTAL INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY

PERSONS DISQUALIFIED BY REASON OF MENTAL INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY: 1. Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making know their perception to others. 2. Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully. [Section 21, Rule 130] TEST OF COMPETENCY > Whether the individual has sufficient understanding to appreciate the nature and obligation of an oath and sufficient capacity to observe and describe the facts in regard to which he is called to testify. *** Competency of a witness is presumed. The objection to the competency may be raised at any time during the examination or cross-examination; but it should be made as soon as the facts tending to show incompetency are discovered. VOIR DIRE EXAMINATIONa preliminary examination conducted by the trial judge where the witness is duly sworn to answer as to his competency. INSANITY exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. > No power of discerned > Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability
*** Deaf mute is not by reason thereof an incompetent witness. *** A mental retardate is not, for this reason alone, disqualified from being a witness. *** Drunkennes, under the influence of drugs or under a hypnotic spell does not perse disqualify a witness from testifying
2 TESTS OF INSANITY 1. Cognition the complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act 2. Volition that there be total dprivation of freedom of the will
RULES on TIME OF INSANITY 1. At the time of trial incompetent 2. At time of transaction not incompetent but may affect credibility 3. At some other period no effect *** the point of inquiry is the moment of examination
WHEN QUALIFICATIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS SHOULD BE DETERMINED *** The qualifications and disqualifications of witnesses are determined as of the time the said witnesses are produced for examination in court or at the taking of their depositions. It is submitted however, that with respect to children of tender years, their competence at the time of the occurrence to be testified to should also be taken into account, especially is such event took place long before their production as witnesses. In the case of a child witness, the court in determining his competency must consider: 1. His capacity to distinguish right from wrong or to comprehend the obligation of an oath (CAPACITY OF OBERVATION); 2. His capacity at the time the fact to be testified to occurred such that he could receive correct impressions thereof (CAPACITY OF RECOLLECTION); and 3. His capacity to relate those facts truly to the court at the time he is offered as a witness (CAPACITY OF COMMUNICATION).
25

THE RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS (A.M. No. 00-4-07-SC): Effectivity: December 15, 2000 Unless otherwise provided, this Rule shall govern the examination of child witnesses who are victims of crime, accused of a crime, and witnesses to crime. It shall apply in all criminal proceedings and non-criminal proceedings involving child witnesses (Sec. 1) COMPETENCY under this rule - every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. However, the court shall conduct a competency examination of a child, motu proprio or on motion of a party, when it finds that 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 (Sec. 6). Examination of a child as to his competence shall be conducted only by the judge. Counsel for the parties, however, can submit questions to the judge that he may, in his discretion, ask the child (Sec.6(d)) Definitions: CHILD WITNESSis any person who at the time of giving testimony is below eighteen (18) years. In child abuse cases a child includes one over eighteen (18) years but is found by the court as unable to fully take care of himself or protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition (Sec. 4 (a)). CHILD ABUSEmeans physical, psychological, or sexual abuse, and criminal neglect as defined in Republic Act No.7610 and other related laws (Sec.4(b)). FACILITATORmeans a person appointed by the court to pose questions to a child (Sec. 4 (c)). The facilitator may be a child psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, guidance counselor, teacher, religious leader, parent or relative. SUPPORT PERSONis a person chosen by the child to accompany him to testify at or attend a judicial proceeding or deposition to provide emotional support for him (Sec. 4(f)). BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD > The totality of the circumstances and conditions as are most congenial to the survival, protection and feelings of security of the child and most encouraging to his physical, psychological and emotional development. It also means the least detrimental available alternative for safeguarding the growth and development of the child. *** The public may be excluded from the courtroom when they do not have a direct interest in the case. Such an order may be made to protect the right to privacy of the child or if the court determines on the record that requiring the child to testify in open court would cause psychological harm to him, hinder the ascertainment of truth, or result in his inability to effectively communicate due to embarrassment, fear, or timidity. In making its order, the court shall consider the developmental level of the child, the nature of the crime, the nature of his testimony regarding the crime, his relationship to the accused and to persons attending the trial, his desires, and the interests of his parents or legal guardian. The court may, motu proprio, exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during trial is of such character as to be offensive to decency and public morals. The court may also, on motion of the accused, exclude the public from trial, except court personnel and the counsel of the parties. SPECIAL FEATURES: 1. live-link television testimony in criminal cases where the child is a victim or a witness 2. screens, one way mirrors, and other devices may be used to shield the child from the accused 3. depositions of the child may be videotaped 4. the court may admit videotaped and audio-taped in-depth investigative or diclosure interviews in child abuse case. EXAMPLE OF LAW BARRING A PERSON FROM TESTIFYING: Art. 821 of the Civil Code:The following are disqualified from being witnesses to a will: 1. Any person not domiciled in the Philippines; 2. Those who have been convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony.
26

Section 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE *** 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 latters direct descendants or ascendants. *** In order that the marital disqualification rule will apply, it is necessary that the marriage is valid and existing as of the time of the offer of testimony, and that the other spouse is a party to the action. *** Prohibition applies only where the marriage is still subsisting > The moment the marriage has ceased to exist, the prohibition likewise ceases
ARROYO vs. AZUR (76 PHIL 493) Where it was argued that the widow was incompetent to testify as witness to prove the existence of a contract entered into during the lifetime of her deceased husband, it was held that the privilege may not be claimed because the husband having died, the marriage relation no longer exists. The widow is not the wife and, for that reason she can testify just like any other witness whether in favor or against the deceased husband.
REASON FOR THE RULE: > To obviate perjury and to prevent domestic disunity and unhappiness. Exemptions to Marital Disqualification Wife may testify against the husband in a criminal case for falsification, where the husband made it appear that the wife gave her consent to the sale of a conjugal house (considered as a crime committed against the wife) If husband-accused defends himself by imputing the crime to the wife, he is deemed to have waived all objections to the wifes testimony against him.
*** RES GESTAE = declarations of husband & wife are admissible for or against each other, even though each is incompetent to testify
Disqualification by REASON OF MARRIAGE (Sec. 23) Can be invoke 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 total prohibition for or against the spouse of the witness. The objection would be raised on the ground of marriage. The married witness would not be allowed to take the stand at all because of the disqualification. Even if the testimony is, for or against the objecting spouse, the spouse-witness cannot testify.
Disqualification by REASON OF MARITAL PRIVILEGE (Sec. 24(a) ) Can be claimed whether or not the other spouse is a party to the action; Can be claimed even after the marriage is dissolved; Applies only to confidential communications between the spouses the married person is on the stand but the objection of privilege is raised when confidential marital communication is inquired into.
Marrying the witness - An accused can effectively seal the lips of a witness by marrying the witness. As long as a valid marriage is in existence at the time of the trial, the witness-spouse cannot be compelled to testifyeven where the crime charged is against the witness person, and even though the marriage was entered into for the express purpose of suppressing the testimony. WHO MAY OBJECT?only the spouse-party and not the other spouse who is offered as a witness.
27

Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. RULE: Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.
*** The surviving party cannot testify on any matter of fact related to such agreement which is subject of inquiry, if this event took place before the death of the adverse party
*** The provision is otherwise known as DEAD MANS STATUTE. *** applies only to testimonial evidence not to documentary evidence
*** The rule applies, regardless of whether the deceased died before or after the suit against him is filed, provided he is already dead at the time the testimony is sought to be given.
Requisites: 1. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to a case or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. 2. That the action is against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person or a person of unsound mind; 3. That the subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against person of unsound mind; 4. That his testimony refers to any matter of fact which occurred before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.
*** Prohibition is only with regards to survivors testimony > May still present: 1. Witness (uninterested) 2. Documentary evidence
Meaning of assignor - means assignor of a cause of action which has arisen and not the assignor of a right before any cause of action accrued. Dead Man Statute not applicable to a corporations officers and stockholders in a suit instituted by the corporation. Thus, the officers and stockholders may testify. Heirs of deceased person are considered representatives of a deceased person. DEAD MANS STATUTE Only a partial disqualification as the witness is not completely disqualified but is only prohibited from testifying on the matters therein specified; Applies only to a civil case or special proceeding over the estate of a deceased or insane person. MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE It is a complete and absolute disqualification;
Applies to a civil or criminal case, subject only to the two exceptions provided therein: (1)except in a civil case by one against the other; or (2) in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latters direct descendants or ascendants).
PURPOSE OF THE RULE: To guard against the temptation to give false testimony on the part of the surviving party, and to put the parties to the suit upon the terms of equality in regard to opportunity to produce evidence.
GONI vs. COURT OF APPEALS (144 SCRA 222) It is designed to close the lips of the party plaintiff when death has closed the lips of the party defendant, in order to remove from the surviving party the temptation to falsehood and the possibility of fictitious claims against the deceased.
28

MAY BE WAIVED 1. Cross-examining the party on prohibited matters 2. Calling witnesses to testify on said prohibited matters 3. Plaintiffs deposition taken Facts favorable to the deceased are not prohibited: > Inasmuch as the statutes are designed to protect the interest of a deceased or insane person, they do not exclude testimonies which are favorable to the representative of such person (icard vs. masigan) The Dead Mans Statute or the Survivorship Rule does not apply in the following cases: 1. Testimony of mere witnesses who are neither party plaintiffs, nor their assignors, nor persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted; 2. If the plaintiff is the executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or the person of unsound mind; 3. In an action against a partnership; 4. If the person or persons mentioned under the rule files a counterclaim; 5. When the testimony refers to fraudulent transactions committed by the persons mentioned in the rule; 6. when there is waiver; 7. when the testimony of a plaintiff refers to the non-occurrence of a fact, because in that case, the plaintiff does not testify on the occurrence of a fact but on its non-occurrence. 8. in cadastral cases. 9. Testimony is offered to prove a claim less than what is established under a written contract 10. Testimony is intended to prove a fraudulent transaction of the deceased provided such fraud is first established by evidence aliunde Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication KINDS OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS: 1) Marital privilege 2) Attorney-client 3) Doctor-patient 4) Priest-Penitent 5) Public Officers Privilege WHO MAY ASSERT PRIVILEGE? 1. Holder of privilege; 2. Authorized persons; and 3. Persons to whom privileged communication were made A. PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE Requisites: 1. there was a valid marital relation; 2. the privilege is invoked with respect to a communication between the spouses during said marriage; and 3. the spouse against whom such evidence is being offered has not given his or her consent to such testimony
*** Those made prior to the marriage are not covered by the privilege.
There is a presumption of confidentiality on all communication between husband and wife:

*** Does not apply to dying declarations *** Either spouse may testify on what they SAW as long as the marriage does not exist anymore *** When the communicating spouse is dead, and the communication is needed on behalf of his estate the surviving spouse should be entitled to waive it.
29

RULE IN CASE OF OVERHEARD COMMUNICATIONS: > a conversation had in the presence of a 3rd party is NOT PRIVILEGE. - OVERHEARD accidentally or by design - 3rd party must be able to testify to both sides of the communication. BUT, the communication does not cease to be confidential between the spouses. BUT IF, the 3rd party comes into possession of the communication by COLLUSION and VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE on the part of either spouse, he thereby becomes an AGENT of such spouse and cannot testify without the consent of the other spouse. Communication in furtherance of fraud and crime is not privileged. B. PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ATTORNEY AND CLIENT Extends to attorneys secretary, stenographer or clerk; requires consent of both employer and the client to testify as to matters learned in their professional capacity Requisites: 1. There is an attorney and client relationship; 2. The privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential communication between them in the course of professional employment; and 3. The client has not given consent to the attorneys testimony thereon; or if the attorneys secretary, stenographer or clerk is sought to be examined, that both the client and the attorney have not given their consent thereto.
*** Privilege continuous even after termination of atty-client relationship
*** Preliminary communication made for the purpose of creating the attorney-client relationship are within the privilege. However, if the communications were not made for the purpose of creating that relationship, they will not be covered by the privilege.
*** There is professional employment when a client employs an attorney in his capacity as LEGAL ADVISER, for the purpose of obtaining from him legal advice and opinion concerning his rights and obligations relative to the subject matter of the communication. *** The TEST is whether the communications are made to an attorney with a view to obtaining professional assistance or advice. *** Disclosures made to an Atty. are not privileged where they are voluntarily made & after he has refused to accept employment
Privilege not confined to verbal or written communications, but extends to all information communicated by the client to the attorney by other means, such as when the attorney is called to witness the preparation of a document. The disqualification based on the attorney-client privilege does not apply to communications which are: 1. intended to be made public; 2. intended to be communicated to others; 3. received from third persons not acting in behalf or as agents of the client; 4. intended for an unlawful purpose; 5. made in the presence of third parties who are strangers to the attorney-client relationship.
*** Lawyer may testify when the disclosure concerns the commission of a crime (future crime)
General Rule: Lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name of his client Exception: 1) If there is a probability that the revealing the clients name would implicate the client to the activity for which he sought the lawyers advice; 2) The disclosure would open the client to civil liability; 3) Where the identity is intended to be confidential
30

C. PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DOCTOR AND PATIENT: Requisites: 1. The physician is authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics; 2. The information was acquired or the advice or treatment was given by him in his professional capacity for the purpose of treating or curing the patient; 3. The information, advice or treatment, if revealed, would blacken the reputation of the patient; and 4. The privilege is invoked in a civil case, whether the patient is a party thereto or not.
*** Death does not extinguish the privilege *** The physician is acting in his professional capacity, when he attends to the patient for CURATIVE PALLATIVE or PREVENTIVE TREATMENT.
NOT COVERED: 1. unlicensed practitioner 2. chiropractors 3. dentist 4. druggist and drug clerks 5. veterinary surgeons *** Communications made by patient to NURSES who are not acting as agents of physicians are NOT PRIVILEGED. *** Where the communication is clearly immaterial to the patients treatment, it cannot be protected by the privilege. BUT IF, the information was obtained from observation and inspection of the patients body, the privilege applies regardless of whether or not such information was necessary for the patients treatment. When privilege does not apply: 1. Where 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 4. The information was intended to be made public 5. There was a waiver of the privilege either by provisions of contract or law R28 *** The result of the physical and mental examination of a person when ordered by the Court > Intended to be made public *** If a party obtains a report on said examination, he waives the privilege on any other examinations done by other doctors on him.
EXCEPTION: 1. If physician files a suit to collect professional fees 2. Communications made by patients to nurses who are not acting as agents of physicians are not privileged A patients husband is not prohibited from testifying on a report prepared by his wifes psychiatrist since he is not the treating physician (although it would be hearsay)
LIM vs. COURT OF APPEALS (214 SCRA 273) The physician-patient privilege though duly claimed, is not violated by permitting a physician to give expert opinion testimony in response to a strictly hypothetical question in a law suit involving the physical mental condition of a patient which he has attended professionally, where his opinion is based strictly upon the hypothetical facts stated excluding and disregarding any personal professional knowledge he may have concerning such patient.
31

D. PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PRIEST AND PENITENT: Requisites: 1. The confession must have been made to the priest in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which he belongs. 2. The communications are made in confidential and penitential in character.
*** Only legal matters not political matters *** Communication made in contemplation of a crime is not privileged
E. PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION TO PUBLIC OFFICERS: Requisites: 1. The holder of the privilege is the government, acting through a public officer; 2. The communication was given to the public officer in confidence; 3. The communication was given during the term of office of the public officer or afterwards; 4. The public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the communication. *** We apply the privileged communication to both civil and criminal cases except as to the doctorpatient privilege, which is applicable only in civil cases. *** The privilege applies to communications to such officers only that have a responsibility or duty to investigate or to prevent public wrong and not to officials in general. F. OTHER PRIVILEDGED MATTERS 1. The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any proceeding concerning any information, statement, or opinion received from the child in the course of serving as a guardian ad litem, unless the court finds it necessary to promote the best interests of the child (Sec. 5 (e) of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness). 2. Editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published news. 3. Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted. 4. 5. Trade secrets. Bank Deposits.
PRIVILEGE OF PUBLISHER, EDITOR OR REPORTER > Under RA 53, as amended by RA 1477, the publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter or any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to him, unless the court or a house or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege RULE: no person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. Reason for the Rule: To preserve family cohesion.
*** This provision does not apply to spouses. *** This provision means that you may testify if you want, but you may not be compelled to testify.
Article 215 of the Family Code provides: No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his parents and grandparents, EXCEPT when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by one against the other.
32

When a person may be compelled to testify vs. ascendant 1. When the crime committed by the parent against the other parent 2. When the person is the victim of the crime committed by him
Rule 130, Sec. 25 of the Rules of Court does not provide for an exception, whereas, Art. 215 of the Family Code does. Which should be applied in case of conflict? It was suggested that the Rules of Court should apply because it took effect in 1989 as compared to the Family Code which took effect in 1988. It may be argued that the former is procedural and the latter is substantive; however, it was further suggested that although the Family Code is substantive, it is procedural in character. So, of these two provisions, the Rules of Court, which was made by the Supreme Court, should prevail.
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS

Section 26. Admissions of a party.
You cannot create evidence in your favor BUT you can create evidence against yourself
Admission - It is an act, declaration or omission as to a relevant fact. It may be given by a party (in which case Rule 130, Sec. 26 will be applicable) or by a third-party. RULE ON ADMISSIONS - The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. therefore, if the act, declaration or omission is in his favor, it is NOT an admission.
*** Admissions may be received against the party who made them but not in his favor
Requisites for admissibility of an admission 1) Involves a matter of fact, not of law 2) Categorical and definite 3) Knowingly and voluntarily made 4) Adverse to the admitter's interest, otherwise, self-serving and inadmissible as hearsay INTRODUCTION OF ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE 1) AS INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE - admissions are original evidence and no foundation is necessary for their introduction in evidence. a. IF ORAL - provided by any competent witness who heard them or by the declarant himself. b. IF IN WRITING - partly offering it must prove its due execution and authenticity. > If public document no need for authentication 2) AS IMPEACHING EVIDENCE - If proof of the admission is sought for impeachment purposes, a proper foundation must be laid down for the impeaching questions, by calling the attention of such party to his former statement so as to give him an opportunity to explain before such admission are offered in evidence. WAYS OF MAKING ADMISSIONS 1. In written pleadings 2. In open court 3. In his statement made outside the proceedings in the same case. *** Admission made in pleadings are judicial admissions BUT when later amended and was not reproduced, it shall be considered as an extradjudicial admission which must be offered. *** Admissions made in the pleadings, cannot be controverted by the party making such admissions and are conclusive as to him. *** The declarations made by a defendant or by a third person by his authority, if relevant are admissible against him.
33

EXTRA JUDICIAL ADMISSION > one made out of court or in a judicial proceeding other than the one under consideration. Requisites for the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions: 1) Must involve an express and categorical acknowledgment of guilt (US v. Corales); 2) The facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense (US v. Flores); 3) Must have been given voluntarily (People v. Nishishima); 4) Must have been made intelligently (Bilaan v. Cusi) 5) Must have been made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel (Art III, Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution) JUDICIAL ADMISSION VS. EXTRA JUDICIAL ADMISSION > A judicial admission is one made in connection with a judicial proceeding in which it is offered(conclusive against the party making them), while an extra judicial admission is any other admission. DIFFERENTIATE THE EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS. > A judicial confession is sufficient in itself to sustain a conviction, even in capital offenses. On the other hand, an extrajudicial confession is insufficient in itself to sustain a conviction. It must be corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONone which has been made extrajudicially by the party to favor his interest. It is not admissible in evidence because of the lack of opportunity to cross-examine. Self-serving declaration - a declaration wherein: 1) the testimony is favorable to the declarant; 2) it is made extrajudicially; and 3) it is made in anticipation of litigation. WHEN SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS ADMISSIBLE 1. When they form part of RES GESTAE 2. When they are in the form of complaint and explanation of PAIN and SUFFERING 3. When they are part of a confession offered by the prosecution. 4. When the credibility of a party is assailed - offered in order to REBUTT or IMPEACH 5. When they are offered by the opponent 6. When they are offered without objections *** Entries in a diary are not admissible in favor of the owner because they are self-serving BUT are admissible against him
NATIONAL DEVT. CO. vs WORKMENS COMPENSATION COMM. (19 SCRA 861) Self-serving evidence is evidence made by a party out of court at one time; it does not include a partys testimony as a witness in court. It is excluded on the same ground as any hearsay evidence, that is lack of opportunity for cross-examination by the adverse party and on consideration that its admission would open the door to fraud and to fabrication of testimony. On the other hand, a partys testimony in court is sworn and affords the other party the opportunity for cross-examination.
ADMISSION vis-a-vis CONFESSIONEvery confession is an admission, but not all admissions are confessions. Generally, an admission is an acknowledgment of the truth or existence of a fact. But a confession is an acknowledgment of guilt.
34

Differentiate an admission from a confession. Admission Definition Statement of fact which does not involve an acknowledge-ment of guilt or liability May be express or tacit Party or 3rd person Both criminal and civil cases Confession Declaration acknowledging ones guilt of the offense charged Must be express Party himself Usually criminal cases
Form Made by Cases in which applicable
Differentiate an admission and confession in criminal cases. Admission Definition Statement by the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt Confession Acknowledgment in express terms by a party in a criminal case of his guilt of the crime charged
Sufficiency to authorize a conviction
Insufficient. Tends only to establish the ultimate fact of guilt.
Sufficient
NOTE: If a justification is alleged, it is merely an admission. Right against self-incrimination applies to the re-enactment of the crime by the accused DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST 1.made against the proprietary or pecuniary interest of the parties 2. made by a person who is either deceased or unable to testify 3. must be made ante litem motam ADMISSIONS 1.need not be made against pecuniary or proprietary interest; 2.made by a party himself, and is primary evidence and competent though he be present in court and ready to testify; 3. may be made any time.
PEOPLE vs. PELAGIO CONDEMENA (23 SCRA 910) Settled is the rule that alibi as a defense is weak where the prosecution witnesses positively identified the accused. To prosper such defense it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence and not merely supported by witnesses who bear close ties of relationship to the accused. The degree of evidence must preclude any doubt that the accused could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at time of its commission. Extra-judicial confessions, independently made without collusion, which are identical with each other in essential details and are corroborated by other evidence, are admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated to show the probability of the latters actual participation in the crime.
Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. *** In CIVIL CASES, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. REASON: It is the policy of the law to favor the settlement of disputes, to foster compromises and to promote peace.
** In a civil case, party may offer to settle or compromise, not because he admits liability but because he
was buying peace of mind.
35

*** No suit shall be filed or maintained between members if the SAME FAMILY unless it should appear that such efforts towards compromise have been made.
PROHIBITION ON COMPROMISE 1. civil status 2. validity of marriage 3. validity of legal separation 4. any ground for legal separation 5. future support 6. jurisdiction of courts 7. future legitime *** In CRIMINAL CASES, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Those involving quasi-offenses; 2. Under the Katarungang pambarangay law; 3. Plea of guilty later withdrawn; 4. An unaccepted offer of plea of guilty to a lesser offense; 5. An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury; 6. Tax cases.
*** An offer to marry the rape victim is an admission of guilt. *** The CIR may compromise any civil or other cases arising under the tax code or other laws administered by the BIR.
RULE ON CERTIFICATE/AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE 1. In Civil Case > subject of compromise 2. In Criminal Case > If fiscal has different evidence other than the testimony of complainant, the fiscal may prosecute even if there is compromise because in criminal cases the ultimate aggrieved party is the state (people). *** An offer of compromise that may be considered an implied admission need not be made by the accused himself, it may be made by his lawyer or relatives, provided it is made with the consent of the accused or with his knowledge and he does not stop it. However, take note of the case of PEOPLE vs. MACATANA, on compromise made by the tribes. A plea of forgiveness made with the knowledge, consent or acquiescence of the accused is tantamount to an offer to compromise by the accused. If the purpose of the offer is to buy peace and avoid litigation, then the offer is inadmissible. As held in the case of Daggett v. Atchinson, etc. (48 Cal.2d 655), it is the general rule that evidence of precautions taken and repairs made after the happening of the accident is not admissible to show a negligent condition at the time of the accident.
*** By sending complainant two letters wherein he implored forgiveness and offered to leave his wife so he could be with complainant, accused impliedly admitted the rape with which he was charged. In criminal cases, save those involving quasi-offenses and those allowed by law to be amicably settled, an offer to compromise made by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. For this rule to apply it is not necessary that a complaint be first filed by the offended party. Evidently, no one would ask for forgiveness unless he had committed some wrong and a plea of forgiveness is analogous to an offer to compromise. The accuseds aforesaid letters constitute an implied admission of guilt. [People vs. Paredes, 293 SCRA 411]
PLEA FOR FORGIVENESS AS AN IMPLIED ADMISSION OF GUILT > A plea of forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offense (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. No one would ask for forgiveness unless he had committed some wrong, for to
36

forgive means to absolve, to pardon, to cease to feel resentment against on account of wrong committed; give up claim to requital from or retribution upon (an offender). [People vs. Taneo, 284 SCRA 251] Distinguish OFFER OF COMPROMISE from ORDINARY ADMISSION: > In an offer of compromise, the proposal is tentative and any statement made in connection with it is hypotheticalto buy peace and, in contemplation of mutual concessions, whereas in an ordinary admission, the intention is apparently to admit liability and to seek to buy or secure relief against a liability recognized as such.
PRINCIPLE OF RES INTER ALIOS ACTA

RES INTER ALIOS ACTA ALTERI NOCERE NON DEBET. A transaction between two persons ought not to operate to the prejudice of a third party. 1ST PART: The rights of a party CANNOT be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided (Sec. 28);
*** 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. *** Statements made or matter accomplished between two parties cannot prejudice a third party. *** As to him such act, declaration or omission is hearsay
2nd PART: Similar acts as evidence (Sec. 34). EXCEPTIONS TO PART ONE: A. ADMISSIONS BY CO-PARTNER OR AGENT (Sec.29) REQUISITES: 1. The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party must be within the scope of his authority; 2. During the existence of the partnership or agency; 3. After the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration; The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party (Sec. 29).
RULE IN AGENCY > The acts and declarations of an agent made within the scope of his employment and with the actual or apparent authority of the principal are binding upon the latter. *** The admissions of a GUARDIAN during the period of guardianship is not binding against his wards property. *** Admissions by EXECUTORS or ADMINISTRATORS made in the transaction of their business as such, are admissible against the estate they represent. ADMISSION BY COUNSEL > Admissions by counsel are admissible against the client as the former acts in representation and as an agent of the client, subject to the limitation that the same should not amount to a compromise or confession of judgment.
B. ADMISSION BY CONSPIRATOR (Sec. 30): REQUISITES: 1. That the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself; 2. That the admission relates to the conspiracy itself; 3. That it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.
37

*** The conspiracy must be proved by corroborative evidence *** What is involved here is the extrajudicial declaration of a conspirator to a 3 rd person not his testimony by way of direct evidence *** Direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy > May be inferred from circumstances *** The conspiracy must first be proved before the act or declaration or a conspirator may be admissible against the co-conspirators An extra-judicial confession of an accused is not admissible in evidence against his coaccused when the latter had not been given the opportunity to hear him testify and crossexamine him. Such confession is not admissible as an Admission by co-conspirator because it was made after the conspiracy had ended and after the commission of the crime. *** This rule applies only to extra judicial acts or statements and not to testimony given on the witness stand at the trial where the party adversely affected thereby has the opportunity to crossexamine the declarant. GENERAL RULE: Extrajudicial confession is admissible only against those who made the same. EXCEPTION: (Interlocking Confession) 1. Extra judicial confession independently made without collusion 2. Which are identical with each other in their essential details 3. Corroborated by other evidence in record INTERLOCKING CONFESSIONS > The rule that an extra judicial statement is evidence only against the person making it, recognizes various exceptions. One such exception worth noting is the rule that where several extra judicial statements had been made by several persons charged with an offense and there could have been no collusion with reference to said several confessions, the facts that the statements are in all material respect identical, is confirmatory of the confession of the co-defendants and is admissible against other persons implicated therein. They are also admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated therein to show the probability of the latters actual participation in the commission of the crime and may likewise serve as corroborative evidence if it is clear from other facts and circumstances that other persons had participated in the perpetration of the crime charged and proved. These are known as interlocking confessions. [People vs. Lising, et.al., 285 SCRA 595] GENERAL RULE: Extra judicial admissions made by a conspirator after the conspiracy has terminated and even before trial are not admissible against the co-conspirator. EXCEPTIONS: 1. If made in the presence of the latter who expressly or impliedly agreed therein as, in the latter case, it would be tacit admission under Section 32; 2. Where the facts stated in said admission are confirmed in the individual extra judicial confessions made by the co-conspirators after their apprehension; 3. As a circumstance to determine the credibility of a witness; or 4. As circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the latters participation in the offense. C. ADMISSION BY PRIVIES ( Sec. 31) PRIVIES those who have mutual or successive relationship to the same rights of property or subject matter such as personal representatives, heirs, devisees, legatees, assigns, voluntary grantees, or judgment creditors or purchasers from them with notice to the facts REQUISITES: 1. That there must be privity between the party and the declarant; 2. The declarant as predecessor in interest made the declaration while holding the title to the property. 3. The admission relates to the property.
38

HOWEVER, such evidence is still not admissible to contradict the terms of the written instrument IMPORTANT: It is necessary that the admission of the former owner of a property has been made while he was still the owner thereof. LIMITATION: > Such evidence is not admissible to contradict the terms of the written agreement Sec. 32. ADMISSIONS BY SILENCE Requisites: 1. He heard & understood the statement (accusation) 2. He was at liberty to interpose a denial 3. Statement was with respect to some matters affecting his rights & calling naturally for an answer 4. The facts were within his knowledge 5. The inference drawn from his silence would be material to the issue
*** Extra judicial confession of an accused may be given in evidence against his co-accused when the confession implicating the latter was made in his presence and he kept silent, and did not protest or demonstrate against the supposed false charge of implication. *** Silence of a person in the face of a direct accusation may be taken as a quasi-confession.
NOT APPLICABLE: 1. Silence during judicial proceedings 2. Silence during custodial investigations 3. Silence due to fear or threats 4. Silence due to advice of counsel
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION AS A MODE OF DISCOVERY > A trial court has no discretion to determine what the consequences of a partys refusal to allow or make discovery should be; it is the law which makes that determination; and its is grave abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to recognize and observe the effects of that refusal as mandated by law. Particularly as regards requests for admission under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, the law ordains that when a party is served with a written request that he admit: (1) the genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and exhibited with the request, or (2) the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact, set forth in the request, said party is bound within the period designated in the request to file and serve on the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either (1) denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or (2) setting forth in detail the reason why he can not truthfully either admit or deny those matters. If the party served does not respond with such sworn statement, each of the matter of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted. [Diman, et.al., vs. Alumbres., G.R. No. 131466, November 7, 1998]
Section 33. Confession > The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him. CONFESSION - a categorical acknowledgment of guilt made by an accused in a criminal case, without any exculpatory statement or explanation.
> Such confession may either be oral or in writing, and if in writing, it need not be under oath. *** A confession is admissible in evidence on trial, if it was freely made, not extorted by threats or obtained by some form of duress or fraud *** The whole confession must be put in evidence by the prosecution *** Written confessions are admissible whether made under oath or not
*** If the accused admits having committed the act in question but alleges a justification therefore, the same is merely an admission.
39

*** there can also be a confession of judgment in a civil case where the party expressly admits his liability. JUDICIAL CONFESSION - is one made before a court in which the case is pending and in the course of legal proceedings therein and, by itself, can sustain a conviction even in capital offenses. EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION - is one made in any other place or occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless its voluntariness is proven and unless corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti. REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION TO BE ADMISSIBLE: 1. It must be express (Sec. 33, Rule 130 Rules of Court); 2. Voluntary (1987 Constitution) 3. With assistance of competent and independent counsel (1987 Constitution) 4. Must be in writing (R.A.7438);
*** An extra-judicial confession is admissible as corroborative evidence of other facts tending to establish guilt of co-accused *** Extra-judicial statements of the accused implicating a co-accused may not be utilized against his coaccused unless repeated in open court *** A conviction in a criminal case may be based on an extra-judicial confession with proof of corpusdelicti independent of said confession > There should be some evidence tending to show the commission of the crime apart from the confession
*** Accused is permitted to introduce evidence of any fact showing or tending to show that confession was involuntary. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING VOLUNTARINESS 1. Force or violence 2. Threats and fear 3. Promise and similar inducement 4. Trick, artifice, deception, or fraud 5. Intoxication 6. Under the influence of parental sentiment 7. Under the influence or advice of counsel > must be proved by the prosecution that the requirements of custodial investigation are observed.
PRESUMPTION OF VOLUNTARINESS: > Confessions are presumed to be voluntary and the onus is on the defense to prove that it was involuntary for having been obtained by violence, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or leniency.
GENERAL RULE: an EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION is admissible against the confessor only. It is incompetent evidence against his co-accused for being hearsay and because of the res inter alios acta rule. EXCEPTIONS: When admissible against the co-defendants: 1. If the co-defendants impliedly acquiesced in or adopted said confession; 2. If the accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical confession without collusion, and corroborated by other evidenceINTERLOCKING CONFESSIONS 3. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after being apprised by such confession; 4. 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 corroborating evidence; 5. Where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation by the co-conspirator; 6. When the confessant testified for his co-defendant; 7. Where the co-conspirator extrajudicial confession is corroborated by other evidence of record. In line with the 1987 Constitution, illegal confessions and admissions are inadmissible against the confessant or the admitter but are admissible against the persons who violated the constitutional prohibition in obtaining such illegal confessions or admissions.
40

Section 34. Similar acts as evidence *** This is the second part of the res inter alios acta. General Rule: 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. ExceptionsIt may be received to prove: 1. specific intent or knowledge; 2. identity; 3. plan; 4. system; 5. scheme; 6. habit; 7. custom or usage; and 8. other of the like. UNACCEPTED OFFER > 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. [Section 35, Rule 130] EFFECT: The debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due.
TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE
Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. GENERAL RULE: 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.
*** This is known as the hearsay evidence rule, any evidence, whether oral or documentary, is hearsay if 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.
REASON FOR EXCLUDING HEARSAY: not subject to the test of truth because there is no opportunity for cross-examination. Also, this will be a violation of the constitutional right to confrontation.
Reasons for Excluding Hearsay 1) irresponsibility of the original declarant 2) depreciation of truth in the process of repetition 3) opportunities for fraud would open 4) tendency of such evidence to protect legal inquiries, and encourage the substitution of weaker for stronger proofs.
HEARSAY RULE
HEARSAY EVIDENCE > Information relayed from another person to the witness before it reaches the ears of the court *** Not admissible when offered to prove the truth of the matter therein stated/asserted
*** A statement otherwise objectionable as hearsay does not become competent merely because it was reduced to writing
CLASSIFICATION OF OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS: 1. HEARSAY-- Those which are considered as hearsay and therefore inadmissible, this occurs when the purpose for introducing the our-of-court statement is to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein;
41

2. NON-HEARSAYAdmissible. This occurs when the purpose for introducing the statement is not to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein but only the making of the statements and are admissible in evidence when the making of the statement is relevant. These are so-called INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS. 3. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULEThose which are hearsay but are considered as exceptions to the hearsay rule and are therefore admissible. These are from Sections 37 to 47 of Rule 130. HEARSAY EVIDENCE: They are inadmissible by reason of NECESSITY and TRUSTWORTHINESS. Hearsay evidence not objected to may be admissible but, whether objected to or not, has no probative value and as opposed to direct and primary evidence, the latter always prevails. DOUBLE OR MULTIPLE HEARSAY > Testimony based upon 3rd hand information related to the witness by someone who heard it from others. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE: 1. Dying Declaration; 2. Declaration Against Interest; 3. Act or declaration About pedigree; 4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree; 5. Common reputation; 6. Res Gestae; 7. Entries in the ordinary course of business; 8. Entries in official records; 9. Commercial lists; 10. Learned treatises; Newspaper clippings are hearsay and have no evidentiary value unless substantiated by persons with personal knowledge of the facts.
*** A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE cannot be admitted in the absence of the testimony of the physician who examined the complainant for alleged torture wounds. *** Unless the affiants themselves are placed in the witness stand to testify therefrom, AFFIDAVITS must be rejected in judicial proceedings, the same would be inadmissible as hearsay.
*** Objection to the admission of evidence on the ground that it is hearsay cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
PEOPLE vs. VALERO (112 SCRA 661) The failure of the defense counsel to object to the presentation of incompetent evidence, like hearsay evidence of evidence that violates the rule of res inter alios acta or his failure to strike out the same does not give such evidence any probative value. The lack of objection may make any incompetent evidence admissible. But admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative value.
DOCTRINE OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS: > A witness may testify to the statements made by a person if the fact of such statements were made independently of whether the facts stated are true or not, but they are relevant since they are facts in issue or circumstantial evidence therein.
Independently relevant statement - It is a statement whose probative value is independent of its truth or falsity. The mere fact of its utterance is relevant, CONCEPT: INDEPENDENT RELEVANT STATEMENT > It is a statement intended not to establish the truth of the facts asserted in that statement. But to establish only the tenor of the statement, not the truth of the facts thereon asserted.
2 kinds of independently relevant statements: 1) Statements which are the very facts in issue; 2) Statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue (Francisco)
42

Independent of whether the facts stated are true, they are relevant since they are the facts in issue or are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue Not covered by the hearsay rule Example: The statements or writings attributed to a person who is not on the witness stand are being offered, not to prove the truth of the facts stated therein, but only to prove that such statements were actually made or such writings were executed, or to prove the tenor thereof.
PEOPLE vs. CLOUD (265 SCRA 472) A witness account of statements made by another which were accused by and resulting from a startling, if not gruesome, occurrence that the latter witnessed, is admissible under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, with respect to the tenor and not the truth thereof, since independent of the truth or falsity of the same they are relevant to the issue on the cause of the death of the victim.
Section 37. Dying declaration > The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
> Also known as ante mortem statement or a statement in articulo mortis. *** A dying declaration is admissible only insofar as it refers to facts regarding the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarants deth, hence, statements referring to the antecedents of the fatal encounter or opinions, expressions or conclusions of the declarant are not admissible; but all facts relating to the cause of such death are admissible whether the same are in favor of or against the accused. U.S. vs. GIL (13 PHIL 549) The reasons for the admissibility of dying declaration as an exception to the hearsay rule are necessity and trustworthiness. Necessity because the declarants death renders impossible his taking the witness stand and trustworthiness because a man at a point of death is not prone to invent a story.
REQUISITES: 1. That death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of that fact; 2. That the declaration refers to the cause and and surrounding circumstances of such death; 3. That the declaration relates to the facts which the victim is competent to testify to; and 4. That the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarants death is subject of the inquiry. *** A proper predicate must be laid for the introduction of a dying declaration
> At the time the declaration was made, the declarant was under consciousness of an impending death
CONSCIOUSNESS OF IMMINENT DEATH > A declaration will be deemed as having been made under the consciousness of imminent death, in consideration of: 1. The words or statements of the declarant on the same occasion; 2. His conduct at the time the declaration was made; or 3. The serious nature of his wounds as would necessarily engender a belief on his part that he would not survive therefrom. GENERAL RULE: The intervening time from the making of a dying declaration up to the time of death is immaterial in its admissibility, as long as it was made under the consciousness of imminent death. EXCEPTION: If there is a retraction made by the declarant before he died or his declaration is ambiguous. HOWEVER, the interval of time between the declaration and the death of the declarant may be taken into account where the declaration is ambiguous as to whether the declarant believed that his death was imminent when he made such declaration. *** If the ante mortem statement was made orally, the witness who heard it may testify thereto, without necessarily reproducing the exact words as long as he can give the substance thereof, and if the deceased had an unsigned dying declaration, the same may be used as a memorandum by the witness who took it down.
43

DOCTRINE OF COMPLETENESS > Dying declaration must be complete in itself. - It does not mean that the declarant will recite everything. > What is required is full expression of all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning with respect to a fact. > must be responsive to the question.
PEOPLE vs. DE JOYA (203 SCRA 403) Dying declaration to be admissible must be complete in itself. To be complete in itself does not mean that the declarant must recite everything that constituted the res gestae of the subject of his statement, but that his statement of any given fact should be a full expression of all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect to such fact.
A dying declaration may be oral or written or made by signs which could be interpreted and testified to by a witness thereto. Dying Declarations favorable to the accused is admissible. Dying declaration may also be regarded as part of the res gestae as they were made soon after the startling occurrence without the opportunity for fabrication or concoction. *** Statements which consist of mere hearsay or opinion & conclusions of the declarant are not admissible as a dying declaration *** The wife of the declarant may testify as to the same, either for the prosecution or as a witness for the defense, and this does not violate the marital privilege as dying declaration is not considered a confidential communication between the spouses. *** Statements referring to the antecedents of the fatal encounter or opinion, impressions, or conclusions of the declarant are not admissible. (Professor Bautista believes that the opinion rule is still applicable in dying declarations). *** To impeach a dying declaration admitted against him the defendant is entitled to show by experts the injuries sustained by the declarant were calculated to derange his mental faculties CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO DYING DECLARATIONS: > The circumstances that should be taken into consideration in determining the weight to be given to dying declarations are: 1. Trustworthiness of the reporters; 2. The capacity of the declarant at the time to accurately remember the past; 3. His disposition to tell what he remembers; and 4. Such circumstances as may be attendant such as the fact that the declarations were the result of questions propounded by an attorney, the presence only of friends and prosecuting officers, the lack of belief of the declarant in a future life, rewards and punishment, the fact that the statements in the dying declarations are contrary to facts satisfactorily proven by other evidence, and the fact that the declaration might have been influenced by the passion of anger and vengeance, or jealousy. [People vs. Igting, 284 SCRA 344] *** Dying declarations of a man who lives is not any more admissible, HOWEVER, the declaration can be used against him as a declaration against self interest. *** Dying declaration is admissible of in FAVOR of the ACCUSED. Section 38. Declarations against interest. REQUISITES: 1. That the declarant is dead or unable to testify; 2. That it relates to a fact against the interests of the declarant; 3. That at the time he made said declaration the declarant was aware that the same was contrary to his aforesaid interest; and
44

4. That the declarant had no motive to falsify and he believed such declaration to be true. Reason for admissibility: necessity and trustworthiness
*** The declaration may be received in evidence not only against the declarant but also his successors in interest & against 3rd persons *** Declaration may also be against proprietary or penal interest *** Interest must have been existing at the time the declaration was made
Declarations by accused against his interest are inadmissible if done in violation of his constitutional rights Mere absence from jurisdiction does not make declarant unable to testify. Exception contemplates that the declarant is dead, mentally incompetent or physically incapacitated Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. HOW PERSONS PEDIGREE IS PROVEN 1. Act or declaration of a person related to him, by birth or marriage OR 2. By the reputation or tradition existing in the family in respect to the pedigree of such person. Requisites of Act or Declaration about Pedigree 1) Declarant dead or unable to testify 2) Declarant is related to the person whose pedigree is in question 3) Made ante litem motam 4) Relationship between declarant and person whose pedigree is in question showed by evidence other than the declaration EXCEPT if claiming from the declarant, where the declaration itself is sufficient
*** The act or declaration will not be received when better evidence is available *** The act or declaration must have been done before the controversy arose
Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. Requisites of Family Reputation/Tradition regarding Pedigree 1) Reputation or tradition exists in family of person whose pedigree is in question 2) Reputation or tradition existed previous to the controversy 3) Witness testifying thereon is a surviving member of that family, by either affinity or consanguinity
*** Reputation as used in the rule must be that existing in the family & not in the community
A persons statement as to the date of his birth and age, as he learned of these from his parents or relatives, is an ante litem motam declaration of family reputation. Section 39 --Act or declaration about PEDIGREE; Section 40 --Family reputation pedigree; or tradition regarding
--Witness need not be a member of the --Witness is a member of the family; family; --Testimony is about what declarant, dead --Testimony is about family reputation or or unable to testify, has said concerning the tradition covering matters of pedigree. pedigree of the declarants family.
45

Section 41: Common reputation The following may be established by common reputation: 1. Matters of public interest more than 30 yrs. old; 2. matters of general interest more than 30 years old; - respecting marriage or moral character and related facts - individual moral character Requisites of Common Reputation 1) Facts to which the reputation refers are of public or general interest 2) Reputation is ancient (or more than 30 years old) 3) Reputation must have been formed among a class of persons who were in a position to have some sources of information and to contribute intelligently to the formation of the opinion 4) Reputation must exist ante litem motam HOWEVER, if the reputation concerns marriage or moral character, the requisite that the reputation must be ancient does NOT apply COMMON REPUTATIONis the definite opinion of the community in which the fact to be prove is known or exists. It means the general or substantially undivided reputation, as distinguished from a partial or qualified one, although it need not be unanimous. As a general rule, the reputation of person should be that existing in the place of his residence, it may also be that existing in the place where he is best known. EVIDENCE OF NEGATIVE GOOD REPUTE: Where the foundation proof shows that the witness was in such position that he would have heard reports derogatory to ones character, the reputation testimony may be predicated on the absence of reports of bad reputation or on the fact that the witness had heard nothing against the person. Section 42: Part of res gestae RES GESTAE literally means things done; it includes the circumstances, facts, and declarations incidental to the main fact or transaction necessary to illustrate its character and also includes acts, words or declaration which are closely connected therewith as to constitute part of the transaction.
PEOPLE vs NARTEA (74 PHIL 8) The term res gestae comprehends a situation which presents a startling or unusual occurrence sufficient to produce a spontaneous and instinctive reaction, during which certain statements are made under such circumstances as to show lack of forethought or deliberate design in the formulation of their content. The important question to consider in ascertaining whether a declaration is part of the res gestae is; Were the facts talking through the party or the party talking about the facts?
TWO TYPES OF PART OF RES GESTAE: 1. Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof (SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS) 2. Statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance (VERBAL ACTS). REQUISITES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS: 1. there must be a startling occurrence 2. the statement must relate to the circumstances of the starling occurrence 3. the statement must be spontaneous Factors to be considered in determining spontaneity of statement: 1) Time that elapsed between occurrence and the making of the statement 2) Place where statement was made
46

3) Condition of the declarant when he made the statement 4) Presence or absence of intervening occurrences between the occurrence and the statement 5) Nature and circumstances of the statement itself
PEOPLE vs. FREDDIE TULAGAN (143 SCRA 107) More importantly, not every statement made on the occasion of a startling occurrence is admissible as part of the res gestae; only such are admissible as appear to have been involuntarily and spontaneously wrung from an observer by the shock or impact of the occurrence such that, as has aptly been said, it is the event speaking through the witness, not the witness speaking through the event. The startling occurrence must produce so powerful an effect or influence on the observer as to extract from his lips some description of the event practically without being conscious of his utterance.
REQUISITES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF VERBAL ACTS: 1. the act or occurrence characterized must be equivocal 2. verbal acts must characterize or explain the equivocal act 3. equivocal act must be relevant(independently material) to the issue 4. verbal acts must be contemporaneous with(accompany) the equivocal act VERBAL ACTS SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS the res gestae is the equivocal act res gestae is the startling occurrence the verbal act must be contemporaneous with statements be may be made prior, while or or must accompany the equivocal act immediately after the startling occurrence Res gestae and Dying Declarations distinguished RES GESTAE Statement of the killer himself after or during the killing, or that of a third person (e.g., victim, bystander) Statement may precede, accompany or be made after the homicidal act was committed Justified by the spontaneity of the statement DYING DECLARATIONS Can be made only by the victim Made only after the homicidal attack has been committed Trustworthiness is based upon its being given under awareness of impending death
*** While the statements of the victim may not qualify as a dying declaration because it was not made under the consciousness of impending death, it may still be admissible as part of the res gestae if it was made immediately after the incident, or few hours after. Sec. 43. Entries in the course of business Requisites : 1) Entrant is deceased, outside of the Philippines, or unable to testify 2) Entries made at or near the time of the transaction to which they relate 3) Entries made by entrant in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty 4) Entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business 5) Entrant must have been in a position to know the facts therein stated 6) There must be more than one entry *** Constitutes only prima facie evidence Heirs of Conti vs. CA - baptismal certificates are admissible as entries in the ordinary course of business, even absent the testimony of the officiating priest or official recorder
47

Section 44. Entries in official records. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF OFFICIAL ENTRIES: 1. that it was made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so 2. that it was made by a public officer in the performance of his duty, or by another person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law 3. the public officer or the other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or through official information Probative value: only prima facie evidence of the fact stated therein
*** Entries in POLICE BLOTTERS are merely prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.
Entries in the course of business and Entries in official records distinguished ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS Sufficient that entrant made the entries pursuant to a duty either legal, contractual, moral or religious, or in the regular course of business or duty The person who made such entries must be dead or unable to testify ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS entrant is a public officer in performance of duty, or if a private individual, must have acted pursuant to a specific legal duty (specially enjoined by law) there is no such requirement for admissibility, precisely because the officer is excused
*** The transcript of the records duly certified by the stenographer concerned is prima facie evidence of the correctness of the entries thereon > Admissible as evidence
COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE: Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein. [Section 45, Rule 130] LEARNED TREATISES: A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth if a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. [Section 46, Rule 130]
*** Unofficial reports of judicial decisions (SCRA) when shown to be recognized by the profession, are admissible on this principle. *** FOREIGN LAW is considered as any other matter of fact, which must be properly pleaded and proved. > If not properly proved, the presumption arises that the foreign law is the same as domestic law.
Sec. 47. Testimony or Deposition at a former proceeding

Requisites 1) Witness whose testimony is offered is dead or unable to testify 2) Party against whom the evidence is offered, or his privy, was a party to the former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative(identity of parties) 3) Testimony or deposition relates to the same subject matter (identity of issue) - The requirement of identity 4) Adverse party had opportunity to cross-examine - Testimony given during preliminary investigation where the defense had the opportunity to cross-examine the unavailable witness is admissible in the criminal case
48

*** Actual cross-examination of the witness at the formal trial is not however a pre-requisite > It is enough if he had an opportunity to cross-examine *** Testimony given before a legislative committee is not admissible > Rules on evidence are not binding on said committees *** If the witness is available but refuse to testify > Can be arrested & punished for contempt *** The testimony of a witness at a former case or proceeding may always be presented in a subsequent case or proceeding for the purpose of impeaching his credibility. *** It is not essential that there should be a physical identity of the parties. > a substantial identity is sufficient > the requirement of identity is satisfied where the issue on which the forum evidence is offered is common to both cases. *** proponent must first lay the proper predicate
HEARSAY EXCEPTION IN CHILD ABUSE CASES: *** The SC approved an additional exception to the hearsay rule in its A.M. no. 00-4-07-SC approving the Proposed Rule on Examination of a Child Witness. A statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse NOT otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in evidence in any criminal or non-criminal proceeding subject to the following rules: 1) Before such statement may be admitted, its proponent shall make known to the adverse party the intention to offer such statement and its particulars to allow him an opportunity to object. a. If the child is available The court shall require the child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-examination by the adverse party. b. If the child is unavailable The fact of such circumstance must be proved by the proponent. 2) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall consider the time, content and circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia of reliability. It shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there is a motive to lie b. The general character of the declarant child c. Whether more than one person heard the statement d. Whether the statement was spontaneous e. The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child and witness. f. Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant child. g. The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child; h. The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason to suppose the declarant child misrepresented the involvement of the accused. 3) The child witness shall be considered unavailable in the following situations: a. Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness or will be exposed to severe psychological injury; b. Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means. 4) When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other admissible evidence.
OPINION RULE
Section 48. General rule
49

*** A witness can testify only as to facts & it is left to the courts to draw inference & conclusions & to form opinions from the facts to which the witness testified GENERAL RULE: Opinion of a witness is not admissible. EXCEPTIONS: 1. On a matter requiring SPECIAL knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess EXPERT WITNESS (Sec. 49); 2. The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge (Sec. 50[a]); 3. A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity (Sec. 50 [b]); 4. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted (Sec. 50 [c]); 5. The witness impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person (Sec. 50 [d]);.
*** Opinion testimony involving questions of law or the ultimate fact in issue is not admissible
OPINION OF A WITNESS 1) EXPERT special knowledge, skill experience or training a. The matter to be testified to is one that requires expertise b. The witness has been qualified as an expert * It is not enough that a witness who is being presented as an expert belongs to the profession or calling to which the subject matter of the inquiry relates. He must further show that he possesses special knowledge to the question on which he proposes to express an opinion. REQUISITES opinion of expert witness. 1. The subject matter under examination requires the aid of knowledge or experience of experts on such field. 2. The expert witness must be qualified 3. The subject matter is put in issue.
*** The testimony of expert witnesses, although meriting attention, is not conclusive upon the courts, BUT is to be weighed and its probative value determined in connection with other proofs adduced. > purely advisory in character
2) ORDINARY a. Identity of person about whom he has adequate knowledge b. Handwriting, if with sufficient familiarity c. Mental sanity, if sufficiently acquainted d. Impressions on emotion, behavior, condition or appearance which he has observed e. Ordinary matters common to all men of common perception Modes of Extra-judicial Identification of Accused 1) Show-ups where accused alone is brought face-to-face with the witness for identification 2) Mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness for identification 3) Line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose Identification will be admissible if it passes the totality of circumstances test which considers the following factors: a. The witness opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime b. Witness degree of attention at that time c. Accuracy of any prior description by the witness d. The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification e. Length of time between the crime and identification f. Suggestiveness of the identification procedure
50

*** A telephone conversation overheard through a connecting instrument is admissible if the voice was recognized.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Section 51. Character evidence generally not admissible; exceptions GENERAL RULE: character evidence is not admissible in evidence under Sec.51 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, except under the exceptions provided therein. EXCEPTIONS: CRIMINAL CASES: 1. accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charge. 2. The prosecution may not prove bad moral character of the accused unless in rebuttal when the latter opens the issue by introducing evidence of his Good moral character. 3. As to the offended party, his good or bad moral character may be proved as long as it tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged CIVIL CASES - The moral character of either party thereto cannot be proved unless it is pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. AS TO WITNESSES: Both criminal and civil - the bad moral character of a witness may always be proved by either party (Sec. 11, Rule 132) but not evidence of his good moral character, unless it has been impeached. (Sec. 14)
*** Evidence of good character of witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached *** Character evidence is confined to the general reputation the person sustains in his community in which he is known > Also in his place of work
PLACING ONES CHARACTER IN ISSUE: > character is never an issue in a criminal case UNLESS the accused elects to make it one. > Only after he has introduced evidence of his good character may the prosecution rebut but such claims by introducing evidence of his bad character.
*** When character evidence is introduced into a criminal case it must be limited to the traits and characteristics involved in the type of offense charged. *** Mere rumors of ill repute attached to a person is not tantamount to reputation.
3 RULES IN PROVING CHARACTER: 1. Personal Opinion as to the moral character of the accused - EXCLUDED 2. Reputation in the community - ADMISSIBLE 3. Specific conduct of the party exhibiting character - EXCLUDED
*** In rape cases, this class of evidence goes to question of consent only. *** In seduction cases, the good reputation of the complainant is issue. CHARACTER OF THE DECEASED IN HOMICIDES GENERAL RULE: IRRELEVANT EXCEPTION: 1. Where the issue of SELF DEFENSE is raised and the character of the slaying is doubtful. 2. Where the evidence tends to prove that the accused acted in self defense. *** Character evidence is not admissible in actions involving fraud.
51

*** Where a party voluntarily introduces evidence tending to impeach his own witness, he cannot afterward introduce testimony to show that the reputation of his witness for truth or veracity is good.
RULE 131 BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS:

Section 1. Burden of Proof BURDEN OF PROOF/RISK OF NON-PERSUASION - the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. Obligation imposed upon a party who alleges the existence of facts necessary for the prosecution of his action or defense to establish the same by the requisite presentation of evidence In civil cases, it is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence is given on either side; in criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of proof. Does not shift; remains on party upon whom it is imposed Determined by pleadings filed by party Effect of a legal presumption on Burden of Proof: The effect is to create the necessity of presenting evidence to meet the prima facie case created by the presumption; and if no proof to the contrary is offered, the presumption will prevail. The legal presumption does not shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof remains where it is, but by the presumption, the one who has the burden is relieved, for the timebeing, from producing evidence in suuport of his averment, because the presumption stands in place of evidence. UPON WHOM BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS: A. CIVIL CASES 1. the plaintiff has the burden of proof to show the truth of his allegations if the defendant raises a negative defense 2. the defendant has the burden of proof if he raises an affirmative defense on the complaint of the plaintiff B. CRIMINAL CASES The burden of proof is with the prosecution by reason of the presumption of innocence. EXCEPTION: Under the Speedy Trial Act, burden of proof is in the defense.
MERCHANT vs. INTL BAKING CORP. ( 9 PHIL 554) The burden of proof rests upon him who submits the negative allegation when it is an essential part of the statement of the right or title upon which the cause of action or defense is founded. Thus, a plaintiffs allegation that a debt has not been paid must be proved by him PEOPLE vs. QUEBRAL (68 PHIL 564) With respect to negative allegations in a criminal prosecution, the rule is, if the subject of the negative averment xxx is inherent in the offense as an essential ingredient thereof, the prosecution has the burden of proving the same. However, in view of the difficulty of proving a negative allegation, the prosecution, under such circumstances, need do know more than make prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable. Moreover, the rule is different when the subject of the negative averment does not constitute an element of the offense, but is purely a matter of defense, because in such a case, the burden of proof is upon the accused.
DEGREE OF PROOF THAT SATISFIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF: A. CIVIL CASES > Preponderance of evidence B. CRIMINAL CASES 1. To sustain conviction
52

Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt 2. Preliminary investigation Engender a well founded belief of the fact of the commission of a crime. 3. Issuance of warrant of arrest Probable cause, i.e. that there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed an offense. EQUIPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE RULE: > The plaintiff must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of defendants claim. HARMLESS ERROR RULE: > in dealing with evidence improperly admitted, we examine its damaging quality an impact to the substantive rights of the litigant. - If the impact is slight or insignificant, we disregard the error as it will not overcome the weight of the properly admitted evidence against the prejudiced party. MATTERS WHICH NEED NOT BE PROVED BY A PARTY TO AN ACTION ARE: 1) allegations contained in the complaint or answer immaterial to the issues 2) facts which are admitted or which are not denied in the answer, provided they have been sufficiently alleged
3) those which are the subject of an agreed statement of facts between parties, as well as those admitted by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case 4) those subject to judicial notice 5) facts which are legally presumed 6) facts peculiarly w/in the knowledge of the opposite party BURDEN OF PROOF Does not shift Generally determined by the pleadings filed by the party 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.
BURDEN OF EVIDENCEin both civil and criminal cases, the burden of evidence lies on the party who asserts an affirmative allegation.
*** Burden of evidence shifts to one party when the other has produced sufficient evidence to be entitled as a matter of law to a ruling in his favor
Determined by developments at trial or by provisions of law (presumptions, judicial notice, admissions) In criminal cases, a negative fact must be proven if it is an essential element of the crime. People vs. Macagaling in a charge of illegal possession of firearms, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused had no license to possess the same. People vs. Manalo in a charge for selling regulated drugs without authority, it was held that although the prosecution has the burden of proving a negative averment which is an essential element of the crime (i.e. lack of license to sell), the prosecution, in view of the difficulty of proving a negative allegation, need only establish a prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable. In this case, the lack of license was held to have been established by the circumstances that the sale of the drug was consummated not in a drug store or hospital, and that it was made at 10:00 PM. CIVIL CASES:
53

> The plaintiff has to prove his affirmative allegations in the complaint and the defendant has to prove the affirmative allegations in his counterclaim and his affirmative defenses. CRIMINAL CASES: > The PROSECUTION has to prove its affirmative allegations in the information regarding the elements of the crime as well as the attendant circumstances; while the DEFENSE has to prove its affirmative allegations regarding the existence of justifying or exempting circumstances, absolutory causes or mitigating circumstances. Is a party required to prove negative allegations? GENERAL RULE: NO. They need not be proved, whether in a civil or criminal action. EXCEPTIONS: Where such negative allegations are essential parts of the cause of action or defense in a civil case, or are essential ingredients of the offense in a criminal case or defenses thereto. HOWEVER, in civil cases, even if the negative allegation is an essential part of the cause of action or defense, such negative allegation does not have to be proved if it is only for the purpose of denying the existence of a document which should properly be in the custody of the adverse party.
PRESUMPTIONS
CLASSIFICATION OF PRESUMPTIONS: 1. PRESUMPTION IS JURIS OR OF LAWdeduction which the law expressly directs to be made from particular facts.
*** May be conclusive or absolute, or disputable or rebuttable *** A certain inference must be made whenever the facts appear which furnish the basis of the inference *** Reduced to fix rules and form a part of the system of jurisprudence
2. PRESUMPTION IS HOMINIS OR OF FACTdeduction which reason draws from facts proved without an express direction from the law to that effect.
*** A 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
PRESUMPTION IS JURIS may be divided into: 1. CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION (jure et de jure)which is a presumption of law that is not permitted to be overcome by any proof to the contrary; and 2. DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS (juris tantum)is that which the law permits to be overcome or contradicted by proofs to the contrary; otherwise, the same remains satisfactory. Presumptions are evidence according to the law, which considers and regulates them as such. As they constitute evidence, presumptions are irrelevant and therefore inadmissible when they do not correspond to the allegation and the facts at issue in the pleadings.
*** The proponent still has to introduce evidence of the basis of the presumption > He has to introduce evidence of the existence or non-existence of the facts from which the court can draw inference of the fact in issue *** A presumption may take place of specific evidence relating to particular matters and may stand as such unless and until it is rebutted/overcome by contrary evidence which neutralizes or defeats it. *** No presumption can be indulged unless there is a rational logical connection between the fact or facts established and that presumed.
CLASSES OF CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS under RULE 131: 1. ESTOPPEL IN PAIS (Rule 131, Sec. 2(par. a)whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing to be true and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
54

2. ESTOPPEL BY DEED (Rule 131, Sec. 2 (par. b)the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
REQUISITES ESTOPPEL IN PAIS: 1. There must have been a representation or concealment of material facts. 2. The representation must have been made with knowledge of the facts. 3. The party to whom it was made must have been ignorant of the truth of the matter. 4. It must have been made with intention that the other party would act on it.
*** Estoppel cannot be founded on an illegal act. *** The government is not estopped by the omissions, mistakes or errors of its officials and agents. *** The tenant can deny the title of the landlord at any time AFTER the commencement of the relationship. DEOGRACIAS BERNARDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS (7 SCRA 367) To constitute estoppel, the actor must have knowledge of the facts and be appraised of his rights at the time he performs the act constituting estoppel, because his silence without knowledge works no estoppel. TIJAM vs. SIBONGHANOY (23 SCRA 29) A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and for different reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel in pais, of estoppel by deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches. Laches, in a general sense, is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it wither has abandoned it or declined to assert it. The doctrine of laches or of stale demands is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.
PRESUMPTION VS. JUDICIAL NOTICE VS. JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS: In the case of presumptions, the proponent still has to introduce evidence of the basis of the presumption, that is, he has to introduce evidence of the existence or non-existence of the fact in issue. In the case of judicial notice and judicial admissions, as a rule, the proponent does not have to introduce any evidence. DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS: > Presumptions which are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. PRESUMPTIONOF INNOCENCE: *** Presumption of innocence NOT evidence of innocence. *** Presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot prevail over presumption of innocence. REQUISITES FOR APPLICATION OF PRESUMPTION THAT EVIDENCE WILLFULY SUPPRESSED WOULD BE ADVERSE IF PRODUCED 1. The evidence is material. 2. The party had the opportunity to produce the same. 3. The said evidence is available only to said party. Thus, by way of resume, it was held that the adverse presumption of suppression of evidence does not arise when (1) the suppression is not willful; (2) the evidence withheld is merely corroborative or
55

cumulative; (3) the evidence is at the disposal of both parties, and (4) the suppression is an exercise of a privilege.
WHEN PRESUMPTION OF EVIDENCE WILLFULY SUPPRESSED WOULD BE ADVERSE IF PRODUCED will not apply: 1. If the suppression is NOT willful; 2. If the evidence that is withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative; 3. If the evidence is at the disposal of or equally available to both parties; 4. If the suppression is an exercise of a privilege.
*** Suppression of evidence is inapplicable when evidence is at disposal of both parties. *** Suppression of evidence inapplicable when the evidence claimed to have been suppressed is merely corroborative. *** The production of FABRICATED evidence would give rise to an adverse presumption. *** Suppression must be willful, otherwise the rule will not apply. AN OBLIGATION DELIVERED UP TO THE DEBTOR HAS BEEN PAID > does not apply if the purpose of delivery is for the collection of the debt *** When the creditor is in possession of the instrument it is presumed that the amount of the debt has not yet been paid.
POSSESSION OF STOLEN ARTICLES REQUISITES : 1. That a crime was committed. 2. That it was committed recently. 3. That the stolen property was found in the possession of the defendant 4. That the defendant is unable to explain his possession satisfactorily.
*** Person in possession of stolen goods owned by a murdered person is presumed to be the author of the murder. *** Person in possession of forged document is presumed to be the forger. PRESUMPTION THAT OFFICIAL DUTY HAS BEEN REGULARLY PERFORMED > The defense of FRAME UP, requires stronger proof because of the presumption of regularity. ITT PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS (67 SCRA 435) Presumption that official duty has been regularly performed in the delivery of the mails by the postmaster does not apply where the postmaster failed to make a certification that registry notices were sent to private respondent and the latter had received them. It was incumbent upon the postmaster to make a certification that the registry notices were issued or sent to private respondent and that the latter had received them. Thus, when the postmaster failed to make such certification, the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official functions would not lie. Hence, it was a grave error on the part of the lower court to consider private respondent to have been duly served with the copies of the questioned decision and order of default of the trial court by applying to him Section 8, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court. WHEN PRESUMPTION OF DEATH ARISES: *** A view is held that with respect to the ordinary but continued absence of 7, 10, or 5 years contemplated in the first two sub-paragraphs, the absentee is presumed to have died at the end of said period, but that in the case of qualified absence where the absentee was in danger of death under the three instances contemplated
56

therein, the absentee is presumed to have died at the time he was exposed to such danger or peril, that is, at the start of the 4- year period stated therein. This distinction assumes significance in questions of successional rights to the estate of the absence arising from his presumptive death.
REQUISITES FOR PRESUMPTION OF SURVIVORSHIP IN SECTION 3 (ii), RULE 131: 1. The deaths occurred in a calamity. 2. There are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred that one died ahead of the other. 3. NOT for purposes of succession > Thus regarding the third rule, if one is one-day old child and the other is 61 years old, it can not be presumed that the one-day old child survives, in view of the second requirement. NO PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY OR ILLEGITIMACY: *** There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred days following the dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation. [Section 4, Rule 131] HEIRARCHY OF EVIDENCE: 1. proof beyond reasonable doubt 2. clear and convincing evidence 3. preponderance of evidence 4. substantial evidence
RULE 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE / EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. HOW ORAL EVIDENCE GIVENIt is usually given orally, in open court. Therefore, generally, the testimonies of witnesses cannot be presented in affidavits. --The only instance when the testimonies or witnesses may be given in affidavits is under the rule on summary procedure.
EXAMINATION TO BE DONE IN OPEN COURT: > Examination should be done in open court. > Witness must be under oath or affirmation. > Answers shall be given orally unless: 1. Witness is incapacitated to speak. 2. The question calls for a different mode of answer. *** A witness may testify only on those facts which he knows of his own personal knowledge.
PURPOSE: testimony in open court 1. To give the adverse party the opportunity to cross examine the witness. 2. To enable the judge to observe the demeanor of the witness while testifying in order to determine credibility.
WITNESS: > The term witness has reference to those who testify in a case or give evidence before a judicial tribunal. OPEN COURT: > Open court is a court formally opened and engaged in the transaction of judicial officers, to which all persons to conduct themselves in an orderly manner are admitted. OATH: > In its broadest sense, an oath includes any form of attestation by which a party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully, and it is sometimes defined as an outward pledge given
57

by the person taking it that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of responsibility to God. AFFIRMATION: > An affirmation is a solemn and formal declaration or assertion that the witness will tell the truth, this being a substitute for an oath in certain cases. *** The judgment may be set aside, if after its rendition it is discovered that a witness testified without an oath BUT, may be waived. *** Recalled witness need not be sworn again.
RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE: CRIMINAL CASE: > the affidavits and counter affidavits of the parties witnesses constitute their DIRECT testimonies SUBJECT HOWEVER to cross-examination, re-direct or re-cross examination. CIVIL CASE: > no examination of witnesses is even required or allowed. - The parties simply submit the affidavits of their witnesses and other evidence on the factual issues defined in the preliminary conference order prepared by the judge.
AGRARIAN CASES: > parties submit affidavits of their witnesses subject to cross examination.
TESTIMONY OF WITNESS IN COURT NOT CONSIDERED SELF-SERVING: > The testimony of a witness in court can not be considered self-serving since he can be subjected to cross-examination. Self-serving evidence is one made out of court and is excluded on the same ground as hearsay evidence, that is, deprivation of the right of cross-examination. WHEN MAY TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS BE GIVEN IN A CONTINUOUS UNINTERRUPTED NARRATIVE: 1. Where a partys witness is his own counsel. 2. When allowed by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion. WHAT MUST BE RECORDED DURING THE TRIAL? 1. Entire proceeding of a trial or hearing including: 2. Questions propounded to a witness and his answers thereto; 3. Objections to the questions and the ruling of the court in connection therewith; and 4. statements made by the judge, or any other parties, counsel or witnesses with reference to the case. The form and nature of the questions that may and may not be propounded to a witness are as follows: 1. Questions must not be indefinite or uncertain; 2. Questions must be relevant; 3. Questions must not be argumentative; 4. Questions must not call for conclusion of law; 5. Questions must not call for opinion or hearsay evidence; 6. Questions must not call for illegal answer; 7. Questions must not call for self-incriminating testimony; 8. Questions must not be leading; 9. Questions must not be misleading; 10. Questions must not tend to degrade reputation of witness; 11. Questions must not be repetitious.
*** An answer which is not responsive to the question propounded must be discarded by the court. *** Certified TSN is deemed prima facie evidence of its correctness.
Section 3: Rights and obligations of a witness. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS: 1. To answer questions although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him.
58

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
To be protected from irrelevant, improper or insulting questions. To be protected from harsh or insulting demeanor. To be detained only as long as interest of justice require it. To be examined only on matters pertinent to the issue. To refrain from answering questions which may incriminate him. To refrain from answering questions if the answer will have a direct tendency to degrade his reputation. 8. To answer questions about his previous final conviction for an offense.
*** The witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense *** The court may, in its discretion, exclude questions which are calculated to ridicule or mortify the witness to whom they are propounded. > must still be objected upon *** Where a witness has been confused in cross-examination and given incorrect answers as to matters not in dispute, it is proper to excuse him from the stand for a time. *** It is the duty of the judge to see that the witness understands the questions put to him and that he has a fair opportunity to answer it. *** The judge may propound clarificatory questions
The exception refers to immunity statutes wherein the witness is granted immunity from criminal prosecution for offenses admitted in his testimony, e.g. under Sec. 8, R.A. 1379, the law providing for the forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property; and under P.D. 749, in prosecutions for bribery and graft. CLASSIFICATION OF IMMUNITY STATUTES: A. USE IMMUNITYprohibits use of witness compelled testimony and its fruit in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness. B. TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITYgrants immunity to the witness from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimony relates. Where the statute grants only use immunity, merely testifying and/or producing evidence does not render the witness immune from prosecution despite his invocation of the right against self-incrimination
*** Any statute which compels a witness to testify must grant immunity
SCOPE AND NATURE OF RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION > The prohibition against compelling a man in a criminal case to be a witness against himself is a prohibition against physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from him, and not an exclusion of body as evidence, when it may be material.
*** It is well-established doctrine that the constitutional inhibition against self-incrimination is directed not merely to giving of oral testimony but embraces as well the furnishing of evidence by other means than by word of mouth. The divulging, in short, of any fact which the accused has a right to hold secret. *** limited to compulsory testimonial self-incrimination - ocular inspection of the body permitted. *** Merely directing the accused to stand up for identification is not compelling him to be a witness against himself. HOWEVER, requiring the accused to do an affirmative act such as putting on clothing found at the scene of the crime, violates his constitutional rights. PROTECTS ONLY NATURAL INDIVIDUAL > A corporate officer may not withhold testimony or documents on the ground that his corporation would be incriminated. *** The privilege against self-incrimination is a personal one. But the privilege is an option of refusal not a prohibition of inquiry. *** Right must be claimed. If not, deemed waived.
59

*** There is difference between right of accused against self-incrimination and the right of an ordinary witness. a. Different tier of protection for accused. b. While ordinary witness may be compelled to testify and may claim right only if question results to incrimination answer, accused may altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer any and all questions.
Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness. ORDER: 1. direct examination; 2. cross-examination; 3. redirect examination; 4. re-cross examination;
*** Judge may himself conduct an examination of a witness > The participation of a judge in direct or cross-examination is not an irreversible error as long as it is confined to CLARIFICATORY QUESTIONS. *** There is no rule of law making compulsory the presentation of a complainant as a witness. > Confrontation applies only to witness who actually testify in a trial against the accused.
DIRECT EXAMINATION: > Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. > Purpose is to build up theory of the case. CROSS EXAMINATION: > Cross examination has been defined as the examination of a witness by the party opposed to the party who called such witness, the latter party having examined, or having been entitled to examine, such witness in chief.
*** Cross examination is the absolute right, not a mere privilege, of the party against whom the witness is called, and with regard to the accused, it is a right granted by the Constitution. *** Evidence elicited on cross examination is regarded as testimony on the part of the party, calling the witness, and not as evidence of the party cross examining. *** Purpose is to test the truth of statements of a witness made on direct examination.
The object of cross examinations is: 1. To weaken or dispose the case of ones adversary, and break down his testimony in chief; 2. Test the recollection, veracity, accuracy, honesty, and bias or prejudice of the witness, his source of information, his motives, interest, and memory; and 3. Exhibit the improbabilities of his testimony. PURPOSES OF CROSS-EXAMINATION: 1. To discredit the witness; 2. To discredit the testimony of the witness; 3. To clarify certain matters; 4. To elicit admissions from a witness. SCOPE OR LIMITS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION: 1. ENGLISH RULEwhere a witness is called to testify to a particular fact, he becomes a witness for all purposes and may be fully cross-examined upon all matters material to the issue, the examination not being confined to the matters inquired about in the direct examination. 2. AMERICAN RULErestricts cross-examination to facts and circumstances which are connected with the matters that have been stated in the direct examination of the witness. Under Philippine jurisdiction, we follow the two rules, specifically under the following instances: in civil cases, we follow the English Rule, which allows the cross-examination to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue (Sec. 6), but this does not mean that a party by doing so is making the witness his own in accordance with Section 5. In two instances we follow the American Rule, 1) the accused may only be cross-examined on matters covered by direct examination, 2) hostile witness.
60

ENGLISH RULE: 2 AREAS SUBJECT OF CROSS EXAMINATION 1. Area covered by the direct examination 2. Area related to the area covered by the direct examination EXCEPTION / LIMITATION: 1. When the witness is the accused, he could only be cross examined on the area tackled in the direct examination (American rule) 2. In case of hostile witness, cross-examination is limited only to what the hostile witness testified during the direct examination
GENERAL RULE: A party cannot cross-examine his own witness. EXCEPTIONS: 1. If also called by the adverse party. 2. In case of adverse or hostile witness.
ORTIGAS Jr. vs. LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES (64 SCRA 610) Oral testimony may be taken into account only when it is complete, that is, if the witness has been wholly cross-examined by the adverse party or the right to cross-examine is lost wholly or in part through the fault of the adverse party. But when cross-examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party offering the witness, the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered incompetent.
RULE : UNCOMPLETED TESTIMONIES *** If by accident or design cross examination of a witness is prevented, his direct examination is rendered incompetent. > BUT, if the opposite party has had the opportunity of cross-examining but has not availed himself of it, the direct examination will be received.
FULGADO vs COURT OF APPEALS (182 SCRA 81) If death prevented the completion of cross-examination the prudent alternative should be to admit the direct examination so far as the laws of cross-examination could have been shown to be not in that instance a material loss.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION, ITS PURPOSE AND EXTENT > After the cross examination of the witness has been concluded, he may be re-examined by the party calling him to explain or supplement his answers given during the cross examination. [Section 7, Rule 132]. *** On re-direct examination, questions on matters not dealt with during the cross examination may be allowed by the court in its discretion. [Section 7, Rule 132] OBJECT OF RE-DIRECT: 1. to give the witness the opportunity to explain or to amplify the testimony which he has given on cross-examination. 2. To explain any apparent contradiction or inconsistency in his statement. RE-CROSS EXAMINATION > Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse party may re-cross examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination, and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. [Section 8, Rule 132] PARTY CALLING THE FOLLOWING WITNESSES ARE NOT BOUND BY THEIR TESTIMONY: 1. adverse party 2. hostile witness; 3. unwilling witness.
*** The court may in its sound discretion permit a party to cross examine his hostile witness *** Adverse party may be impeached in all aspects except by evidence of his bad character
Section 9. Recalling witness. GENERAL RULE: After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of court. EXCEPTION: 1.the examination has not been concluded 2.recall has been expressly reserved with the approval of the court
61

*** The court may allow the recall of a witness to lay down the foundation for an impeachment of an adverse witness.
Section 10. Leading and misleading questions. LEADING QUESTION - Question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desirers. TEST: Sugestiveness of its substance GENERAL RULE: Leading Questions Not allowed EXCEPTIONS: 1. On preliminary matters; 2. On cross-examination; 3. To adverse party witness; 4. To hostile witness; 5. To unwilling witness; 6. To children of tender age; 7. To deaf-mutes; 8. To those who are ignorant; 9. To those who are of weak minds; 10. To the officers of the adverse party who is a juridical person. RULE ON ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS > A question in the alternative form is not objectionable as leading, where it is not so framed as to indicated which answer is desired. > BUT, if a question, although in the alternative, is so framed as to suggest an answer is objectionable as leading. *** Under the Rule on examination of a child witness, corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a child. His testimony, if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment subject to the standard of proof required in criminal and non-criminal cases (Sec. 22 of the Rule on examination of a child witness).
*** A question which merely suggests to the witness a subject, without suggesting an answer or a specific thing is NOT leading. *** Questions assuming the truth of statements previously made by the particular witness is NOT leading. *** Testimony on direct examination elicited through leading questions of counsel for the proponent has little probative value.
MISLEADING QUESTION - one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is NOT allowed. 2 FORMS OF MISLEADING QUESTIONS 1. It assumes as a fact something that has not yet been established by the testimony of the witness 2. The basis of the question is opposite or contrary to what the witness previously stated A misleading question, though not objected to, will not be evidence of the fact assumed by the improper question.
*** When the question, which assumes a fact not on record is asked on cross-examination, it is objectionable for being MISLEADING. *** If asked on direct examination, it is objectionable for LACK OF BASIS
Only one counsel should be allowed to examine a witness in a single stage. However, the other counsel may make objection to testimony. REASONS: 1. To protect the witness from undue and confusing interrogation; and 2. To secure system and brevity by giving the control of the interrogation to a single hand. WHEN QUESTION IS PRELIMINARYwhen the question does not touch on any issue.
62

A question that merely suggests a subject without suggesting an answer or a specific thing is not a leading question. Example: State whether anything occurred between you and the defendants on the evening of January 9, 1913. Section 11. Impeachment of adverse partys witness. *** A party against whom a witness has testified can impeach him WAYS OF IMPEACHING ADVERSE PARTYS WITNESS: 1) Contradictory evidence from testimony in same case 2) Evidence of prior inconsistent statement 3) Evidence of bad character/general reputation for truth, honesty, integrity 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 7) Evidence of impossibility or improbability of his testimony CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: > Contradictory evidence refers to other testimony of the same witness or other evidence presented by him in the same case, but not the testimony of another witness. PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS: > Prior inconsistent statements refer to statements, oral or documentary, made by the witness sought to be impeached on occasion other than the trial in which he is testifying. EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER OF WITNESS: > Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached. [Section 14, Rule 132] ANY JUDICIAL RECORD MAY BE IMPEACHED BY EVIDENCE: 1. Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer. 2. Collusion between the parties. 3. Fraud in the party offering the record in respect to the proceedings. Sec. 12. Impeaching own witness General Rule: Party not allowed to impeach own witness (A party who voluntarily offers the testimony of
a witness in the case is bound by the testimony of the said witness.)
Exceptions: 1) Unwilling or adverse witness so declared by the court (Hostile Witness) 2) Witness who is also an adverse party 3) Witnesses required by law (e.g., subscribing witnesses to a will) May be impeached in all respects as if called by other party, EXCEPT by evidence of bad moral character
*** To be considered as adverse party witness, he must be actively seeking a recovery against or opposing a recovery by, such a party, or a person for whose immediate benefit the action was brought or defended. *** The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of his bad character. [Section 12, Rule 132] *** He may also be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party, but such cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his examination in chief. [Section 12, Rule 132]
HOW PARTY CAN IMPEACH HIS OWN WITNESS: 1. Contradict evidence to his testimony. 2. Evidence of prior inconsistent statements. A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of: 1) his adverse interest, 2) unjustified reluctance to testify; or 3) his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. (Rule 132, Sec. 12)
63

*** A party cannot call the adverse party as his witness unless the party calling the adverse party has previously given him a request for admission *** A party who is compelled to call an indispensable witness is not concluded by the answers of such witness > He may impeach him
When a witness who is partly cross-examined dies, his direct examination cannot be expunged. In People v. Seeris (99 SCRA 92), the direct testimony of a witness who dies before conclusion of the cross can be stricken only insofar as not covered by the cross. However, Professor Bautista does not like this decision because although the cross was substantially complete, still, the court ordered the direct examination to be stricken out. IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE PARTYS WITNESS VS. IMPEACHMENT OF PARTYS OWN WITNESS: *** A party can impeach the adverse partys witness by (1) contradictory evidence, (2) evidence of prior inconsistent statements, (3) evidence of bad character, and (4) evidence of bias, interest, prejudice or incompetence. A party can impeach his own witness only by (1) evidence contradictory to his testimony, or (2) evidence of prior inconsistent statements in the case of hostile witness, adverse party witnesses or involuntary witnesses. Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. PROCEDURE FOR IMPEACHING WITNESS BY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR STATEMENTS (LAYING THE PREDICATE) INCONSISTENT
1. The statement must be related to him with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present;
*** if the statement be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them; and
2. He must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to EXPLAIN it.
*** The impeaching process is not complete until the witness is asked to make explanations of his contradictory statements
NOTE: Where the previous statements of a witness are offered as evidence of an admission, and not merely to impeach him, the rule on laying the predicate does not apply.
*** The testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part, depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case.
LAYING THE PREDICATE: *** A witness is impeached by prior inconsistent by laying the predicate, that is (1) by confronting him with such statements, with the circumstances under which they were made; (2) by asking him whether he made such statements, and (3) by giving him a chance to explain the inconsistency. Unless the witness is given the opportunity to explain the discrepancies, the impeachment is incomplete.
*** It is, however, believed that if the prior inconsistent statement appears in a deposition of the adverse party, and not a mere witness, the adverse party who testifies may be impeached without laying the predicate as such prior statements are in the nature of admissions of said adverse party.
EXCLUSION AND SEPARATION OF WITNESSES: > On any trial or hearing, the judge may excluded from the court any witness not at the time under examination, so that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses. The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented from conversing with one another until all shall have been examined. [Section 15, Rule 132]
*** The power of exclusion applies only to witnesses and not to the parties in a civil case. Parties have a right to be present at the trial either by themselves or by their attorneys, as well as to reasonable notice of the time fixed therefore. Since they have such right, by necessary implication, they can not be divested thereof by an exclusion order.
Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum.
64

REVIVAL OF PRESENT MEMORY/ PRESENT RECOLLECTION REVIVED - A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction as the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter.
*** But in such a case, the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he chooses, cross examine the witness upon it, and may read it in evidence.
PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED/REVIVAL OF PAST RECOLLECTION - A witness may also testify from such writing or record, though he retains 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. Requisites of revival of present memory 1) Memorandum has been written by him or under his direction; and 2) Written by him: a. When the fact occurred or immediately thereafter; or b. At any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was correctly recorded Requisites of Revival of Past Recollection 1) Witness retains no recollection of the particular facts; 2) But he his able to swear that the record or writing correctly stated the transaction when made Revival of present memory and Revival of past recollection distinguished PRESENT RECOLLECTION REVIVED Applies if the witness remembers the facts regarding his entries Entitled to greater weight Evidence is the testimony Rule of evidence affected is competency of witness, examination of witness (laying the predicate) The witness simply testifies that he knows that the memorandum is correctly written by him or under his direction; no need to swear. PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED Applies where the witness does not recall the facts involved Entitled to lesser weight Evidence is the writing or record Rule of evidence affected is the best evidence rule Witness must swear that the writing correctly states the transaction.
*** The memorandum from which the witness may be permitted to refresh his memory need not be an original writing. It is sufficient if it is shown that the witness knows the copy to be a true one, and his memory refreshed thereby enables him to testify from his own recollection of the facts, independent of his confidence in the accuracy of the copy. RULE ON ADMISSIBILITY OF MEMORANDUM General Rule: Memorandum inadmissible in evidence as proof of the facts stated therein Exception: If witness swears to the truth of the facts stated in such memorandum *** Court should receive such evidence with caution
*** The provision applies only when it is shown beforehand that there is a need to refresh the memory of the witness. *** Memorandum not admissible as corroborative evidence.
RIGHT TO INSPECT WRITING SHOWN TO WITNESS: > Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be inspected by the adverse party [Section 18, Rule 132] Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder admissible.
65

RULE ON COMPLETENESS - When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing, or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary may also be given in evidence.
B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS

Section 19. Classes of documents. AUTHENTICATION - PROVING the due execution and genuineness of the document. CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS: for the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either in public or private (Sec. 19). 1) Public, consisting of: 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 Philippines, or of a foreign country; Note: These documents are evidenced by either: 1) official publication thereof; or 2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy. *** The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original copy, or a specific part thereof, and must be under the official seal of the attesting officer or his court. *** If the record is not kept in the Philippines, in addition to the foregoing requirements, there must be a certificate that such officer has the custody. b. Documents acknowledged before a notary public, except last wills and testaments; and Note: Notarial documents may be presented in evidence without further proof. The certificate of acknowledgement is prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. c. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein. Note: These documents may be proved by: 1) the original record, or 2) a copy thereof attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE > Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. [Section 23, Rule 132] PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, HOW PROVED > Public documents may be proved by (1) the original copy, (2) an official publication thereof. (3) certified true copy thereof. 2) Private, consisting of all other writings. Note: Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either by: a. Anyone who saw the document executed or written; or b. Evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. *** Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.
66

***
When a private document is offered in evidence as a genuine authentic document, no evidence on that document is allowed to be received, until the genuineness & due execution thereof is proven
HOW TO PROVE DUE EXECUTION AND AUTHENTICITY: 1. By anyone who saw the document executed or written 2. By evidence of genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. [Section 20, Rule 132] PUBLIC WRITING DISTINGUISHED FROM PRIVATE WRITING: As to authenticity PUBLIC WRITING a public document is admissible evidence, without further proof of its genuineness and due execution a public instrument is evidence even against third persons, of the fact which gave rise to its due execution and to the date of the latter; certain transactions must be in a public document, otherwise they will not be given any validity. PRIVATE WRITING a private writing must be proved relative to its due execution and genuineness-its authenticity-before it may be received in evidence. a private writing binds only the parties who executed them or their privies, insofar as due execution and date of the document are concerned.
As to persons bound
As to validity of certain transactions
DISTINGUISHED FROM CLASSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE > The classification of documents into official, public, commercial and private under the RPC is different. Under the rules of evidence, official documents are public documents. Those acknowledged before persons authorized to administer oaths are public documents but are further governed by Section 30, while commercial and private documents would fall under private documents. However, private documents required by law to be entered in public records are considered as public documents and are subject to the provision of Section 27.
The following are private writings which may be admitted in evidence without previous proof of its authenticity and due execution: 1. When the genuineness and due execution of the document is admitted by the adverse party; 2. When such genuineness and due execution are immaterial to the issue; 3. When the document is an ANCIENT DOCUMENT; NOTE: Ancient Document Rule applies only if there are no other witnesses to determine authenticity. Additional modes of authenticating a private writing 1) Doctrine of self-authentication Where the facts in the writing could only have been known by the writer 2) Rule of authentication by the adverse party Where reply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the sending and his receipt of the letter in question, a copy of which the proponent is offering as evidence WHAT ATTESTATION MUST STATE > Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of the evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct of the original or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. [section 25, Rule 132] > The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. [Section 25, Rule 132] > Any public record, an official copy of which is admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the office in which it is kept except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case. [Section 26, Rule 132] PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD:
67

> A written statement signed by an officer after 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 that such officer has the custody, is admissible as evidence that the records if his office contain no such record or entry. [Section 28, Rule 132]
*** Only baptismal certificates issued by the priest during the Spanish regime are considered public documents. *** Baptismal certificates are not sufficient to prove paternity. In Macadangdang vs CA G.R. No. L-49542, September 12, 1980, it was held that a baptismal certificate is proof only of the baptism administered by the priest who baptized the child but not the veracity of the declarations and statements in the certificate concerning the relationship of the person baptized. Also, a baptismal record is not proof of voluntary recognition of a child. *** A death certificate is not proof of the cause of death, its probative value being confined only to the fact of death, and the statement therein contained regarding the duration of illness and the cause of death are mere hearsay. ALTERATIONS IN DOCUMENT, HOW TO EXPLAIN: > The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. If he fails to do so, the document shall not be admissible in evidence. [Section 31, Rule 132]
He may show that: 1. The alteration was made by another without his concurrence; 2. The alteration was made with the consent of the parties affected by it; 3. The alteration was otherwise properly or innocently made; or 4. The alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. [Section 31, Rule 132] Authentication not required: 1) Ancient document a. More than 30 years old b. Contains no alterations or circumstances of suspicion c. Produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine 2) Public document or record
*** Entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein > It may be contradicted by contrary evidence
3) Notarial document acknowledged, proved or certified

*** The acknowledgment signed by the notary public gives rise to the presumption that the person whose signature appears thereon did really sign such document > You do not have to prove the identity
4) Authenticity and due execution has been expressly or impliedly admitted (e.g., actionable documents, failure to deny under oath) Computer printouts are inadmissible unless properly authenticated by a witness attesting that they came from the computer system or that the data stored in the system were not and could not have been tampered with before the same were printed out. RULE ON CERTIFIED COPIES (Proof of official record) 1. If found in the Philippines a. certification of correct copy b. signed by legal custodian 2. If found abroad a. certified copy signed by legal custodian abroad b. certification from Philippine embassy that such person is the legal custodian of the original public document
WRITTEN OFFICIAL ACT OF A PUBLIC OFFICER VS. PUBLIC RECORDS OF PRIVATE WRITINGS > A document, to be public, must be an official written act of a public officer. While public records, kept in the Philippines, of private writings are also public documents, the public writing is not the writing itself but the public record thereof. Stated otherwise, if a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public records, its record, its recordation or its incorporation into the public record becomes a public document, but thar does not make it admissible without authentication.
68

Handwriting: evidence of genuineness 1) Witness actually saw person writing the instrument 2) Familiar with handwriting and witness can give opinion 3) Comparison of questioned handwriting and admitted genuine specimens 4) Expert evidence A judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: 1) Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer; 2) Collusion between the parties; or 3) Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings
*** A foreign judgment cannot be enforced in the Philippines unless the prevailing party files an action in the Philippine court to enforce that judgment
*** In what Instances must alterations in documents be accounted for by the producing party? 1) The document being produced as genuine has been altered; 2) The alteration appears to have been done after the execution of the document; 3) The alteration appears to have been in a part material to the question in dispute. *** What explanations are satisfactory so as to make the altered document admissible in evidence? The producing party must show that the alteration was: 1. made by another; 2. made without his (the producing partys) concurrence; 3. made with the consent of the parties affected by it; 4. otherwise properly or innocently made; or 5. such that it did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF A COPY OF A FOREIGN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT 1. It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy. 2. It must be accompanied by a certificate of the Philippine diplomatic or consular representative to the 3. foreign country certifying that such attesting officer has the custody of the document. NOTE: Requisite number 2 is not a mere technicality but is intended to justify the giving of full faith and credit to the genuineness of a document in a foreign country. DECISION OF AN OFFICIAL BODY OR TRIBUNAL OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY > A claim for the enforcement of a foreign judgment can be brought only before the regular courts and not in administrative agency. A foreign decision purporting to be the written record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country is, therefore, a public writing under section 19 (a) of Rule 132 and must be proved in accordance with sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN AN UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE > Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. Toa void interruption of proceedings, parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. [section 33, Rule 132]
C. OFFER AND OBJECTION

Section 34. Offer of evidence. GENERAL RULE : The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. EXCEPTION: If there was repeated reference thereto in the course of the trial by adverse partys counsel and of the court, indicating that the documents were part of the prosecutions evidence. Two requisites must concur (People vs. Napta) a. The document must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded.
69

b. The document must have been incorporated to the records of the case.
Formal offer of evidence
Objection: grounds General immaterial or irrelevant Overruled Evidence will be allowed to be presented in court
Sustained Evidence offered will not be allowed to be presented in court
Remedy of offeror Tender of excluded evidence
Presentation of evidence offered
Objection; to deny presentation general/specific grounds
Sustained Question posed will not be permitted e.g. misleading; revise the question / tender of excluded evidence
Overruled Question will be allowed
Why purpose of offer must be specified - to determine whether that piece of evidence should be admitted or not.
*** In offering testimonial evidence you must only state the ultimate fact to be established > You are not supposed to state matters evidentiary in nature *** The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified because such evidence may be admissible for several purposes under the doctrine of multiple admissibility, or may be admissible for one purpose and not for another, otherwise the adverse party can not interpose the proper objection. Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be considered for any other purpose. *** Mere making, identification or authentication of documentary evidence does not mean that it will be or has been offered as part of the evidence of a party. *** Annexes attached to the pleading, if not formally offered are mere scraps of paper, UNLESS the truth of its contents was judicially admitted.
NOTE: Where the evidence is inadmissible for the purpose stated in the offer, it must be rejected, though the same may be admissible for another purpose. The reason is that the adverse party is prevented from objecting to the admissibility thereof on grounds other than those available to meet the stated purpose. In MATA Vda. De ONATE vs. CA, the Court allowed evidence not formally offered to be admitted and considered by the trial court provided the following requirements are present: 1. the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded; 2. the same must have been incorporated to the records of the case.
70

PEOPLE vs. SANTITO, Jr., (201 SCRA 87) Even if the document had been identified in court, it would have no evidentiary value if it is not formally offered. Identification of documentary evidence must be distinguished from its formal offer as an exhibit. The first is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit. The second is done only when the party rests its case and not before. The mere fact that a particulat document is identified as an exhibit does not mean the it will or has been offered as part of the evidence of the party. The party may decide to formally offer it if it believes this will advance its cause, and then again it may decide not to do so at all.
Section 35. When to make offer. GENERAL RULE: Court shall not consider any evidence not formally offered. EXCEPTION: 1. Rule on SUMMARY PROCEDURE 2. SUMMARY JUDGMENTS 3. Documents whose contents are taken JUDICIAL NOTICE 4. Documents whose contents ate JUDICIALLY ADMITTED 5. Object evidence which could not be formally admitted because they have disappeared or have become lost after they have been marked, identified and testified on. WHEN OFFER OF TESTIMONIAL/ORAL EVIDENCE MADE - at the time the witness is called to testify. There is another kind of offer: AN IMPLIED OFFER. Every time a question is asked of a witness, there is an implied automatic offer of the evidence sought to be enlisted by the question. If there is any objection to the question, the same must be raised immediately, otherwise, there is a waiver, because there is an implied automatic offer of evidence for every specific evidence called for by a specific question. THEREFORE, oral evidence is always being offered twice: 1. before the witness testifies; and 2. every time a question is asked of him. WHEN TO OBJECT TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE 1. When the offer of the testimony of the witness is made 2. During testimony, when a question is one that is improper to ask
*** Failure to object when proper amounts to a waiver of that objection *** If a witness has given unoffered direct testimony without objection from the adverse party, the latter is estopped from raising that objection which he is deemed to have waived.
WHEN OFFER OF DOCUMENTARY AND OBJECT EVIDENCE SHOULD BE MADEafter the party has presented his testimonial evidence. Before he rests, he must make a formal offer of all his documentary and object evidence and specify the purposes for which he is offering these evidence.
*** You cannot object on the document until it is offered in evidence *** Documents which may have been marked as exhibits during the hearing but which were not formally offered in evidence can nit be considered as evidence nor can they be given any evidentiary value. *** A document or writing which is admitted not as an independent evidence but merely as part of the testimony of a witness does not constitute proof of the facts related therein.
PROCEDURE BEFORE DOCUMENTARY AND OBJECT EVIDENCE CAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT: 1. marking; 2. identification; 3. authentication; 4. formal offer; and 5. if the evidence is excluded, an offer of proof. > Of course, you can dispense with authentication and identification if there is a stipulation on the due execution and genuineness of the document. a. if it is a private document, then there is a need for a stipulation on that. b. if it is a public document, then there is a need for authentication.
71

IDENTIFICATION OF DOC. EVIDENCE vs. FORMAL OFFER OF DOC. EVIDENCE > The identification of documentary evidence is different from its formal offer. Identification of the evidence is made in the course of the trial and it is only when the proponent rests his case and formally offers the evidence that an objection thereto to be made. Any objection prior thereto is premature. The evidence identified at the trial and marked as exhibits may be withdrawn before the formal offer thereof or may not at all be offered as evidence.
STAGES IN THE PRESENTATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: IDENTIFICATION By identification is meant a proof that the document being presented is the same one referred to by the witness in his testimony. MARKING All exhibit should be marked to facilitate their identification. The marking may be made at the pre-trial or during the trial. The plaintiff and the prosecution use capital letters (A, B, C, etc.) and the accused use Arabic numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.) If the exhibit is presented in connection with an affidavit, like in support or in opposition to a motion to dismiss, the words Motion to Dismiss should be added after the letter or number. AUTHENTICATION The proof of a documents due execution and genuineness if the purpose is to show that it is genuine, or the proof of its forgery, if the purpose is to show that the document is a forgery. INSPECTION Under Section 18 of Rule 132, whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be inspected by the adverse party. FORMAL OFFER After the termination of the testimonial evidence, the proponent will then make a formal offer and state the purpose for which the document is presented (Rule 132, Sec. 34) OBJECTIONS The objection to the introduction or presentation of the document shall be made when it is formally offered in evidence (Rule 132, Sec. 36) *** There is a distinction between identification of documentary evidence and formal offer of documentary evidence as an exhibit: a. In identification of documentary evidence, the same is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit. b. In formal offer of a documentary evidence as an exhibit, the same is done when the party has presented his testimonial evidence. *** The mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not mean that it will be or has been offered as part of the evidence of the party. The party may decide to formally offer it if it believes this will advance its cause, and then again it may decide not to do so at all. *** A party who has introduced evidence is not entitled as matter of right to withdraw it in finding that it does not answer his purpose; BUT he may withdraw an offer of an exhibit any time before the court has passed on its admissibility.
72

***
Evidence offered is presumed to be admissible or competent until the contrary has been established. Thus, the opposing party must OBJECT to its introduction.
Section 36. Objection MODES OF EXCLUDING INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE: 1. Objection-when the evidence is offered. 2. Motion to strike out or Expunge - examples are: a. when the witness answers prematurely before there is reasonable opportunity for the party to object (Sec. 39); b. unresponsive answers; c. answers that are incompetent, irrelevant, or improper (Sec. 39); d. uncompleted testimonies where there was no opportunity for the other party to cross-examine. When to object OFFER Offered orally Question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness Offer of evidence in writing TIME TO OBJECT Made immediately after the offer is made Shall be made as soon as the grounds thereof shall become reasonably apparent Shall be objected to within 3 days after notice of the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court.
Sec. 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary *** When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination that the questions asked are of the same class as those to which objection has been made (whether 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. Exceptions to the rule against repetition of objections 1) where the question has not been answered, it is necessary to repeat the objection when the evidence is again offered or the question again asked 2) evidence of the same kind as that previously admitted over objection 3) incompetency is shown later 4) objection refers to preliminary question it must be repeated when the same question is again asked during the introduction of actual evidence 5) objection to evidence was sustained but reoffered at a later stage of the trial 6) evidence is admitted on condition that its competency or relevance be shown by further evidence and the condition is not fulfilled, the objection formerly interposed must be repeated or a motion to strike out the evidence must be made 7) where the court reserves the ruling on objection, the objecting party must request a ruling or repeat the objection Sec. 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. 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. EFFECT OF AN ERRONEOUS ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE BY THE TRIAL COURT:
73

> An erroneous admission or rejection of evidence by the trial court is not a ground for a new trial or reversal of the decision if there are other independent evidence to sustain the decision, or if the rejected evidence, if it had been admitted, would not have changed the decision; otherwise a new trial is warranted by reason of such erroneous ruling which goes into the merits of the case and would have affected the decision. If the trial court erroneously ruled out the evidence and discovered such error before the judgment had become final or before an appeal therefrom had been perfected, it may re-open the case. Sec. 39. Striking out answer. When is a motion to strike out answer proper? a. When the witness answered the question before the counsel has a chance to object b. Where a question which is not objectionable may be followed by an objectionable unresponsive answer
c. Where a witness has volunteered statements in such a way that the party has not been able to object thereto d. Where a witness testifies without a question being addressed to him e. Where a witness testifies beyond the ruling of the court prescribing the limits within which he may answer f. When a witness dies or becomes incapacitated to testify and the other party has not been given the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. *** There must be an objection first before a motion to strike. If the party slept on his right to object, he cannot later on avail a motion to strike to exclude the evidence. When is a motion to strike out improper? a. A party cannot insist that competent and relevant evidence be stricken out for reasons going to his weight, sufficiency or credibility b. One cannot move to strike it out because it proves unfavorable to him
*** 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 motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper.
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 witnesses and the substance of the proposed testimony. [Section 40, Rule 132] PURPOSES: 1. to inform the court what is expected to be proved; and 2. procuring exceptions to the exclusion of the offered evidence so that the appellate court may determine from the record whether the proposed evidence is competent. How made? a. As to documentary or object evidence: may have the same attached to or made part of the record. b. As to oral evidence: may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony.
*** The trial court should permit all exhibits presented by the parties, although not admitted, to be attached to the records so that, in case of appeal, the appellate court may be able to examine the same and determine the propriety of their rejection. This procedure is now specifically provided in Section 40 above and includes, for the same reason and purpose, oral evidence which the trial court may have excluded or refused to admit.
74

*** However, it has been held in Baez vs. CA, et. Al., G.R. No. L-30351, September 11, 1974, that where documentary evidence was rejected by the trial court and the offeror did not move that the same be attached to the record, the same can not be considered by the appellate court, as documents forming no part of proofs before the appellate court can not be considered in disposing of the case. Otherwise, that would infringe the constitutional right of the adverse party to due process of law.
Rule 133 WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE - probative value or credit that the court gives to particular evidence admitted to prove a fact in issue. *** Refers to the quantum of evidence necessary to prove ones claim. In criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt; in civil cases, preponderance of evidence; and in administrative cases, substantial evidence. *** Evidence to be worthy of credit, must not only proceed from a credible source but must in addition be credible in itself. > It shall be natural, reasonable and probable as to make it easy. Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. > In CIVIL CASES, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE - evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing or superior weight of evidence than that which is offered in opposition to it.
*** 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 they 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.
*** In CRIMINAL CASE, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. [Section 2, Rule 133] REASONABLE DOUBT - doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. Absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict a person charged for the commission of an offense, but moral certainty is only required as to every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense. Does not mean such degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT *** The totality of the evidence both of the prosecution and the defense which convinces the mind of the trial judge of the facts that the crime is committed & that the accused committed the crime > To doubt is to acquit
EQUIPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE - The evidence of both parties when placed on the division scale is balance. In civil cases, this means that the court will rule in favor of the party who has no burden of proof. In criminal cases, this means acquittal of the accused.
PEOPLE vs. JOSE PARAYNO (24 SCRA 3) If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused of the crime charged and the other consistent with their guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. Distinction between presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt Presumption of Innocence Reasonable Doubt
75

Conclusion drawn by law in favor of citizens Evidence introduced by law to be considered by the court
Condition of mind produced by resulting from evidence in the case Result of insufficient proof
proof
POSITIVE TESTIMONY DISTINGUISHED FROM NEGATIVE TESTIMONY: POSITIVE TESTIMONYis when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur; NEGATIVE TESTIMONYis when a witness states that he did not see or know of the occurrence of a fact. *** Positive testimony has greater weight than negative evidence.
PEOPLE vs. GALANZA (G.R. No. 89685 November 8, 1993) Where two witnesses directly contradict each other, and the veracity of neither is impeached, the presumption of truth is in favor of the witness who swears affirmatively. Furthermore, the positive testimony of a single witness is entitled to more weight than that of several witnesses, equally credible, who testify negatively or to collateral circumstances merely persuasive in their character from which a negative may be inferred.
ALIBI - must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence. Requisites: 1. showing that not only is the accused somewhere else 2. but also it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. *** One of the weakest defenses because of the facility with which it can be fabricated.
CREDIBILITY / WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE > the degree of credit that the court in its discretion assigns to a particular evidence. *** An evidence may have a weight but it does not follow that it is admissible. > Only admissible evidence can be given weight. *** The mere fact that evidence is admissible does not necessarily mean that it is also credible.
CREDIBILITY OF TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS > By credibility of witness is meant his integrity, disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testimony he has given as distinguished from the credibility of his testimony.
*** Where the issue is on the credibility of witness, generally the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal since it was in a better position to decide the question, having heard and observed the demeanor of each witness, unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.
TESTIMONY OF A BIASED WITNESS > A witness may be said to be biased when his relation to the cause or to the parties is such that he has an incentive to exaggerate or give false color to his statement, or to suppress or pervert the truth, or to state what is false. Bias is that which excites the disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.
*** The testimony of interested witnesses are not necessarily biased, incredible or self serving, although their interest may to some extent affect their credibility. *** The mere relationship of the witness to the victim does not impair his positive and clear testimony nor render the same less worthy of credit, unless there is showing of improper motive on the part of said witnesses. *** Testimony in open court is given more weight than affidavits submitted. PEOPLE vs. GAZMEN (G.R. No. 110034 August 16, 1996) The test to determine the value of the testimony of a witness is whether or not such is in conformity with knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind.
76

PEOPLE vs. FLORENCIO ORDIALES (42 SCRA 238) The rule settled in this jurisdiction that appellate courts seldom disturb a trial courts appreciation of the credibility of witnesses, in view of its opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses while testifying on the witness stand; and that said appreciation of the court below will generally be accepted and acted upon favorably by the appellate court, unless there is a material circumstance which consequently might affect the result of the case. PEOPLE vs. GAUDENCIO SARMIENTO (94 SCRA 945) The principle well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is that the conclusion reached by the trial judge which has the opportunity to observe the witnesses testify as to what did transpire is entitled to full respect unless of course it could be demonstrated that there was a failure to judge correctly the significance of a fact or circumstance or what is worse, that it was ignored.
TESTIMONY OF A LONE WITNESS > When the evidence of the prosecution consists in the uncorroborated testimony of a lone witness, who had incurred in an unexplained contradiction on an important detail and had shown an attitude apparently inconsistent with the truth of his testimony, it should not be enough basis to convict the accused. The fact that the prosecution, without explanation, failed to call several witnesses, three mentioned in the information and two other mentioned by the lone witness, gives rise to the presumption that their testimonies would not be favorable to the prosecutions cause [People vs. Ricarte, et.al., 44 OG 2223]
*** The testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce conviction if it appears to be trustworthy and reliable because the truth may be established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies. *** The testimony of the offended party is not essential to convict an accused, IF there are already other evidence to prove the guilt of the latter, and the non-presentation of the offended party as a witness does not detract from the efficacy of such proceedings. DOMINGO LOPEZ vs. PEOPLE (87 SCRA 462) It is true that the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce conviction if it appears to be trustworthy and reliable. It rape cases, the complainants testimony is subject to a thorough scrutiny. The reason for this is that crimes against chastity, by their very nature, usually involve only two persons the complainant and the offender. As a consequence, conviction or acquittal of the accused depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainants testimony. Hence, the courts examine with the greatest care the complainants story and subject it to a thorough scrutiny to determine its veracity in the light of human nature and experience. Where testimony of complainant is not only erratic but conflicting, no rape is committed. The testimony of the complainant, Yolanda Perez, is not only erratic but conflicting. She has a tendency to exaggerate and prevaricate. UNITED STATES vs. MANABAT and SIMEON (42 PHIL 569) The uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice must be accepted with extreme caution and is rarely sufficient to sustain the conviction of a crime. That in view of the inherent improbability of the testimony of the alleged accomplice, there were not sufficient corroborating circumstances to warrant a conviction of the crime charged.
INCONSISTENCIES OR CONTRADICTION IN TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS > Inconsistencies or contradictions on mere details in testimony of a witness do not materially impair the credibility of such witness. *** When a witness makes two (2) sworn statements and these 2 statements incur in the gravest contradictions, the court CANNOT accept either statement as proof. RULE ON PARTIAL CREDIBILITY: > Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus *** The modern trend of jurisprudence is that the testimony of a witness may be believed in part, depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities of the case. (People vs. Cura, G.R. No. 112529, January 18, 1995)
77

*** The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus deals only with the weight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law, and the rule is not an inflexible one of universal application. The modern trend of jurisprudence is to effect that the testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part, depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case. *** The present rule in the Philippines is that the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not an absolute one nor mandatory
LIMITATIONS: 1. the testimony concerning which the witness has sworn falsely, must relate to a material point in issue; 2. such testimony must have been given by the witness intentionally, and he must have known it to be false IMPORTANT: a. Deals only with the weight of evidence and not a positive rule of law. b. The witnesses false or exaggerated statements on other matters shall not preclude the acceptance of such evidence as is relieved from any sign of falsehood. c. The court may accept and reject portions of the witness testimony depending on the inherent credibility thereof. *** This is not a mandatory rule of evidence but is applied by the courts in its discretion.
PEOPLE vs. JESUS RUIZ (93 SCRA 739) The prevailing jurisprudence x x x is that mere relationship of the prosecution witnesses to the victim does not necessarily vitiate their otherwise credible testimonies nor does it impair their positive and clear testimonies. The cited maxim falsus in unos, falsus in omnibus, deals only with the weight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law or of universal application. It should not be applied to portions of the testimony corroborated by other evidence, particularly where the false portions could be innocent mistakes. Furthermore, the rule falsus in unos, falsus in omnibus is not mandatory but merely sanctions a disregard of the testimony of a witness if the circumstances so warrant. For the complete disregard of all the testimony of witness on this ground, his testimony must have been false as to a material point, and that the witness must have conscious and deliberate intention to falsify a material point. PEOPLE vs. AGAPITO DELA CRUZ (97 SCRA 385) We find no error on the part of the trial court, therefore, when it gave credence to the testimonies of the two state witnesses. The rule falsus in unos, falsus in omnibus is not mandatory. It does not apply where the declarants are motivated by a desire to exculpate themselves and not really to pervert the truth as we find to be the case with respect to the two state witnesses. The said rule should not apply where there is sufficient corroboration on many grounds of the testimony; where the mistakes are not on the very material points; where the errors do not arise from an apparent desire to pervert the truth but from innocent mistakes and the desire of the witness to exculpate himself though not completely.
Section. 3 Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. *** An extrajudicial confession is not sufficient ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
*** A mere voluntary extra-judicial confession uncorroborated by independent proof of the corpus delicti is not sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction. There must be independent proof of the corpus delicti. The evidence may be circumstantial but, just the same, there should be some evidence substantiating the confession.
CORPUS DELICTI - the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.
*** Corpus delicti literally means the body or substance of the crime, but, applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. Consequently, the corpus delicti is proved when the evidence on record shows that the crime prosecuted had been committed.
2 Elements: 1. the existence of a certain act or result which is the basis of the criminal charge 2. the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result. NOTE: The identity of the accused is not a necessary element of the corpus delicti.
78

*** In theft, the corpus delicti is composed of two elements: (1) the property was lost by the owner and (2) it was lost by a felonious taking. *** The elements constituting corpus delicti in the crime of illegal possession of a firearm are: (1) the existence of the firearm and (2) that it has been actually held with animus possidendi by the accused without the corresponding license therefore. *** As corpus delicti means the fact of specific injury or loss sustained. In murder the fact of death is the corpus delicti. *** In murder the corpus delicti is the fact of death which can be proved by the death certificate but in crimes involving illegal possession of firearms or drugs the object must be present. PEOPLE vs. ANGEL CRUZ (76 PHIL 666) Assuming that the confession in question was not obtained by force and intimidation, as alleged by the appellant, it is insufficient to sustain the appellants conviction because it was not corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. Circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction must: a. More than one circumstance b. Facts from which inferences are derived are proven c. Combination of all circumstances such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt
*** If circumstances constitute an unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person, he can be convicted.
Direct evidence distinguished from circumstantial evidence. Direct Evidence Circumstantial Evidence establishes the existence of a fact in issue does not prove the existence of a fact in without the aid of any inference or issue directly, but merely provides for logical presumption. inference that such fact really exists. the witnesses testify directly of their own each proof is given of facts and knowledge as to the main facts to be circumstances from which the court may infer proved. other connected facts which reasonably follow, according to the common experience of mankind. Sec. 5. Substantial evidence That amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
*** Used in administrative or quasi-judicial bodies *** Substantial evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof as required in ordinary civil cases but such kind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Sec. 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. *** The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with caution. *** Witnesses are not numbered, they are weighed
Sec. 7. Evidence on motion.
*** When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.
79

PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE IMPLEMENTING RULES OF THE E- COMMERCE ACT:

CHAPTER II : LEGAL RECOGNITION OF ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGES AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
Section 7. Legal Recognition of Electronic Data Messages and Electronic Documents. Information shall not be denied validity or enforceability solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic data message or electronic document, purporting to give rise to such legal effect. Electronic data messages or electronic documents shall have the legal effect, validity or enforceability as any other document or legal writing. In particular, subject to the provisions of the Act and these Rules: 1) A requirement under law that information is in writing is satisfied if the information is in the form of an electronic data message or electronic document. 2) A requirement under law for a person to provide information in writing to another person is satisfied by the provision of the information in an electronic data message or electronic document. 3) A requirement under law for a person to provide information to another person in a specified non-electronic form is satisfied by the provision of the information in an electronic data message or electronic document if the information is provided in the same or substantially the same form. 4) Nothing limits the operation of any requirement under law for information to be posted or displayed in specified manner, time or location; or for any information or document to be communicated by a specified method unless and until a functional equivalent shall have been developed, installed, and implemented. Section 8. Incorporation by Reference. - Information shall not be denied validity or enforceability solely on the ground that it is not contained in an electronic data message or electronic document but is merely incorporated by reference therein. Section 9. Use Not Mandatory - Without prejudice to the application of Section 27 of the Act and Section 37 of these Rules, nothing in the Act or these Rules requires a person to use or accept information contained in electronic data messages, electronic documents, or electronic signatures, but a person's consent to do so may be inferred from the person's conduct. Section 10. Writing - Where the law requires a document to be in writing, or obliges the parties to conform to a writing, or provides consequences in the event information is not presented or retained in its original form, an electronic document or electronic data message will be sufficient if the latter: 1) Maintains its integrity and reliability; and 2) Can be authenticated so as to be usable for subsequent reference, in that: a. It has remained complete and unaltered, apart from the addition of any endorsement and any authorized change, or any change which arises in the normal course of communication, storage and display; and b. It is reliable in the light of the purpose for which it was generated and in the light of all relevant circumstances. Section 11. Original. - Where the law requires that a document be presented or retained in its original form, that requirement is met by an electronic document or electronic data message if 1) There exists a reliable assurance as to the integrity of the electronic document or electronic data message from the time when it was first generated in its final form and such integrity is shown by evidence aliunde (that is, evidence other than the electronic data message itself) or otherwise; and 2) The electronic document or electronic data message is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented. 3) For the purposes of paragraph (a) above: a. The criteria for assessing integrity shall be whether the information has remained complete and unaltered, apart from the addition of any endorsement and any change which arises in the normal course of communication, storage and display; and b. The standard of reliability required shall be assessed in the light of the purpose for which the information was generated and in the light of all relevant circumstances.
80

An electronic data message or electronic document meeting and complying with the requirements of Sections 6 or 7 of the Act shall be the best evidence of the agreement and transaction contained therein. Section 12. Solemn Contracts. - No provision of the Act shall apply to vary any and all requirements of existing laws and relevant judicial pronouncements respecting formalities required in the execution of documents for their validity. Hence, when the law requires that a contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable, or that a contract is proved in a certain way, that requirement is absolute and indispensable. LEGAL RECOGNITION OF ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES Section 13. Legal Recognition of Electronic Signatures - An electronic signature relating to an electronic document or electronic data message shall be equivalent to the signature of a person on a written document if the signature: 1) Is an electronic signature as defined in Section 6(g) of these Rules; and 2) Is proved by showing that a prescribed procedure, not alterable by the parties interested in the electronic document or electronic data message, existed under which: a. A method is used to identify the party sought to be bound and to indicate said partys access to the electronic document or electronic data message necessary for his consent or approval through the electronic signature; b. Said method is reliable and appropriate for the purpose for which the electronic document or electronic data message was generated or communicated, in the light of all circumstances, including any relevant agreement; c. It is necessary for the party sought to be bound, in order to proceed further with the transaction, to have executed or provided the electronic signature; and, d. The other party is authorized and enabled to verify the electronic signature and to make the decision to proceed with the transaction authenticated by the same. e. The parties may agree to adopt supplementary or alternative procedures provided that the requirements of paragraph (b) are complied with. For purposes of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (b), the factors referred to in Annex 2 may be taken into account. Section 14. Presumption Relating to Electronic Signatures - In any proceeding involving an electronic signature, the proof of the electronic signature shall give rise to the rebuttable presumption that: 1) The electronic signature is the signature of the person to whom it correlates; and 2) The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of signing or approving the electronic data message or electronic document unless the person relying on the electronically signed electronic data message or electronic document knows or has notice of defects in or unreliability of the signature or reliance on the electronic signature is not reasonable under the circumstances. MODES OF AUTHENTICATION Section 15. Method of Authenticating Electronic Documents, Electronic Data Messages, and Electronic Signatures - Electronic documents, electronic data messages and electronic signatures, shall be authenticated by demonstrating, substantiating and validating a claimed identity of a user, device, or another entity in an information or communication system. Until the Supreme Court, by appropriate rules, shall have so provided, electronic documents, electronic data messages and electronic signatures, shall be authenticated, among other ways, in the following manner: 1) The electronic signature shall be authenticated by proof that a letter, character, number or other symbol in electronic form representing the persons named in and attached to or logically associated with an electronic data message, electronic document, or that the appropriate methodology or security procedures, when applicable, were employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person, with the intention of authenticating or approving an electronic data message or electronic document; 2) The electronic data message or electronic document shall be authenticated by proof that an appropriate security procedure, when applicable was adopted and employed for the purpose of verifying the originator of an electronic data message or electronic document, or detecting error or alteration in the communication, content or storage of an electronic document or electronic
81

data message from a specific point, which, using algorithm or codes, identifying words or numbers, encryptions, answers back or acknowledgement procedures, or similar security devices. Section 16. Burden of Authenticating Electronic Documents or Electronic Data Messages. The person seeking to introduce an electronic document or electronic data message in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity by evidence capable of supporting a finding that the electronic data message or electronic document is what the person claims it to be. MODES FOR ESTABLISHING INTEGRITY Section 17. Method of Establishing the Integrity of an Electronic Document or Electronic Data Message - In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the integrity of the information and communication system in which an electronic data message or electronic document is recorded or stored may be established in any legal proceeding, among other methods 1) By evidence that at all material times the information and communication system or other similar device was operating in a manner that did not affect the integrity of the electronic document or electronic data message, and there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the information and communication system; 2) By showing that the electronic document or electronic data message was recorded or stored by a party to the proceedings who is adverse in interest to the party using it; or 3) By showing that the electronic document or electronic data message was recorded or stored in the usual and ordinary course of business by a person who is not a party to the proceedings and who did not act under the control of the party using the record. ADMISSIBILITY AND EVIDENTIAL WEIGHT Section 18. Admissibility and Evidential Weight of Electronic Data Messages and Electronic Documents - For evidentiary purposes, an electronic document or electronic data message shall be the functional equivalent of a written document under existing laws. In any legal proceeding, nothing in the application of the rules on evidence shall deny the admissibility of an electronic data message or electronic document in evidence: 1) On the sole ground that it is in electronic form; or 2) On the ground that it is not in the standard written form. The Act does not modify any statutory rule relating to the admissibility of electronic data messages or electronic documents, except the rules relating to authentication and best evidence. In assessing the evidential weight of an electronic data message or electronic document, the reliability of the manner in which it was generated, stored or communicated, the reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified, and other relevant factors shall be given due regard. Section 19. Proof by Affidavit and Cross-Examination - The matters referred to in Section 12 of the Act on admissibility and evidentiary weight, and Section 9 of the Act on the presumption of integrity of electronic signatures, may be presumed to have been established by an affidavit given to the best of the deponents or affiants personal knowledge subject to the rights of parties in interest to cross-examine such deponent or affiant as a matter of right. Such right of cross-examination may likewise be enjoyed by a party to the proceedings who is adverse in interest to the party who has introduced the affidavit or has caused the affidavit to be introduced. Any party to the proceedings has the right to cross-examine a person referred to in Section 11, paragraph 4, and sub-paragraph (c) of the Act. RETENTION OF ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT Section 20. Retention of Electronic Data Message and Electronic Document. - Notwithstanding any provision of law, rule or regulation to the contrary: a. The requirement in any provision of law that certain documents be retained in their original form is satisfied by retaining them in the form of an electronic data message or electronic document which: i. Remains accessible so as to be usable for subsequent reference; ii. Is retained in the format in which it was generated, sent or received, or in a format which can be demonstrated to accurately represent the electronic data message or electronic document generated, sent or received; and,
82

iii. Where applicable, enables the identification of its originator and addressee, as well as the determination of the date and the time it was sent or received. b. The requirement referred to in paragraph (a) is satisfied by using the services of a third party, provided that the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (a) are met. c. Relevant government agencies tasked with enforcing or implementing applicable laws relating to the retention of certain documents may, by appropriate issuances, impose regulations to ensure the integrity, reliability of such documents and the proper implementation of Section 13 of the Act.
83

EVIDENC1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVIDENC1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Personal copy of ATTY. RENE CALLANTA, jr

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Rule 128 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Factum probandum "ultimate facts" Proposition to be established Hypothetical

Factum probans "intermediate facts" Material evidencing the proposition Existent

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

RULE 129 WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Rule 130 RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

BEST EVIDENCE RULE

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Order of proof (but can be changed at courts discretion): 1) Existence

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Prohibits the varying of the terms of a written agreement;

Documents What excluded What included Exceptions

1. To preserve agreements 2. Draft the contract carefully

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

Sigma Rho ( ) reviewers Sigma Rho Fraternity, U.P. College of Law

REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 - SIGMA RHO - CALLANTA & PARTNERS

2 WAYS OF EXCLUDING TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE 1. By way of objection 2. By a motion to strike out

DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MENTAL INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY