A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence

as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (1)
the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements
were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the
statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately
attending circumstances.[6] All these requisites concur in the case at bar. The
principal act, the mauling of the victim, was a startling occurrence. The
declarations were made shortly after the mauling incident while the victim was
still under the exciting influence of the startling occurrence, without any prior
opportunity to contrive a story implicating accused-appellant. The declaration
concerns the circumstances surrounding the mauling of Felix
Taylaran. However, the declaration made by the victim to his daughter does
not satisfy the second requirement of spontaneity because they were made a
day after the incident and the exciting influence of the startling occurrence
was no longer present. Nevertheless, we hold that Rosa Solartes testimony
on what her father told her constitutes independent relevant statements
distinct from hearsay, and are thus admissible not as to the veracity thereof,
but as proof of the fact that they had been uttered.
Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, only the fact
that such statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is
immaterial. The hearsay rule does not apply, hence, the statements are
admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not
secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or
be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact.[7]

http://remediallawnotes.blogspot.com/2014/07/moral-character-of-parties-
in-criminal.html

c. 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions: —

a) In Criminal Cases:

(1) The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral
trait involved in the offense charged.

(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to
establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense
charged.

xxx

NOTES:

Is character evidence admissible?

Generally, character evidence is not admissible.

Exceptions

In Criminal Cases:

Accused

1. The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral
trait involved in the offense charged.

Reason: such evidence strengthens the presumption of innocence of the

accused.

The evidence of good character offered by the accused may and must relate
particularly to that trait of character which is involved in the crime charged, so
that the proof of good character will render it unlikely that he would be guilty of
that particular crime. (Edgington vs Us, 164 US 361) Such character evidence
must be “pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged” e.g. in
prosecution for estafa, perjury or false testimony wherein the person’s moral
trait for honesty or probity is involved. In a case for attempted murder, the
accused's character for truth is irrelevant, and therefore, not probable.

An accused, however, is not entitled to an acquittal simply because of his

previous good moral character and exemplary conduct. When a court believes
that an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, it must
convict him notwithstanding evidence of his good moral character and previous
exemplary conduct. (People vs Lava, G.R. No. L-4974, May 16, 1969)

2. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which
is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
Note that in criminal cases, the prosecution goes first. Hence, it cannot present
evidence on the bad moral character of the accused on its evidence in chief.
This is intended to avoid unfair prejudice to the accused who might otherwise
be convicted not because he is guilty of the charge but because he is a person
of bad character.

If the prosecution were allowed to go into such evidence, we should have the
whole life of the prisoner ripped up; and the result would be that the man on his
trial might be overwhelmed by prejudice and emotion, instead of being
convicted by that affirmative evidence which the law requires. (R. vs Rowton,
Leigh & Co., 520, 540)

If the accused, however, in his defense attempts to prove his good moral
character, then the prosecution can introduce evidence of such bad moral
character at the rebuttal stage.

Rebutting evidence of bad reputation is always admissible. The object of

permitting the prosecution to introduce such evidence is not for the purpose of
showing the bad character of the defendant; but it is for the purpose of refuting
his claim that he has a good character and thus prevent the court from drawing
therefrom the inference that the accused is innocent of the crime
charged. (Ware vs. State, 91 Ark. 555)

Offended party

The good or bad moral character of the offended party may always be proved
by either party as long as such evidence tends to establish in any reasonable
degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged.

For example, in prosecutions for rape or consented abduction, the victim’s

chastity may be questioned. In prosecution for homicide, the quarrelsome or
trouble-seeking character of the victim is a proper subject for inquiry.

Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved
under this provision. Only those which would establish the probability or
improbability of the offense charged. This means that the character evidence
must be limited to the traits and characteristics involved in the type of offense
charged. Thus, on a charge of rape - character for chastity, on a charge of
assault - character for peaceableness or violence, and on a charge of
embezzlement - character for honesty. In one rape case, where it was
established that the alleged victim was morally loose and apparently uncaring
about her chastity, we found the conviction of the accused doubtful. (CSC vs
Belagan, G.R. No. 132164. October 19, 2004)
 Exception: Proof of the bad character of the victim in a murder case is not
admissible if the crime was committed through treachery or pre-
meditation (People vs. Soliman, et al., 101 Phil 767). The bad moral character
of a victim in rape case is not admissible if the crime was committed by violence
or intimidation (People vs. Blance, 45 Phil 113, People vs. Taduyo, L-37928,
September 29, 1987)

CASES:

People vs Babiera
G.R. No. 28871. September 19, 1928

Elements of Res Ipsa Loquitur

 The event doesn't normally occur unless someone has acted negligently;
 The evidence rules out the possibility that the actions of the plaintiff or a third party
caused the injury; and.
 The type of negligence in question falls with the scope of the defendant's duty to the
plaintiff.

Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. — A witness may be impeached

by the party against whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that
his general reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has
made at other times statements inconsistent with his present, testimony, but not by
evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the examination
of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense.
(15)

Section 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. — Except with respect to
witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party producing a
witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court
upon adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his
having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand.

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. 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. (6a, 7a)

Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. —

Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must be related to
him, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he
must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If
the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is
put to him concerning them. (16)

AUTHENTICATE PRIVATE DOCUMENT

"The nature of documents as either public or private determines how the documents may be presented
as evidence in court. Public documents, as enumerated under Section 19,33 Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court, are self-authenticating and require no further authentication in order to be presented as evidence
in court.34

In contrast, a private document is any other writing, deed or instrument executed by a private person
without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some disposition or
agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public document, or the
solemnities prescribed by law, a private document requires authentication35
in the manner prescribed under Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules:

SEC. 20. Proof of private document. – Before any private document offered as authentic is received in
evidence, its due execution
and authenticity must be proved either:

(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

(b) By 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.

The requirement of authentication of a private document is excused only in four instances, specifically:
(a) when the document is an ancient one within the context of Section 21,36 Rule 132 of the Rules; (b)
when the genuineness and authenticity of the actionable document have not been specifically denied
under oath by the adverse party; (c) when the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been
admitted; or (d) when the document is not being offered as genuine.37

Indubitably, Marine Certificate No. 708-8006717-4 and the Subrogation Receipt are private documents
which Philam and the consignee, respectively, issue in the pursuit of their business. Since none of the
exceptions to the requirement of authentication of a private document obtains in these cases, said
documents may not be admitted in evidence for Philam without being properly authenticated.