P. 1
63057370 EVIDENCE Reviewer Finals

63057370 EVIDENCE Reviewer Finals

|Views: 103|Likes:
Publicado porMinerva_Athena

More info:

Published by: Minerva_Athena on Oct 26, 2011
Direitos Autorais:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/22/2013

pdf

text

original

Sections

  • I. Admissibility
  • II. What Need Not be Proved
  • III. Rules of Admissibility
  • VI.Burden of Proof and Presumptions
  • VII. Presentation of Evidence

hlp©2009

Page 1

8/24/20111

EVIDENCE Introduction Definition – the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truth respecting a matter of fact. (Rule 128, Sec. 1.) Scope of applicability – 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. (Rule 128, Sec 2.) Notes: The Rules on Evidence apply only when there is going to be a trial. Note that there can be a judgment on pleadings, by confession, consent and compromise etc. IN CIVIL CASES. Mere denial in the answer in a CIVIL CASE will not present a probandum hence no need for the court to try the case. Such general denial will be considered as an admission. In CRIMINAL CASES, We have to wait until the accused enters a plea. This time a general denial is allowed. If the accused enters a plea of guilty there is no probandum. However in CRIMINAL CASES, the court could still try the case if the case involves a heinous crime. The Rules on evidence are not selfexecuting. So the rule is any evidence submitted will be admitted so long as there is no objection. This principle is only for the purpose of admissibility. It does not mean that the court will take these irrelevant evidence in evaluating on the merits of the case. DIFFERENCE IN RULES ON EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES AND CIVIL CASES BASIS Criminal Civil Case Case Quantum Proof Beyond Prepond of Proof Reasonable erance of Doubt evidence Denial General Must be Denial Specific Allowed Denial Withdrawal Withdrawn Judicial of plea is Admissio Plea/Admis inadmissible n sion withdraw n becomes an extrajudi cial admissio n Cross Applicable Not Examinatio applicabl n in e

Summary Procedure Equiponder ance Rule

Accused acquitted

Presence of Circumstan tial Evidence Priviliged Communic ation- Dr.Patient Compulsio n as a witness

More one required

is Party who loses is the one who has burden of proof than One is suffices

Not applicable

Applicabl e

Cannot No compel prohibitio accused to be n, rules a witness provides only limitation s

Evidentiary Privilege- entitles the privilege holder to withhold competent evidence and, in some circumstances, to prevent others from revealing such evidence. The privilege is granted when the protected interest is considered important enough to outweigh the concern with determining the truth. The privilege holder need not be a party to the proceeding in question. Unlike a disqualification, a privilege can be waived. Privileges are often intended to preserve confidential relationships. Executive Privilege- members of the executive branch of government cannot legally be forced to disclose their confidential communications when such disclosure would adversely affect the operations or procedures of the executive branch. FACTUM PROBANDUM vs. FACTUM PROBANS Factum Probandum-proposition to be established. The fact/s in issue. Factum Probans- materials evidencing the proposition Notes: 1. In both CIVIL and CRIMINAL cases, the probandum contained in the pleadings could be changed in the pre-trial order. However, with respect to CRIMINAL CASES, the pre-trial order SHOULD NOT substantially change the accusation/indictment contained in the

hlp©2009

Page 2

8/24/20112

information, otherwise the case will be dismissed. 2. A court can validly try a fact in issue not raised in the pleadings or pre-trial order. Rule 10 provides that a fact in issue may be raised with the express or implied consent of the parties during the trial (Amendment to conform to evidence) 3. Ascertainment of probandum does not apply in special proceedings. (i.e. If there is a petition for probate of a will, even if there is no opposition the petitioner is still required by law to prove that the will has been duly executed in accordance with the Civil Code) EVIDENCE vs. PROOF Proof- is the effect of evidence. It is the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from a consideration of the latter. Evidence- is the cause necessary to establish proof. I. Admissibility A. Relevance – The evidence has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. 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. (Rule 128, Secs. 3 and 4.) - In conclusion, relevancy is not determined by law nor the rules of court. It is determined purely by LOGIC. B. Competence – The evidence is not excluded by the law or the rules (Rule 128, Sec. 3.)  Do not confuse COMPETENT WITNESS from COMPETENT EVIDENCE. The COMPETENCY TEST of evidence applies to the TESTIMONY of the qualified witness. Since admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance and competence, admissibility is therefore an affair of logic and law. On the other hand, the weight to be given to such evidence depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided in Rule 133 and the jurisprudence laid down by the court. (People vs. Turco, 2000) Relevant evidence is one that has any value in reason as tending to prove any matter probable in an action. Evidence is said to be material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the

rules of substantive law and pleadings, while competent evidence is one that is not excluded by law in a particular case. (Bautista vs. Aparece, 1995) Exclusionary Rules under the 1987 Constitution 1.1 Secs. 2 & 3, Art. III – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. 1.2 Sec. 12, Art III – Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means, which vitiate the free will, shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. Sec. 17, Art III – No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This right is recognized under he Rules on Evidence, which provides that, it is the right of a witness not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law. [Sec. 3 (4), Rule 132, ROC) NOTES AND COMMENTS: The human body could be used as evidence without violating the right. Mechanical acts without the use of intelligence do not fall

hlp©2009

Page 3

8/24/20113

within the scope of the protection. Some of the acts which are not covered by the right of self-incrimination are the following: a. Fingerprinting, photographing nd paraffin testing, physical examination. (U.S. v. Tang, 23 Phil. 145_) b. Physical examination of a woman accused of adultery to determine if she is pregnant. (U.S. v. On Suy Hon, 36 Phil. 735; Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62) c. Undergoing ultra-violet rays examination to determine presence of flourescent powder on the hands. (People v. Tranca, 35 SCRA 455) d. Subpoena directing government officials to produce official documents or public records in their custody. e. Fitting the accused foot over a foot print, putting on a pair of trousers, etc. 2. Statutory Rules of Exclusion 2.1 Sec. 201, NIRC – An instrument, document or paper which is required by law to be stamped and which has been signed, issued, accepted or transferred without being duly stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed thereto and cancelled. 2.2 R.A. 4200 (Wire-tapping Act) – Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken work by using a device commonly known as a Dictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone or walkietalkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described. x x Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained, obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a Dictaphone, dictograph or the other devices enumerated in Sec. 1 of RA 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as “tapping” the wire or cable of a telephone

line. (Gaanan vs. IAC, 1986) RA 4200 expressly makes tape recordings of tapped conversations inadmissible in evidence absent a clear showing that both parties to the phone conversations allowed the recording. (Salcedo-OrtaÒez vs. CA, 1994) EXCLUSIONARY RULES RULES OF COURT 1. Best Evidence Rule 2. Parole Evidence 3. Hearsay Rule under the

Wigmore’s Axiom of Admissibility “None but facts having rational probative value are admissible”- ILLUSTRATION: In a trial for homicide, the fact is offered that the accused was requested, with others, to touch the corpse of the murdered man to see if blood flowed, but that he refused to do so; this is admissible, not because the flowing or retention of the blood at the guilty man’s touch would be rationally evidential of his guilt, but because his refusal to do could constitute a link to the chain of evidence necessary to produce a moral conviction of guilt. “Any fact having rational probative value is admissible, unless some specific rule forbids its admission”- ILLUSTRATION: In an issue involving forgery, the disposition of the person’s character as to acts of honesty or dishonesty is of some rational probative value towards showing that he did or did not do the act; it is therefore admissible, but this can only be done if the accused steps forward first and adduces evidence of his good moral character. Irrelevant vs. Incompetent vs. Inadmissible vs. Immaterial Evidence Irrelevant- no probative value; No tendency in reason to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue. It does not directly relate to a fact in issue. N.B. All facts and circumstances which afford reasonable inferences or throw light upon the probability of matter or matters contested are admissible in evidence, UNLESS excluded by some established principle of evidence, such as HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE, RULE ON PAROLE EVIDENCE and BEST EVIDENCE RULE. 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. These are not allowed unless satisfy

hlp©2009

Page 4

8/24/20114

ALL the requirements of relevancy. ILLUSTRATIONS: a. finger marks, foot prints and a bat left by the accused in the place of the crime b. The resemblance of a child to his alleged father to prove paternity of the latter c. Bloodstains on the clothing of the person charged with a crime d. The destruction or fabrication of evidence e. Flight of the accused. (N.B. Nonflight is not conclusive proof of innocence) f. Delay in the identification of victim’s assailant Incompetent- excluded by the rules or any law Inadmissible- not competent and irrelevant Immaterial- the offered evidential fact is directed to prove some probandum which is not properly in issue. (N.B.- The rules on substantive law and of pleading determine immateriality) Material evidence- proves a main fact which is the subject of the inquiry or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact or any fact or circumstance which tends to corroborate or strengthen the testimony relative to the subject of inquiry or which legitimately affects the credibility of any witness who testifies. Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence Direct- Evidence that directly proves a fact without need to make inference from another fact Example: The testimony of the prosecution witness claiming that he saw that it was actually the deceased who attacked the accused without the latter’s provocation is a direct evidence. Circumstantial- Indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence established Example: The testimony of the victim that he dreads the mere presence of the accused is direct evidence that the statement was made. It is likewise circumstantial evidence to show that this fear prevented the victim from attacking the accused without provocation. IN CRIMINAL CASES, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction when: a. There is more than one circumstance b. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to

produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt (Sec. 4 Rule 133) Cumulative v. Corroborative Cumulative- evidence of the same kind that tends to prove the same fact Ex. Two or more witnesses testify that they saw the event which the first witness claimed he saw, the subsequent testimonies are cumulative Corroborative- evidence which tends to confirm, validate or strengthen evidence already presented. Evidence may be of the same kind or different kind and tends to prove the same fact. Ex. A witness claims that he saw Mr. X sign the document subject of the action. Mr. X denies the authenticity of his signature. Evidence by a handwriting expert is corroborative. Positive v. Negative Evidence Positive- A witness affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts do exist or that a certain event happened Negative- A witness states that an event did not occur or that the facts alleged to exist did not actually exist. (Denial) Derivative Evidence- type of evidence that is inadmissible as proof because of the application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, which treats the original evidence and any evidence derived from it as tainted because of the illegal way in which it was obtained by agents of the government. Rebuttal Evidence- offered to contradict other evidence or to rebut a resumption of fact.

Admissibility v. Weight - Evidence is ADMISSIBLE when it is relevant and is not excluded by any rule. - Probative value or WEIGHT is to be determined by the court when it decides the case MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY Evidence is admissible for two or more purposes. The rule is when a fact satisfies all rules applicable to it when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy some other rule which would be applicable to it if offered for another purpose would not exclude it.

hlp©2009

Page 5

8/24/20115

ILLUSTRATION: An extrajudicial confession may be inadmissible as against a party who did not subscribe to it, yet such party may use said document as evidence of lack of guilt. CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY GR: The time for determining the admissibility of a particular fact is ordinarily the time when it is offered to the court. Exception: When some facts depend on some other facts needed to be established first in order that said former evidentiary facts would be admissible. ILLUSTRATION: Mr. P files an action for recovery of ownership of a parcel of land against Mr. D. The complaint alleges that Mr. P is the owner of the property. During the trial, Mr. P testifies and adduces evidence that a certain O bought the property from D. The testimony of O may be allowed if it would be shown the chain of events that led to the ownership of P of the land. CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY There is curative admissibility when a party offers an inadmissible fact which is received because there is no objection by the other party. The other party does not acquire the right to introduce in reply to the same kind of evidence, EXCEPT whenever it is needed for removing an unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence. ILLUSTRATION: In an action for damages arising from a car accident, the plaintiff introduced evidence to show that on several occasions the defendant in the past had injured pedestrians because of his negligence. (This is inadmissible under Sec. 34 Rule 130- Prior acts as evidence). Under the concept of Curative admissibility the court must give the party against whom the evidence was admitted the chance to contradict or explain the alleged past acts he committed to counteract the prejudice which the improperly admitted evidence may have caused. II. What Need Not be Proved a. Facts which a court shall or may take judicial notice. (Secs. 1 and 2, Rule 129, ROC) b. Judicial admissions. (Sec. 4, Rule 129, ROC) c. Conclusive presumptions d. Disputable presumptions not disputed

Distinguish mandatory judicial notice from discretionary judicial notice. a. For mandatory judicial notice the court is compelled to take judicial notice because of the use of the word "shall" in Sec. 1, Rule 129, ROC WHILE for discretionary judicial notice the court is not compelled because of the use of the word "may" in Sec. 2, Rule 129, ROC. b. Mandatory judicial notice takes place at the court's own initiative WHILE discretionary judicial notice may take place at the court's initiative, or on request of a party. c. Discretionary judicial notice requires a hearing and presentation of evidence WHILE mandatory judicial notice does not require hearing and presentation of evidence.

A. Judicial Notice – Rule 129, Secs 1-3;
Rule 10, Sec. 8 1.When Mandatory – [EPF-SLAP-OL-MG] -Existence and territorial extent of states -Their political history -Forms of government -Symbols of nationality -Law of nations -Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals -Political constitution and history of the Philippines -Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Philippines -Laws of nature -Measure of time -Geographical divisions 2.When Discretionary -Matters of public knowledge -Matters capable of unquestionable demonstration -Matters which ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. 3.When Hearing is 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.

the original complaint lost its character as a judicial admission. (Sec. the case is clearly referred to or the original or part of the records of the case are actually withdrawn from the archives and admitted as part of the record of the case then pending. (Alzua v. B. 46. v. periodical or pamphlet on a subject of law as a learned treartise.) -Records of preliminary investigation shall not form part of the record. 37 Phil.) d. Rule 39. Judicial Admissions – Rule 129. 308) Doctrine of Processual Presumption: Foreign law is the same as the law of the forum. Implied admissions in the modes of discovery (Depositions. they may take judicial notice of such foreign laws of which they are evidently familiar. Ibid. (Tabuena vs. When the foreign statute is acepted by the Philippine governemnt. though properly applicable is either not alleged or if alleged is not duly proved before a competent court. January 28. made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case -Proof is not required. 323) When foreign laws may be the subject of judicial notice. 85 Phil. Rule 8) 2. In the absence of objection from the adverse party. The reason is that violations of the ordinances are usually vested to the inferior court EXCLUSIVELY in the exercise of their original jurisdiction. ROC) c. Admissions in pre-trial of civil cases and criminal cases (In criminal cases the admission must be reduced in writing and signed by accused and counsel. 21 Phil. however the court on its own initiative or that of any party may order the production of the record or any part thereof whenever the same shall be necessary in the resolution of the case or any incident therein or shall be introduced as evidence by the party requesting for its production. such court taking the appeal should likewise take judicial notice. Rule 130. Guanzon. 1967). When the foreign law refers to the law of nations.S. Implied admissions of allegations of usury and in actionable documents if not specifically denied under oath (Sec. verbal or written. Rule 129. When the local court is evidently familiar with the foreign law. Exceptions: 1. The other case is so closely connected or interdependent 3.Sec. Pleadings. in the exercise of sound discretion. Republic. courts may not take judicial notice of foreign laws. (Sec. (Republic v. When interests of the public in ascertaining the truth is of paramount importance 4. 126) COURT RECORDS: -Courts may take judicial notice of its own records of cases pending before it. But INFERIOR COURTS sitting in the respective municipalities or cities are MANDATED to take judicial notice. 4 -Definition: admissions. a. When the court takes judicial notice of a published treatise. Johnson. (U. (City of Manila vs. Republic. b. 1. Sec. When a foreign judgmen containing foreign law is recognized for enforcement. (Torres vs. It arises if the foreign law. . 1950. 11 & 8. with the knowledge of the adverse party. or at the request or with the consent of the parties. L2546. EXCEPT in a few instances where. In cases seeking to determine what is reasonable exercise of discretion 5. Pardo v. CA. (Sec. If the foreign law refers to common law doctrines and rules from which many of our laws were derived.hlp©2009 Page 6 8/24/20116 MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES Courts are not mandated to take judicial notice of municipal ordinances unless the charter of the concerned city provides for such judicial notice. 1991) 2. Garcia. 61 SCRA 360) e. CA. -How contradicted: ONLY by showing = That it was made through palpable mistake or = That no such admission was made Having been amended. (Ex. 48. period of perfecting appeals. -Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the record of other cases pending or heard before them notwithstanding they are pending before the same judge. 4 Rule 118) 3. ROC) f. which would have required no proof and became merely any extrajudicial admission requiring a formal offer in order to be admissible. 1984) FORMS OF ADMISSIONS: 1. IF inferior court took judicial notice and there was an appeal. (Delgado v. The finality of judgment in a case FOREIGN LAWS In general. Blanco.

Dismissed pleadings are likewise extrajudicial admissions] 5. Upon placing his foot over the foot print it was found that his foot corresponded exactly to said footprint. c) Amount of unliquidated damages. 1. (US v. -A physical comparison may be made between a minor Chinese applying for admission into the country with his alleged father. Admissions by counsel are generally conclusive upon a client absent any gross negligence which deprives counsel of due process of law or there is outright deprivation of property or liberty.Rule 23. Adoptive Admissions A party’s reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person. Is there an exclusionary rule when it comes to object evidence? There is none.) Notes: 1. notwithstanding that no photograph of the footprint was submitted in evidence and that the board itself upon which the footprint was made was not produced in court. b) Conclusions and nonunltimate facts. Failure to specifically deny under oath w/in 15 days a Request for Admission in a pending case. 8 Rule 10) [N. 43 Phil. Plea of guilt in criminal case (N. Affirmative defenses in an answer. Upon being arrested. Sec. ethnological and racial characteristic. . 308) Resemblance. Age or Parentage -To determine whether a person is alien or not.B.When an object is relevant to the fact in issue. unlike in civil cases where a withdrawn judicial admission is considered an extrajudicial admission) 6. the accused was taken to the house where the incident happen. Admissions in amended pleadings (Sec.Rule 26. examined or viewed by the court. his personal appearance. language.Evidence addressed to the senses of the court.Where the object in question cannot be produced in court because it is immovable or inconvenient to remove. upon determination whether or not it will result to scandal or it does not work any additional benefit to the plaintiff or that it will give undue prejudice to the defendant. -In determining the age of the accused who had no positive information on the subject. ) 4. as where it was made in his presence and he did not demonstrate against his being implicated therein III. 2. HELD: Proof of this circumstance is admissible. the court took into account his appearance and judged that he was a youth of 18 or 19 years of age. Race.hlp©2009 Page 7 8/24/20117 Interrogatories. Rules of Admissibility A. Photographs .Where deposition of subscribing witnesses . Note: Admissions in pleadings may not always be considered as judicial admissions because there are hypothetical admissions in civil cases. A withdrawn plea of guilt is inadmissible. Adopted Confessions A co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or adopted the other’s confession by not questioning its truthfulness.B. the natural recourse is for the court to order an ocular inspection and go to the object in its place and observe it there. Motion to dismiss. customs. ILLUSTRATIONS: Footprints A bloody foot print was found upon a floor near the dead body of a person. It is enough that it be INCONSISTENT with the position a party takes in his pleadings or at trial. Zara. Admissions in superseded pleadings are extrajudicial admissions which must be proven. (i. dress and manners may be taken into consideration. However. It is not essential that an admission is contrary to the interest of party at the time it is made. it may be exhibited to. Object (Real) Evidence –Rule 130. where defendant admits allegations but sets up grounds such as lack of jurisdiction etc. AUTOPTIC PROFERENCE (VIEW OF AN OBJECT) . the court is given enough discretion to determine which object evidence should be presented. Averments in pleadings not deemed admissions even if there is failure to make a specific denial: a) Immaterial allegations.e. .

No. Ballots . DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE . G. symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents.. When the original has been lost or destroyed. Sun Insurance Office. 250 SCRA 58. shown to reflect the data accurately. Secs. have nonetheless consistently required some proof of authenticity or reliability as condition for the admission of documents. while adhering to a liberal view in the conduct of proceedings before administrative agencies. B. April 13. . v. Not one of the 18 print-out copies submitted by IBM was ever signed.Writings or any material containing letters. any printout or other output readable by sight. Added by Stats. People.Every ballot needs to be presented in a case of election protest. photograph. 1999. If the data are stored in a computer or similar device. words. Every ballot constitutes the will of every voter. Court of Appeals. diagram. Once proved. 2. (Tan It v. 2. (Mahilum v. or a model) Photographs: Must faithfully represent what it depicts (Same rules apply to motion pictures and recordings) X-Rays: Must show location and extent of injury Scientific tests.R. The Court went on further to say that its decisions. the Supreme Court held that computer printouts which were not signed because they are unsigned. NLRC. the court may admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy. There is thus no guarantee that the message sent was the same message received. The value of a photograph lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the original. . 17 SCRA 482) Computer printouts. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered. is an original. -Photographs may be admissible upon proof of their exactness and accuracy by the photographer himself who can testify of his personal knowledge of the correctness of the representation. a photographic copy of the will may be presented to the witnesses on their examination and they may be asked the same question with respect to said copy as if it were the original will and testimony as to the identity of the photographic copy shown to the witnesses is admissible in evidence. IBM Philippines. Map. without bad faith on the part of the offeror. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole. Sec. Sec. numbers. and 4. (Evidence Code of California. no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself. 75-76) Photocopies or xerox copies of signed documents are not duplicate originals because they are not signed. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. 1977. 3. or by any other competent witness who can testify as to its exactness and accuracy. Neither were the print-outs certified or authenticated by any company official who could properly attest that these came from IBM’s computer system or that the data stored in the system were not and/or could not haved been tampered with before the same were printed out. Documentary Evidence – Rule 130. The faithful representation of the photograph may be proved prima facie by the testimony of those who were present at the time it was taken. and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time the picture was taken. 51 Phil. prom. Inc. Best Evidence Rule – Rule 130. figures. or cannot be produced in court. 3-4 General Rule: When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document. 212) NOTES: The photographer is not the only witness who can identify the pictures. 1) In a labor case. Exceptions: 1. (ex.. and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice.one which or represents demonstrates the real thing. 1. 117221. either by the sender or the receiver.. demonstrations by physical act and experiments: This is a matter of judicial discretion. (Sison v.hlp©2009 Page 8 8/24/20118 to a will are taken. et al. et al.

or from the same matrix. or in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the original. Tan. They may be introduced as evidence without accounting for the nonproduction of the original. (Compania Maritima vs. 77 SCRA 24) After complying with the BEST EVIDENCE RULE will the court necessarily admit the original writing? No. 1. one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction. or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original. or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original. 1) The requirements of authentication of documents must be met. 3) If there is an alteration. Baptismal and Marriage Certificate . Original of an Electronic Document – An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means. 768) 4. or by chemical reproduction. 2) After authentication. 226 SCRA 398) 3. Notwithstanding the foregoing. However this applies only when the writing is a private document. Medical Certificate . (Insurance Company of North America vs. Sharp & Co. 3 When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business. C. (People vs.. Carbon copies are deemed duplicate originals. 1959) The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry. Inc. 2 When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time. Accounts and Account Books . (People vs. Tax declaration . Residence Certificate . 212 SCRA 8) 5. all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. There must be proof of authentication. He may show that the alteration was made: a) by another. copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original if: a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original. CA. reports or the like. b) without his concurrence. (Gacos v. with identical contents.F. Villagracia. (Zuellig v. all such copies are equally regarded as originals.Where the custom broker’s authorized representative accepted the cargo “OK and complete” as shown in the surveyor’s report countersigned by him and it was obviously his assigned task to note defects in the cargo. or by mechanical or electronic re-recording.It can be used as evidence that a portion of land had been sold. It does not apply when the issue is only as to whether or not such document was actually executed or in the circumstances relevant to its execution. books of accounts. 1990) SOME EXAMPLES: 1.They are only evidence to prove the administration of the sacraments on the dates therein specified . Copies as equivalent of the originals – When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents.hlp©2009 Page 9 8/24/20119 Original of a Document 1 The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry. Tandoy. Sec. or c) made with the consent of the parties . Rules on Electronic Evidence (Rule 4) – Sec. he must explain such alteration.An audit made by or the testimony of a private auditor is inadmissible in evidence as proof of the original records. 18 SCRA 462) . Allied Free Workers Union.Baptismal certificate is not conclusive proof of filiation being hearsay 2.To prove torture inflicted by the police. the proponent has to comply with the rule that if the original writing is not in an official language (English or Filipino). Republic. 83 Phil. said acceptance—if not being outright upon the custom’s broker—is at least evidence of the condition of the goods when thus received. shown to reflect the data accurately.The place of obtaining a residence certificate and the date contained are not conclusive as to the real residence or domicile of a person owning said certificate. it is his duty to give to the court a translation thereof. the medical certificate alone without the testimony of the examining physician is inadmissible (People v. 2.

without bad faith on his part may prove its contents by: = A copy = A recital of its contents in some authentic document = The testimony of witnesses. The order stated must be followed.G. Secs. Ferrer. 20 Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence. 53 O. G. Sec. (Compania Maritima vs. VII. supra) 2. 22. Sec. 21 (Not Required to Authenticate) Requisites: (1) The private document is more than 30 years old. 1968) All duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for before using copies as . therefore. Unless. its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (1) by anyone who say the document executed or written.Ancient Document Rule = Rule 132.hlp©2009 Page 10 8/24/201110 affected by it.1 Instances when secondary evidence may be introduced: 2. (2) It is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine. Commission on Elections. 2. 2. No. PRIVATE DOCUMENTS. 5-8 2. 2. p.3 when original document is a public record. Secondary Evidence – Rule 130. Rule 132 of the Rules of Court by making a comparison of the disputed handwriting "with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered. or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged. 1998 citing Lorenzo v. Sec. ." (Punzalan v. (Villa Rey Transit vs.If after reasonable notice is given to the adverse party to produce the document and after satisfactory proof of the existence of the document is made.2 A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects it is not obliged to offer it as evidence. If all requisites have been met. or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.1. upon proof of (1) its execution or existence and (2) cause of its unavailability. no other evidence of its authenticity is required. or dissimilarities. (Punzalan v. between the questioned handwriting and an authentic one.1. . 1997 Edition. absolute absence. secondary evidence may be presented. in a given case. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison made by the witness or the court.1 when original document is unavailable (lost. or manifest dearth. or (2) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. much weight should not be given to characteristic similarities.1. 132435 prom. or d) was otherwise properly or innocent made. with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered. destroyed or cannot be produced in court) .R. Allied Free Workers.Its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. Commission on Elections. or direct or circumstantial competent evidence of the character of a questioned handwriting. April 27. How Proven = Rule 132. 22 It may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write. Part I. (3) It is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion. he fails to produce the document. cited in Francisco on Evidence. . Secondary evidence is admissible where the adverse party denies having it in his possession. It is enough that the circumstances show that the writing is in his possession or under his control. or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. it is not necessary that it be in the actual possession of the adverse party.The offeror. Vol. there is.How Genuineness of Handwriting is Proven = Rule 132. 1977) In the case where the original is in the custody of the adverse party. and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Diaz.2 When original document is in adverse party’s custody or control. Not much weight is given to handwriting experts. 4110-4111. The voluminous character of the document must be established before evidence other than the original may be introduced. . or e) The alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. 674) Questions involving the mere similarity or dissimilarity of handwritings could be determined by the court itself as authorized under Sec.

B.hlp©2009 Page 11 8/24/201111 evidence. there is a vendee and there is an object and consideration. between the parties and their successors in interest. Modify. (c) The validity of the written agreement. 9 Nature of parol evidence rule: It is not a rule of evidence but of substantive law. Add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading: (a) An intrinsic ambiguity. 3) When another instrument extending period of redemption is executed. 2) Vendor remains in possession as lessee or otherwise. The defect can be remedied by the introduction of testimonial evidence or other documentary evidence to show to the court who is the Juan dela Cruz mentioned in the deed of sale as the vendee. Exceptions: A party may present evidence to – a. Aguilar. Reasons for the parol evidence rule: 1) When the parties have reduced their agreement in writing. Parol Evidence Rule – Rule 130. 4) When purchaser retains for himself a part of purchase price. If you read the document there is really nothing wrong because there is a vendor. (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto. mistake or imperfection in the written agreement. Example: Defendant sold to plaintiff a distilling apparatus of guaranteed . ILLUSTRATION: The vendee can validly tell the court that the deed of sale is not really one of sale but one or mortgage as long as he puts in issue in the pleadings. That document is intrinsically ambiguous because we do not know who the vendee in that sale. But it turns out that there are two persons who carry the name Juan de la Cruz. 2) it is presumed that they have made the writing 3) the only repository and memorial of the truth. There is an ambiguity what particular land is sold as there is no description. and 4) whatever is not found in the writing must be understood to have been waived or abandoned. and the law of wills. 5) Vendor assumes tax. which under the Rules cannot allow be corrected and converted into a valid contract. and there is only one Juan dela Cruz. and evidence aliunde may be admitted by the court to explain or add to its meaning. Here we cannot introduce evidence aliunde. or (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. But if in that deed of sale where Juan dela Cruz is the vendee. 6) Other circumstances] ILLUSTRATION: There is a sale of a piece of land in favor of Juan dela Cruz. (De Vera vs. It is founded upon the substantive rights of the parties. the law of negotiable instruments. General Rule: When the terms of an AGREEMENT (including WILLS) have been reduced to WRITING. Art. [N. Explain or c. 1602. It was made part of the rules of evidence in order that it may be considered in all its phases in one place. It arises from the face of the document itself. It is part of the law of contracts. Sec. any of the matters enumerated above. NO evidence (testimonial or documentary) of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. The contract is void.  US cases and some Philippine cases recognized intermediate ambiguity. This arises by the use of equivocal word/s which is susceptible of more than one interpretation. NCC presumes that a deed of sale is an equitable mortgage when: 1] price of sale with right to purchase is unusually inadequate. b. but the property sold is simply a piece of land. 1983) 3. The ambiguity is extrinsic. it is considered as containing ALL the terms agreed upon and there can be.

(Lechugas vs.Y. (Lese v. then the latter is a separate and distinct agreement and. 32) c. et al. Lamprecht. (Woodhouse vs. 2) Collateral agreements which although oral and contemporaneous with the writing are separate and distinct agreements. 756) 3) It also does not apply if the issue revolves around fraud and false representation since they are incidental to the execution and not to the integration. Defendant claimed that the phrase referred to “receiving” capacity. Kilayco. then the contemporaneous oral agreement is separate and distinct and. separate from the sale itself. et al. 50 Phil.hlp©2009 Page 12 8/24/201112 capacity of 6. (Robles v. (Laureano v. b. 1953) 4) It does not apply either when third parties are involved.. Neri." (Woodhouse v. 387) 4) A condition precedent not stipulated in writing is provable by oral evidence. 93 Phil. Not covered. Covered. Cantiveros.. 91 Phil. changing. 1) Subsequent agreements. Halili. Lizarraga Hnos. 209) 3) Parol evidence is admissible to prove an independent and collateral agreement which constitutes an inducement to the making of the sale or part of the consideration thereof. 2) If the two agreements refer to the same subject-matter. Bough v. Seeto. 37 Phil. 34 Phil. Halili. 136 SCRA 410) d. (Woodhouse v. 40 Phil. CA. 1986) subject-matter of the written agreement is different from that of the contemporaneous oral agreement. Here the word “capacity” was susceptible of two interpretations. Tests to determine whether a contemporaneous oral agreement is separate and distinct from the written agreement and therefore provable by parol evidence: 1) The first test is the subject-matter of the two agreements. Example of agreement which CANNOT be proven by parol evidence: Express trusts concerning real property cannot be proven by parol evidence because title and possession cannot be defeated by oral evidence which can easily be fabricated and contradicted. Fred Wilson & Co.. If the . modifying. 196 N. 506) What is the coverage of the parol evidence rule and what are the exceptions to the parol evidence rule ? a. Sorongon. (PNB v.. 148. (Sinaon. REASON: Before the happening of the condition. therefore. 40 Phil. Examples of collateral agreements which CAN be proved by parol evidence: 1) An agreement of reconveyance is a distinct agreement. 93 Phil. v. Halili. or even altogether abrogating the contract of the parties as evidenced by the writing. there is no written agreement yet to which the parol evidence may apply. notwithstanding that such agreements may have the effect of adding to. provable by parol evidence. although the two agreements are usually contained in one and the same document. Yacapin v. therefore. probable by parol evidence.000 liters daily. (Palanca v. A contemporaneous agreement is one entered into at the same time as the agreement which has been reduced to writing. 61) 2) Inducements and representations which led to the execution of an agreement may be proven by parol evidence because they do not vary the terms of the agreement. Only prior and contemporaneous agreements which are deemed to have been merged in the writing conformably to the "integration of the agreement rule. Contemporaneous agreement. the test is to determine whether or not the contemporaneous oral agreement is separable. 526. SC held that parol evidence is admissible to show which of the two interpretations meant by the parties. 5) Verbal assurances given by the indorser of an out-of-town check to the employees of the bank where it was presented for encashment that he would refund the amount if the check should be dishonored by the drawee bank is a collateral NOTES: a. 526) b.

and therefore. 13. 756) 6) Any prior or contemporaneous conversaion in connection with a note or its indorsement may be proved by parol evidence.S. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning. SEC. the Parole Evidence Rule has nothing to do with the manner of proving agreements. or contradict the terms of a complete written agreement. 3. SEC. ROC) PAROLE EVIDENCE DISTINGUISHED FROM STATUTE OF FRAUDS The Statute of Frauds requires that certain agreements be proved by writing or by some note or memorandum thereof in order to be enforceable.hlp©2009 Page 13 8/24/201113 agreement separate and distinct from the indorsement. — When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form. (PNB v. Written words control printed. ILLUSTRATION: In a deed of sale of a parcel of land covered by: TCT 12345. 14. There is really a land covered by TCT 12345 with same technical description however it is not located in Muntinlupa. 11. or otherwise peculiar signification. Secs. located in City of Muntinlupa. such a construction is. 12. modification. unless the parties intended otherwise. —In the construction of an instrument. modify. Its object is to prohibit alteration. (Tan Machan v. vary.] 278) 7) An extrinsic agreement between indorser and indorsee which cannot be embodied in the instrument without impairing its credit may be proved by parol evidence. De la Trinidad. ROC). the issue is contents of a writing (Sec. technical. Rule 130. SEC. may be shown. (Sec. 9. to be adopted as will give effect to all. Philips v. Peculiar signification of terms. Rule 130. and were so used and understood. Interpretation according to circumstances. 3 Phil.) The fact that parties who appear to have signed as principals did so as merely sureties is provable by parol evidence. 5 How. ROC) WHILE under the parol evidence rule. —The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution. Interpretation according to intention. but evidence is admissible to show that they have a local. the intention of the parties is to be pursued. variation or contradiction of the terms of a written agreement by “parol evidence”. which is not allowed unless the case falls under any of the exceptions. by virtue of which the first bank was induced to cash the same. (PNB v. 3. so that the judge may be placed in the position of those whose language he is to interpret. the latter is paramount to the former. including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it. 756. On the other hand. which is not allowed unless the case falls under any of the exceptions (Sec. qualify. Preston. SEC. in the particular instance. 4. if possible. and when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent. - . 9. 684) FALSA DEMONSTRATION NON NOCET “False description will not invalidate an instrument” The erroneous description will be considered as a surplusage. 91 Phil. ROC) WHILE under the parol evidence rule. there is no issue as to contents of a writing (Sec. —For the proper construction of an instrument. Rule 130. general and particular provisions. — The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation. ROC) Only the parties and their successors in interest. Rule 130. provable by parol evidence. the purpose of the offer of parol evidence is to change. 10. Seeto. (PNB v. change. and not strangers may invoke the protection of the parol evidence rule. 9. 91 Phil. Seeto. 10-19 SEC. Rule 130. 756. 15. [U. The erroneous description will not invalidate the contract. Seeto. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. secondary evidence is offered to prove the contents of a writing. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. —In the construction of an instrument where there are several provisions or particulars. (Sec. 9 Wigmore 148) 8. 91 Phil. in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly. Best evidence rule distinguished from parol evidence rule: 1) Under the best evidence rule. SEC. Interpretation of Documents – Rule 130. 2) Under the best evidence rule. the circumstances under which it was made. but in Laguna.

22 General Rule: During their marriage. Rule 130. Rule 119. 19. President of the Philippines or other country Disqualifications – a. convention or law: a. 24. ROC) Note: Conviction of a crime does not disqualify a person from testifying but may disqualify him from being discharged as a state witness. the former is to be adopted. Privileged communication (Sec. —When an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations. C.hlp©2009 Page 14 8/24/201114 and the two are inconsistent. SEC. 22. which preferred. 24 [e]. Death or insanity of adverse party (Sec. 9 [e]. c. capacity of recollection. —When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it.). can make their known perception to others. —An instrument may be construed according to usage. one in favor of natural right and the other against it. By reason of mental incapacity or immaturity – Rule 30. Ambassadors of foreign countries by virtue of treaty obligations b. and 5) Public officer privileged communication rule (Sec. Sec. Of two constructions. 18.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. is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others. reporters and publishers c. Testimonial Evidence Qualifications of Witnesses – Rule 130. A mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a witness. neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse. Interpretation according to usage. at the time of their production for examination.). 16. e. and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper. Ibid. Marital Disqualification – Rule 130. 2) Lawyer-client privileged communication rule (Sec. 24 [a]. and perceiving. that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it. 1993) Requisites of competency of a child as witness: capacity of observation. Ibid. 25. Information derived by editors. 20 . 24 [b]. SEC. 24 [c]. information or communication given by parties who participate in ADR is confidential b. (People vs. Ibid. Mental incapacity or immaturity (Sec. ROC) Note: This is not an exclusive enumeration of the Rules on privilege communication.) d. 21.Those whose mental condition. Ibid). The negotiations under the Witness Protection Program (Accused discharged as state witness) A.). 24 [d]. Ibid. Mendoza. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. or who understand the language. b. ROC). 3) Doctor-patient privileged communication rule (Sec. Construction in favor of natural right. Other examples are: a. Marriage (Sec.)(N/A in criminal cases) 4) Priest-penitent privileged communication rule (Sec. Parental and filial testimonial privilege rule (Sec. Under Rules on Alternative dispute Resolution. 17. (Sec. in order to determine its true character. the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters. Sec. GR: A disinterested person could be compelled to give his testimony through subpoena Exceptions: Persons who are immune from the process of subpoena by tradition. Rule 130. —When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered. Exceptions: . Salomon. SEC.). SEC. that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision is made. Ibid. Ibid. 21 . 23.) [Applies to Rules on Electronic Evidence] 1) Marital privileged communication rule (Sec. and capacity of communication. (People vs. or the language is not understood by the court. is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language. 1996) B. . the former controls the latter.Can perceive. Sec. Ibid.

Arambulo. 23 Sometime called the “Survivor’s disqualification rule” Parties or assignor of parties to a case.. A told the court now that if he cannot compel the wife to be an adverse witness. So that there will be a violation of the spousal immunity. she might give testimony that he will harm her interest and that of her husband.Marital disqualification is applicable only when one or both spouses are parties b. Sec. perjury and domestic disunity may result. C. Dead Man’s Statute – Rule 130. 694) The privilege could be invoked even if the spouse is testifying in favor of the spouseparty because damaging testimony may be elicited during the cross-examination. Privilege is applicable regardless of whether the spouses are parties or not . As long as a valid marriage is in existence at the . Marital disqualification ceases after dissolution of marriage -Privileged communication lasts even after the death of either spouse d. Note: As long as there is a case INVOLVING the husband OR wife. If the rule is not there. A subpoenaed the wife to be his hostile witness which is allowed in civil cases. When the wife received the subpoena. ‘Marrying the Witness’ An accused can effectively “seal the lips” of a witness by marrying the witness. 8 Phil. because under the Rules of Court when the deposition of a person is taken. and even though the marriage was entered into for the express purpose of suppressing the testimony. the disqualification is absolute. People v. Ruling of the Court: Spousal immunity applies. So the rule on spousal immunity does not apply. 78 Phil. (H&W both defendants). The privilege applies to testimonies on confidential communication only -Marital disqualification applies to testimony on any fact c.hlp©2009 Page 15 8/24/201115 - In a civil case by one against the other or. (Marriage for convenience) CASE: A filed a complaint against husband and wife for annulment of a contract by reason of fraud. since it is only a mode of discovery. Even if the communication is not confidential. The right to invoke this disqualification belongs to the spouse-party (Ortiz v. the witness-spouse cannot be compelled to testify—even where the crime charged is against the witness’ person. . the marital disqualification may still be invoked e. against . Marital disqualification is more concerned with the consequences. If the wife was allowed to testify as an adverse witness for the plaintiff. A told the court that this is not a case where the wife will be giving testimony as an adverse witness in favor of the plaintiff. then he should be allowed to get the deposition of the wife. 98) against or for whom the testimony is being proferred. or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. It may be waived 1) By a failure to interpose timely objection. The son asked her mother to testify in his favor.An executor or . SC held that there will be a violation of the spousal immunity rule. Privilege protects the hallowed confidences inherent in marriage b/w husband and wife and therefore guarantees the preservation of the marriage and further the relationship between the spouses as it encourages the disclosure of confidential matters without fear of revelation.In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. on the ground that there is a violation of the rule on marital disqualification/spousal immunity.Administrator or . or 2) By calling the other spouse as witness (Ibid. Francisco. A conceded. it does not necessarily mean that the deponent will be used as a witness in court. the husband filed a motion in court for the quashing of the subpoeana. CASE: A son filed a complaint against his own father for recovery of property or some assets. time of the trial. Ruling of the Court: Even if the purpose is just to get the deposition of the wife the rule on spousal immunity applies.Other representative DIFFERENCE B/W PRIVILEGE AND MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION a.

626) 4) Communications coming into the hands of third persons. (Go Chi Gun v. 76 Phil.. upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind. 622) 4) When the plaintiff is the executor. Hipolito. D to execute a promissory note. et c. the defendant or defendants are free to testify against the plaintiff. the officers or stockholders thereof are not disqualified. Exceptions to the survivor’s disqualification rule: 1) Ordinary witnesses.. Sexton. (Goni. Sec. administrator or legal representative of the deceased. (Floyd v. 1) 2) By cross-examining the plaintiff on prohibited matters. et al. Reyes. 50 Phil. (Lichauco v. the plaintiff is not barred from testifying to such fraud. or person in whose behalf the case is prosecuted may testify. A day before the agreed date of payment. 968) 2) When the plaintiff is a corporation. Mr. 622) 6) When the survivor's testimony refers to a negative fact. (Mendezona v. But the testimony of the adverse party must be confined o those transactions or communications which were had with the agent. 698) 3) By calling witnesses to testify on prohibited matters. 557) 7) When the survivor's testimony is favorable to the deceased. Carlos. (Marella v. though heirs of the deceased.000 to be paid next year. et al. (Goni.hlp©2009 Page 16 8/24/201116 of a deceased person. (Tongco v. if the children are still minors. vda. 84 Phil. Can the privilege be invoked? YES. 419) 8) The adverse party is competent to testify to transactions or communications with the deceased or incompetent person which were made with an agent of such person in cases in which the agent is still alive and competent to testify. or against a person of unsound mind. 47 Phil. Marasigan. (Icard v. 330) 3) When there is an imputation of fraud against the deceased. v. C gives Mr. Azur. remain confidential as between the spouses. In this case.. 12 Phil. assignor of plaintiff. Mr. D approaches Mr. Court of Appeals. C went to the executor of the estate of Mr. Court of Appeals. Vianzon. 96 Phil. 96 Phil. 54 Phil. 144 SCRA 231) How protection of the dead man’s statute is waived: 1) By not objecting to plaintiff's testimony on prohibited matters. but the third person may be called upon to . cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring BEFORE the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. whether legally or illegally. 129 Ia. Vianzon. 224) 3) Communications overheard by third persons remain confidential as between the spouses. 71 Phil. Mr. Applications of the marital privileged communciation rule: 1) Every communication between spouses is presumed to be confidential. Note: The assumption is any communication given by one spouse to the other is presumably confidential because there is no standard given in the Rules. C did not require Mr. 698) 5) When the defendant or defendants. 61 Ind. are sued in their personal and individual capacities. 493) 4) When the plaintiff's deposition is taken by the representative of the estate or when counsel for the representative crossexamined the plaintiff as to matters occurring during the deceased's lifetime. during or after the marriage. Co Cho. D the amount. de Goitia. or = In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. Mr. v. or the person of unsound mind. 144 SCRA 231) CASE: Mr. Mr. 487. C is incompetent to testify as to the transaction he had with Mr. (Tongco v. (People v. 24 (a) Husband or the wife. 50 Phil. (Arroyo v.. CASE: If the communication is made in front of the children of the husband and wife.EXCEPT: = In a civil case by one against the other. Privileged Communication 1. D and claims the payment of the debt. 93 Phil. Marital Privilege – Rule 130. Co Cho. unless the third person may be considered as an agent of the spouses. Wigmore.. C to borrow P100. cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage . but the third person who overheard may be called upon to testify. (Francia v. Miller. et al. (Sexton v. the plaintiff may testify against them. D. et al. D died. who are not the plaintiff. 2336) 2) Communications made in the presence of third parties are not confidential. Sec. D. (Go Chi Gun v. Atlantic Gulf.

the court may order a party to submit to a physical or mental examination. EXCEPT: (1) When a strong probability exists that revealing the name would implicate that person in the very same activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice. or clerk be examined.Penitent Privilege – Rule 30. Sandiganbayan. no one else including the attorney can invoke it. supra) But if the third person acquired knowledge of the communication by collusion and voluntary disclosure on the part of either of the spouses. 1992) 4.) 5) Communications intended for transmission to third persons are not confidential. Mutual Life Ins. Co. (3) When the name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict.This privilege belongs to the patient. (U. Sec. 37 Phil. It is waivable expressly or impliedly. 92) . such as identity of the client is protected if the revelation of such information would necessarily reveal the privileged information. he thereby becomes an agent of such spouses so that the privilege is claimable against him. It is impliedly waived like any other privilege rule. Wiler. so that it its waivable only by him or her. stenographer. 484) 2. This privilege does not apply when the doctor is presented as an expert witness and only hypothetical problems were presented to him. v. 140 N. Sec. he waives any privilege he may have in that action regarding the testimony of every other person who has examined him in respect of the same examination. concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity.Y. By doing so. and Hammons. 24 (b) An attorney cannot. There is also a waiver if the client does not object to the attorney’s testimony. Attorney-Client Privilege – Rule 30. Hayes.When the patient answers questions on cross examination. be examined as to . 24 (c) A person authorized to practice medicine. (People v. (Regala vs. (2) When disclosure would open the client to liability. or with a view to. be examined as to . without the consent of the patient. (Penn. without the consent of the person making the confession. The attorney-client privilege may not be invoked to refuse to divulge the identity of the client. Privilege does not extend to communications where the client’s purpose is the furtherance of a future intended crime or fraud 3. Priest.The waiver may be by a contract as in medical or life insurance . without the consent of his client.Privilege is owned by the client. 24 (d) A minister or priest cannot.His advice given thereon in the course of. without the consent of the client and his employer.Any communication made by the client to him. nor can an attorney's secretary. Communications may refer to anticipated litigations or may not refer to any litigation at all. and which would blacken the reputation of the patient. which information was necessary to enable him to act in capacity. and it is waivable by any act of such spouse which might be considered as an express or implied consent to the disclosure of the communication. 726) Waiver of the marital privileged communication rule: The privilege is claimable by the spouse not called as witness. so long as the mental or physical condition is in dispute. be examined as to .hlp©2009 Page 17 8/24/201117 testify. (Lim vs.Any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs . . Physician-Patient Privilege – Rule 30.Any advice or treatment given by him or .Any confession made to or . The party examined may request a report of the examination.S. (Ibid. Hence it the client is asked on cross-examination of his communications to his lawyer and reveals the same there would be a waiver. 1996) LAST LINK DOCTRINE: Nonprivileged information. It is he who can invoke the privilege. (People. Sec. professional employment.Any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity. so that it is only he that can claim or waive it. surgery or obstetrics cannot in a CIVIL CASE. . CA. or . v.Under Rule 28 ROC. 100 Ind. - It is enough that the client reasonably believed that the person consulted is a lawyer. Antipolo. If the client waives the privilege. there is waiver .

There is an inconsistency between the ROC and Family Code with respect to this privilege. 26 First is a JUDICIAL ADMISSION. (National Development Co. Workmen's Compensation Commission. as distinguished from admission. (Lichauco v. the admission is admissible only if it is against the interest of the admitter. the lack of opportunity for crossexamination by the adverse party. other direct ascendants. v. Who are not covered and may be compelled to testify: 1) Relatives by affinity. (Lichauco v. 84 Phil. Alegre. on the other hand. When self-serving or favorable admissions are admissible: 1) If made in open court 2) giving full opportunity to the adverse party 3) to exercise his right of crossexamination. CA. and though substantive is procedural in character. which is to preserve harmonious relations between parent and child which could be ruptured through testifying in court. Note: It is believed that adopted and adopter are covered by the parental and filial testimonial privilege rule but only insofar as the parent and child is concerned. (otherwise it is a self-serving statement) Example: Flight is considered a disserving act. Sec. Furthermore. 84 Phil. Self-serving or favorable admissions made out of court not admissible: REASONS: 1) A man may be safely believed if he declares against his own interest. (Viacrucis vs. Flight is considered as circumstantial evidence of the guilt of the accused. admission. children or other direct descendants. 25 A person cannot be compelled to testify against his parents. Admission A confession. is a declaration made at any time by a person. declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. 6. because that will be considered as an act that is favorable to the interest of the accused.hlp©2009 Page 18 8/24/201118 5. nephews. stating or acknowledging that he had committed or participated in the commission of a crime. 4 vs. (People vs. Second is an EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION.. 24 (e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards. criminal cases and even special proceedings. BUT non-flight cannot be used as evidence to prove his innocence. 4) Cousins of whatever degree. is usually applied in criminal cases to . when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. Note: Parental and filial testimony dies not prohibit voluntary testimony or compelled testimony against relatives by affinity or collateral relatives. 342) 2) It is excluded on the same ground as any hearsay evidence. uncles. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement. N. Sec. 5) Other collateral relatives. 1979) Self-serving evidence An admission favorable to the party making it. Rule 130 Sec. The term. While the Family Code took effect in 1989. This applies to civil. that. The reason for this opinion is the rationale behind the privilege. ROC prevails since it took effect in 1989 and is made by the SC. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co.. Public Officer Privilege – Rule 30. Rule 129 Sec. Such admission may be received in evidence not only against the party who made it or his successors-in-interest but also against third persons. 26 . but not if he advocates his interest. 342) a.. Under this rule. 2) Brothers and sisters. which is conclusive upon the admitter whether in writing or oral. perjury may result because the parent or the child may give false testimony to protect the other.B. 1986) The silence of an accused under custody or his failure to deny statements by another implicating him in a crime cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his participation in the commission of the crime. Admissions and Confessions Admissions – Rule 130. 19 SCRA 865) b. since it is prejudicial to the interest of the accused. nieces. Sec. 3) Aunts. Extra-judicial Confession vs.Any act. Parental and Filial Privilege – Rule 130. It does not extend to the direct ascendants of the adopter because the adoptive relation is between the adopter and the adopted only. as to communications made to him in official confidence.

joint debtor. c) joint interest. 10 Vt. No. (80 A. 1272) 2) When the party had no opportunity to comment on the act or declaration. Court of Appeals. or other person jointly interested with the party. 455). (7) the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record. or e) privity. Rule 130..L. (Cruz. Strong. Rule 130.R. (Sec. 365) Admission by silence. (Blanza v. b) agency.R. (6) the confessant testified for his codefendant. supra) 3) (Vicarious Admissions). July 27. Tia Fong. Kozlowski. 1998) 2) In actions based on fraud and deceit. and 2) when proper and possible for him to do so. 609) 4) When silence is upon advice of counsel. Arcangel. declaration. d) conspiracy.. it uncovers a scheme. 21 SCRA 4) The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act. 98 Phil. 3) may be given in evidence against such party 4) after the partnership or agency a) is shown by evidence [(testimonial or documentary. Raquel. may be given in evidence against him. it provides insight into such person's motive or intent. ROC arrangement and numbering supplied) Exceptions to the rule on admission by silence or instances where there is no admission by silence: 1) Where no good reason exists for the party to comment on the act or declaration (Veil v. (2) the accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical confessions without collusion and without contradiction by the others present. ROC) Exceptions to res inter alios acta: 1) When there is a rational similarity or resemblance between the conditions giving rise to he fact offered and the circumstances surrounding the issue or fact to be proved. 32. An act or declaration made 1) in the presence and 2) within the hearing or 3) observation b. 115 A. (Cruz. 28 Phil. of a party who does or says nothing c. Anno. 220) 3) Where the act or declaration was made in the course of an official investigation. 49 Phil. (5) the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation by the co-conspirator. 28. 1505) res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet or res inter alios acta Rule (First Part of Rule) Statements made or matters accomplished between two parties cannot prejudice a third party. Rule 130. Ranario. which may be 2ndary evidence)] b) other than such act or declaration. design or plan. (Sec.hlp©2009 Page 19 8/24/201119 statements of fact by the accused which do not directly involve an acknowledgment of the guilt of the accused or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is charged. as when the act or declaration was not specifically directed to the party who remained silent. a. when the act or declaration 1) is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true. (4) if they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which was confessed by 1 of the accused and the confession is used only as a corroborating evidence. Exceptions to the rule that extrajudicial statements of an accused implicating a co-accused may not be utilized against the latter: (1) the co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or adopted the confession by not questioning its truthfulness.The rights of a party may be prejudiced by the act. 1996) Rule on admission by co-partner or agent: 1) The act or declaration of a partner or 2) agent within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency. 29. declaration or omission of another when between the party making the admission and against whom it is offered there exists a relation of: a) partnership. (U. (People v. prom. because it sheds light on the state of mind or knowledge of a person. (People vs. Corrales. d. except as hereinafter provided. G. v.L. (Sec. et al. et al. (People v. (3) the accused admitted the facts after being apprised of the confession. ROC arrangement and numbering supplied) Rule on admission by conspirator: . 126713.R..S. or omission of another. or it reveals a mistake. (People v.. v. 5) The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner.

the sole heir of Y. 88) Probative value of recantations: They are looked upon with disfavor as recantations are usually secured through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. for as against the latter. Pelonia. Rule 130. in relation to the property. the act.cannot be proven by documentary evidence. 358) 2) If a confession be true and voluntary.R. (Sec. conducts and declarations adopted he confession as his own. L-14624. 1960) 5) The confession of a conspirator is admissible against his co-conspirator provided it was made during the existence of the conspiracy. Atencio. Secs. (People v. scheme. the same is admissible as an evidence of guilt of a high quality. but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge. 54 Phil.Declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged. Rule 115 (e). July 24. Ola. 533) Exceptions: when a confession is admissible against co-accused: 1) When the confession of an accused implicating his co-accused is made judicially at a joint trial (U. Atienza. 34 . et al. 86 Phil. 130 SCRA 87. 47 Phil. Second Part of Inter alios acta Rule (Similar Acts as Evidence) Rule 130. (People v. since it is supported by the presumption. (People v. v. Unless.S. 30. (People v. while the former was alive. July 31.. the confession is nullified by evidence of duress. 1987 Constitution . 1987). Confessions – Rule 130. L-222518. G. Sec. custom or usage. 1953) 6) When the recitals in the extrajudicial confession of an accused is corroborated in its important details by other proofs in the record. 17. that no person of normal mind will deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a crime. habit. identity. 259 SCRA 138) General rule on admissibility of confession: A confession is admissible only against the accused who made it and not against his co-accused. . openly told his acquaintances. Here. Macamay. L-5875. 970) 4) Where several accused. 576) 3) When the co-accused against whom an extrajudicial confession is offered had. that the land where his house stood had already been sold to Y. Villanueva. Sec. Rule 130) *This refers to extrajudicial acts and declarations of a conspirator and not to his testimony as a witness in the trial. Garcia. 133. 17. 30. it may be admitted against the other accused. 31 . 85 Phil. No. (People v. Art. the deliberate act of the accused with a full comprehension of its significance. father of Z. since conspirators do not normally reduce their agreement in writing) b) other than such act or declaration. (Sec. 893) or when the extrajudicial statements implicating a co-accused are repeated in open court (People v. Ramirez. there is no impediment to its admission as evidence and it then becomes evidence of a high order. supra. Atienza. plan. Talledo. such confession is admissible against the others. a very strong one. (People v. declaration. or omission of the latter. (People v. 1968) Rule on Admission by Privies – Rule 130. ROC.hlp©2009 Page 20 8/24/201120 1) The act or declaration of a conspirator 2) relating to the conspiracy and during its existence. People v. especially if it be a serious crime. because the coaccused as a chance to cross-examine. 1962) . Sec. III. L47147. People v. system. Orencia. (People v. therefore. People. 329. It represents the outward manifestation of a man. (Molina v. by his acts. the confession would be hearsay and res inter alios acta. L-12687. unless prompted by truth and conscience. without collusion.Where one derives title to property from another. May 15. while holding the title. because the statement was made after X held title to the land. made extrajduicial confessions which are identical in essential details and corroborated by other evidence. Jan. or of any offense necessarily included therein. and the like. may be given in evidence against him.Confession is evidence of high order: 1) There is no evidence of a higher quality than a confession. the declaration by X is not admissible against Z. Zea. is evidence against the former Example: X. 36 Phil. 3) may be given in evidence against the coconspirator 4) after the conspiracy a) is shown by evidence (Circumstantial Evidence. July 3.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. 2) When the offer in evidence of an extrajudicial confession against a coaccused is not objected to.

Art III – No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. whether feloniously caused or not. People v.. The failure of the prosecution to produce the body of the victim does not imply the absence of corpus delicti for the term does not refer to the body of the murdered person. (People v. People. Sasota. 1996) The declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be given in evidence against him and any person.Sec. 146 SCRA 492) 2) As corroborative evidence. In an affray. 1996) Any confession. (People vs. Moro Ansang. 130 SCRA 209) . if proved. Yip Wai Ming.. 83. 77 Phil. (People vs. which may be proved even circumstantially. 99 Phil. 668) c. 88 Phil. Compil. (People v. In robbery or theft. the corpus delicti is the fact of death (People v. 44). and without counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible in evidence. the fact that pistol shots were heard and a bystander was killed by one of the shots constitute evidence of corpus delicti. The operative act in determining whether the right against self-incrimination has been violated is when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who has been taken into custody by the police to carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting incriminatory statements and not the signing by the suspect of his supposed extrajudicial confession. Marquez. et al. (People v. if it is clear from other facts and circumstances presented that persons other than the declarants themselves participated in the commission of the crime charged and proved. the fact of burning. et al. Wong Chuen Ming. 75 Phil. et al. In arson. People v. 1. Garcia. Nocum. 1995) By affixing their signatures on the boxes. would bring the crime charged within the scope of the amnesty proclamation. Encipido. the fact of loss.) The invocation of amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance.) They are what is commonly known as interlocking confession and constitute an exception to the general rule that extrajudicial confessions/admissions are admissible in evidence only against the declarants thereof. 77 Phil. which is the violent death of a person. (People v. (People v. 89 Phil. there must be satisfactory evidence of the fact of death and the identity of the victim that a crime has been committed which is what corpus delicti really means. 46) d. b. and 2) someone is criminally responsible. 381). Mones. They are admissible as corroborative evidence against the other accused. (Ibid. 91 Phil. 423). 111.hlp©2009 Page 21 8/24/201121 Extrajudicial confessions identical in material respects (also known as interlocking confessions) admissible against all declarants: 1) As circumstantial evidence. Niem. It refers to a particular crime and signifies that the specific offense had been actually committed by someone. Sanchez. 58 Phil. (People v. (People v. 7 SCRA 153) What is meant by corpus delicti ? a. but disclaims liability therefor on account of intervening facts which. including a reenactment without admonition of the right to silence and to counsel. 381) Examples of corpus delicti: a. accused in effect made a tacit admission of the crime charged. 99 Phil. People v. These signatures are tantamount to an extrajudicial confession made without the assistance of counsel. or the specific fact of loss or injury. Garcia. being composed of two elements: 1) certain results were produced. It also means actual commission of the crime charged. (People v. otherwise competent to testify as a witness who heard the confession is . (People vs. (Ibid. Centeno. 1018) Conviction for murder proper even if victim’s body is not produced: In all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an essential element of the offense. (People v.. In murder or homicide. 133 SCRA 69 citing Vera v. Salig. Madrid. Marquez. 83) b. 17. which means that the pleader admits the allegations against him. 93 Phil. which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights. 77 Phil. (People v. Extrajudicial confessions independently made without collusion and are identical with each other in their material respects and confirmatory of the other are admissible as circumstantial evidence against coaccused implicated therein to show the probability of the latter's actual participation in the commission of the crime.

Santos. 27 1. Inc. 1965) The testimony of a witness on the confession made to him by the accused is not hearsay.. Aldecoa & Co. is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. Reyes. his guilt could be predicated. 354. S. uncontroverted by competent evidence and not inherently improbable. (People vs. 2) Affidavits. Cusi. . (People vs. Criminal Cases – An offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt EXCEPT in cases involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised. who. L-9095. The Good Samaritan Rule: An offer to pay or the payment of medical. 7. The hearsay evidence rule applies also to affidavits when the supposed affiant never identified the affidavit and there was no opportunity for the prosecution to cross- examine him/her. 457) General rule: Affidavits without presenting affiant in court is mere hearsay: The constitutional right to confrontation precludes reliance on affidavits. 36 1 What can a witness testify to? . hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. Luna. 1995) Compromises – Rule 130. . 1971). The testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person. (People vs. May 25. 1957. Yparriguirre. It is otherwise if the purpose is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made. 138 SCRA 132) 2) Under the Rule on Summary Procedure for civil cases.. if intended to establish the truth of the facts asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence. 23 SCRA 1301) Exceptions: when affidavits are given weight: 1) Where said affidavits are overwhelming.A plea of guilty later withdrawn. Gaddi. Rule 133. by affidavit or deposition would impute the commission of an offense to him.. (People vs. et al. 1997) THE Hearsay Rule 1. except as otherwise provided in these rules. the accused is permitted to show that the offer was not made under a consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment of for some other reason which would justify a claim by the accused that the offer was not in truth an admission of his guilt or an attempt to avoid the legal consequences which would ordinarily ensue therefrom. v. (People vs. Godoy. 76 Phil. Brioso. It has long been held that in cases of public crimes. 1996) An offer to compromise does not require that a criminal complaint be first filed before the offer can be received as evidence against the offeror.. (People v. It would be to disregard one of the most valuable guarantees of a person accused if solely on the affidavits presented. People v.A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge = those which are derived from his own perception. (People v. 139 SCRA 586-587 citing People v. et al. 3) 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. (Sec. and is not admissible against the offeror. or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense. De Guzman.. 76 Phil. v. 153) NOTE: See concept of independent relevant statement. 1989) Examples of hearsay evidence: 1) The testimony of a witness as to what he has heard another person say about the facts in dispute. 30 Phil. (Marisfosque v. Sec. 2. He is testifying to a fact which he knows of his personal knowledge (was testifying to the fact that the accused told him that he stabbed the victim) and not to the truth of the statement of the accused. 1995) A plea of forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise.A. ECED. Such a constitutional safeguard cannot be satisfied unless the opportunity is given to the accused to test the credibility of any person. or the tenor of such statement.Civil Cases – An offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability. Lavarez. Sec. (People vs. (People vs.hlp©2009 Page 22 8/24/201122 competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood it. Maqueda. (Top-Weld Manufacturing. WArner Barnes & Co. but the court may direct hat the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. Testimonial Knowledge – Rule 130. Pagkaliwagan.

(U. 47 Phil. the fact that such statements have been made is relevant. and the statements are admissible as evidence. The hearsay rule does not apply. hence they are not considered as exceptions to the hearsay rule. subject to the test of cross-examination. 2001 Issue: Whether or not the use of the Angara diary to determine the state of mind of President Estrada violates the rule against the admission of hearsay evidence Held: 1) Angara diary is not an OUT-OFCOURT STATEMENT. APRIL 3. The Angara diary contains direct statements of petitioner which can be categorized as admissions of a party. 457) The right to cross-examine he adverse party's witnesses is essential in the administration of justice for it is the only means of testing the credibility of witnesses and their testimony. 4) res inter alios acta rule. And though the diary is not Estrada’s hence nonbinding on him.exception: admissions by a co-partner or agent. Testimony by a witness derived from his personal knowledge BUT the adverse party is not given opportunity to cross-examine Example (No. . (Pastor v.” [THIS IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE] Now. Pagkaliwagan. 76 Phil.S. (People v. 374) 6) Newspaper Articles. 626) 4) A medical certificate to the extent of the injuries found by the doctor on the offended party's body. and therefore the assertion can be received as evidence only when made on the witness stand. 2) Angara diary is not covered by the hearsay rule. Carlos. The drinking buddy serves as a witness for the plaintiff. 2): Plaintiff presents witness A. 243) Principle of Independently Relevant Statements . and this right is not available in respect of hearsay evidence since he declarant is not in court. 3) Admission are not excluded by hearsay evidence. and 2) To preserve the right of parties to crossexamine the original witness or person claiming to have knowledge of the transaction or occurrence. and says: “I heard A said that the plaintiff is a thief. on the competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce it. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary.. A testifies in court on matters personally known to him. Illustration: A was drinking with his buddies. Later on A’s neighbor was charged with theft. DESIERTO. Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part.hlp©2009 Page 23 8/24/201123 ROC) 3) A letter offered in evidence to establish the facts in issue. On the next scheduled hearing witness A no longer appears and could no longer be located. v.Under this principle regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement. Gaspar. After direct examination. People v.S. The drinking buddy testifies in court saying: “The accused is a thief because I heard A says so. TWO CONCEPTS OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE: 1. Second hand information (not derived from personal knowledge of witness) 2. [The remedy here now is to ask that the testimony of witness A be stricken out since it now becomes hearsay] Rationale behind the non-admissibility of hearsay evidence: 1) A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his own knowledge.(Double deck hearsay or Double hearsay) Theory of the hearsay rule: When a human utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of the fact asserted in it. 40 Phil. court tells that defendant can cross examine on next scheduled hearing. 2 Phil. (Donnelly v.”. regardless of the truth or falsity of the statement] CASE: ESTRADA v. . 592. because the FACT IN ISSUE is whether or not the utterances were made by a particular person. 706) 5) A resolution of the municipal council of a certain municipality as to the character of an accused in a criminal case. (De Guia v.S. 228 U. [Now this time this is not hearsay. SC held that the doctrine of adoptive admission applies. for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. the credit of the assertor becomes the basis of inference. U. 1 Phil. Tanjuatco. A told them that: “My neighbor is a thief”. Meralco.Independent relevant statements are hearsay in character but not legal hearsay. supposing the neighbor filed a libel case against A. Prosecution calls as his witness one of the drinking buddies. since it is part of the pleadings in the case.

otherwise. It is the belief of impending death and not the rapid succession of death that renders the dying declaration admissible. No. The husband then died. intention. Ola. that is his mental condition. [Criminal: Only those which involve death.1 Dying Declaration – Rule 130. 42 . a simple gesture of the hand unaccompanied by words.there are two classes: (1) Statements which are the very facts in issue.Declaration was made under the consciousness of an impending death . (People v.Declaration refers to cause and surrounding circumstances of the death of the declarant . because he is not disqualified from testifying in court if he were alive) . et al. prom. July 3. July 28. G. good or bad faith of the latter d. 1987) CASE: The crime charged is rape with homicide. ill will and other emotions b. murder. Sec. The second hand evidence is placed before the court without the benefit of cross-examination by the party against whom it is brought. 1997) Mere gesture of dying victim inconclusive: The gesture of a dying woman in pointing to a direction.” [This is not a dying declaration.R. (2) Statements which are circumstantial evidence.2 Res Gestae – Rule 130. motive. when asked for the identity of her assailant. REASON: Unlike an oral or a written declaration. The wife died instantly. Thus. Bautista.What are admissible as part of the res gestae: . The degree and seriousness of the wounds and the fact that death supervened thereafter constitute substantial evidence of the victim's consciousness of his impending death. Exceptions 2. 2. belief. Statements of a person which show his physical condition as illnesses and the like c.The declarant actually died. he was authorized by the petitioner to act for him in the critical hours and days before he abandoned Malacanan. an alter ego of the president. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness The Angara diary contains statements of the petitioner which reflect his state of mind and are circumstantial evidence of his intent to resign . The husband was brought to the hospital and made a statement that it was X who stab her wife. that is the knowledge. 5) Independently Relevant Statement. (People v. This is what makes hearsay evidence objectionable. nor of any other means of assessing the competence and credibility of the source. 1987) Dying declaration has weight even if declarant did not die immediately after his declaration: The fact that the declarant died four (4) hours after his statement does not diminish the probative value of the dying declaration since it is not indispensable that the a declarant expires immediately thereafter. No. rape with homicide] Victim need not state that he has lost all hope of recovery. Statements of a person which an inference may be made as to the state of mind of another. is open to various interpretations by the witness who testifies to its existence. The statement is not a dying declaration because it pertains to the wife) . imbued with his personal meanings and biases.Declaration may be received in any case wherein declarant’s death is the subject of inquiry (In one case. the declarant would not expect to survive the injury from which he actually died. September 5.R. robbery with homicide. parricide. 111149. Tanaman. The second class includes: a.. It is sufficient that circumstances are such as to inevitably lead to the conclusion that at the time the declaration was made. G. The victim before death tells to the police investigator/doctor: “I was raped. But this may be admitted as part of res gestae] 2. 71768.hlp©2009 Page 24 8/24/201124 Executive Secretary Angara was the little president. 37 . is too vague to be given such probative value in determining the culpability of the accused. belief. Statements which may identify the date.R. knowledge. place and persons in questions e. Statement of a person knowing his state of mind. Sec. L-47147. G. homicide. Indeed. the declaration may be admitted as part of the res gestae and not as a dying declaration APPLICABILITY: Both Civil and Criminal. No. the evidence comes to the court couched in the witness' second hand perception and possibly. The husband was shot and wife was stabbed. because the statement has nothing to do with the cause and circumstances surrounding the death. (People v.The declarant must be competent as a witness (What if declarant is proved to be a congenital liar? Still this exception may apply.

statements must be made after the injury has been inflicted upon the applicant. The statements made by the maid fall within the res gestae rule] b) EQUIVOCAL/VERBAL ACTS: A witness testifies on the stand for the plaintiff in a collection case where the defendant denies having borrowed P10. they are admissible as part of the res gestae.3 Declaration Against Interest – Rule 130. the statements could be made prior or simultaneous with or after the startling occurrence. “Pinatay siya ng sariling ama!”. The maid told the police that despite her pleas X still raped her. Ruling of SC: Insofar as the statements of Rufina Alconyes(old woman) are concerned. X was charged with robbery with rape. Sec. The boy’s face was swollen and bruised and his body covered with dry blood. [N. against the interest of the declarant Subject of declaration/act: the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's own .must be the victim RES GESTAE. The police noticed that the maid was hysterical and on the verge of collapse.in so far as startling occurrence is concerned. RES GESTAE. 38 By whom made: a person deceased.anybody PEOPLE vs. he said that he heard the defendant say: “Thank you. Y with the maid rushed to the police station and told the police what happened.B. The old woman told the people inside the emergency room that the boy’s father had beaten him up. RES GESTAE Time when statements made: DYING DECLARATION. Spontaneous Statements B. if not gruesome. cried and repeatedly screamed. EXAMPLE: a) SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT: X barged into the house of Y. X brought Y’s maid to a bedroom and raped her. The old woman. without prior opportunity to contrive the same. During the trial the maid could no longer be located. Y could hear the maid crying: “Huwag! Maawa ka sa akin!”. Death of declarant: DYING DECLARATIONdeclarant must die RES GESTAE.Statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue and giving it legal significance TWO CONCEPTS: A. When X fled.” Further. followed by an old woman who was shouting hysterically. The witness testifies that one year ago he saw the plaintiff give money to the defendant. and stabbed him. I will pay one year after. [The testimony would be hearsay but as an exception to the hearsay rule. The prosecution presents the policeman to testify on what the maid told him.hlp©2009 Page 25 8/24/201125 . 2. The report made thereof by Josephine Aguilar is not hearsay since she was actually there and personally heard the statements of Alconyes which she recounted in court. and these were shortly thereafter uttered by her with spontaneity. or unable to testify. CLOUD (265 SCRA 472) Concept of independently relevant statements and res gestae applied simultaneously. they having been caused by and did result from the startling. capable of different interpretations. apparently the boy’s grandmother. Her account of said statements of Alconyes are admissible under the doctrine of independently relevant statements. This time he refuses to pay. tied her to a chair and robbed her. 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.Equivocal means ambiguous. And that he heart the plaintiff said that: “Here’s the money you are borrowing from me.no need for declarant to die Declarant: DYING DECLARATION.000 from the plaintiff.” [Here the equivocal act of handing the money was given significance by the statement of the plaintiff] DYING DECLARATION vs. with respect to the tenor and not the truth thereof. Statements accompanying Equivocal Acts.Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof . tied his hands. dying declaration may likewise be applied simultaneously with independently relevant statement] Josephine Aguilar was at the emergency room of a hospital to have some stitches removed from her daughter’s head when she saw a boy being carried by a man. occurrence that she witnessed. The debt is not evidenced by a promissory note because plaintiff claims that defendant had orally borrowed money from him in the past and had always paid.

Sec.C. Pedro admitted that he was the one who killed Jose. -Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts. the only evidence admissible is evidence of COMMON REPUTATION. 2. or unable to testify Subject of declaration/act: pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage When admissible: occurred before the controversy. in foreign country or physical/mental impairments] b. birth. Mere absence from the jurisdiction does not make him ipso facto unavailable. marriage. Example: A parish priest of the community where the accused belongs is presented as witness.Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation Note: When it comes to presentation of evidence concerning the good or bad moral character. 3) that a reasonable man in his position a) would not have made the declaration b) unless he believed it to be true. 2. 40 Subject of exception: reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy.What are admissible? . against the interest of the declarant. 3) An admission may be received in evidence only against the admitter and those identified with him in legal interest WHILE the declaration may be received even against third persons. 38. REQUISITES: a. the dates when and the places where these fast occurred. or respecting marriage or moral character. It is therefore admissible to show that the . death. CA (1996) CASE: People v.includes relationship. SC held that Pedro’s declaration is a declaration against interest. Fuentes vs.e. Pedro also died. 41 . 277) Inability to testify = either dead. 39 By whom made: person deceased. (Smith v. financial) 2) An admission may be received even if the admitter is alive WHILE the declarant must be dead or is unable to testify.4 Pedigree – Rule 130. Sec. mentally incapacitated or physically incompetent. Unfortunately. The prosecutor filed an information charging Juan with homicide of Jose. proprietary. And the parish priest testifies that the accused goes to mass everyday and receives holy communion. and the names of the relatives. family portraits and the like. Moore. respecting facts of public or general interest > 30 years old. and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. or 2) unable to testify [i. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree.5 Family Tradition – Rule 130. in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members. Pedigree . engravings on rings. Moral character for purposes of evidence can be demonstrated ONLY by evidence of REPUTATION]. may be received as evidence of pedigree. So if character evidence is allowed a litigant cannot present proof that he is of good moral character. The declaration is made by 1) a person deceased. [The testimony is not admissible to show the accused’s good moral character. 2. [declarant MUST KNOW that it is against his interest] c. family genealogy. . may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family. if the fact asserted in the declaration 1) was at the time it was made 2) so far contrary to declarant's own interest. The defense presented a witness who heard Pedro say that he was the one who killed Jose. Rule 130.Common reputation existing previous to the controversy. 142 N. So the parish priest should tell the court what is the reputation of the Declaration against interest distinguished from admission: 1) An admission is not necessarily against the interest of the admitter WHILE the declaration must be against the declarant's own interest(penal.6 Common Reputation – Rule 130. may be given in evidence. (Sec. either by consanguinity or affinity. ROC) accused did not commit the crime charged. Holgado Jose was killed. Sec. that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true Against whom received: such may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons.hlp©2009 Page 26 8/24/201126 interest.

law. system. Section 2. optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof. transmission or storage thereof. habit. 1967) Conduct and Character as Evidence Conduct – Rule 130. Sec. Sec. periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history. 1993) 2.hlp©2009 Page 27 8/24/201127 accused in the community. Hearsay rule exception: A memorandum. all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses. Cabuang. but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge. Rule 8. who was in a position to know the facts therein stated. . or near the time of transactions to which they refer By whom made: by a person deceased. register. if rejected without valid cause. identity. (Caltex vs. Rule 8. 2. 34-35 . 47 By whom made: a witness deceased or unable to testify. This presumption may be overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source of information or the method or circumstances of the preparation.10 Learned Treatises – Rule 130. When given: in a former case or proceeding. conditions. 2.9 Commercial Lists – Rule 130. equivalent to the actual . Rule 8. By whom made: by a person deceased.7 Entries in the Course of Business – Rule 130. periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. (Tan vs. optical or similar means. 44 When made: Entries made at. report. 45 Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list. if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity. or data compilation by electronic. Sec. events. CA.11 Prior Testimony – Rule 130. Treatment of such evidence: prima facie evidence. or unable to testify. “Unable to testify” refers to an inability proceeding from a grave cause almost amounting to death as when the witness is old and has lost the power of speech. if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. or diagnoses. (People vs. 46 A published treatise. judicial or administrative. 42. REE When made: Entries made at. The report submitted by a police officer in the performance of his duties on the basis of his own personal observation of the facts reported. or unable to testify. Section 1. that the writer of the statement in the treatise. made by electronic. may properly be constituted as an exception. science. or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice. 2. 2. Treatment of such evidence: prima facie evidence.Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time. who was in a position to know the facts therein stated. Sec. record or data compilation of acts. or a witness expert in the subject testifies.8 Official Records – Rule 130. plan. opinions. 1966) Entries in a police blotter are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries. 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. When admissible: may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him. and such was the regular practice to make the memorandum. periodical. Africa. and the like. custom or usage. the presumption is that he is really a good person. involving the same parties and subject matter.An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is. Secs. Sec. report. scheme. because that flows from the established principle in substantive law that everyone is acting in good faith. Principle of NEGATIVE REPUTE If in a community nothing good or bad is heard about a particular person. or near the time of transactions to which they refer. record.

there is created a prima facie presumption of its correctness and validity. of the money. 14 General Rule: Character evidence is not admissible. 1 Burden of proof (Risk of non-persuasion): duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount required by law. In civil cases – .Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.Offended Party = his/her good or bad moral character may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. Commission on Elections. (d) The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion. ß48) Except: 1. Rule 132. While evidence of another crime is. et al.Witness = Evidence of his/her good character is not admissible until such character has been impeached.Accused = may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. 1957) V. Scientific study and training are not always essential to the competency of a witness as an expert. Irang. Adoviso. 1949) Polygraph test has not as yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception. Handwriting experts. not admissible in a prosecution for robbery. No. Opinion Rule – Rule 130. Commission on Elections.. (R130. as a rule.Burden of Proof and Presumptions 1. 51. Knowledge acquired by doing is no less valuable than that acquired by study. But where he plaintiff introduces the patent in evidence. may be received in evidence regarding — (a) The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge. The decision of the Commissioner of Patent (now the Director of .. skill. . 126669) Testimony of handwriting expert not indispensable to COMELEC. an inspection of the ballot itself being sufficient. 126669) VI. condition or appearance of a person. it is admissible when it is otherwise relevant. (People vs. and (c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. if they find that it is inconsistent with the facts in the case or otherwise unreasonable. Expert witness: opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge. and the same is in due form. 1999) Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive in the sense that they must be accepted as true on the subject of their testimony. Soliman. but are generally regarded as purely advisory.(Punzalan v. 1937) Good or bad moral character of the victim is not necessary in a crime of murder where the killing is committed through treachery or premeditation. ß50) There is no precise requirement as to the mode in which skill or experience shall have been acquired. experience or training which he shown to possess (R130. It was ruled by the Supreme Court that evidence aliunde is not allowed to prove that a ballot is marked. Character – Rule 130. 48-50 General Rule: The opinion of a witness is not admissible (R130. 2. et al. Criminal Cases: The burden of proof is on the prosecution.R. No. or property. (People vs. ((Punzalan v. . (People vs. Ordinary witness: The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given. In criminal cases – . as when it tends to identify defendant as the perpetrator and tends to show is presence at the scene of the crime or in the vicinity of the crime at the time charged.Prosecution = may not prove his bad moral character unless in rebuttal. Secs. behavior. are not indispensable in examining or comparing handwriting. Sec. Sec. the courts may place whatever weight they choose upon such testimony and may reject it. because under Rule 133 the accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is demonstrated by proof beyond reasonable doubt Civil Cases: The usual principle is that whoever makes an affirmative allegation has the burden of proof Infringement cases: The burden of proof to substantiate a charge of infringement is with the plaintiff. . ß49) 2. [because it is purely circumstantial] exceptions1. (Dilag Co. this can be done by the COMELEC itself.hlp©2009 Page 28 8/24/201128 production and tender instrument. Burden of Proof – Rule 131. while probably useful. vs. (b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity. G. Merced. Sec. G.R. or when it is evidence of a circumstance connected with the crime.

And it is the defendant’s burden to prove his affirmative defense. Doctrine of equipoise or Equiponderance Rule Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates. but the plaintiff has no reason to run after me because I have paid that account long time ago.burden of persuading the trier of fact that the burdened party is entitled to prevail Illustration of going forward with the evidence: For example after the existence of a debt has been proven by the creditor the burden of proving payment devolves upon the debtor. as neither party was able to make out a case. EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE or no evidence is presented CRIMINAL CASE: Accused is acquitted CIVIL CASE: a. When defendant files an answer and sets up affirmative defenses and no evidence is presented by both sidesPlaintiff wins Example: The defendant filed an answer: “I admit that I borrowed money from the plaintiff. the information will contain an averment that the accused does not have a license to possess the firearm[negative averment].Defendant wins because plaintiff has not carried his burden c. et al. 117) Two separate burdens in Burden of Proof: 1. PRINCIPLE OF NEGATIVING AVERMENT A negative averment do not have to be proven UNLESS the negative averment is an essential part of the cause of action or defense. to create or meet a prima facie case.” [If no evidence is presented by both sides then plaintiff wins because the defendant admitted the existence of loan. Court of Appeals. BURDEN OF PROOF vs. 115625. et al. April 2.. (Maguan v. If defendant presents enough evidence to prove his negative defense then the burden of evidence is shifted again to the plaintiff on rebuttal evidence. prom. he should go to trial and present evidence to show that he has a cause of action. No. Illustration: Plaintiff files a complaint for recovery of a defaulted loan. 1998) Therefore. Court of Appeals. the burden of going forward is the burden of producing evidence. Defendant files an answer with a negative defense. Burden of going forward. (Jimenez. Burden of persuasion.as distinct from the general burden of proofshifts to the creditor who is then under the duty of producing evidence to show nonpayment.. hence this must be proven. et al. 116960. G. the burden of going forward with the evidence . (Rivera v. Example: In an information for illegal possession of firearms. in granting the patent is presumed to be correct. When defendant does not file an answer. the party having the burden of proof fails upon that issue.R. neither side could establish its cause of action and prevail with . Where the debtor introduces evidence of payment.] BURDEN OF EVIDENCE... January 23.R. by means of evidence.hlp©2009 Page 29 8/24/201129 the Intellectual Property Office). 1996) In short. the burden of evidence will now be shifted to the defendant. while Burden of Evidence is TRANSFERRED from one litigant to another depending on the progress of trial.the duty resting upon a party. the plaintiff has the burden of proof and also burden of evidence. et al. * In this case. G. v. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE Burden of Proof NEVER SHIFTS. 146 SCRA 116.that of producing evidence 2. If he has introduced enough proof that he has a cause of action. the negative averment is an essential part of the commission of the crime. When defendant files an answer and sets up purely negative defenses and no evidence is presented by both sides. prom. NLRC.] Can the accused in a criminal/civil case before presenting his own evidence ascertain conditionally or provisionally whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is enough to convict him? Yes. the accused(defendant/plaintiff) can easily determine the sentiment of the court concerning the quantum of evidence presented by the prosecution(defendant/plaintiff) by simply filing a demurrer to evidence with leave of court.Plaintiff wins b. [ At the start. denying the existence of the loan. In a criminal/civil case. No. The burden of going forward with the evidence (burden of evidence) then shifts to the defendant to overcome by competent evidence this legal presumption.

an inference as to the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted to draw from the proof of other facts. The suppression is not in the exercise of a privilege. . The suppressed evidence is merely corroborative or cumulative. PRESUMPTION JURIS OR OF LAW. Conclusive. Disputable.1. Court of Appeals. Note: also a conclusive presumption under the Rule 39. he cannot in any litigation arising out of such declaration. If the evidence is at the disposal of both parties. (Sec. NOTES: Instances where adverse presumption from suppression of evidence does not apply: a. Presumption of regularity of private transactions . . 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. supra citing Municipality of Candijay.2.1 Conclusive 2. are owned by him.law permits to be overcome or contradicted 2.Unlawful act is done with an unlawful intent.Thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter. They are thus no better off than before they proceeded to litigate. (Estoppel) 2. 251 SCRA 530) 2. d. person acting in public office was regularly . (People v. Presumptions – Rule 131. Ducay. that things which a person possesses or exercises acts of ownership over. CLASSIFICATIONS 1. d.Prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later ones is produced.Person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act. . Presumption of innocence (Presumption of good faith) 2.2 Disputable CLASSIFICATIONS: 1.hlp©2009 Page 30 8/24/201130 the evidence it had. and. otherwise. Whenever a party by his own declaration. The evidence is at the disposal only of the suppressing party.1. . . as a consequence thereof.not permitted to be overcome by any proof to the contrary 2. {judgment in rem or in personam}) There is 2. 3-e. The evidence suppressed is not merely corroborative. c. act. Bohol v.Person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money or the delivery of anything has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly.A person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act. the courts can only leave them as they are. The suppression is wilful.Person is innocent of a crime or wrong. Secs. . omission. 225 SCRA 1) b. The suppression is an exercise of a privilege. Rule 131. The suppression was not willful. ROC) continue b. 220 SCRA 624) . Presumption of regularity of official and judicial acts 3. . PRESUMPTION HOMINIS OR OF FACTa deduction which reason draws from facts proved without an express direction from the law to that effect -Discretionary on the court -Derived from circumstances of a particular case through common experience of mankind CLASSIFICATIONS OF PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW 1.Money paid by one to another was due to the latter. which is a public policy principle of res judicata (a judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing or upon the political or legal condition of a person. has led another – 1 to believe a particular thing to be true AND 2 to act upon such belief.Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced ELEMENTS: a.Obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid. . c. 2-4 Presumption.a deduction which the law expressly directs to be made from particular facts -Must be made whenever the facts appear which furnish the basis for the inference -Reduced to fixed rules and form part of the system of jurisprudence 2. act or omission be permitted to falsify it. (People v.Person takes ordinary care of his concerns. (Rivera.1. . Navaja.

where there is a danger of death the circumstances hereinabove provided. . . even though it is born within the 300 days after the termination of the former marriage. . . . .Persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of co-partnership. . contains correct reports of such cases. . who has not been heard of for 4 years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft.Acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact. and it .A child born before 180 days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage. is considered dead for all purposes except for succession. .Absentee of 7 years.A man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. and has been missing for 4 years. such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal. may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has wellfounded belief that the absent spouse is already death. all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before arbitrators and passed upon by them. . = For the purpose of opening his succession: an absence of 10 years.Private transactions have been fair and regular. or an aircraft with is missing.An indorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated. = Member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities.hlp©2009 Page 31 8/24/201131 appointed or elected to it. . when 2 persons perish in the same calamity. = Spouse.A child born after 180 days following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage. .Official duty has been regularly performed.Things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life. without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. work or industry. was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction. = Person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four years. these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary: . .negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration.A trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest.In cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of money.If the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within three hundred days after such termination of the former marriage. purporting contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is published. .A thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of the nature .The law has been obeyed.ordinary course of business has been followed. it being not known whether or not he is alive.A printed or published book. purporting to be printed or published by public authority. . of a married person absent for 4 consecutive years.Letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail. . 2 years in case of disappearance. .Except for purposes of succession. property or industry.A court or judge acting as such. even though it be born within the 300 days after the termination of the former marriage. has been obtained by their joint efforts. . if disappeared after age of 75. .there was a sufficient consideration for a contract.All the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it. . . . the spouse present must institute a summary proceedings as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee. Before marrying again. = The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among the heirs: = Person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage.A writing is truly dated. was so printed or published. absence of 5 years. .A printed or published book. .Property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under void marriage. whether in the Philippines or elsewhere.

3 Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue. Rights and Obligations – Rule 132. or insulting questions. and from harsh or insulting demeanor. unless it to be the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. if the sex be the same. 2. cross. although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him. Sec.Mode of answering General Rule: oral Exception: o Witness is incapacitated to speak or o Question calls for a different mode of answer 2. and the other between those ages. 3 Obligation of a witness: answer questions. the affidavits of the witnesses take the place of the direct examination. 2. A. since in Summary Procedure the testimonies of the witnesses. EXCEPTIONS TO RULE AGAINST SELFINCRIMINATION 1. shall prove the same. In criminal cases under Summary Procedure. Sec. There is cross examination VOIR DIRE. both to prosecution and . will not apply if the evidence is at the disposal of both the defense and the prosecution and if the evidence is merely conclusive. the male is deemed to have survived. the older. 1 open court under oath or affirmation .5 Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation. as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other. Examination of Witnesses 1. According to some decisions that could be treated as a compelled testimony given under duress and therefore could not be used against the witness.That if there is a doubt. (People vs. because the witnsess has initially objected and he gave the answer only in compliance with an order of the court. improper. 2. How done – Rule 132. = Both > 60: younger survived. but it is only the judge who can ask questions. Rights of a witness: 2. 1976) VII. Affiant is not allowed in Summary Procedure to embody hearsay testimony. except a child witness. as to which of them died first. = One < 15 or >. Padiernos. according to the following rules: = Both < 15: older survived. and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred. in the absence of proof. = One <15. the latter is deemed to have survived. . Later on the answer turns out to be incriminatory and later on the witness was indicted for the commission of this offense.preliminary examination of witnesses for the purpose of establishing whether or not a witness really is qualified as such.There is absolute immunity.2 Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require.the witness will still be indicted for the commission of an offense. can his testimony in court be given in evidence against him in the form of an admission? NO.hlp©2009 Page 32 8/24/201132 is not shown who died first. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense. whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other. the court directs the witness to give an answer and the witness obeys the order of the court. the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes. 2. = Both >15. Use Immunity. but the statements given by the witness cannot be used against him. (Likewise done in examination of a child witness. However. or 2. (5a) The presumption that evidence not produced or willfully suppressed is adverse to the party. there is no direct. Case: Supposing a witness refused to answer because he feels the question is incriminatory.4 Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law. plaintiff and defendant can write their questions and give it to the judge) Note: Ordinary witnesses are not allowed to be examined in a narrative form. (in civil cases) will be reduced into writing in the form of affidavit. He is not immunized from prosecution. <60 and the sex be different.1 To be protected from irrelevant. re-cross or re-direct examination. Presentation of Evidence Note: The Rules apply to Summary Procedure but in a modified form. Transactional Immunity. other >60: <15 survived. they shall be considered to have died at the same time. Hence.

. with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias.e. On preliminary matters. director.Adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination. Sec. he becomes a witness for all purposes and may be fully cross-examined upon all matters material to the issue. Of an unwilling or hostile witness. Misleading questions 1 Those that assume as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness. 9 . 3.  General Rule: Not allowed  Exceptions: 1.where a witness is called to testify to a particular fact. the examination not being confined to the matters inquired about in the direct examination. Sec. The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion as the interests of justice may require. or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party. American Rule.2 Cross-Examination – Rule 132. IAC (1987) TWO RULES ON LIMITS OF CROSS EXAMINATION 1. and when witness is hostile or adverse party witness) 3. 2. 3. or is of feeble mind.When conducted: after the crossexamination of the witness has been concluded . Sec.1 Direct Examination – Rule 132. Recalling Witnesses – Rule 132. or contrary to that which he has previously stated. 2. the witness cannot be recalled without leave of court. the cross-examination was conducted in so inept a manner as to result in a virtual absence thereof.3 Re-direct Examination – Rule 132.When conducted: upon termination of direct examination . (People vs. 1991) 5. which the examining party desires. 8 . Sec. Order in the Examination – Rule 132.Why conducted: to explain or supplement his answers given during the crossexamination. 7 . 10 Leading questions  Questions that suggest to the witness the answer.hlp©2009 Page 33 8/24/201133 use of the statements given by the witness. 3. particularly identified material points were not covered in the crossexamination. (applies when witness is the accused in a criminal case.Matters covered: witness may be crossexamined by the adverse party as to – = Any matters stated in the direct examination. and = To elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. There must be a satisfactory showing of some concrete. Rivera.restricts crossexamination to facts and circumstances which are connected with the matters that have been stated in the direct examination of the witness. and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. 4.Examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. 5 . the court in its discretion may allow questions on matters not dealt with during the crossexamination. On cross examination. are leading questions. Implied waiver of cross-examination – The party was given the opportunity Dela Paz vs. 2 Not allowed.4 Re-cross Examination – Rule 132. Sec. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer. or connected therewith.  unjustified reluctance to testify. Sec. or a child of tender years. particularly described vital documents were not presented to the witness. 4 3. When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant. or  his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand.After the examination of a witness has been concluded by both sides has been concluded. • When the answer is derived from a leading question the evidence has no probative value at all even if there is no objection to a leading question. Leading and Misleading Questions – Rule 132. or the reverse. 3. English Rule. Sec. 6 . substantial ground (i. upon the conclusion of the redirect examination. 4. or o A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his  adverse interest. 6. On re-direct-examination. or a deaf-mute.

1. 11 . (People v. 1960) He can interrogate witnesses to elicit the truth. Impeachment of Own Witness – Rule 132. the judge cannot curtail counsel's right to interrogate witnesses. the court may in its sound discretion stop the introduction of such further evidence. 83 Phil. But this power should be exercised with caution. When the evidence already presented on one point is sufficient and the party merely seeks to present cumulative evidence which cannot produce additional persuasive effect or that he is not sure of what the other witnesses would testify. 6. GR 51513.2.The impeachment may be made by the party presenting the hostile or unwilling witness in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party.G.hlp©2009 Page 34 8/24/201134 DOCTRINE OF INCOMPLETE TESTIMONY: When cross examination cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party who offered the witness. but such cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief. Of course. honesty or integrity is bad. Reyes. 1984) Scope of judge’s participation at trial: A judge who presides at a trial is not a mere referee. (People v. Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statements – Rule 132. Except: where the prosecution witness was extensively crossexamined on the material points and thereafter failed to appear and cannot be produced despite a warrant for his arrest. GOrospe. . 56 O. or by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony. (People v. or  his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. except by evidence of bad character. (People v Moreno. and by showing an interest in a fast a fair trial.  unjustified reluctance to testify. Bedia. 13 . . the incomplete testimony is rendered incompetent and should be stricken from the record. His other role is to block the admission of evidence supporting his opponents' material allegations whether raised in the pleadings or not. 286) However. 14. . by evidence that his general reputation for truth.Exception: The witness is an unwilling or hostile witness. The counsel may object to the questions propounded by the judge. Impeachment of Adverse Party’s Witness – Rule 132. 7042. 44 O. Power of court to stop further evidence: 1) The court may stop 2) the introduction of further testimony 3) upon any particular point 4) when the evidence upon it is already so full 5) that more witnesses to the same point 6) cannot be reasonably expected 7) to be additionally persuasive. et al. He may also be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party. whether raised in the pleadings or not are admitted by the court. Nov. 133 SCRA 51) Role of attorney during presentation of evidence: An attorney has a dual role to perform relative to proving the truth respecting a matter of fact. (Clarin v. or the record of the judgment.G. May 15. = A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his  adverse interest. to obtain clarification.3.How done: by contradictory evidence. Yatco.Evidence of particular wrongful acts is not allowed except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness. that he has been convicted of an offense. Sec. 12 . or to test their credibility. Impeachment of Witnesses 6. (People v. Sec. Sec. 83 Phil.. 112). In order to perform this dual role the attorney should ensure that the evidence he offers are admissible in accordance with the Rules of Court and those of his opponent are properly objected to for being inadmissible 6.General Rule: The party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach the latter’s credibility. He must ensure that all evidence supporting the material allegations. Ferrer. by asking clarifying questions. 909) There is no prohibition against the judge conducting the examination of the witness. this power must be exercised by the court sparingly and judiciously. 6. He must actively participate therein by directing counsel to the facts in dispute.

16 8. with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present. but such evidence must be received with caution. neglect. it is still the testimony 8. conversation.Motu proprio or on motion of a party. Section 17) [RULE OF COMPLETENESS] . The age of the child by itself is not a .A witness may testify from such writing or record. Example: If a party desires to introduce secondary or substitutionary evidence he must first lay the foundation or lay the basis. if he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made.2 Past Recollection Recorded . Definition (ß4(a)) Any person who at the time of giving testimony is < 18 years. so that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses. accused of a crime. Refreshing Recollection of Witnesses – Rule 132. Competency of a Child Witness: Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. (ß6) . any other act. Exclusion and Separation of Witnesses – Rule 132. 8. declaration. 7. this Rule shall govern the examination of child witnesses who are victims of crime.BUT in such case the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party. or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court. if he chooses.1 Revival of Present Memory . writing or record is given in evidence. cruelty. — Unless otherwise provided. Laying the foundation or laying the basis. writing or record? (Rule 132. and witnesses to crime. Sec. or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew that the same was correctly written or recorded. if the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them (laying the predicate). and he must be asked whether he made such statements. conversation. (as in the case in revival of present memory) though he retain no recollection of the particular facts.refers to a situation where an evidence which is otherwise incompetent will be introduced in evidence because it falls under the exceptions to that rule on exclusion. who may. Note: The memorandum is not evidence. when it finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive. exploitation. or immediately thereafter.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. declaration. .The judge may exclude from the court any witness not at the time under examination. the burden of proof lies on the party challenging his competence. writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. To rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by a child. The judge may also have the witnesses separated and prevented from conversing with each other until all have been examined. and when a detached act. cross examine the witness upon it. remember. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness Applicability of the Rule. II. (ß1) Child witness I. and may read it in evidence. by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred. He must first proved that there was a writing duly executed and that the original has been lost or destroyed. conversation. 14 . 6(b)) Competency exam A.hlp©2009 Page 35 8/24/201135 . (ßß6. or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact. and if so.The whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other.A party seeking a competency examination must present proof of necessity of competency examination. Sec. When conducted. distinguish truth from falsehood. Note: It is the memorandum that will serve as evidence (documentary evidence) What is the consequence of giving in evidence a part of an act. declaration. It shall apply in all criminal proceedings and non-criminal proceedings involving child witnesses. communicate. 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. be allowed to explain them.

(ß6(a)) B. How conducted – General Rule: open court. Testifying A. unless the witness is incapacitated to speak. or timidity.The guardian ad litem. (ß25) Who may apply for an order that testimony of the child be taken in a room outside the courtroom and be televised to the courtroom by live-link television: 1 prosecutor. the nature of his testimony regarding the crime.Why 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. communicate. ask the child. and . (ß7) B. and the interests of his parents or legal guardian.The court has the duty of continuously assessing the competence of the child throughout his testimony. motu proprio.The court may also. (ß23) b) The court may order that persons attending the trial shall not enter or leave the courtroom during the testimony of the child. . Live-link television testimony in criminal cases where the child is a victim or a witness. his relationship to the accused and to persons attending the trial. unless the court finds on the record that the need for such an order was not reasonably foreseeable.Questions asked: appropriate to the age and developmental level of the child. exclude the public from trial. can submit questions to the judge that he may. the nature of the crime. fear. or . .The counsel for the parties. Examination 1. move the court to allow him to testify in the manner provided in this Rule (ß8): i. a child shall take an oath or affirmation to tell the truth. on motion of the accused. exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during trial is of such character as to be offensive to decency or public morals. however. distinguish between truth and falsehood. shall not be related to the issues at trial. in his discretion. . and appreciate the duty to testify truthfully.The court may. counsel for the parties. (ß6(f)) result in his inability to effectively communicate due to embarrassment. (ß6(c))   How conducted. . and shall focus on the ability of the child to remember.hlp©2009 Page 36 8/24/201136 sufficient basis for a competency examination. (ß6(d)) . unless the court determines that competence can be fully evaluated in his absence. Who are allowed to attend. (ß6(e)) . the answers of the witness shall be given orally. . Oath: Before testifying. Hearing on the application: III.By whom conducted: by the judge.In making its order. or the question calls for a different mode of answer.Support person/s for the child. (ß8) Exception/s: a) Exclusion of the public – . hinder the ascertainment of truth.The defendant. his desires. 2 counsel or the 3 guardian ad litem Period for application: The person seeking such an order shall apply at least five (5) days before the trial date. .The judge and necessary court personnel. the court shall consider the developmental level of the child. (ß24) c) Motion by party who presents a child witness or the guardian ad litem of such child witness may. however. except court personnel and the counsel of the parties.

(9)†Specific symptoms of stress exhibited by the child in the days prior to testifying. o the facilitator o and interpreter. Factors considered by the court in granting/denying application: (1)†The age and level of development of the child. (6)†His relationship with the accused or adverse party. The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television if there is a substantial likelihood that the child would suffer trauma from testifying in the presence of the accused. his counsel or the prosecutor as the case may be. if any. the need for taking the testimony of the child through live-link television. prosecutor. prosecutor. and o other persons whose presence are determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and well-being of the child.hlp©2009 Page 37 8/24/201137 The court may motu proprio hear and determine. with notice to the parties. in the presence of the support person. and counsel for the parties. o persons necessary to operate the closedcircuit television equipment. The questions of the judge shall not be related to the issues at trial but to the feelings of the child about testifying in the courtroom. such as court atmosphere and formalities of court procedure. The trauma must be of a kind which would impair the completeness or truthfulness of the testimony of the child.The judge. (5)†Any threats against the child. (4)†The nature of the alleged abuse. including any mental or physical disability. (10)†Testimony of expert or lay witnesses. o one or both of his support persons. The judge may question the child in chambers. (11)†The custodial situation of the child and the attitude of the members of his family regarding the events about which he will testify. Order denying/granting use of live-link TV: The court shall issue an order granting or denying the use of live-link television and stating the reasons therefor. or in some comfortable place other than the courtroom. whose presence or conduct causes fear to the child. (3)†Any physical. The judge may exclude any person. and (12)†Other relevant factors. (7)†His reaction to any prior encounters with the accused in court or elsewhere. (2)†His physical and mental health. guardian ad litem. including the accused. o a court officer appointed by the court. . . (8)†His reaction prior to trial when the topic of testifying was discussed with him by parents or professionals. emotional. or psychological injury experienced by him. How done: where testimony is taken: in a room separate from the courtroom who are present: o guardian ad litem.

provided that. or other similar devices which shall be made part of the court record and shall be subject to a protective order as provided in section 31(b). 2 counsel. The court may set other conditions and limitations on the taking of the testimony that it finds just and appropriate. taking into consideration the best interests of the child. (ß26) Who may apply for an order that the chair of the child or that a screen or other device be placed in the courtroom in such a manner that the child cannot see the accused while testifying: 1 prosecutor or 2 guardian ad litem (consultation with prosecutor or counsel as in application for use of live-link TV. accused. digital disc. it shall issue an order that the deposition of the child be taken and preserved by videotape. Guardian ad litem. and the public unless excluded. also required) Order granting application: The court shall issue an order stating the reasons and o o o o . the court may allow the child to enter the courtroom for the limited purpose of identifying the accused. (ß27) Who may apply for an order that a deposition be taken of the testimony of the child and that it be recorded and preserved on videotape? 1 prosecutor. iii. and other devices to shield child from accused. one-way mirrors. Screens. In case of exclusion of the accused.hlp©2009 Page 38 8/24/201138 - - - accused. describing the approved courtroom arrangement If the court grants an application to shield the child from the accused while testifying in the courtroom. or the court may allow the child to identify the accused by observing the image of the latter on a television monitor. the court may direct the latter to be excluded from the room in which the deposition is conducted. and counsel for the parties shall be in the courtroom. defense counsel. the courtroom shall be arranged to enable the accused to view the child. counsel for the parties. prosecutor. The testimony of the child shall be transmitted by live-link television into the courtroom for viewing and hearing by the judge. the court shall order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television in ii. victim. Prosecutor. also required) When allowed:†If the court finds that the child will not be able to testify in open court at trial. Videotaped deposition. or 3 guardian ad litem (consultation with prosecutor or counsel as in application for use of livelink TV. if the order of the court is based on evidence that the child is unable to testify in the physical presence of the accused. Deposition-taking: Who are present o Judge – who shall preside at the videotaped deposition of a child. If it is necessary for the child to identify the accused at trial. Accused. The testimony of the child shall be preserved on videotape.

shall not be violated during the deposition. shall testify  An interpreter shall o o o †Persons necessary to operate the videotape equipment. or other similar reason Who may be interpreter? †If a witness or member of the family of the child is the only person who can serve as an interpreter for the child. or parts thereof. especially the right to counsel and to confront and cross-examine the child. o The videotaped deposition shall be preserved and stenographically recorded. o Other persons whose presence is determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and well-being of the child. If. the court may admit into evidence the videotaped deposition of the child in lieu of his testimony at the trial. After the original videotaping but before or during trial. The rights of the accused during trial. If the accused is excluded from the deposition. however. When conducted: The court may order that the testimony of the child should be taken during a time of day when the child is well-rested. he shall not be disqualified and may serve as the interpreter of the child. and other relevant factors.hlp©2009 Page 39 8/24/201139 accordance with section 25 of this Rule. disability. The videotaped deposition and stenographic notes shall be subject to a protective order as provided in section 31(b). shyness. Objections to testimony or evidence. (ß14) Provisions for ease of child in testifying/accommodations for a child a. the constitutional rights of the accused. fear. Court and stenographer. The court may order an additional videotaped deposition to receive the newly discovered evidence. The videotape and the stenographic notes shall be transmitted to the clerk of the court where the case is pending for safekeeping and shall be made a part of the record. or is unavailable for any reason described in section 4(c). taking into consideration the best interests of the child. rights of the accused o Objections to deposition testimony or evidence. Interpreter for child (ß9) How appointed: the court motu proprio or upon motion When appointed:†When a child does not understand the English or Filipino language or is unable to communicate in said languages due to his developmental level. the facilitator and interpreter. . the court finds that the child is unable to testify for a reason stated in section 25(f) of this Rule. at the time of trial. it is not necessary that the child be able to view an image of the accused. Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. any party may file any motion for additional videotaping on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The interpreter. and the grounds for the objection shall be stated and shall be ruled upon at the time of the taking of the deposition. The court may set other conditions on the taking of the deposition that it finds just and appropriate. The court shall issue an order stating the reasons therefor. if any. who is also a witness. Support person/s.

(1)†Both support persons shall remain within the view of the child during his testimony. The questions shall either be in the words used by counsel or. witnesses. The child may be allowed to testify from a place other than the witness chair. or influence the child during his testimony. Waiting area for child witnesses (ß12) that is separate from waiting areas used by other persons. if the child is not likely to understand the same. (2)†One of the support persons may accompany the child to the witness stand. parent. in words that are comprehensible to the child and which convey the meaning intended by counsel. (3)†The court may allow the support person to hold the hand of the child or take other appropriate steps to provide emotional support to the child in the course of the proceedings. direct and supervise the location. guardian ad litem. provided the support person does not completely obscure the child from the view of the opposing party. Support persons (ß11) A child testifying at a judicial proceeding or making a deposition shall have the right to be accompanied by one or two persons of his own choosing to provide him emotional support. c. Courtroom environment (ß13) Aim: create a more comfortable environment for the child court may. guidance counselor. psychiatrist. or relative. support persons. e. b. (4)†The court shall instruct the support persons not to prompt. When appointed: child is unable to understand or respond to questions asked. their counsel. in its discretion. Facilitator to pose questions to child (ß10) How appointed: The court motu proprio or upon motion. sway. Support person. . Who may be a facilitator: The facilitator may be a child psychologist. or hearing officer. judge.hlp©2009 Page 40 8/24/201140 take an oath or affirmation to make a true and accurate interpretation. Function of facilitator:† Respective counsels for the parties shall pose questions to the child only through the facilitator. social worker. teacher.† 2 If allowed  his testimony shall be presented ahead of the testimony of the child. The facilitator shall take an oath or affirmation to pose questions to the child according to the meaning intended by counsel. and court personnel. religious leader. child. facilitator. movement and deportment of all persons in the courtroom including the parties. also a witness 1 Disapproved if  it is sufficiently established that the attendance of the support person during the testimony of the child would pose a substantial risk of influencing or affecting the content of the testimony of the child. d.

iii. h. The witness chair or other place from which the child testifies may also be rearranged to allow the child to see the opposing party and his counsel. or any other appropriate demonstrative device to assist him in his testimony. shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact. confuse. and (4) avoid waste of time. puppets. or judgment subject to the standard of proof required in criminal and noncriminal cases. frighten. Accommodations for the child under this section need not be supported by a finding of trauma to the child. Conduct of counsel: a counsel may be prohibited from approaching a child if it appears that the child is fearful of or intimidated by the counsel. (ß18) ii. IV. or intimidate the child. corroboration not required . Nothing in this section or any other provision of law. Conduct in questioning the witness: i.The court shall exercise control over the questioning of children so as to (1) facilitate the ascertainment of the truth. or doll i. mannequins. drawings. Questions and objections thereto leading questions in all stages of examination of a child may be allowed if the same will further the interests of justice (ß20) Objections to questions should be couched in a manner so as not to mislead. (2) ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental level of the child. if he chooses to look at them. f. a child shall be allowed to have an item of his own choosing such as a blanket. . (ß21) Weight given to testimony of child witness: strong. (ß22) j. toy. except official in-court identification provisions. conclusion. The judge need not wear his judicial robe. g. Recess during testimony (ß15)  The child may be allowed reasonable periods of relief while undergoing direct. Questions of Admissibility .His testimony. re-direct. Emotional security item (ß17): While testifying.The court may allow the child witness to testify in a narrative form. if credible by itself. Mode of questioning: . Testimonial aids (ß16): use of dolls. without turning his body or leaving the witness stand. and re-cross examinations as often as necessary depending on his developmental level. anatomicallycorrect dolls. (3) protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment.hlp©2009 Page 41 8/24/201141 The witness chair or other place from which the child testifies may be turned to facilitate his testimony but the opposing party and his counsel must have a frontal or profile view of the child during the testimony of the child. shall be construed to require a child to look at the accused. cross.

suffers from physical infirmity. †When the child witness is unavailable. e. or will be exposed to severe psychological injury. Whether more than one person heard the statement. The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason to suppose the declarant child misrepresented the involvement of the accused. d. lack of memory. suffers from physical infirmity. 2) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement. Child is unavailable  the fact of such circumstance must be proved by the proponent. or (2)†Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means. require the child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-examination by the adverse party. By whom conducted:  duly trained members of a multidisciplinary team or representatives of law enforcement or child protective services in situations where child abuse is suspected so as to determine whether child abuse occurred. lack of memory. Hearsay Exception in Child Abuse Cases (ß28) Where admitted: child abuse cases. b. The general character of the declarant child. mental illness. a. all parties shall be afforded an opportunity to view or listen to it and shall be furnished a copy of a written transcript of the proceedings. g. Videotaped and audiotaped indepth investigative or disclosure interviews in child abuse cases (ß29) When admissible: 1 The child witness (1)†Is deceased. content and circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia of reliability. It shall consider the following factors: c. . Child is available  The court shall. or will be exposed to severe psychological injury.  When unavailable: (1)†Is deceased. h. the court shall consider the time. and j. Whether the statement was spontaneous. or (2)†Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means. The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child and witness. upon motion of the adverse party. f.hlp©2009 Page 42 8/24/201142 C. his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other admissible evidence. its proponent shall make known to the adverse party the intention to offer such statement and its particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to object. i. criminal or non-criminal How admitted: 1) Before such hearsay statement may be admitted. Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant child. 2 Before the videotape or audiotape is offered in evidence. The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is remote. Whether there is a motive to lie. D. mental illness.

and (6)†It has been duly preserved. The child shall not be required to testify at the hearing in chambers except with his consent. (2)†The statement was not made in response to questioning calculated to lead the child to make a particular statement or is clearly shown to be the statement of the child and not the product of improper suggestion. and (2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim. the parties. the court must conduct a hearing in chambers and afford the child. A party intending to offer such evidence must: (1) File a written motion at least 15 days before trial. When records may be released: upon written request and order of the court To whom may be released: (1) Members of the court staff for administrative use. (5) Agents of investigating law enforcement agencies.hlp©2009 Page 43 8/24/201143  individual conducting the interview of the child shall be available at trial for examination by any party. (2) The prosecuting attorney. (4)†The person operating the device was competent to operate it. Confidentiality of records. and their counsel a right to attend and be heard. for good cause. (4) The guardian ad litem. shall be divulged by any person mentioned in sub-section (a) to any . however. Proof of the following must be given by party offering the videotape or audiotape: (1)†The videotape or audiotape discloses the identity of all individuals present and at all times includes their images and voices. and (2) Serve the motion on all parties and the guardian ad litem at least 3 days before the hearing of the motion. injury. How admitted: 1. G. (3) Defense counsel. (5)†The videotape or audiotape is authentic and correct. or any portion thereof. or other physical evidence shall be admissible. Before admitting such evidence. 2. and (6) Other persons as determined by the court. V. (2) No tape. Sexual abuse shield rule Inadmissible evidence in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse: (1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior. Other protective measures for the child (ß31) F. It may. requires a different time for filing or permits filing during trial. and the guardian ad litem. unless the court. be considered in determining the reliability of the statements of the child describing abuse. their expert witness. (3)†The videotape and audiotape machine or device was capable of recording testimony. When admissible: Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen. The motion and the record of the hearing must be sealed and remain under seal and protected by a protective order set forth in section 31(b). E. specifically describing the evidence and stating the purpose for which it is offered. their counsel. Value of an investigative interview that was not done as required in this Rule: The fact that an investigative interview is not videotaped or audiotaped as required by this section shall not by itself constitute a basis to exclude from evidence outof-court statements or testimony of the child. Protective order What are covered: Any videotape or audiotape of a child that is part of the court record Provisos of the protective order: (1) Tapes may be viewed only by parties. his guardian ad litem.

or shown to any person except as ordered by the court. school.” (5) No tape shall be given. all copies of the tape and any transcripts thereof shall be returned to the clerk of court for safekeeping unless the period is extended by the court on motion of a party. given. telephone number. (case number). Additional protective orders. (6) Within 30 days from receipt. address. legal guardian. I. inspected. he will be subject to the contempt power of the court. No. sold.hlp©2009 Page 44 8/24/201144 other person. motu proprio or on motion of any party. (4) Each of the tape cassettes and transcripts thereof made available to the parties. sold. or an immediate family of the child Liability of violator: contempt of court J. or other identifying information of a child who is or is alleged to be a victim or accused of a crime or a witness thereof. viewed. No. No additional copies of the tape or any of its portion shall be made. Physical safety of child. and respective agents shall bear the following cautionary notice: “This object or document and the contents thereof are subject to a protective order issued by the court in (case title). exclusion of evidence. What is prohibited: Publication or causing publication in any format the name. except as provided in the protective order. Records of youthful offender: privileged 1. D. 968 or to enforce his civil . issue additional orders to protect the privacy of the child. 603. that he submits to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the protective order. No. or disclosed to any person. including his name. or dismisses the case or commits him to an institution and subsequently releases him pursuant to Chapter 3 of P. (7) This protective order shall remain in full force and effect until further order of the court. 2. read.  All the records of his case shall also be considered as privileged and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone EXCEPT to determine if a defendant may have his sentence suspended under Article 192 of P. telephone number. A child has a right at any court proceeding not to testify regarding personal identifying information. Publication of identity contemptuous. They shall not be examined. Youthful offender has been charged and the court acquits him. except as necessary for the trial. or the guardian ad litem. H. D. or copied by any person. loaned. Any person violating such protective order is subject to the contempt power of the court and other penalties prescribed by law. school. Youthful offender has been charged before any city or provincial prosecutor or before any municipal judge and the charges have been ordered dropped  All the records of the case shall be considered as privileged and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone for any purpose whatsoever. L. D. require the child to testify regarding personal identifying information in the interest of justice. The court may. however. and that in case of violation thereof. or shown to any person without prior court order. (3) No person shall be granted access to the tape. — The court may. address. 603 or if he may be granted probation under the provisions of P. the child. and other information that could endanger his physical safety or his family. K. Destruction of videotapes and audiotapes produced under the provisions of this Rule or otherwise made part of the court record shall be destroyed after 5 years have elapsed from the date of entry of judgment. their counsel. his parents. its transcription or any part thereof unless he signs a written affirmation that he has received and read a copy of the protective order.

is admissible to prove that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. or (2) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Sec. or by his deputy. (2) It is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine. consul. . Sec. 20 Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence.Such may be proved by the original record. the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation.How Proven = Rule 132.Notarial documents may be presented in evidence without further proof.1.2 Notarial Documents except last wills and testaments. Suppletory application of Rules of Court: The provisions of the Rules of Court on deposition. 26 . and authenticated by the seal of his office.1.1-A Written official acts of the sovereign authority. official bodies and tribunals. or a copy thereof. if there be any.hlp©2009 Page 45 8/24/201145 liability. 1. attested by the legal custodian of the record.Any public record. an official copy of which is admissible in evidence. All other public documents are evidence. 23 . or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept. Sec 25 . under the seal of such court.The attestation must state that the copy is a correct copy of the original or a specific part thereof. and public officers. its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (1) by anyone who say the document executed or written. no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office. must not be removed from the office in which it is kept. . . if said liability has been imposed in the criminal action. If the record is in a foreign country.Ancient Document Rule = Rule 132.Proof of Lack of Record = Sec. the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record. Sec. Sec. and evidence shall be applied in a suppletory character. 28 A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search.1 Public Documents – Rule 132. 30 .1. official bodies and tribunals. 1. Sec. *Contents of Attestation = Rule 132. 1. and public officers.3 Public Records (kept in the Philippines) of Private Documents required by law to be entered therein . conditional examination of witnesses. .How Proven = Rule 132. even against a third person of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country.Irremovability of Record = Rule 132. 21 Requisites: (1) The private document is more than 30 years old. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. Classes of Documents 1.1-BRecords of the official acts of the sovereign authority. VI. .How Proven = Rule 132.1. with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.How Proven = Rule 132. . (3) It is unblemished by . vice-consul. as the case may be. and accompanied.How Proven = Sec. Sec. 19 1. (ß32) Authentication and Proof of Documents 1.2 Private Documents . Sec. whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country. 24 . or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal. 1. 27 . The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer.  The youthful offender concerned shall not be held under any provision of law to be guilty of perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation by reason of his failure to acknowledge the case or recite any fact related thereto in response to any inquiry made to him for any purpose.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. with a certificate that such officer has the custody.The record may be evidenced by: (1) an official publication thereof. accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody. except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case. consul-general. if the record is not kept in the Philippines.

with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered.Documentary Evidence = after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence. offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. 1. Sec. 29 How done – By evidence of (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer. Failure to object within 15 days. or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged. = Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefore shall become reasonably apparent.proof of document’s due execution and genuineness 4. 34 1 Why made? . Objections 2. or i) was otherwise properly or innocent made. or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. in a part material to the question in dispute. (b) collusion between the parties. The same must have been incorporated to the records of the case (Mata Vda. Sec.Rule 132.Testimonial Evidence = at the time the witness is called to testify. De Onate vs. Sec. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison made by the witness or the court. in respect to the proceedings. .Request for admission of the genuineness and due execution of a private writing. where they will admit the genuineness and due execution of the private writing. 32 . Seal – Rule 132. and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. no other evidence of its authenticity is required. which has not been formally offered. Alterations – Rule 132. must account for the alteration. 31 . deemed admitted. parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. 2. Failure to do so would result in the inadmissibility of evidence. Sec. Inspection 5. Objection . 36 . 35 . Sec. Sec.The party producing a document as genuine. 3. 3.court shall consider no evidence.There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned.Testimonial Evidence = must be objected to immediately after the offer is made. Identification.hlp©2009 Page 46 8/24/201146 any alterations suspicion. Sec. 22 It may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write. g) without his concurrence. How Genuineness of Handwriting is Proven = Rule 132. Formal Offer 6. Pre-trial of civil and criminal case wherein parties may enter into stipulations. If there is failure to specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document that judicial admission will take the place of authentication 2. It provides that if an actionable document is the basis of a complaint of an answer. Documents Written in an Unofficial Language – Rule 132. . Rule on actionable documents (Rule 8). or (c) fraud in the party offering the record. or circumstances of If all requisites have been met.For evidence to be considered by the court . Offer and Objection 1. 1. Authentication.proof that the document being offered is the same one referred to by the witness in his testimony 2.Not admissible unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. the law requires that it should be annexed to the pleading or that the contents thereof be copied in verbatim. IS THERE ANY WAY TO AVOID THE TEDIOUS PROCESS OF AUTHENTICATION? 1. . Marking 3. Impeachment of Judicial Record – Rule 132. or j) The alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. or h) made with the consent of the parties affected by it. Mode of discovery. The same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded 2. Sec. CA) STAGES in the presentation of documentary evidence 1.He may show that the alteration was made f) by another.1 When to make offer – Rule 132.33 . which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution. When evidence admitted even if not formally offered: 1. Offer of Evidence – Rule 132.

That a document has been identified does not mean that it will be offered. 38 = Given immediately after the objection is made. 39 . Kinds of Objection 1. a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. 3. Sec. However.The court may sustain an objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the record should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection and such objection is found to be meritorious. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence A. Sec.When repetition is unnecessary – Rule 132. Preponderance of Evidence (Civil Cases) – Rule 133. whether such objection was sustained or overruled. Required Quantum of Evidence 1. 1990) While there was no offer of the testimony. = The probability or improbability of their testimony. or inadmissible. There is a distinction between identification of documentary evidence and its formal offer as an exhibit. Tender of Excluded Evidence – Rule 132. De OÒate vs. 37 (Rule on Continuing Objection) It shall not be necessary to repeat the objection when it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the questions being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made. CA. Sec. (Catuira vs. . 4.Documentary Evidence = shall be objected to within 3 days after notice of the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court. Specific. petitioner waived this defect by failing to object when the ground became reasonably apparent the moment private respondent was called to testify without any prior offer having been made. upon proper motion. unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented. irrelevant. Sec.does not go beyond declaring the evidence as immaterial. refers to testimonial. incompetent.hlp©2009 Page 47 8/24/201147 . 1 .Documentary evidence – the offeror may have the same attached or made part of the record. = Their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they testify. OFFER OF EVIDENCE First. = Personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. irrelevant or otherwise improper.Testimonial evidence – the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. documentary or object evidence that are presented or offered in court by a party so that the court can consider his evidence when it comes to the preparation of the decision. 1994) The rule requiring that there must be a formal offer of evidence before the evidence can be considered may be relaxed provided the evidence must have duly identified by testimony duly recorded and they must have been incorporated in the records of the case. = Their intelligence. = Their interest or want of interest. VIII. 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. (Vda. . Aviles. Sec. General or broadside. 1995) OFFER OF PROOF/TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE vs. = The witnesses’ manner of testifying. . It shall be sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to such class of questions. Second. if the objection is based on two or more grounds. = Number of witnesses (note preponderance that is not necessarily equated with the no. 40 . The former is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence while the latter is done only when the party rests his/her case. which are incompetent. order the striking out of answers.How determined? The court may consider: = All the facts and circumstances of the case. is only resorted to if admission is refused by the court for purposes of review on appeal.The court may also.Ruling – Rule 132. Does not specify the grounds 2. = The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. (Interpacific Transit vs. CA. of witnesses) . Motion to Strike – Rule 132.States the ground .

Witness’ opportunity to view the criminal act at the time of the crime 2. and c. The accuracy of any prior description given by the witness 4. it is predicated on the ground of payment (Same with Criminal Case.It deals only with the weight of evidence and not a positive rule of law . Extrajudicial Confessions – Rule 133. Sec. (Rule 133. Circumstantial Evidence – Rule 133. i. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Criminal Cases) – Rule 133. Witness’ degree of attention at that time 3. b.The court may accept and reject portions of the witness’ testimony depending on the inherent credibility thereof.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 .Depositions presented by the respective parties but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. evidence taken up during hearing made part automatically of records of the case) Rules on Electronic Evidence Scope B. 2 . is not a sufficient ground for conviction UNLESS corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.Affidavits or . THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCE TEST 1. The length of time between the crime and the identification 6.hlp©2009 Page 48 8/24/201148 2. falsus in omnibus (False in one thing. (Rule 133.e. Section 7) Examples of motion which need hearing hence the presentation of evidence: CRIMINAL CASES: Motion for bail (Under Criminal Procedure. Falsus in uno. Sec. 5 . only moral certainty. is willfully false and given with an intention to deceive. Substantial Evidence (Administrative/QuasiJudicial Cases) – Rule133. this power should be exercised with caution. (Not a mandatory rule of evidence) .An extrajudicial confession made by an accused. The suggestiveness of the identification procedure res ipsa loquitur (The thing speaks for itself).What is proof beyond reasonable doubt? = That degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATION.A procedural device which presumes that the person is negligent. C.Requisites for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction: a. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. = Absolute certainty is not required. There is more than 1 circumstance. Sec. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. the evidence taken up during the hearing of the motion will form part automatically of the records of the case. false in everything). when he is in control of an instrumentality causing an injury in the absence of some explanation by him. The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification 5. 3 .If the testimony of the witness on a material issue . Sec. Section 6) *How will the court dispose of a motion which is based on facts not appearing of record? Court may hear the matter on . *May the court stop the introduction of further testimony? YES 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. 4 .What is substantial evidence? The amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. court may disregard all the witness’ testimony. so there is no need to repeat in the trial what have been covered in the hearing of the motion) CIVIL CASES: Application for preliminary attachment/injunction Motion to dismiss founded on certain facts which are not solely predicated on absence of jurisdiction or failure to state a COA. 3.

(R2.hlp©2009 Page 49 8/24/201149 Unless otherwise provided herein. representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating. ß1) Admissible in evidence if it complies with the . 5. (R2. the term “electronic document” may be used interchangeably with “electronic data message”. and. Disputable presumptions relating to esignatures: (R6. received or stored by electronic. Disputable presumptions relating to digital signatures: (R6. described or however represented. transmitted. data. figures. recorded. ß1) Cases covered. The methods or processes utilized to affix or verify the electronic signature operated without error or fault. or 3. by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished. A certificate had been issued by the certification authority indicated therein. ß2) Electronic data message Information generated. or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed. 2. which is received. Functional equivalent of paper-based documents. optical or similar means. By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the genuineness of the electronic signature. 2. stored. By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital signature and verify the same. ß1f) Admissible in evidence as the functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a written document. (R3. sent. as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases. ß1) How authenticated? (R6. ß3) 1. The information contained in a certificate is correct. 3. Includes digitally signed documents and any printout or output. ß1g) Electronic Signatures (R2. ß2) 1. (ii) Whether the initial electronic document had been altered after the transformation was made. processed. 2. which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. and 3. For purposes of these Rules. ß1j) Refers to any distinctive mark. symbols or other modes of written expression. Electronic document (R2. and. retrieved or produced electronically. signing or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. No cause exists to render a certificate invalid or revocable. (R6. ß1h) Information or the representation of information. The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of authenticating or approving the electronic document to which it is related or to indicate such person’s consent to the transaction embodied therein. By any other means provided by law. characteristic and/or sound in electronic form. ß4) 1. Includes digital signatures o Refers to an electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person having the initial untransformed electronic document and the signer’s public key can accurately determine: (i) Whether the transformation was created using the private key that corresponds to the signer’s public key. 4. these Rules shall apply whenever an electronic document or electronic data message (R1. The electronic signature is that of the person to whom it correlates. The message associated with a digital signature has not been altered from the time it was signed. (R2. (R1. All civil actions and proceedings. readable by sight or other means. The digital signature was created during the operational period of a certificate. ß1e) o “Digitally signed” refers to an electronic document or electronic data message bearing a digital signature verified by the public key listed in a certificate.

including but not limited to the hardware and computer programs or software used as well as programming errors.  Authentication of Electronic Documents (R5) 1 Burden of proving authenticity: person seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity. the court may consider. If a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original. or 2. or (c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge. stored or communicated.  When copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original: 3.hlp©2009 Page 50 8/24/201150 rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules. (b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document. (c) The integrity of the information and communication system in which it is recorded or stored. (R3.  Evidentiary Weight Of Electronic Documents (R7) > Factors for assessing evidentiary weight. the following factors: (a) Whether the information and communication system or other similar device was operated in a . (R3. or from the same matrix. 2 Manner of authentication – Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence. or 4. or by other equivalent techniques that accurately reproduces the original. Is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original. If in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the original. (b) The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified. (a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it was generated. including but not limited to input and output procedures. its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means: (a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same. among others. shown to reflect the data accurately. (e) The nature and quality of the information which went into the communication and information system upon which the electronic data message or electronic document was based. in the light of all the circumstances as well as any relevant agreement. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents. ß3) 3 BEST EVIDENCE RULE: (R4) o An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means. A document electronically notarized in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be considered as a public document and proved as a notarial document under the Rules of Court. controls. – In any dispute involving the integrity of the information and communication system in which an electronic document or electronic data message is recorded or stored. or by mechanical or electronic re-recording. (d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the communication and information system. or by chemical reproduction. ß2) Confidential character of a privileged communication is not lost solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document. > Integrity of an information and communication system. or (f) Other factors which the court may consider as affecting the accuracy or integrity of the electronic document or electronic data message. tests and checks for accuracy and reliability of the electronic data message or document. o Originals And Copies:  When copies or duplicates regarded as originals: 1.

the entire proceedings. Examination Of Witnesses (R10) Electronic testimony 1 After summarily hearing the parties pursuant to Rule 9 of these Rules. and there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the information and communication system. optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof. streaming video. photographic and video . acts or transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be shown. photographic and video evidence (R11.hlp©2009 Page 51 8/24/201151 manner that did not affect the integrity of the electronic document. (R2. Before so authorizing. (b) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored by a party to the proceedings with interest adverse to that of the party using it. transmission or storage thereof. If ephemeral. report.  The affiant shall be made to affirm the contents of the affidavit in open court and may be crossexamined as a matter of right by the adverse party. audio. ß2) How are matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic document established? (R9) o by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records.  The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to testify on the matters contained therein. and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity. and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained. record. In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses. or (c)†Whether the electronic document 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 it. steno typist or other recorder authorized for the purpose. other competent evidence may be admitted. ß2) Audio. ßß1-2) Audio. ß1k) 2 Shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. made by electronic. presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified. all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses. photographic and video evidence of events. including the protection of the rights of the parties and witnesses concerned. (R11. conditions. record or data compilation of acts. events. (R8. ß1) This presumption may be overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source of information or the method or circumstances of the preparation. streaming audio. shall be transcribed by a stenographer. or diagnoses. explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof. text messages. the court may authorize the presentation of testimonial evidence by 2 3 electronic means. When examination of a witness is done electronically. report. The electronic evidence and recording thereof as well as the stenographic notes shall form part of the record of the case. the court shall determine the necessity for such presentation and prescribe terms and conditions as may be necessary under the circumstances. Such transcript and recording shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such proceedings. had been electronically recorded. including the questions and answers. o Same rule covers a recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic communication shall be covered by the immediately preceding section. Ephemeral electronic communication 1 Refers to telephone conversations. chatroom sessions. optical or similar means. either in whole or in part. who shall certify as correct the transcript done by him. The transcript should reflect the fact that the proceedings. opinions. or data compilation by electronic. Hearsay rule exception: A memorandum. (R8. and such was the regular practice to make the memorandum.

which is the chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of the body. Petition for certiorari shall not stay the implementation of order unless a higher court issues an injunctive order. An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately executory and shall not be appealable. including how the biological samples were collected. This includes blood. order a DNA testing. and (c) the testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction. (b) such sample is relevant to the case. that is susceptible to DNA testing. results and other genetic information directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples. (R11. ß2) RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (a) "Biological sample" means any organic material originating from a person's body. Application for DNA Testing Order. how they were handled. and the possibility of contamination of the samples. to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided that (a) a biological sample exists. even if found in inanimate objects. tissues. without need of a prior court order. or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing. the generation of DNA profiles and the comparison of the information obtained from the DNA testing of biological samples for the purpose of determining. then the provisions authentication electronic documents apply. (b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested. either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation. (d) "DNA profile" means genetic information derived from DNA testing of a biological sample obtained from a person. (a) The chain of custody. (c) "DNA evidence" constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles. Post-conviction DNA testing may be available. If the laboratory is not accredited. (b) The DNA testing methodology. (e) "DNA testing" means verified and credible scientific methods which include the extraction of DNA from biological samples. the relevant . including law enforcement agencies. which biological sample is clearly identifiable as originating from that person.hlp©2009 Page 52 8/24/201152 evidence are recorded or embodied in an electronic document. and chan robles virtual law library (e) The existence of other factors. (b) "DNA" means deoxyribonucleic acid. The totality of an individual's DNA is unique for the individual. and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests. except identical twins. saliva and other body fluids. Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the following: (a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case. which the court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing. before a suit or proceeding is commenced. if any. without need of prior court order. whether or not the DNA obtained from two or more distinct biological samples originates from the same person (direct identification) or if the biological samples originate from related persons (kinship analysis). including the procedure followed in analyzing the samples. including accreditation by any reputable standardssetting institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. (c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique. This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing. The appropriate court may. and (f) "Probability of Parentage" means the numerical estimate for the likelihood of parentage of a putative parent compared with the probability of a random match of two unrelated individuals in a given population. hairs and bones. with reasonable certainty. Grant of a DNA testing application NOT an automatic admission of DNA evidence. at any time. but the results may require confirmation for good reasons. Factors in Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence. the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure. (c) The forensic DNA laboratory. (d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case. at the behest of any party.

to those who publishes or disclose the DNA results without proper court order Preservation of DNA Evidence. which may . Indirect Contempt. A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. and (d) The reliability of the testing result conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the appropriate orders. chan robles virtual law library Physical destruction of a biological sample before the expiration of the periods set forth above. it shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict. and (f) The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles and the significance and limitation of statistical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles. (a) The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of mismatching DNA evidence. Through order of the court. until such time as the accused has served his sentence. FACTORS in Evaluation of DNA Testing Results. finds the petition to be meritorious. for not less than the period of time that any person is under trial for an offense. (b) The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other evidence presented in the case. the court may order the appropriate government agency to preserve the DNA evidence as follows: (a) In criminal cases: i. In case the court. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99. DNA profiles and results or other genetic information obtained from DNA testing. in case the accused is serving sentence. (d) The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the correctness of data generated. and (e) Other persons as determined by the court. or ii. including all biological samples. FACTORS in evaluating the Reliability of DNA Testing Methodology. (e) The existence of an appropriate reference population database. until such time as the decision in the case where the DNA evidence was introduced has become final and executory. (d) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies. or with any member of said courts. after due hearing. The trial court shall preserve the DNA evidence in its totality. whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested. under such terms and conditions as may be set forth by the court: (a) Person from whom the sample was taken. and (b) In all other cases. that is. (b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or methods.hlp©2009 Page 53 8/24/201153 experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established. RELEASE OF DNA results. unless continued detention is justified for a lawful cause. Remedy if the Results Are Favorable to the Convict. (b) Lawyers representing parties in the case or action where the DNA evidence is offered and presented or sought to be offered and presented. the results of the DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence. (c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant scientific community. (a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used. For this purpose. and (c) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity. (c) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action. there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity. provided that: (a) There is a court order or (b) The person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has consented in writing to the disposal of the DNA evidence.9%.9% or higher. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99. Shall only be released to any of the following. The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Descarregar
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->