Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
EVIDENCE defined-
PROOF-
Refers to the degree or kind of evidence which will produce full
conviction, or establish the proposition to the satisfaction of the
tribunal. Proof is the effect or result of evidence while evidence is the
medium of proof.
TESTIMONY-
ARGUMENT-
FACTUM PROBANS-
Case:
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the victims
died because of stab wounds inflicted by the armed men who
entered their residence on the night of December 4, 1965
remain uncontroverted. XXX Their death certificates therefore
are only corroborative of the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses. (People vs. Watson (1965))
Case:
Thus, on the issue of the capacity of a boy to write a certain
paper, evidence of his school fellows as to his capacity is
cumulative to that of his teachers and medical men upon the
same question. (Gardner vs. Gardner, 2 Gray (Mass. 434))
Cases:
Accordingly, a party introducing in evidence a letter written by
his agent to the adverse party, is bound by the statements
contained therein. (Lilian Realty Co. v. Erdum, 120 N.Y.S. 749)
Competent Evidence:
Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by law in a
particular case (Porter v. Valentine)
Documentary Evidence:
Testimonial Evidence:
Expert Evidence:
Substantial Evidence:
What part does the Rules of Evidence play in the whole system of law?
All rights and liabilities are dependent upon and arise out of
facts.
Every judicial proceeding whatever has for its purpose the
ascertaining of some right or liability. If the proceeding is
Criminal, the object is to ascertain the liability to punishment of
the person accused. If the proceeding is Civil, the object is to
ascertain some right of property or status, or the right of one
party and the liability of other to some form of relief.
NECESSITY FOR RULES OF EVIDENCE:
CIVIL CRIMINAL
Parties attend The accused
by accord attends by
compulsion
There is no Presumption of
presumption as innocence
to either party attends the
accused
throughout the
trial until the
same has been
overcome by
prima facie
evidence of his
guilt
An offer to It is an implied
compromise admission of
does not, as a guilt
general rule,
amount to an
admission of
liability
Must prove by Guilt beyond
preponderance reasonable
of evidence: doubt
Reason is that
there is no
presumption ad
due to the fact
that the proof
will only result
in a judgment
of pecuniary
damages
The parties may waive such rules during the trial of a case
The can also make the waiver in a contract
Case:
Cases:
People vs. Soriaga (G.R. No. 191392 March 14, 2011). The
non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the
making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs
confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible
in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court,
evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be
inadmissible there should be a law or rule which forbids its
reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be
admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will be
accorded it by the courts.
ILLUSTRATION:
A defendant is accused of murder and by way of defense, he
attempts to establish an alibi.
1. His mother testifies that he was at home in bed at the
time the murder was committed; or
2. A distinguished physician testifies that he was attending
the defendant in his home at the time the murder was
committed.
As will be observed, both (1) and (2) are equally admissible. But
it is likely that the court would give greater weight to the
testimony of a disinterested physician than of a mother, who
might be expected to commit perjury in an effort to save her son.
Case:
Atienza vs. BOD (G.R. No. 177407 February 9, 2011).
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question whether or not
the circumstance or evidence is to be considered at all. On the
other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to the
question of whether or not it proves an issue.
4. Types of Admissibility
Case:
Tolentino vs. Mendoza (ADM. CASE NO. 5151 October 19,
2004). Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of
1993 only provides for sanctions against persons violating the rule
on confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it state that
procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would render
said records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, the
Revised Rules of Evidence only provides for the exclusion of
evidence if it is obtained as a result of illegal searches and seizures.
Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 and
the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from
evidence of the birth certificates in question, said public documents
are, therefore, admissible and should be properly taken into
consideration in the resolution of this administrative case against
the respondent.
A. UNLAWFUL ACTS
1. Section 1, par 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 word by using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
otherwise described
2. Section 1, par 2.
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant
or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding
sentence,
3. Section 2.
Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or who shall aid,
permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be
unlawful in the preceding section or who violates the
provisions of the following section or of any order issued
thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation.
B. EXEMPTED ACTS
1. Section 3, par 1. Any peace officer, who is authorized by
a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts
declared to be unlawful in cases involving:
crimes of treason,
espionage,
provoking war and disloyalty in case of war,
piracy,
mutiny in the high seas,
rebellion,
conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
inciting to rebellion,
sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition,
inciting to sedition,
kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code,
and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing
espionage and other offenses against national security
Requirements:
That such written order shall only be issued or granted
upon written application and the examination under
oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses
he may produce and a showing:
1. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that
any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been
committed or is being committed or is about to be
committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving
the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition,
such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof
that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be,
have actually been or are being committed;
2. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that
evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of
any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention
of, any of such crimes; and
3. That there are no other means readily available for
obtaining such evidence.
C. Admissibility
Gaanan vs. IAC, et al., 145 SCRA 112. The law refers to a
tap of wire or cable or the use of a device or arrangement for
the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording
the communication The extension telephone cannot be placed
in the same category as a Dictaphone, dictagraph or the other
devices enumerated in Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200 as the use
thereof cannot be considered as tapping the wire not installed
for that purpose.
Case:
Ambre vs. People (G.R. No. 191532 August 15, 2012).
Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates that a search
and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a
judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause,
absent which such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable"
within the meaning of said constitutional provision. Evidence
obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such an
unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and should be
excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In the
language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in
evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid
proscription. One of the recognized exception established by
jurisprudence is search incident to a lawful arrest. In this
exception, the law requires that a lawful arrest must precede the
search of a person and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest is
considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest.
1. Relevancy of Evidence
Case:
Herrera vs. Alba (G.R. No. 148220 June 15, 2005). Evidence
is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue and is not
otherwise excluded by statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is
relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Section 49 of Rule
130, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony,
provides that the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring
special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown
to possess may be received in evidence. This Rule does not pose
any legal obstacle to the admissibility of DNA analysis as
evidence. Indeed, even evidence on collateral matters is allowed
"when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
2. Test of Relevancy
Case:
People vs. Yatar (G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004).
Generally, courts should only consider and rely upon duly
established evidence and never on mere conjectures or
suppositions. The legal relevancy of evidence denotes
"something more than a minimum of probative value,"
suggesting that such evidentiary relevance must contain a "plus
value." This may be necessary to preclude the trial court from
being satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being
exaggerated by prejudice and hasty conclusions. Evidence
without "plus value" may be logically relevant but not legally
sufficient to convict. It is incumbent upon the trial court to
balance the probative value of such evidence against the likely
harm that would result from its admission.
5. Issue defined.
6. Fact defined
General Rule: Collateral facts are not admissible for they tend to
draw away the mind of the court and to prejudice and mislead it.
As will be observed, both (1) and (2) are equally admissible. But
it is likely that the court would give greater weight to the
testimony of a disinterested physician than of a mother, who
might be expected to commit perjury in an effort to save her son.
Case:
Atienza vs. BOD (G.R. No. 177407 February 9, 2011).
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question whether or not
the circumstance or evidence is to be considered at all. On the
other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to the
question of whether or not it proves an issue.
9. Types of Admissibility
Case:
Tolentino vs. Mendoza (ADM. CASE NO. 5151 October 19,
2004). Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of
1993 only provides for sanctions against persons violating the
rule on confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it state
that procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would
render said records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand,
the Revised Rules of Evidence only provides for the exclusion of
evidence if it is obtained as a result of illegal searches and
seizures.Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of
1993 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the
exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates in question, said
public documents are, therefore, admissible and should be
properly taken into consideration in the resolution of this
administrative case against the respondent.
D. UNLAWFUL ACTS
4. Section 1, par 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 word by using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
otherwise described
5. Section 1, par 2.
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant
or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding
sentence,
to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc
record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any
communication or spoken word secured either before or
after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited
by this law; or
to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to
communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in
writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether
complete or partial, to any other person
6. Section 2.
Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or who shall aid,
permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be
unlawful in the preceding section or who violates the
provisions of the following section or of any order issued
thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation.
E. EXEMPTED ACTS
3. Section 3, par 1.Any peace officer, who is authorized by a
written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts
declared to be unlawful in cases involving:
crimes of treason,
espionage,
provoking war and disloyalty in case of war,
piracy,
mutiny in the high seas,
rebellion,
conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
inciting to rebellion,
sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition,
inciting to sedition,
kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code,
and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing
espionage and other offenses against national security
Requirements:
That such written order shall only be issued or granted
upon written application and the examination under
oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses
he may produce and a showing:
1. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that
any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been
committed or is being committed or is about to be
committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving
the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition,
such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof
that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be,
have actually been or are being committed;
2. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that
evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of
any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention
of, any of such crimes; and
3. That there are no other means readily available for
obtaining such evidence.
Case:
Ambre vs. People (G.R. No. 191532 August 15,
2012).Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates that a
search and seizure must be carried out through or on the
strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of
probable cause, absent which such search and seizure becomes
"unreasonable" within the meaning of said constitutional
provision. Evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of
such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and should
be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In
the language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in
evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
Case:
Herrera vs. Alba (G.R. No. 148220 June 15, 2005).Evidence
is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue and is not
otherwise excluded by statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is
relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Section 49 of Rule
130, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony,
provides that the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring
special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown
to possess may be received in evidence. This Rule does not pose
any legal obstacle to the admissibility of DNA analysis as
evidence. Indeed, even evidence on collateral matters is allowed
"when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
Case:
People vs. Yatar (G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004).
Generally, courts should only consider and rely upon duly
established evidence and never on mere conjectures or
suppositions. The legal relevancy of evidence denotes
"something more than a minimum of probative value,"
suggesting that such evidentiary relevance must contain a "plus
value." This may be necessary to preclude the trial court from
being satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being
exaggerated by prejudice and hasty conclusions. Evidence
without "plus value" may be logically relevant but not legally
sufficient to convict. It is incumbent upon the trial court to
balance the probative value of such evidence against the likely
harm that would result from its admission.
General Rule: Collateral facts are not admissible for they tend to
draw away the mind of the court and to prejudice and mislead it.
Exception: Evidence on collateral matters shall be allowed when it
tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
FACTS:
Respondent Sally Go, cashier of petioner BSB Group, Inc. was charged
with qualified theft. On the premise that respondent had allegedly
encashed the subject checks and deposited the corresponding
amounts thereof to her personal banking account, the prosecution
moved for the issuance of subpoena ducestecum /ad testificandum
against the respective managers or records custodians of Security
Bank and Metrobank which was granted by the trial court. The
prosecution was able to present in court the testimony of
ElenitaMarasigan, the representative of Security Bank whose testimony
sought to prove that respondent, while engaged as cashier at the BSB
Group, Inc., was able to run away with the checks issued to the
company by its customers, endorse the same, and credit the
corresponding amounts to her personal deposit account with Security
Bank. In the course of the testimony, the subject checks were
presented to Marasigan for identification and marking as the same
checks received by respondent, endorsed, and then deposited in her
personal account with Security Bank. But before the testimony could
be completed, respondent filed a Motion to Suppress, seeking the
exclusion of Marasigans testimony and accompanying documents thus
far received, bearing on the subject Security Bank account. This time
respondent invokes, in addition to irrelevancy, the privilege of
confidentiality under R.A. No. 1405. The trial court in its order denied
respondents motion to suppress.
ISSUE:
HELD:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
No. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of PNOC Shipping and
Transport Corporation v. Court of Appeals, admissibility of evidence is
distinguished from probative weight of evidence, as:
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question whether or
not the circumstance or evidence is to be considered at all.
On the other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to
the question of whether or not it proves an issue.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
No. Section 3, Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that
"evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules." There could be no dispute that the
subject birth certificates are relevant to the issue. The only question,
therefore, is whether the law or the rules provide for the inadmissibility
of said birth certificates allegedly for having been obtained in violation
of Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993.
Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 only
provides for sanctions against persons violating the rule on
confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it state that
procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would render said
records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, the Revised Rules
of Evidence only provides for the exclusion of evidence if it is obtained
as a result of illegal searches and seizures. It should be emphasized;
however, that said rule against unreasonable searches and seizures is
meant only to protect a person from interference by the government or
the state.
Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 and the
Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from
evidence of the birth certificates in question, said public documents
are, therefore, admissible and should be properly taken into
consideration in the resolution of this administrative case against
respondent.
FACTS:
Ambre was charged with the crime of violation of Section 15, Article II
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. From the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses, it appeared that on April 20, 2005, the Caloocan Police
Station Anti-Illegal Drug-Special Operation Unit conducted a buy-bust
operation pursuant to a tip from a police, the buy-bust operation
resulted in the arrest of Ambre having pot session, in particular, was
caught sniffing what was suspected to be shabu in a rolled up
aluminum foil. The trial court rendered its decision declaring that the
prosecution was able to establish with certitude the guilt of Ambre for
illegal use of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or violation of Section
15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, however, acquitted Ambre on the crime
of violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for failure of the
prosecution to prove with particularity the drug paraphernalia found in
her possession.
ISSUE:
Whether the warrantless arrest of Ambre and the search of her person
was valid; and whether the items seized are admissible in evidence.
HELD:
FACTS:
Thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba represented by his mother Armi Alba,
filed before the trial court a petition for compulsory recognition,
support and damages against petitioner. Petitioner Herrera denied that
he is the biological father of respondent and denied physical contact
with respondents mother.Respondent filed a motion to direct the
taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the
proceedings.Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended
that it has not gained acceptability and further argued that DNA
paternity testing violates his right against self-incrimination. The trial
court granted respondents motion to conduct DNA paternity testing on
petitioner. Petitioner filed before the appellate court a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 asserting that the trial court acted "in excess
of, or without jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in issuing the order of DNA
testing, however, the petition was denied.
ISSUE:
HELD:
The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation
of the paternity and filiation of children, especially of illegitimate
children, is without prejudice to the right of the putative parent to
claim his or her own defenses. Where the evidence to aid this
investigation is obtainable through the facilities of modern science and
technology, such evidence should be considered subject to the limits
established by the law, rules, and jurisprudence.
G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOEL YATAR alias "KAWIT"
FACTS:
Joel Yatar was convicted by the trial court with rape with homicide
defined and penalized under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by R.A. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of
1997, and was accordingly, sentenced to Death. Pursuant to Article 47
of the revised Penal Code, an automatic review was made, the
appellant alleging that the trial court gravely erred in giving weight to
the evidence presented by the prosecution notwithstanding their
doubtfulness and thereby he should be acquitted from the crime
charged due to reasonable doubt.
ISSUE:
HELD:
6. Bill of particulars
Cannot be contradicted
unless previously
shown to have been
made through a
palpable mistake or BILL OF
that no such admission PARTICULARS
was made.
Written statements in
ADMISSION IN nature of bill of
particulars, purporting
PLEADINGS
to be signed by a
partys attorney, and
May be made by an which the opposing
express party claims was
acknowledgement of delivered to his counsel
some fact or facts set as a bill of particular
forth in the pleading of was been held
the opposite party. admissible.
By failure to deny or
otherwise controvert
VERIFIED AND ADMISSIONS IN
UNVERIFIED WITHDRAWN,
PLEADINGS SUPERSEDED OR
AMENDED PLEADING
Verification is
considered essential to The pleading which has
the admission of been withdrawn or
statements in a stricken out or
pleading against the superseded by
pleader. If a party does amendment, still
not verify, authorize or remain as statements
adopt a pleading, seriously made and are
allegations thereof are admissible in evidence,
not admissible against on behalf of the
him. opposite party as
admissions by the
pleader, where he is a
ADMISSIONS BY
party to the
ATTORNEY subsequent litigation,
where the statements
are material and
Admissions by counsel relevant to the issues
made in the trial of a in connection with
cause may be which they are sought
conclusive on the party to be introduced, and
unless withdrawn or set where, in case of a
aside by the court for pleading withdrawn by
good cause shown as leave of court, no order
mistake or lack of is made relieving the
authority. pleader from the
admissions made; and
the probative force of
such statements has
even been given a
prima facie value.
ADMISSIONS IN
STIPULATION OF
FACTS
making the same, as
Stipulations of facts in well as on the court,
a case are agreements unless the court in its
or admissions reasonable discretion
regarding certain facts allows the concession
included in the to be later withdrawn,
litigation and are explained, or modified
conclusive between the if it appears to have
parties. Acts or facts been made by
admitted do not require improvidence or
proof and cannot be mistake.
contradicted, unless it AFFIDAVITS,
be shown that the DEPOSITIONS AND
admission was made TESTIMONY
through a palpable
mistake, for parties are
not allowed to gain say A judicial admission in
their own acts or deny an affidavit used in the
rights which they have case is admissible
previously recognized. against the party
A party may not making or adopting the
withdraw from an affidavit, and it may
agreement of facts also be admitted in
without the consent of another action to which
the other party or he is a party.
without leave of court
Statements made in a
on justifiable reasons.
deposition, relevant to
the issues, may be
BINDING EFFECT OF admitted against the
STIPULATION OF deponent as
FACTS admissions against the
interest in the same or
another action to which
A concession or he is a party, even
stipulation as to a fact though he is present in
made for the purpose court and able to
of trial has the force testify, or has testified
and effect of an
established fact The testimony given by
binding on the party or for a party at the
trial of a case may be have been made
used against him as an through palpable
admission in the same, mistake.
or on a subsequent
trial, or even in another
STIPULATION OF
action, provided such
testimony is material FACTS IN CRIMINAL
and relevant. CASES
It is not proper to
PROOF OF
consider a case closed,
ADMISSION IN or to render judgment
PLEADING, therein, by virtue of an
AFFIDAVIT OR agreement entered into
DEPOSITION between the fiscal and
counsel for the accused
Where a pleading, with reference to facts
affidavit or deposition some of which are
is offered in evidence, favorable to the
the statements relied defense, and others
on as admissions and related to the
the qualifying prosecution, without
statements must be any evidence being
construed together. adduced or testimony
The party offering taken from the
written admissions is witnesses mentioned in
not stopped to disprove the agreement; such
them. practice is not
authorized and defeats
the purposes of the
COMPROMISE criminal law.
AGREEMENT -
JUDICIAL ADMISSION
A judicial admission in OF A FACT
a compromise DISTINGUISHED
agreement submitted FROM AN
to the court cannot be ADMISSION THAT A
contradicted unless CERTAIN WITNESS, IF
previously shown to CALLED, WOULD SO
TESTIFY.
explanations, or view would be
In the first case, there unreasonable expensive or
is a judicial admission cause unreasonable delay, or
of the facts, and they serve no useful purpose, unless
cannot be contradicted. here appears a clear abuse of
In the second case, it discretion.
will only have the same
effect as if the witness DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
had testified to the
facts. Such testimony Section 2 Documentary
evidence
of the party is free to
contradict. DOCUMENT any substance
Constitutional Right not having any matter expressed or
violated by inspection of described upon it by marks
scene of crime, provided that capable of
the same is with consent of and being read. If it is produced
accompanied by counsel for the without regard to the message
which it contains, it is treated as
accused, it further appearing
real evidence.
that no evidence was taken
during the inspection. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE-
evidence supplied by written
Information obtained on a instruments, or derived from the
view is independent conventional symbols, such as
evidence to be taken into letters, by which ideas are
consideration by the curt in represented on material
substances; documents;
determining the issues in the
documents produced for the
case. inspection of the court or judge.
ADMISSIBILITY OF
Order denying or granting DOCUEMNTARY EVIDENCE-
view not reviewable when it subject to the same basic rules
appears that the condition of on relevancy, materiality,
the premises or property has exclusionary rules and court
discretion as determined by the
changed since the time of
issues in the particular case.
occurrence in issue and before Identity and authenticity of the
the demand for a view, or that document must be reasonably
the facts involved are such that established as a pre-requisite to
they can be accurately its admission.
described to the court by oral
testimony, or by the use of IMPORTANT RULES ON
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE-
maps or diagrams with proper
1. Best Evidence Rule applicable to external or
2. Rule on Secondary collateral facts about the
Evidence document such as its existence,
3. Parol Evidence Rule execution or delivery.
4. Rule on Authentication
and Proof of People v. Tandoy
Documents (1990)
5. Inadmissibility of The Best Evidence Rule applies
written document in an only when the contents of the
unofficial language document are the subject of
unless translated in inquiry. It does not apply when
English and Filipino the issue is only as to whether
or not such document was
1. Best Evidence Rule actually executed or in the
circumstances relevant to its
BEST EVIDENCE or PRIMARY execution. An objection by the
EVIDENCE- particular means of party against whom secondary
proof which is indicated by the evidence is sought to be
introduced is essential to bring
nature of the fact under
the best evidence rule into
investigation as the most application. Where secondary
natural and satisfactory that evidence has been admitted,
affords the greatest certainty of the rule of evidence might have
the fact in question and on its been successfully invoked if
face indicates that no better proper and timely objection had
evidence remains behind. been taken
l. In counterfeiting; the
Reason for
counterfeiting machine;
admissibility of object (real)
m. In gambling cases, the evidence to a rational man of
gambling perfect organization the best
paraphernalia; and highest proof of which any
fact is susceptible is the
n. In rape, any weapon evidence of his senses. This is
used to subdue or the ultimate test of truth, and is
intimidate the victim, therefore the first principle in
the clothing of the the philosophy of evidence.
victim, the clothing of Hence, the evidence of ones
the accused; own senses, furnishes the
strongest probability and indeed
o. In sex cases other than
the perfect and indubitable
rape, objects which
certainty of the existence of any
throw light on the
sensible fact.
crime;
Physical evidence is
p. The clothing of the evidence of the highest order. It
accused, to identify speaks more eloquently than a
him or to throw light on hundred witnesses.
other issues;
Requisites for improper where the fact of
admissibility of object (real) injury was uncontroverted.
evidence an object may be The present condition of
exhibited, examined or viewed an object offered may not be the
by the court when (1) it is same as to be proper evidence
relevant to the fact in issue, and of its former condition;
(2) the present condition of the accordingly, autoptic preference
object is the same at the time in is allowable only on the
issue. assumption that the condition is
the same or sufficiently similar.
Experiments to show the
If, by some principle of quality or operation of a
relevancy, a fact offered to be substance, a machine, etc., are
shown is not admissible, often excluded because of the
because irrelevant, it cannot be dissimilarity of circumstances or
shown, either in this or in any because of probable confusion
other way. For example, of issues; and for this reason the
whether a persons color is exhibition of such experiments
black or white is best before the tribunal may of
ascertained by inspecting the course be forbidden.
person; but if his color when As a general rule it seems
ascertained would be irrelevant essential that articles shown to
for the purpose concerned, an the court be connected, at least
inspection to learn his color prima facie, with the crime in
would obviously be issue. An article of personal
unnecessary, and therefore property, the relevancy of which
improper. Thus, his color might has been shown by its
be relevant to show his race- identification with the subject-
ancestry, but not to show his matter of the crime, may be
state of health; in the former exhibited in the courtroom,
case inspection would be whether as direct evidence of a
allowed in the latter case not, relevant fact, or to enable them
the ruling in each instance to understand the evidence or
depending on the admissibility to realize more completely its
of the fact shown by inspection. cogency and force, or to assist
In a large number of instances the court in solving a material,
this is the real question. controverted or doubtful point.
Admission of clothing Admission of visual, exhibitive or
worn by plaintiff at time of demonstrative evidence is much
accident has been held within the discretion of the
court, and the extent of personal-injury action; and it is
identification of such articles within the discretion of the trial
necessary before admission judge, when the physical
varies with circumstances. The condition of a party is in
court may inspect and smell the question, as in personal-injury
contents of a bottle properly actions, to permit the injured
identified and admitted in party to exhibit his person to the
evidence. Comparison of court in order to show the
materials may also be made by extent and nature of his injury.
the court, aided by the evidence Such exhibitions of part of the
of expert witnesses. So in case plaintiffs person are often
the quality of an article, or its permitted without objections.
adaptability to a specific use or Under the rule stated, the
purpose, is in issue, a sample plaintiff may be permitted to
may be shown to the court, exhibit an arm, hand, leg, foot,
together with a specimen of a and other parts of the body,
like material which is shown to such as the shoulder, head, etc.,
be of good quality or adapted to provided the exhibition is not
the required purpose, and the objectionable on the ground of
court may then make a indecency. Where an arm or a
comparison to ascertain leg has been amputated, the
possible points of difference. exhibition of the naked remnant
may be permissible.
Exhibition of person The extent to which one
Trial courts, in actions to recover may be allowed to exhibit his
damages, have an inherent person to the court on the trial
discretionary power to order a is a matter largely of discretion
reasonable physical examination of the court. If it appears that
of the plaintiff to be made the exhibition by the plaintiff
before trial by competent would necessitate an exposure
physicians and surgeons which would be indecent, the
whenever such examination is court, in the exercise of its
necessary to ascertain the discretion, should not permit the
nature, extent, or permanency exhibition before the court.
of alleged injuries. Trial courts Where an issue as to
also are generally deemed to personal injuries or disability is
have power to compel the involved, the injured person
exhibition of the plaintiffs may be permitted to exhibit to
person, under proper the court the wound or injury, or
restrictions, in the trial of a the member or portion of his
body on which such wound or seems appropriate: (a) there
injury was inflicted. Thus, the should be fair necessity for
court has permitted the inspection, the trial court to
exhibition of an ankle, a knee, a determine; (b) the inspection
foot, a leg, an arm, a hand, an should take place apart from the
eye socket, and various other public courtroom, in the sole
parts of the body. A similar presence of the tribunal and the
exhibition may be made where parties.
the injury has resulted in the Introduction of object
death of the injured person or (real) evidence for the
the loss of a member or part of purpose of arousing undue
his body. prejudice The object of all
evidence is to inform the trial
Indecency or tribunal of the material facts,
impropriety as ground for which are relevant as bearing
disallowing the introduction upon the issue, in order that the
of object (real) evidence; truth may be elicited and that a
exception when the object just determination of the
produced as evidence is controversy may be reached. It
indecent, or improper, it should is not objectionable, in these
be excluded, unless the same is cases, which the evidence may
necessary for ascertaining the go beyond the oral narrative
truth. and may be addressed to the
But when justice and the senses; provided that it is kept
discovery of truth, are at stake, within reasonable limits by the
the ordinary canons of modesty exercise of a fair judicial
and delicacy of feeling cannot discretion. It should be only of a
be allowed to impose a nature to assist the court to an
prohibition upon necessary understanding of a situation, of
measures. If such matters were an act, or to comprehend
not unshrinking discussed and objective symptoms resulting
probed, many kinds of crime from an injury. Examples of this
would remain unpunished. class of evidence are frequent;
Nevertheless, needless in the viewing of the place of an
spectators having no occurrence, in the exhibition of
responsibility for the course of the person and of the marks, or
justice may well be avoided. obvious evidences, of injuries
Where it is a question of what sustained. Personal injuries
would otherwise be an may be simulated and deception
indecency, two limitations may be practiced in such
exhibitions; but that cannot predicated on it. Secondly, the
more be prevented, than can sight of deadly weapons or of
perjury in testimony. When, cruel injuries tends to
however, proof is attempted to overwhelm reason and to
be made by allowing the plaintiff associate the accused with the
to act out upon a judicial stage atrocity without sufficient
before the court what he or his evidence. The objection in its
physicians, have testified to be first phase may be at least
some nervous affection, partly overcome by requiring
resulting from an injury, the the object to be properly
exhibition is improper because it authenticated, before or after
is unfair. As something under the production; and this
the sole control of the witness requirement is constantly
himself, it is beyond the enforced by the courts. The
ordinary tests of examination. objection in its second phase
Nor does such evidence allow cannot be entirely overcome,
any record, beyond the even by express instruction from
reporters notes of what he saw the Court; but it is to be doubted
upon the trial. It is intended to whether the necessity of thus
prejudice the mind of the judge demonstrating the method and
and it is calculated to affect the results of the crime should give
calm judicial atmosphere of a way to this possibility or undue
court of justice. The plaintiff, in prejudice. No doubt such an
such cases, has sufficient effect may be occasionally and
advantages without adding to in an extreme case be
them a spectacular illustration produced; and no doubt the trial
of his symptoms. court has a discretion to prevent
The exhibition of the the abuse if the process. But, in
weapons or tools of a crime, or the vast majority of instances
of the clothing or the mutilated where such objection is made, it
members of the victim of the is frivolous and there is no
crime, has often been objected ground for apprehension.
to on grounds of Undue Accordingly, such objections
Prejudice. The objection thus have almost invariably been
indicated seems to be two-fold. repudiated by the Courts.
First, there is a natural tendency Where it appears that the
to infer from the mere real evidence is produced
production of any material merely for the purpose of
object, and without further arousing feeling, admission has
evidence, the truth of all that is been held error. For example,
where the plaintiff, a little girl, court to deny applications for
sues for the loss of her leg, and the production of real evidence
the defendant admits the fact of in cases where the order will
amputation and the child is cause great inconvenience, or
present in court, the where, for other reasons, it is
introduction of the amputated unjust. Thus, in Mississippi
limb as preserved in spirits case, the court refused to order
warrants a new trial. Of such a the exhumation of a dead body;
case, the court said that, it may although the defendant, an
however, be assumed that insurance company, claimed
technically the rule of evidence that the deceased had made
authorized the exhibition of the admissions that he had in
foot. Such rule, however, is childhood received a severe
without force when the injury to the skull which could
legitimate purpose for which the only be prove by an
exhibit may be made is light, examination. It may happen
and the strong tendency is to that it is impracticable to bring
work improper and illegitimate an animal into the room where
results. It is perfectly clear in the court is sitting, and in such
the present case that the direct cases the examination need not
tendency of the exhibition of necessarily be has in the
this mangled foot, coupled with courtroom, so long as it is under
the other considerations already the direction of the court and in
noted, was to arouse the the presence of the parties.
prejudice and inflame the Similar holdings may be found
passions of the court into an with reference to articles of
angry resentment against the great weight, such as large steel
author of the misfortune. This bars.
condition far overbalanced any
legitimate purpose for which the Photographs the courts
exhibit might have been made, take judicial notice that all
and made the exhibition of this civilized communities rely on
foot, under the circumstances of photographic pictures for
this case, improper. presenting resemblances of
persons and animals, scenery,
Other grounds for natural objects, buildings, and
denying application for the other artificial objects. It is
production of object (real) accordingly well established that
evidence Beyond question it photographs of persons, things,
rests in the discretion of the and places, when duly verified
and shown by extrinsic evidence
to be faithful representations of a.) Can a holographic will
the subjects as of the time in which was lost be
question, are, in the discretion proved by means of a
of the trial court, admissible in photostatic copy?
evidence as aids to it in arriving
at an understanding of the
Held: The Supreme Court
evidence, the situation or
ruled in the affirmative. It is
condition of objects or premises,
necessary that there be a
the circumstances of an
comparison between sample
accident, or the condition or
handwritten statements of the
identity of a person when any
testator and the handwritten
such matter is relevant to the
will. But, a photostatic copy of a
issues being litigated.
holographic will may be allowed
Where depositions of
because comparison can be
subscribing witnesses to a will
made with the standard writings
are taken, a photographic copy
of the testator.
of the will may be presented to
the witnesses on their The facts as depicted by
examination and they may be photographs are usually
asked the same questions with reasonably correct
respect to said copy as if it were representations and constitute
the original will and testimony evidence of a satisfactory and
as to the identity of the conclusive nature.
photographic copy shown to the Photographs of any place
witnesses is admissible in which may be viewed by the
evidence. trial court are admissible in
evidence upon proof of their
In the case of Rodelas vs. exactness and accuracy.
Aranza; G. R. No. L-58509 The logic underlying the
December 7, 1982: admission of photographs which
have been authenticated by the
The appellant Marcela operator of the camera, or by
Rodelas filed a petition for the some other witness who can
probate of the holographic will testify from personal knowledge
of Ricardo B. Bonilla and the as to the accuracy of the
issuance of letter testamentary representation, is drawn
in her favor. However, it was principally from the cases
opposed on the following admitting maps and diagrams.
ground: There are, however, two
fundamental distinctions the time of the crime, and the
between diagrams, or drawings, photographer is not a necessary
and photographs, which witness. Photographs of the
emphasize the prejudicial scene, taken several months
implications to the latter: (1) after the crime was committed,
the photograph is generally were properly admitted where it
accepted by courts as an appeared that the condition of
accurate machine-made the premises has not materially
reproduction of nature; while the changed in the meantime.
diagram or drawing is If the correctness of the
recognized by them as man- photograph as a likeness shown
made and considerably less prima facie, either by the
accurate; a slight inaccuracy or testimony of the person who
distortion of size, distance or made it or by other competent
shape in a photograph is thus witnesses, to the effect that it
far more objectionable that an faithfully represents the object
error of similar degree in a portrayed, it should go to the
diagram; (2) the vital, mirror-like court subject to impeachment
appearance of a photograph as to its accuracy. Whether the
makes it capable of inciting photograph is an accurate
passions and prejudices of a likeness then becomes a
court, whereas a lifeless map or question of fact to be
drawing of the same subject determined by the court.
would not have this effect. The photograph or must
Thus, while photographs may be be relevant as well as correct.
of a fairly similar evidential Its relevancy will depend on the
character as diagrams, and relevancy of the scene or object
maps, there is little room for it represents. If a photograph
comparison as to their purports to represent a relevant
respective degrees of probative scene or object, but portrays it
force. The court has in effect an in a grossly inaccurate manner,
eye witness view of the subject so that it practically represents
matter. Photographs are something else, and the scene
admissible in evidence in or object would scarcely be
criminal cases upon the same recognized thereby, the non-
principles and rules governing reliability of the photograph as a
their admission in civil cases. correct likeness may almost be
The test of admissibility is considered as producing
whether the photograph irrelevancy. But usually the
accurately portrays the scene at question of relevancy is distinct
from that of correctness, and is g. To illustrate
for the judge exclusively. It is to handwriting testimony
be determined upon the and fingerprint
considerations which govern testimony;
when the relevancy of any other
h. To rebut testimony of
sort of evidence is corrected.
the other side.
Photographs are received
in evidence for the following Use of devices to
purposes: accentuate photographic
a. To show the scene of evidence In many instances a
the crime (the picture photograph will not sufficiently
need not show the depict important details of a
complete premises) scene to give it significance in
sometimes with the the eyes of the court. This is
body of the victim still especially true in cases
at the scene; involving skid marks, scratches,
b. To show the victim of gouges, and other marks left on
an assault or a the road by tires or other parts
homicide; of vehicles involved in a
collision. In such instances it is
c. To show the identity of not an unusual practice to lay
persons alive or dead, down sticks, rocks or other
including the defendant objects to indicate or intensify
and the victim or his such features of the picture.
remains, even when These do not affect its
decomposed; admissibility when the presence
of the markers is verified and
d. To show wound or other
explained by the witnesses.
physical injuries, or
Obviously, when a photographic
that a child or an
representation includes foreign
animal has been ill-
objects marking such details it is
treated or not properly
not sufficient that the general
fed;
accuracy of the photograph be
e. To show the fruits of verified. Someone must also
the crime, contraband, explain why the objects appear
and the weapons used; therein and what they purport to
represent or mark. If the object
f. To supply facsimiles of is nothing more than a marker,
public records; the exhibit is not subject to the
objection that it is a posed
picture for it does not purport to X-ray In one way or
recreate a bygone scene. An another, X-rays are perhaps the
example of this would be the modality of medical treatment
placing of a yardstick to indicate or diagnosis most commonly
the distance between the appearing in litigation.
ground and rear fender of the Diagnostic X-ray films often
cat involved in a fatal hit and provide counsel with his best
run accident. source of objective proof of his
clients injuries, establishing in a
Enlargements Although manner that all can see that
magnification that constitutes plaintiffs leg bones indeed were
distortion may be objectionable, fractured a year before trial, and
it is no valid objection to the the like. Even when X-ray films
introduction of the photograph do not reveal their secrets
that it is an enlargement made clearly enough for a court to
from an original. Enlargements understand them without expert
are, of course, subject to the interpretation, they
usual tests of accuracy and nevertheless comprise a means
relevancy that any photograph of dramatic persuasion often of
would be. inestimable value.
The same rules and
Color pictures color principles which apply to
photographs or slides are ordinary pictures are applicable
admissible on the same basis as to an X-ray photograph,
ordinary black and white although subject to explanation
pictures. The same test is or interpretation by experts in
applies by courts, the test of order to make them intelligible
probative value. The color to the court.
tends to be regarded as a more
faithful type of representation Motion pictures
that black and white Principles underlying
photographs. admissibility of talking motion
pictures are not different from
Aerial photographs those governing the
Aerial photographs, depicting admissibility of still pictures and
ground areas pertinent to the phonograph records. It is a
particular issue, are held matter of common knowledge
admissible upon the same that motion pictures are no
foundation basis as other longer a novelty. They are
photographs.
constantly used for commercial the film; (3) evidence in regard
and scientific purposes. The to the projection of the film; (4)
talking motion picture, or movie testimony by the person present
tone, as it is technically known, at the time the motion pictures
results merely from adaption of were taken that the pictures
the scientific processes used in accurately depict the events as
producing photographic records he saw them when that
in order that words spoken, or occurred.
sounds produced at the time of Video tape The use of
the taking of the picture, may the video tape in the courtroom
be reproduced with the picture. have become more
The movie tone, in basic commonplace in recent times.
characteristics, is no different A Michigan court has said: A
from ordinary photography, in video tape is nothing more than
regard to the visual pictures a motion picture synchronized
reproduced, and on the other with a sound recording.
hand, from phonographic Therefore, a complete video
records, in regard to the tape may be received into
auditory recording of sound. A evidence if the offering party
movie tone, duly authenticated lays the foundation necessary to
as a true portrayal of the actions admit a motion picture and the
and words of a defendant at the foundation necessary to admit
time it was taken is admissible sound recording. Thus, where it
evidence. is testified that the video tape is
The question of permitting a true and accurate
a motion picture to be displayed representation of what it is
before the court is wholly within purported to represent, it is
the discretion of the court, and sufficient authentication. Video
where the picture does not tapes have been admitted for
amplify matters, no reversible confessions, admissions,
error is committed in refusing to lineups, crime scenes, witnesss
allow its admission or display as testimony, drinking drivers
evidence. condition and even to show the
Authentication of motion actual commission of the crime.
pictures ordinarily includes (1)
evidence as to the Diagrams, sketches
circumstances surrounding the and maps Pencil, pen and ink
taking of the film; (2) the drawings and maps have been
manner and circumstances received to identify or explain
surrounding the development of localities or positions of objects.
Though they are received as that they represent a method of
primary evidence appealing to pictorial communication of a
the eyes of the court under the qualified witness which he may
rule admitting photographs, use of instead of, or in addition
they differ from the latter in that to, some other method.
their accuracy as portraits or Evidence of this character is
likeliness must be affirmatively helpful in aiding the court to
shown by the testimony of the visualize the objects and scenes
artist or other competent in the action. Thus a model of a
witness. There is no machine, a mechanical device
presumption of correctness or a bridge, may be submitted
founded on general use and to the court to aid them in
employment, or on their being understanding how an event
mechanical reproductions by a occurred or might have been
process which the court will prevented. This type of
judicially notice, as exists in the evidence is properly described
case of photographs. The as illustrative evidence. It is a
witness called to prove their type of demonstrative evidence
correctness must testify of his especially useful to police
own knowledge that they officers and other witnesses in
faithfully represent the object describing traffic accident
depicted, and their accuracy, if scenes.
disputed, is a question for the
court, turning upon the Fingerprints, palm
credibility of the witnesses prints, footprints, tracks,
The draftsman of the map etc. A method of proof now
must testify as to its accuracy, commonly resorted to in
but any other witnesses may providing identity is in the use of
refer to it while testifying, to evidence as to the
illustrate his testimony. It is not correspondence or similarity of
material by whom the map or the fingerprints, palm prints and
diagram was prepared providing footprints. Authenticated
that he can testify that the map fingerprints, palm prints, or
or diagram is accurate and footprints or photographs
based on knowledge derive from thereof of a person may be
his own investigation. introduced in evidence and
The use of diagrams, compared with other
models and casts as testimony fingerprints, palm prints, or
of the objects represented rests footprints found at or near the
fundamentally upon the theory scene of the crime. This
comparison is usually made by recording. The phonograph, the
experts. Dictaphone, the talking motion
Testimony concerning picture machine, and similar
tracks and footprints discovered recording devices, with
near the scene of crime is reproducing apparatus, are now
admissible if a connection with in such common use that the
defendant by means of verity of their recordingand
comparison or otherwise is reproducing sounds, including
shown. A comparison of those made by the human voice
footprints, proved to have been in conversation, is well-
made by the prisoner, with established; and as advances in
other tracks or footprints found such matters of scientific
near the scene of the homicide research and discovery are mad
is relevant, but the opinion of and generally adopted, the
the witness that footprints near courts will be permitted to make
the scene of the crime were use of them by way of present-
those of the accused not based evidentiary facts.
on a comparison, is not
admissible. The witness Voiceprints
generally must have made some (spectrograms) It is
actual comparison of the established law that an accused
footprint not just looked at it. person in lawful custody may be
required to demonstrate his
The correspondence of voice for identification purpose
footprints to shoes, feet or other on the same grounds that he
footprints is a matter not may be subjected to
restricted to expert opinion. A fingerprinting, photographing,
witness may give his opinion as measurements, and the like.
to the correspondence of This can be done through line-
footprints to shoes, feet or other ups, tape recordings, video
footprints after testifying as to tape, or other similar methods,
the measurements or in addition to speaking in court.
peculiarities thereof upon which Another method of voice
such opinion is based. identification has been
developed in recent years called
Phonograph and tape
voice print or spectrograms.
recordings Sound recordings
This device consists of a
are generally admitted in
magnetic recording device, a
evidence where a proper
variable electronic filter, a
foundation has been laid to
paper-carrying drum which is
assure the authenticity of the
coupled to the recording device, point out the accused and ask a
and an electronic stylus that witness if that is the person who
marks the paper as the drum committed the crime. If the
rotates. Spectrograms can be accused shall voluntarily stand
compared point for point to up and so thus be identified by a
determine if any significant witness pointing him out, he
similarities exist. It is based on should not be granted a new
the theory that no two persons trial upon the ground that he
have exactly the same physical has been compelled to testify as
voice properties. against himself. And it has been
held merely directing the
accused to stand up for
Personal appearance of identification is not compelling
a person It has been held that him to be a witness against
to determine whether a person himself, nor is the bringing of
is an alien or not, his personal the defendant into court for
appearance, ethnological and inspection or identification or
racial characteristic, language, dressed in clothes connected
customs, dress and manners with the crime. It has been held
may be taken into in some cases, however, that to
consideration. The age of a go father and require accused to
person may also be determined do some affirmative act, such as
by his personal appearance. putting on clothing found at the
The resemblance between a scene of the crime, violates his
minor and his alleged father is constitutional rights.
competent and material
Experiment In
evidence to establish parentage.
instances where it is necessary
Of course, the absence of such
to show the condition or quality
resemblance would not be
of a certain article or substance,
sufficient to show that
the thing itself is the most
parentage does not exist.
powerful evidence that can be
The accused cannot object
produced; it may be introduced
if he be identified in open court
in evidence as supplementing
without being required to stand.
the testimony of witnesses, or
A direction to a witness to look
as direct evidence when
about the court and point out a
properly identified. Evidence of
person in court who he thinks
the result of an actual
committed the crime is always
experiment or test is admissible
proper. The court or the
to aid in determining the issues
prosecuting attorney may even
in a case where it is shown that truth of testimony that a certain
the conditions under which the thing occurred is not admissible
experiment or test was made where the conditions attending
were the same or similar to the the alleged occurrences and the
circumstances prevailing at the experiments are not shown to
time of the occurrence involved be similar.
in the controversy. Such
evidence should, however, be Mode and place of
admitted only where it is presentation and inspection
obvious to the court from the No distinction shall be taken as
nature of the experiments that regards the mode of
the court will be enlightened, presentation by the party. An
rather than confused. object may be merely set forth
for inspection, or some
When evidence of an experimental process may be
experiment is not admissible conducted in the tribunals
Evidence of experiments presence; whether the mode
performed is admissible in both involves a showing or doing,
civil and criminal cases when neither is in itself objectionable.
the judge, in his discretion, is of Nor is any distinction to be
the opinion that the evidence is taken as to the mode of
beneficial, and that it does not inspection by the tribunal. It
tend to distract or confuse. On may merely employ its senses
the other hand, tests and directly; or it may use some
experiments are not without suitable mechanical aid, such as
danger. Obviously, if the a microscope; and it may merely
experiment is too complicated look on, or it may take an active
to afford any fair inference, or if share in the process of
it cannot be performed in such a experimentation. Nor is there
manner as fairly to illustrate the any distinction as to the place of
fact to be found, it should be inspection; the thing may be
excluded. If the trial judge, brought into the court, or the
exercising reasonable judgment, tribunal may go to the place
concludes that evidence of such where the thing is.
experiment is more likely to
confuse than to shed light upon Object must be
the matter in dispute, he may inspected in open court and
exclude such evidence. It is in the presence of the
plain that evidence of an defendant When the trial
experiment whereby to test the court is of the opinion that the
ends of justice will be advanced of postponing the trial for the
by permitting the introduction of purpose, may suffice to
an object in evidence, the court overcome the advantages of a
may permit its examination or view, particularly when the
inspection, but such nature of the issue or of the
examination or inspection must object to be viewed renders the
be in open court, and in the view off small consequence.
presence of the defendant, and
at all times subject to the Ocular inspection or
control of the court. The rule view must be made in the
permitting an inspection by the presence of, or with notice
judge of places or premises, to the parties The inspection
when in his judgment the ends or view outside the court room
of justice will be promoted should be made in the presence
thereby, is simply an extension of the parties or at least
of the power of inspection to previous notice to them in order
places and premises which that they may show the object
cannot be brought into court. to be viewed. Such inspection
or view is a part of the trial,
Ocular inspection or inasmuch as evidence is thereby
view of an object out of being received, which is
court where the object in expressly authorized by law.
question cannot be produced be Thus, it is error for the judge to
produced in court because it is go alone to the land in question,
immovable or inconvenient to or to the place where the crime
remove, the natural proceeding was committed and take a view,
is for the tribunal to go to the without previous knowledge or
object in its place and there consent of the parties.
observe it. This process,
traditionally known as a view Constitutional Right
has been recognized as an not violated by inspection of
appropriate one. It should be scene of crime Provided that
remembered, however, that the same is with consent of and
whether or not an ocular accompanied by counsel for the
inspection or view of an object accused, it further appearing
out of the court should be made, that no evidence was taken
rest entirely on the sound during the inspection.
discretion of the trial court. The
inconvenience of adjourning Information obtained
court until a view can be had, or on a view is independent
evidence To be taken into DOCUMENTARY
consideration by the curt in EVIDENCE- evidence supplied
determining the issues in the by written instruments, or
derived from the conventional
case.
symbols, such as letters, by
which ideas are represented on
Order denying or material substances;
granting view not documents; documents
reviewable When it appears produced for the inspection of
that the condition of the the court or judge.
premises or property has
changed since the time of ADMISSIBILITY OF
DOCUEMNTARY EVIDENCE-
occurrence in issue and before
subject to the same basic rules
the demand for a view, or that on relevancy, materiality,
the facts involved are such that exclusionary rules and court
they can be accurately discretion as determined by the
described to the court by oral issues in the particular case.
testimony, or by the use of Identity and authenticity of the
maps or diagrams with proper document must be reasonably
established as a pre-requisite to
explanations, or view would be
its admission.
unreasonable expensive or
cause unreasonable delay, or IMPORTANT RULES ON
serve no useful purpose, unless DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE-
here appears a clear abuse of
discretion. 1. Best Evidence Rule
2. Rule on Secondary
Evidence
3. Parol Evidence Rule
4. Rule on Authentication
and Proof of
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Documents
5. Inadmissibility of
Section 2 Documentary written document in an
evidence unofficial language
unless translated in
DOCUMENT any English and Filipino
substance having any matter
expressed or described upon it
by marks capable of
being read. If it is produced
without regard to the message 2. Best Evidence Rule
which it contains, it is treated as
real evidence. BEST EVIDENCE or
PRIMARY EVIDENCE-
particular means of proof which party against whom secondary
is indicated by the nature of the evidence is sought to be
fact under investigation as the introduced is essential to bring
the best evidence rule into
most natural and satisfactory
application. Where secondary
that affords the greatest evidence has been admitted,
certainty of the fact in question the rule of evidence might have
and on its face indicates that no been successfully invoked if
better evidence remains behind. proper and timely objection had
been taken
BEST EVIDENCE RULE - is
that rule which requires the WHAT CONSTITUTES THE
highest grade of evidence ORIGINAL:
obtainable to prove a (a) The original of the
disputed fact. document is one the
contents of which are the
Purpose of the rule subject of inquiry;
requiring the production of
the best evidence: prevention (b) When a document is in
of fraud, because if the best two or more copies
evidence is not presented then
executed at or about the
the presumption of suppression
of evidence will be present. same time, with identical
contents, all such copies
Best evidence rule applies are equally regarded as
only when originals; and
the purpose of the proof is t
o establish the terms of (c) When an entry is
writing, therefore NOT repeated in the regular
applicable to external or course of business, one
collateral facts about the being copied from another
document such as its existence, at or near the time of the
execution or delivery. transaction, all the entries
are likewise equally
People v. Tandoy regarded as originals.
(1990)
The Best Evidence Rule applies Note:
only when the contents of the > Original may depend on
document are the subject of the substantive law
inquiry. It does not apply when applicable
the issue is only as to whether > Original may depend on
or not such document was the act of the parties
actually executed or in the >where there may be
circumstances relevant to its duplicate original, either is
execution. An objection by the an original ad may be
used without accounting original itself must be
for another presented.
>Whenever a document is
executed in several parts, each US vs Gregorio
part is primary evidence 17 Phil 522
> Whenever a document For only only presenting the
is executed in counterpart, Xerox copy of the falsified
each part executed by one documents, prosecution failed to
or more of the parties prove the corpus delicti of the
only, each counterpart is crime charged. In the absence
primary evidence as of the original document, it Is
against the parties who improper to conclude, with only
executed it copy of the said original in view,
that there has been a
falsification of the document
which was neither found nor
exhibited, because in such a
People vsSto. Tomas case, even the existence ofsuch
138 SCRA 206 document may be doubted.
The trial court correctly rejected
the xerox copy of the marriage
certificate, since the admission Non-production of the
would violate the best evidence original document unless
rule. justified in Section 3, gives rise
to the presumption of
suppression of evidence.
For the application of the Amended Documents-
best evidence, it is essential where a duplicate or copy is
that: amended or altered by the party
the original writing or if it is a or parties, it becomes the
private document, be first duly original.
identified, and a sufficient and a
sufficient foundation be laid, so Document executed in
as to entitle the writing to be two or more identical
admitted in evidence, and it contents each one of the parts
must be available to the is primary evidence and the
opposite party for cross- other need not be proved.
examination.
Mechanically reproduced
Best Evidence Rule in copies:
Criminal Cases In criminal h) Carbon copy-
cases, where the issue is not admissible as duplicate
only with respect to the original when executed
contents of the document but at the same time or
also as to whether such about the same time.
document actually existed, the Imperfect carbon
copies, although made l) Letter press copies-
at the same time as the merely secondary
original but if there is evidence as its prone
something else to be to improper
done for it to be reproduction and are
binding or there is not produced
incomplete signature, simultaneously as the
its not the best original
evidence. m) Thermofax- merely
i) Reproduction from the secondary evidence as
same matrix i.e. it lacks satisfactory
mimeograph, reproduction as some
hectograph- admissible portions are not clearly
as duplicate original printed
when produced from n) Photographs and Xerox-
the same matrix as merely secondary
original evidence since they are
j) Blueprints and vellum reproduced at a latter
tracings- have been time but if
held to be originals authenticated
rather than copies photostatic copy of
k) Telegraph and cable income tax returns,
messages- public and business
if the issue is the records are allowed as
contents of the evidence
telegram
as received by the People vsMangulabnan
addressee- then the
original dispatch is 52 OG 6532
the copy of the At the trial, presented as
message sent to the evidence a post-mortem report
addressee; of the injuries received by the
as sent by the deceased. This was admitted
sender- the original over the objection of the
is the message accused, who contend that a
delivered mere carbon copy is
inadmissible. The court ruled
that the fact the post-mortem
report is a mere carbon copy is
if the issue is the also of no moment for it has
inaccuracy of been signed by the physician
transmission, who executed the same and his
both telegrams as signature was identified b him at
sent and received the witness stand.
are originals
certainly the copies of the
Provincial Fiscal of weekly where the libelous article
Pampanga vs Reyes was published, and its
August 5, 1931
translation, constitute the best
The provincial fiscal of
evidence of the libel charged.
Pampanga filed two informations
The newspaper itself is the best
for libel against Guevarra. The
evidence of an article published
informations alleged that the
in it.
defendant, with malicious
intent, published on page 9 of
Thus if the issue is the contents
the weekly
of the articles sent for
paper IngMagumasid. The
publication, the best evidence is
defendant demurred on the
the manuscript. But is if issue is
ground of duplicity of
on what was actually published,
informations, he having
then the best evidence is the
published only one libelous
copy of the news paper.
article in the IngMagumasid for
July 13, 1930. The fiscal Respondent judge of the CFI
attempted to present as was required to admit Exhibits
evidence for the prosecution A, B, C, and D, in question.
Exhibits A, B, C, and D, which
are copies of
the IngMagumasid containing
the libelous article with the
innuendo. Counsel for the
defendant objected to this Manchester & Lawrence vs
evidence, which objection was Fisk
(1856)
sustained. Petitioner contends
A copy of the standard tariff rate
that the exhibits in question are posted at the railway depots,
the best evidence of the libel, the court held them to be the
the subject matter of the best evidence in an action over
information, and should a railway freight charge as each
therefore be admitted. of the printed copies as original
and the whole of the natre of
Issue: Whether the exhibits are duplicates, so that the proof of
anyone would be competent
admissible.
evidence of the contents of the
whole; there being necessary in
Ruling: The rule of procedure the whole nature of the process
which requires the production of of printing strong presumptive
the best evidence, is applicable evidence that the impression
to the present case. And
from the same types must be (AFWU) entered into a written
similar. contract whereby the Union
agreed to perform arrastre and
Section 3. Original stevedoring work in Iligan,
document must be effective for one month.
produced; exceptions
It was stipulated that the
GENERAL RULE: when Company would revoke the
the subject of the inquiry is the contract before the expiration of
contents of the document, the the agreed term, if the Union
original document must be failed to render proper service.
produced. After a month, the contract was
verbally renewed. In 1954, the
EXCEPTIONS: When Union sent a letter to CM
secondary evidence be requesting to recognize it as the
admitted exclusive bargaining unit, to
1. When the original has been load and unload he cargo of its
lost or destroyed, or cannot be vessels in Iligan. CM ignored the
produced in court, without bad request. The Union
faith on the part of the offeror; subsequently filed in CIR a
2. When the original is in the petition for certification election.
custody or under the control of Despite the certification case,
the party against whom the CM sent notice to the Union for
evidence is offered, and the termination of their contract and
latter fails to produce it after entered into a new contract with
reasonable notice; another stevedoring association.
3. When the original consists of
numerous accounts or other CM assailed that the termination
documents which cannot be of the contract was due to Union
examined in court without great workers inefficiency and that
loss of time and the fact sought the Company suffered financial
to be established from them is losses due to such service. To
only the general result of the ascertain its annual losses, CMs
whole; and manager hired auditors. CM
4. When the original is a public relied only upon such auditors
record in the custody of a public report and presented in court
officer or is recorded in a public only a summary of damages.
office The sales invoices were not
produced.
CompaniaMaritimavsAllied
Free Workers Union Issue: WON the non-submission
77 SCRA 24 (1977) as evidence of the records of
the alleged losses of the
Facts: In 1952, Company is excused because of
CompaniaMaritima (CM) and the rule exempting voluminous
Allied Free Workers Union
records from being produced in However, a book of account
court. containing only a single entry or
charge of money lent, which
Ruling: The best evidence of the show no mutual recourse of
Companys losses would have dealing between the parties, is
been the sales invoices instead not admissible.
of the Manager oral testimony.
The rule that when the original
consists of numerous accounts 2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE
or other documents which
cannot be examined in court SECTION 5, RULE 130
without great loss of time and
the fact sought to be Sec. 5 . When original document is unavaila
established in only the general document has been lost or destroyed, o
result of the whole, the original court, the offeror, upon proof of its execu
writings need not be produce, cause of its unavailability without bad fai
CANNOT BE APPLIED because its contents by a copy, or by a recital
the voluminous character f the authentic document, or by the testimony
records was NOT DULY
stated.
ESTABLISHED. It is also a
requisite for the application of
the rule that the records of 1. Source.This provision is a
accounts should be made
accessible to the adverse party reproduction of Section 4,
so that the correctness of the Rule 130 the Rules of Court
summary may be tested on with the following
cross-examination. differences:
When an entry is repeated in
the regular course of Section
Section 4
business, one being copied 5
from another at or near the time Title secondar when
of the transaction, all the entries of the y original
are regarded as originals. For as sectio evidence documen
long as they are made within n when t is
reasonable time, it is sufficient. original is unavaila
A much longer but reasonable lost or ble
delay and when entries appear destroyed
to have been made while the
Chan and loss deleted
memory as to the transaction as
ges or
clear or the source of such
destructio
knowledge was unimpaired, still
n, or
makes it admissible.
unavailabi
lity;
may be b. It is that class of
proved; evidence which is
recollecti relevant to the fact in
on issue, it being first
Added: shown that the primary
or evidence of the fact is
existenc not obtainable.
e and
the c. Performs the same
cause of function as that of
its primary evidence but is
unavaila LESS RELIABLE and
bility WORTHY OF BELIEF
without Ex. A warrant itself is
bad faith better evidence of what
on his it contains than a copy
part, of it
may A check is better
prove evidence of what it
and the contains than the stub
words On why secondary
docume evidence is admitted:
nt; the
offeror; It is admitted upon the
testimo theory that the original cannot
ny; in be produced by the party by
the order whom the evidence is offered
stated within a reasonable time by the
exercise of reasonable diligence.
- The parol evidence rule does not apply, and may not properly be
invoked by either party to the litigation against the other, where
at least one of the parties to the suit is not a party or a privy of a
party to the written instrument in question and does not base a
claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the
instrument or the relation established thereby. Lechugas vs. CA,
143 SCRA 335
- That means that there is no evidence on the terms of the will and
of its attestation clause other than the contents of the same
- If the ambiguity is patent (one which appears upon the face of
the instrument)
o extrinsic evidence not admissible
o testators intention is to be ascertained from the words of
the will, taking into consideration the circumstances under
which it was made, excluding oral declarations
- If the ambiguity is latent (one which is not discoverable from a
perusal of the will)
o extrinsic evidence admissible
when it names a person as the object of a gift or a thing
as the subject of it and there are two persons or things
that answer such name or description
where there is a mis-description of the object or subject
Exceptions
When parol evidence is admissible
- Where the words are all sensible, and have a settled meaning but
the same time consistently admit of two interpretations.
- In such a case, parol evidence may be admitted to show the
circumstances under which the contract was made, and the
subject-matter to which the parties referred
Proof of Fraud
- The prohibition does not apply where the purpose of the parole
evidence is to show that no written contract ever existed and
that there never existed any consideration upon which such an
agreement could be founded.
- Parole Evidence Rule finds no application where the validity of
the document is the very fact in dispute.
Subsequent Agreements
Held:
Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 9.Evidence of written agreements. When the terms
of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered
as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be,
between the parties and their successors in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or
add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his
pleading:
(a)An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the
written agreement;
(b)The failure of the written agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
(c)The validity of the written agreement; or
(d)The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties
or their successors in interest after the execution of the
written agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) are applicable in the case at bench.
The failure of the Deed of Sale to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties was clearly put in issue in the Answer of the
Heirs of Alfonso to the Complaint. It was alleged that the Deed of Sale
was only made to lessen the payment of estate and inheritance taxes
and not meant to transfer ownership. The exception in paragraph (b) is
allowed to enable the court to ascertain the true intent of the parties,
and once the intent is clear, it shall prevail over what the document
appears to be on its face. As the true intent of the parties was duly
proven in the present case, it now prevails over what appears on the
Deed of Sale.
The validity of the Deed of Sale was also put in issue in the
Answer, and was precisely one of the issues submitted to the RTC for
resolution. The operation of the parol evidence rule requires the
existence of a valid written agreement. It is, thus, not applicable in a
proceeding where the validity of such agreement is the fact in dispute,
such as when a contract may be void for lack of consideration.
Considering that the Deed of Sale has been shown to be void for being
absolutely simulated and for lack of consideration, the Heirs of Alfonso
are not precluded from presenting evidence to modify, explain or add
to the terms of the written agreement.
Indeed, the applicability of the parol evidence rule requires that
the case be between parties and their successors-in-interest. In this
case, both the Heirs of Alfonso and the Heirs of Policronio are
successors-in-interest of the parties to the Deed of Sale as they claim
rights under Alfonso and Policronio, respectively. The parol evidence
rule excluding evidence aliunde, however, still cannot apply because
the present case falls under two exceptions to the rule, as discussed
above.
Facts:
Issue: Whether or not the parol evidence rule should be strictly applied in
labor cases.
Held:
Facts:
Issue: Whether or not the unilateral Deed of Sale should be the basis to
determine the true consideration.
Held:
In any event, the finding that the true consideration was only
P227,460 and not P1,531,564 is supported by the evidence on record.
Here, the Sandiganbayan found that the unilateral Deed of Sale was
the official document used by the buyer AFP-RSBS and seller Plaza in
the registration of the sale; as well as in the payment of the
registration fee, transfer tax, capital gains tax, and documentary
stamp tax necessary to effect transfer. This finding was not disputed
by the petitioner.
Neither did the seller or the buyer dispute the validity of the
unilateral Deed of Absolute Sale. The subsequent bilateral Deed of
Absolute Sale did not repeal or modify the earlier sale either. As the
deed was a valid agreement of conveyance, notwithstanding that only
the seller signed the deed, theSandiganbayan did not err when it used
the unilateral Deed of Sale as basis to determine the true
consideration.
Facts:
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
Interpretation of Contracts under the CIVIL CODE:
Article 1370 Civil Code - If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no
doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its
stipulations shall control.
If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the
latter shall prevail over the former.
Article 1371, Civil Code - In order to judge the intention of the contracting
parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally
considered.
Art. 1372, Civil Code- However general the terms of a contract may be,
they shall not be understood to comprehend things that are distinct and
cases that are different from those upon which the parties intended to
agree.
- Where a specific provision in a contract is followed by a general
provision covering the same subject matter, the former will be held to
prevail over the latter when the two cannot stand together.
- Where both the general and special provisions may be given
reasonable effect, both are to be retained.
Art. 1373, Civil Code- If some stipulation of any contract should admit of
several meanings, it shall be understood as bearing that import which is
most adequate to render it effectual.
Qualification of Witnesses
-Can perceive, and perceiving can make known their perception to others.
Such testimony must be judged on their own merits. If they are clear
ad convinving and are not destroyed by other evidence of record, they may
be believed. And the testimony of these witnesses fulfil the requirement.
A mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a
witness.
General Rule
During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or
against the other without the consent of the affected spouse.
Reason
This is based on principles which are deemed important to preserve the
marriage relation as one of full confidence and affection, and that this is
regarded as more important to the public welfare than that the exigencies of
the lawsuits should authorize domestic peace to be disregarded, for the sake
of ferreting out facts within the knowledge of strangers.
This applies only to a lawful wife not a bigamous one, nor to a paramour,
nor to an affiance.
Scope
The rule forbidding one spouse to testify for or against the other applies to
any form of testimony; therefore it protects against using the spouse-
witness admission, or against compelling him/her to produce documents.
However, res gestae declarations of husband and wife are admissible for or
against each other, even though each is incompetent to testify.
A husband may not testify for or against his wife without her consent; nor a
wife for or against her husband without his consent, except in a civil case by
one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed against
the other. This provision deals with two different matters which rest on
different grounds of policy: the disqualification of the husband and wife to
testify in each others behalf, as well as their privilege not to testify against
each other.
People vs. Pansensoy, 388 SCRA 669 (Riano)
Under this rule, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for
or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except
in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latters direct descendants
or ascendants. However, objections to the competency of a husband
and wife to testify in a criminal prosecution against the other may be
waived as in the case of other witnesses generally. The objection to the
competency of the spouse must be made when he or she is first
offered as a witness. In this case, the incompetency was waived by
appellants failure to make a timely objection to the admission of his
wifes testimony.
It has been held that no unfavorable inference may be drawn from a fact that
a party spouse invokes the privilege to prevent the witness-spouse from
testifying against him or her.
Exceptions
a. that the case in which the husband or the wife is called to testify is not
a civil case instituted by one against the other
b. that it is not a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the
other
Waiver of Privilege
Wigmore asserts that the privilege of objecting to testimony concerning anti-
marital facts belongs to the spouse who is a party to the action and not to
the spouse who is being used as a witness. This seems to be the rule in this
jurisdiction. Hence, the right to object to the competency of one spouse
pertains solely to the spouse-party and not to the other spouse who is
offered as a witness.
Suggested Answer
Leticia cannot testify. Section 22 of Rule 130 bars her testimony
without the consent of the husband during the marriage. The
separation of the spouses has not operated to terminate their
marriage. (Note: This is an answer based on the tenor of the Rules of
Court.)
The following answer should also be considered:
Leticia may testify over the objection of her husband. Where the
marital and domestic relations between her and the accused-husband
have become so strained that there is no more harmony, peace, or
tranquility to be preserved, there is no longer any reason to apply the
Marital Disqualification Rule. (People vs. Castaneda, 271 SCRA 504;
Alvarez vs. Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72)
Suggested Answer
The objection of Pedro should not be sustained. The testimony is
admissible because the witness is not disqualified to testify. Those
disqualified under the dead mans statute or the survivorship
disqualification rule are parties to a case or persons in whose behalf a
case is prosecuted. The witness is not one of those enumerated under
the rule (Sec. 23, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
d. that his testimony refers to any matter of fact which occurred before
the death of such deceased person or before such person became of
unsound mind This refers to testimonies which relates to any matter
of fact occurring before the death of the decedent or before the person
became of unsound mind. The phrase matter of fact is literally
interpreted to include not only facts tending to establish the claim or
demand but also incidental facts. Negative facts are not included in the
matters prohibited by law. The testimony of a plaintiff denying the
occurrence of a transaction with the deceased may be admitted on the
ground that such plaintiff does not testify to a fact occurring before
the death of the decedent but on the contrary, that such fact has not
occurred.
Waiver
A waiver occurs when plaintiffs deposition is taken by the representative of
the estate, when counsel for the representative cross-examines the plaintiff
as to matters occurring during deceased lifetime.
Suggested Answer
False. The rule bars only a party plaintiff or his assignor or a
person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. Maria is merely a witness
and is not one of those enumerated as barred from testifying.
1. Source
A. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE
2. The rule
- The husband or the wife during of after the marriage, cannot b
examined without the consent of the other as to any communication
received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage.
Incompetency incompetency
as to anti- as to
marital facts privilege
communicatio
n
Prohibits Prohibits only
adverse as to
testimony knowledge
regardless of obtained
the source through
confidence or
the marital
realtio
Exists only whenExists whether
a party to the the husband or
action is the wife is a party
husband or wife to the action or
not
Ceases upon Continues even
death or either after the
spouse termination of
the marriage.
The clients representative may, waive the privilege, but only when the
application of the rule would be disadvantageous to his estate.
The waiver of the right precludes the assertion of the right upon appeal
or upon subsequent trial of the case but does not constitute a waiver
of the privilege in another independent transaction.
Limited to civil cases only: in criminal cases the privilege does not
apply for the maintenance of public order and the life and liberty of the
citizens are deemed more important than the purpose for which the
privilege was created
- Not conferred to shield/ weapon to be used by a person charged
with crime
Not indispensable that the patient should have actually employed
the physician, surgeon or obstetrician. May be applied in extremis
in view to a curative treatment any information obtained by him for
that reason is privilege
Covers all facts learned by the observation and by all methods necessary to
enable the physician to prescribe, including communication by the physician
by third person on behalf of the patient to enable him to perform his
professional duty. Communications of the body, observation of
symptoms, results of the doctors examination, the patients
condition as fund by the doctor, the name of the ailment, the
nature of any operation performed, the statement of facts or
opinion given to the patient. Including opinions and prescriptions.
The court not the physician determines whether the physician must testify,
court may hold preliminary hearing to determine circumstances. Not the
duty of the court to require physician to testify.
After the patient has gone to his grave, the living are not permitted to
impair his name and disgrace his memory. An express waiver maybe made
by the patient himself, or the deceased persons representative or the
beneficiary of the insurance policy.
Also by giving express consent, to the testimony of the physician, or by
calling the physician to testify as to the privilege matter. The guardian of the
minor may also give his consent provided that it is not to the minors
prejudice.
Implied waiver is found when the patient himself takes the stand
to testify about his physical condition, including the sending of a
physicians certificate of a cause of death, as part of the proofs of
death required by a life insurance policy.
Once the waiver is made, such waiver is final and cannot be recalled.
Privilege is not waived by the patient in making voluntary disclosure outside
the court. Where the waiver is procured by fraud or coercion, the waiver is
not effect and the privilege may not be claimed.
Reason for the rule: It is the duty of every citizen to communicate to his
government any information which he has of the commission of an offense
against the law;
and a court of justice will not compel or allow such information to be
disclosed, either by the subordinate officer to whom it is given, by the
informer himself or by any other person without the permission of the
government.
The evidence being excluded not for the protection of the witness or of the
party in the particular case, but upon general grounds of public policy,
because of the confidential nature of such communication.
Public interest means more than mere curiosity, something in which the
public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest by which their
legal rights or liabilities are affected.
Disclosure of the name of the informer maybe necessary in a case where the
accused claims
he is the victim of false accusations by an enemy
Or where he claims he is the victim of a groundless arrest or
persecution by the police
+ TRADE SECRETS
There is a privilege not to disclose ones trade secrets. It covers usually
formulas of manufacture, but may also include price lists and customers
lists. It is not absolute; the trial court may compel disclosure where it is
indispensable for doing justice.
2. Testimonial Privilege
Scope: The former filial privilege taken from Art. 315 of the Civil Code was
expanded to include other direct ascendants and to exempt parents from
being compelled to testify against their children or other direct descendants.
When privilege may be invoked: the privilege may now be invoked in both
civil and criminal cases.
1. Admission defined.
An admission is a voluntary acknowledgement in express terms or by
implication, by a party interest or by another by whose statement he is
legally bound, against his interest, of the existence or truth of a fact in
dispute material to the issue.
2. Admission Classified.
Admission may be classified into judicial, extra-judicial, express and
implied.
3. Certainty.
An admission should possess the same degree of certainty as would be
required in the evidence which it represents, and hence mere
conjectures or suggestions as to what might have happened are not
competent.
THE UNITED STATES, vs. JOSE CORRALES G.R. No. L-9230, Nov. 10,
1914
Primary evidence;
Secondary evidence;
ADMISSION BY ACT
ADMISSION BY DECLARATION
The appellant claims that there is no competent evidence that the victim
and the appellant were husband and wife. The claim is without merit. The
testimony of the appellant on direct examination disclosed several times
that she was married to the deceased in both Church and civil marriages.
On cross examination, she testified on the exact date of her marriage to
the deceased (4 July 1934) and the place (Pili, Camarines Sur) where they
were married. She did not only admit that the deceased was her husband
but also brought out the fact that out of the marriage they had five children
and that only three are living, namely: Glenda, Manuel and Felix. Indeed,
there could be no better proof of marriage in a parricide case than the
admission by the accused of the existence of such marriage. More, Ramon
M. Velasco, mayor of Libon, Albay, and uncle of the deceased testified that
when he saw the appellant in the afternoon of 13 October 1954 at the
municipal jail, she immediately begged for his forgiveness and told him that
she had shot her husband Pepe (referring to the deceased) because the
latter had a mistress and she could not bear or suffer it any longer.
The two statements signed by Roa, one in 1892 and the other in 1893, are
competent evidence against him. They are admissions by him to the effect
that at that time the pueblo was the owner of the property in question. They
are, of course, not conclusive against him. He was entitled to, and did
present evidence to overcome the effect of these admissions. The evidence
does not make out a case of estoppel against him. (sec. 333, par. 1, Code of
Civil Procedure.)
The admissibility of these statements made by Roa do not rest upon section
278 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which relates to declarations or
admissions made by persons not a party to the suit, but it rests upon the
principle that when the defendant in a suit has himself made an admission of
any fact pertinent to issue involved, it can be received against him.
The evidence does not show that he has any documentary title to any of the
land. He introduced in evidence a paper, executed by the principales of the
town in 1860, which purported to give him and Leonardo Evangelista the
ownership of a certain tract of land in said barrio for the purpose of
cultivating the same. The title to this land could not have been granted by
this instrument, because the persons executing it had no power to convey it.
There is nothing in the description contained in this document which
indicates that it is the same land described in the complaint in this action.
The Plaintiff, however, testified that it was, and that he had been in
possession thereof from 1860 to 1902, when he was dispossessed by the
Defendants.
There is no other evidence in the case which relates to any of the Defendants
except to the Defendant Tranquilino Bascos. As to him the Plaintiff introduced
in evidence a document signed by Bascos in May, 1893. This document
stated that the tract of land for which Bascos had obtained the deed from the
State had been returned by him to its former owner, the Plaintiff.
It showed that the Defendant Bascos had not delivered the possession of this
land to the Plaintiff, and his claim is that he was induced to sign the
document by reason of threats made at the time by the parish priest of the
locality. It is claimed by the Plaintiff that this document operated as a
transfer of the title of the land from the Defendant Bascos to the Plaintiff. We
do not think that it can be given any such effect. It amounted, in our opinion,
only to an extrajudicial admission that the Plaintiff was the owner of the land.
It was competent for the Defendant to overcome the effect of this admission
by evidence showing that the Plaintiff was not in fact the owner of the land,
and the evidence produced by the Defendant did, in our opinion, prove that
the Plaintiff was not the owner.
The fact is indisputable that these lands did not belong to the defendant, and
if he bought them at public auction in December, 1908, for P661, he did so
with his wife Asuncions own money. This is evidenced by Exhibit A, a
document signed by the said Salvio before the notary Nicolas Tomas on
March 27, 1909, in which he clearly sets forth that the said sum of P661,
Philippine currency, which he paid for the properties above-mentioned,
belonged to the private funds of his wife Asuncion Gefes. He furthermore
declared in the said document that she was the true and absolute owner of
the said lands by him purchased out of his wifes funds and in her behalf.
This document was ratified before a notary and attests the truth of all its
contents, even against third persons. The defendants denial of its
authenticity is not supported by any reliable evidence, nor by the affidavit
(record, p. 75) presented for the purpose of obtaining a reopening of the
case. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the defendant Salvio cannot be
heard to repudiate what he solemnly declared in a notarial document.
Later in the proceedings an answer was presented in her behalf. In this she
stated that what she declared when asked to recognize the authenticity of
the documents was that her deceased husband owed Lavin 1,171 pesos and
not 1,233 pesos. It does not appear that she signed this answer. It may have
been signed by her solicitor. Under these circumstances the contents of the
answer can not be considered as admissions made by her which could be
used as evidence against her in another proceeding entirely disconnected
with the subject-matter of the proceeding in which the answer was made.
There is, therefore, nothing in the proceeding of 1894 which proves either
the existence of a debt from the husband Paulino Lavin or any recognition of
such supposed indebtedness by the deceased.
b) As impeaching evidence- if proof of the admissions is sought for
impeachment purposes, a proper foundation must be laid for the impeaching
questions, by calling the attention of such party to his former statement so
as to give him an opportunity to explain before such admissions are offered
in evidence.
JUAN YSMAEL & CO., INC., vs.NAGEEB T. HASHIM and AFIFE ABDO
CHEYBAN GORAYEB G.R. No. L-26247, March 18, 1927
It is almost universally accepted that unless a ground is thus laid upon cross-
examination, evidence of contradictory statements are not admissible to
impeach a witness; though undoubtedly the matter is to a large extent in the
discretion of the court.
ADMISSION BY OMISSION
The plaintiffs having been made it at a certain rate and having notified the
defendant thereof it was clearly his duty to object to the rate if he was not
satisfied with it. As is seen, he made no objection whatever at the time, and
as far as appears never made any objection until he filed his answer herein.
The evidence is sufficient to show that he assented to the rate at which the
change was made. The judgment of the court below with reference to this
objection must be sustained.
Admission not conclusive evidence- The general rule is that admissions are
not conclusive when proved, but maybe disproved by ordinary evidence. This
rule is not affected by the fact that the admission was made under oath as a
witness or otherwise. Weight to be given to evidence of admissions may
depend upon various matters affecting its accuracy.
SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. BEDIA, G.R. No. L-2252, May 31,
1949
As to the appellants' having repudiated their signatures, the same was a self-
serving act, more indicative of a belated intention to squirm out of a
disadvantageous transaction, after they entered it with open eyes, which is
no ground for setting the same aside (Noble vs. City of Manila, 67 Phil. 1).
Certainly, it should take much weightier proof to invalidate a written
instrument (cf. Mendezona vs. Phil. Sugar Estates, 41 Phil. 493; Bank of the
Phil. Is. vs. Fidelity Surety Co., 51 Phil. 57).
2) when they are in the form of complaint and exclamation of pain and
suffering;
4) where the credibility of a party has been assailed on the ground that his
testimony is a recent fabrication, provided they were made at a time
when a motive to misrepresent did not exist;
6) When they are offered without objection, the evidence cannot afterward
be objected to as incompetent.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. DEMIAR G.R. No. L-15130, May 31,
1960
It is also contended for appellant that the trial court erred in admitting
appellant's letter to his brother-in-law Lope Mayol (Exh. A) and that there is
nothing in the letter which would show that appellant admitted his guilt.
Appellant argues that, instead of considering said letter as evidence
indicative of his guilt, the trial court should have considered it in his favor,
because he disclaimed therein asked forgiveness from his sisters and begged
them to testify that their mother died of natural illness and not of
strangulation, we fail to see why said statements could not be taken as an
admission of appellant's guilt. As to the argument that said letter should
have been considered in appellant's favor, it may stated that self-serving
statements made extra-judicially cannot be admitted as evidence in favor of
the person making them, although the incriminating statement is evidence
against him.
Compromise defined
Future support
Future legitime
The traditional ground for this rule is that the payment or offer is
usually made from the humane impulses and not from an admission of
liability.
General rule:
Admission by a co-partner
Admission by an agent
Admission by conspirator
Admission by privies
Admission by partner
That the admission refers to a matter within the scope of his authority
That the admission was made during the existence of the partnership
The admissions of one partner are received against another, not on the
ground that they are parties to the record, but on the ground that they are
identified in interest, and that each is agent for the other, and that the acts
or declarations of one during the existence of the partnership, while
transacting, while transacting its business and within the scope of the
business are evidence against the other or others.
Admission by agent
that the agency be previously proved by evidence other than the
admission itself
that the admission was made during the existence of the agency
that there exists a joint interest between the joint owner, joint debtor, or
other person jointly interested with the part and such party, which joint
inter must first be made to appear by evidence other than the act of
declaration itself
that the act or declaration was made while the interest was subsisting
that the act relate to the subject matter of the joint interest for otherwise
it would be immaterial and irrelevant
There may be many legatees and devisees, but, although they derive
their benefit from a common source (testator) they clearly have no rights
based on the benefit of each other. They have interest in common in that
each derives his interest form the same source; but plainly they have no joint
interest through any relation inter se.
that the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission
itself
it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the
conspiracy
Jurisprudence:
People vs. Carbonel (43 Phil. 65, 78)
If it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their
acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and
cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual
meeting among them to concert means is proved.
Radin vs. U.S., 189 Fed. 568, 570 111 CCA 6
Limitations of rule
The rule that the silence of a party against who a claim or a right is asserted
may be construed as an admission of the truth of the assertion rests on that
instinct of nature, which leads us to resist an unfounded demand. The rule
rests on that universal principle of human conduct which leads us to repel an
unfounded imputation or claim.
RULE 130
1. Source
a. The title of the section Evidence of similar acts has been changed
to Similar acts as evidence in the present.
2. In general
The general rule is that the law will not consider evidence that a
person has done a certain act at a particular time as probative of a
contention that he has done a similar act at another time.
It is improper for the court to assume that the motive of the previous
crimes is continuing and is the basis of the present crime.
If evidence of previous crimes is to be used, the accused shall face
charges which he has no information and confuses him in his defense.
Evidence of collateral matters must not be received as substantive
evidence of the offenses in the present trial.
4. Rule must be strictly enforced
The general rule is that evidence is not admissible which shows that
the accused in a criminal case has committed a crime wholly
independent of the offense of the present trial.
A man may have committed many crimes, and still be innocent of the
crime presently charged.
One who commits one crime may be more likely to commit another;
yet, logically, one crime does not prove another, nor tend to prove
another, unless there is such a relation between them that proof of one
tends to prove the other.
Examples:
a. On a charge against X, a clerk, of stealing from his employers
sage, the safe having been opened by manipulating the
combination lock, X denied having knowledge of such combination.
Here the fact that X had been seen on a previous instance of
surreptitiously opening the safe would be admissible to show his
knowledge.
Exceptions:
1. Source
The word own in the Rules of Court has been deleted in the present
provision and the word personal has been added.
2. Generally
The witness can testify only to those facts which he knows from his
personal knowledge, that is, which are derived from his own perception.
3. Hearsay evidence
Hearsay evidence has been defined as evidence which derives its value,
not solely from the credit to be given to the witness upon the stand, but
in part from the veracity and competency of some other persons.
Hearsay is not limited to oral testimony. A writing may be hearsay.
Evidence is hearsay when its probative value depends in whole or in
part, on the competency and credibility of some persons other that the
witness.
Hearsay evidence is the evidence not of what the witnesses knows
himself but of what he has heard from others.
4. Reason for excluding hearsay evidence
One reason is the fact that hearsay testimony is not subject to the
tests which can ordinarily be applied for the ascertainment of the truth
of testimony, since the declarant is not present and available for cross-
examination.
The court is without opportunity to test the credibility of hearsay
statements by observing the demeanor of the person who made them.
The hearsay rule does not apply where, regardless of the truth or the
falsity of a statement, the fact that it has been made is relevant, the
hearsay rule does not apply, but the statement may be shown.
Groups
The statements from which the facts in issue may be inferred, may be
testified to by witnesses without violating the hearsay rule. Of this
kind are:
a. Statements of a person showing his state of mind, that is his mental
condition, knowledge, belief, intention and other emotions;
b. Statements of a person which show his physical condition, as illness
and the like;
c. Statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to
the state of mind of another, that is, knowledge, belief, motive,
good or bad faith, etc. of the latter;
d. Those which may identify the date, place, and person in question;
and,
e. Those showing the lack of credibility of a witness.
Reason: Both the original witness and the interpreter are under oath and
subject to cross-examination.
Exceptions:
4. Scope
Only in homicide cases for the killing of the declarant and now its
extended to civil cases.
1. Source
This is a reproduction of Section 33, Rule 130 of the Rules with the
difference that the phrase or outside the Philippines and the words
pecuniary or moral have been deleted in the present provision.
5. Scope
Those which are at variance with the declarants property rights, as for
instance, where he, being in possession of a chattel or a piece of land,
declares that he is not the owner thereof, or that he is holding it as a mere
trustee, or that he has already sold it, and the like.
Sec. 39 .
Act or Declaration about Pedigree.
Pedigree defined.
- It is the history of the family descent which is transmitted from one
generation to another by both oral and written declarations and by
traditions.
- May includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the
dates when and places where these facts occurred, the names of the
relatives, and the facts of family history intimately connected.
- Includes also paternity and legitimacy.
Reason of Admissibility
To avoid a failure of justice, as greater evils are apprehended from the
rejection of such proof than from its admission and that individuals are
generally supposed to know and to be interested in those facts of family
history about which they converse, and that they are generally under little
temptation to state untruths in respect to such matter.
e) The relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is
in question must be shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration
- Generally, the relationship of declarant to the family concerned must
be established by evidence other than the statement of declarant
himself.
- Exception, where the subject of the declaration is the declarants own
relationship to another person it seems absurd to require, as a
foundation for the admission of the declaration, proof of the very facts
which the declaration is offered to establish.
- Evidence to prove relationship may either direct or circumstantial,
such as declarants bearing the family name or a name identical with
that of the subject of declaration, recognition of declarant by the
family, or mention of him in family conveyance and other dispositions
of property.
Sec. 40
Family Reputation or Tradition regarding Pedigree.
The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the
controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may
be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a
member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in
family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on rings,
family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree.
Reputation or Tradition in matters of pedigree
- meant such declaration and statements as have come down from
generation to generation from deceased relatives in such a way even
though it cannot be said or determined which of the deceased relatives
originally made them, or was personally cognizant of the facts therein
stated.
- It appears that such declarations and statement were made as family
history, ante litem motam (before the controversy), by a deceased person
connected by blood or marriage with the person whose pedigree is to be
established.
Reason for Admissibility
- Family affairs are constantly talked over in the family, and the members
who know what happened tell what they know, with spontaneous
sincerity, to those who did not know.
- Declaration as to pedigree made by deceased although based upon
hearsay within the family, and that, having been made before any
controversy had arisen, there is no motive to speak other than the truth.
Requisites for Admissibility
a) There is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any members of a
family
- Reputation in the family gives rise to an inference to the existence of
such facts as birth, descent, failure of issue, heirship, identity,
marriage, celibacy, parentage, or relationship; or facts incidentally
connected with genealogy, such as residence or the dates of events of
family history; and evidence of such reputations will be received on an
issue of pedigree concerning any member of any branch of the family
- Tradition in the family, being a form of family history or reputation is
admissible to prove facts of genealogy
Age
- Members of the family of the person in question, or others having an
intimate acquaintance with the family, may testify as to age,
although their testimony is based on family tradition or reputation
Death
- Evidence of reputation in the family or in the community or family
tradition, has been held admissible to establish the fact of death,
provided there has been a considerable lapse of time.
- Hearsay evidence is inadmissible to prove the manner or cause of
death.
b) The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person, concerned
existed previous to the controversy
- Common reputation or tradition arising after the controversy is
supposed to be tainted with bias and therefore unreliable.
c) The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition regarding the
pedigree of the person concerned must be a member of the family of
said person, either by consanguinity or affinity.
- Relationship between the witness and the family need not be proved
by independent evidence; it may be shown by the witness own
testimony.
Sec. 41
Common reputation
Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, respecting
facts of public or general interest more than thirty years old, or
respecting marriage or moral character, may be given in evidence.
Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as
evidence of common reputation.
Sec. 42
Part of res gestae
Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking
place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the
circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res gestae.
So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the
issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the
res gestae.
Sec. 43
Entries in the course of business
Entries made at, or near the time of transactions to which they refer,
by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to
know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie
evidence, 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.
General Rule
- Books of account of a party or entries therein, are admissible in his favor
to show the recorded transactions when a proper foundation is laid and
the requisites to admissibility have been met.
Reason for Admissibility
a) Necessity is given as a ground for admitting entries in that they are the
best available evidence
b) Trustworthiness
Requisites for Admissibility
a) Entries must have been made at or near the time of the transaction to
which they refer
- It is sufficient if they are made within a reasonable time thereafter, in
the ordinary course of the business of the party making them
b) Entrant must have been in a position to know the facts stated in the
entries
- If the entry is based on reports, oral or written, numerous persons
cooperating, who had personal knowledge of their own items but did
not themselves make the entries, the entries may be received, either
by calling the entrant alone to the stand or by the testimony of one
who can verify the method of compiling them.
c) Entries must have been made by entrant in his professional capacity or in
the performance of his duty
- To constitute a profession, the employment or vocation must be such
as exacts the use or application of special learning or attainment of
some kind.
- Where the entry was made in the a professional capacity and in the
course of professional conduct, or in the performance of duty and in
the ordinary or regular course of business or duty, there are three
guarantees of their trustworthiness.
i. Habit and system of making record with regularity result in accuracy;
ii. Errors may easily be detected because the entries are made in the
regular course of professional conduct, performance of duty, or the
ordinary and regular duties of the person making the entries; and
iii. If the entries are made in pursuance of his duty, legal or to a superior,
the additional risk of censure and disgrace to the entrant makes them
presumably correct.
d) Entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty
- Hence, such entries made constitute only one of a variety of
circumstances, sanctioned by judiciary practice, acceptable as
presumptive evidence of the accuracy and truthfulness of the entry
and as a practical substitute for the conventional test of cross-
examination.
e) Entrant must be deceased or unable to testify
- In order to qualify an entry, there must be a necessity for its
admission as evidence and this is satisfied by proof of the death of
the entrant.
- When declarant is alive, entries may be used as memorandum to
refresh his memory as witness.
Mode of Proving Entries
- It is required that the entries be properly identified or authenticated, and
generally, their completeness, and correctness, regularly, and fairly as
well as the method of making them, must be established
Sec. 44
Entries in official records
Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a
public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a
duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated.
General Rule
- The division of documentary evidence embracing public or official records
and reports includes acts of the legislature, judicial records, and records
and reports of administrative officers.
- Any such record or document or a properly authenticated copy or
transcript thereof is admissible in the trial of an action, subject to the
same requirements of relevancy and materiality as apply to private
writings.
Reason for Admissibility
a) Necessity consists in the practical impossibility of requiring the
officials attendance as a witness to testify to the innumerable
transactions occurring in the course of his duty and requiring to be
evidence.
b) Trustworthiness
i. in the sense of official duty which has led to the making of the
statement;
ii. in the penalty which usually is affixed to a breach of that duty;
iii. in the routine and disinterested origin of most of such statements;
and
iv. I the publicity of record, which makes more likely the prior exposure
of such errors as might have occurred
Requisites for Admissibility
a) That the written statement was made by public officer or by another
person specially enjoined by law to do so;
b) That it was made by the public officer in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law; and
c) That the public officer or the other person had sufficient knowledge of
the facts by him state, which must have been acquired by him personally
or through official information
Public Officer
- It is not necessary that the record, should be kept by the chief public
officer himself, it is sufficient if the entries are made under his direction by
person authorized by him.
Performance of Duty by Public Officer
- It is essential that the official statement should have been made by a
public officer in the performance of his duty, or by another person in the
performance of his duty, specially enjoined by law.
Unavailability of Entrant Need not be Shown
- His absence is being excused from appearing in court in order that public
business be not deranged.
Proof of Official Entries
- Entries may be proved by the production of the books or records
themselves or by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof.
Authentication
- The extraordinary degree of confidence reposed in documents of a public
nature is founded principally upon the circumstance that they have been
made by authorized and accredited agents appointed for the purpose.
Probative value
- Entries in public records made by a public officer in the performance of
the duty specially enjoined by law are only prima facie evidence of the
fact therein stated, and their probative value may be either substantiated
or nullified by other competent evidence.
SECTION 45, RULE 130
The admissibility of commercial lists and the like as evidence even though
the authors, compilers or publishers thereof cannot be cross-examined as
witness is based on necessity and trustworthiness; necessary to because of
the inaccessibility of the authors, computers, or publisher in other jurisdiction
but also because the great practical inconvenience in summoning each
individual whose personal knowledge has gone to make up the final result.
Authentication
Historical Works
Scientific Treatise
Law
When the law involved in a controversy is a domestic law, the court is bound
to take judicial notice thereof, and no proof is necessary whatever. Foreign
law, a distinction as to proof is laid down between written and unwritten law.
Written law may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy
attested to by the officer having legal custody of the record, or by his
deputy, and must be accompanied with a certificate that such officer has the
custody. In Unwritten law, the oral testimony of expert witnesses is
admissible, as are printed and published books of reports of decisions of the
courts of the country concerned if proved to be commonly admitted in such
courts.
Under our rules of private international law, foreign law is considered as any
other matter of fact, which must be properly pleaded and proved. If not
properly proved, the presumption arises that foreign law is the same as
domestic law.
Philippine Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign law. Failure to
prove foreign law whether unwritten under rule 130, sec. 46 or written under
rule 132, sec. 24, raises the presumption that the law is the same as ours.
(Yao kee v. Sy Gonzales, 167 SCRA 736)
Generally, the mere fact that testimony has been given in the course of a
former proceeding between the parties to a case on trial is no ground for its
admission in evidence. The law recognizes, however, that it is sometimes
impossible to produce a witness who has testified at a former trial, as where
he dies or become insane before the later trial. In such cases, where the
second action is between the same parties or their privies and involves the
same issues, the testimony of the witness as taken at the former hearing or
trial is, according to practically all decisions, admissible in later one as one of
the exceptions to the rule excluding hearsay testimony.
Necessity for the testimony and its Trustworthiness. Inasmuch as the former
witness could no longer testify, his former testimony having been given in a
former action under the solemnity of an oath is admissible to prevent failure
of justice.
Requisites
Opinion defined
Rule of exclusion
I. IN GENERAL
First, the subject under examination must be one that requires that
the court has the aid of knowledge or experience such as men not
especially skilled do not have, and such therefore as cannot be
obtained from the ordinary witnesses.
* Direct examination.
(a) Opinion based on facts known personally by the expert. - Where the
expert witness is required to give an opinion based upon facts upon
which he knows personally, he must first state those facts before
giving an opinion thereon.
2009 JURISPRUDENCE
ISSUE:
RULING:
Under the Rules of Court, the following may prove the genuineness of
handwriting:
(1) A witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument;
(2) A witness familiar with such handwriting and who can give his opinion
thereon, such opinion being an exception to the opinion rule;
(3) A comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and admitted
genuine specimen thereof; and
(4) Expert evidence. (Sec. 49 Rule 130) - The law makes no preference,
much less distinction among and between the different means stated above
in proving the handwriting of a person. It is likewise clear from the foregoing
that courts are not bound to give probative value or evidentiary value to the
opinions of handwriting experts, as resort to handwriting experts is not
mandatory.
* Weight of expert testimony. Under the usual circumstances expert
opinion evidence is to be considered or weighed by the court like other
testimony, in the light of their own general knowledge and experience in the
subject of inquiry; the court cannot arbitrarily disregard the testimony of
experts or skilled witnesses, and make an unsupported finding contrary to
the opinion.
A. HANDWRITING
No set of infallible rules can be formulated but some general principles can
be stated that apply in most cases.
B. TYPEWRITTEN DOCUMENTS
* Typewriting characteristics.
The first fact to be considered in investigating the date of a typewriting
is to find when a certain kind of machine, the work of which is in question,
first came into use, and then it is important to learn, and to be able to prove,
when any changes in the machine were made that affected the written
record.
1) The first being the determination of the fact that the document was
written on a certain particular kind of machine,
C. FINGERPRINTS
D. BALLISTICS
* Cause of death. Where a body had been found but the cause of death is
unknown, opinions of experts are generally indispensable to assist the court
in determining whether the death was caused by accident, disease or
violence. The cause of death of a person is considered so within the range of
scientific knowledge that medical expert testimony is admissible as to such
cause; or as to the different ways in which the death might have been
caused, that death did or did not result from a given wound or injury, which
of several bullet wounds was the most fatal where a person died after being
shot several times or how long a person had been dead. Such testimony is
not proper to contradict eyewitnesses.
* Manner and cause of death. In all cases where cause of death is not
one common observation or knowledge, physicians and surgeons medical
experts may give opinion testimony, derived from their own observations of
the body of the deceased or from scientific deductions from given facts, as to
the probable causes of death, provided there are sufficient facts in evidence
upon which to base the conclusion.
* Market value. The price fixed by the buyer and the seller in the open
market in the usual and ordinary course of legal trade and competition; the
price and value established or shown by sale, public or private, in the
ordinary course of business; the fair value of the property as between one
who desires to sell and one who desires to purchase; and the general or
ordinary price at which property may be bought and sold in a given locality.
1. Age
2. Bloodstains
3. Hair
4. X-ray, pictures
5. Characters in certain writings which needs to be deciphered
6. Language in certain writings not understood by the court
7. Unwritten law
8. Proof of unwritten foreign laws
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior,
condition or appearance of a person. (44a)
Under the present rule, the statements of the witness as to identity are
not to be rejected because he is unable to describe the features of the
person in question, or the latters clothing or other particulars on which
the witness conclusion depends. Identification may be based upon voice
alone; and it is obviously impossible for a witness to describe tones of
voice in such a manner that from the description alone the court can
arrive at any satisfactory conclusion.
The testimony of the notary public, who was not only an instrumental
witness himself but also an officer of the court, and whose act of
notarization impressed upon the disputed Deed of Absolute Sale, the full
faith and credit which attaches to a public instrument, explicitly
identifying the signatures of the parties to the instrument and expressly
and forthrightly stating that both had appeared before him and affixed
their signatures to the said document, must be held to control and prevail
over the opinion or conclusion of petitioners expert witness. Alcos, et.
al vs. Intermediate Appeallate Court.
8. Reason for the rule. Reasons for this rule are found in the
considerations that the facts showing insanity, in their entirety, frequently
elude accurate, complete and detailed statement and consequently
render it difficult to afford a satisfactory basis for the judgment of an
expert; that many witnesses can make a correct inference more readily
than they can make a detailed statement; that as commonly presented to
observation, insanity is really detected, if carried beyond a certain point;
that an unskilled observer may be quite as able as an expert to make a
clear mental comparison between the acts and conduct of a sane person
and those of one who is laboring under mental disability; and that to
reject the inference of an observer with suitable opportunities and faculty
for observation is to refuse to consider evidence which is frequently of the
highest possible value.
9. Opinion of a subscribing witness to a writing as to the mental
sanity or insanity of a signer. In will cases, a special qualification to
testify exists on the part of the attesting witnesses to the will. It is
commonly held that they may testify to their opinion of the testators
soundness of mind without proof of their having had the opportunity of
observing him except at the time of executing the will. Moreover, the rule
supported by the overwhelming weight of authority is that no foundation
need be laid for receiving the opinion of a subscribing witness to a will as
to the soundness of the testators mind at the time of executing the will,
other than to show his status as a subscribing witness. Many courts have
reached such conclusion on the theory that it may be presumed that the
attesting witness performed his duty to observe the mental condition of
the testators mind at the time of executing the will.
14. Witness must give reason for his opinion. In giving his opinion,
the non-expert must state facts upon which his opinion was based. It is
indisputable that it should appear somewhere in the testimony of the
witness that he had the testimonial qualification of previous observation
of the person whose sanity he undertakes to give evidence. It must
appear, as a preliminary to the expression of his opinion that he has had
the means of observation. He must give the facts of his knowledge and
acquaintanceship with the person concerning whose sanity he is called to
testify. After giving these facts, he may express his opinion. The weight
of the opinion, or its value, is then developed further by evidence of the
particular facts coming under his observation, and on which he bases his
opinion.
Appellant anchors his argument for acquittal on the alleged failure of the
prosecution to establish AAAs mental retardation to make him guilty of
rape under Article 266-A, par. 1(b), of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant
concludes that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court rejected the said argument.
Section 50, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence explicitly provides
that the opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be
received in evidence regarding the mental sanity of a person with whom
he is sufficiently acquainted.
In the case at bench, BBB testified that AAA has been suffering from
epilepsy since she was nine years old, which is one of the reasons why
AAA was not able to finish her Grade I level. AAA also had to stop
schooling because she had difficulties understanding her lessons in
school, she cannot write well, she had poor memory and she had difficulty
answering even the simplest question asked of her. BBB further stated
that AAA is the eldest of her four children; however, compared to her
younger siblings, AAA had a hard time comprehending the instructions
given to her at home and in school.
A. IN GENERAL
6. Accused may prove his good moral character. Proof of the good
moral character of the accused strengthens the presumption of his
innocence; and by establishing good character a presumption is created
that the accused did not commit the crime. This view proceeds upon the
theory that a person of good character and high reputation is not likely to
have committed the act charged against him.
16. Moral character of the offended party. The good or bad moral
character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in
any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense
charged. This rule is applied with frequency in cases of homicide and sex
offenses.
D. CHARACTER OF WITNESS
(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be
proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability
or improbability of the offense charged."
Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be
proved under this provision. Only those which would establish the
probability or improbability of the offense charged. This means that the
character evidence must be limited to the traits and characteristics
involved in the type of offense charged.