Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
EVIDENCE
Centro Escolar University
School of Law and Jurisprudence
Second Semester, SY 2016-2017
Monday and Friday
5:30 P.M. 7:30 P.M.
(Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra)
Read:
I.
Applicability: Unless otherwise provided, the Rule shall govern the examination
of child witnesses who are victims of crime, accused of a crime, and witnesses
to crime. It shall apply in all criminal proceedings and non-criminal
proceedings involving child witnesses (Sec. 1).
Meaning of child witness -- A child witness is any person who at the time of
giving testimony is below the age of 18 years. In child abuse cases, a child
includes one over 18 years but is found by the court as unable to fully take care
of himself or protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or
discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition (Sec.
4[a]).
Continuing duty to assess competence -- The court has the duty of continuously
assessing the competence of the child throughout his testimony (Sec. 6[f]).
(a) The prosecutor, counsel or the guardian ad litem may apply for an
order that the testimony of the child be taken in a room outside the
courtroom and be televised to the courtroom by live-link television. Before
the guardian ad litem applies for an order under this section, he shall
consult the prosecutor or counsel and shall defer to the judgment of the
prosecutor or counsel regarding the necessity of applying for an order. In
case the guardian ad litem is convinced that the decision of the prosecutor
or counsel not to apply will cause the child serious emotional trauma, he
himself may apply for the order. The person seeking such an order shall
apply at least five (5) days before the trial date, unless the court finds on the
record that the need for such an order was not reasonably foreseeable.
(b) The court may motu propio hear and determine, with notice to the
parties, the need for taking the testimony of the child through live-link
television.
(d) The judge may exclude any person, including the accused, whose
presence or conduct causes fear to the child.
(e) The court shall issue an order granting or denying the use of live-
link television and stating the reasons therefor. It shall consider the
following factors:
the age and level of development of the child;
3
(f) The may order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link
television if there is a substantial likelihood that the child would suffer
trauma from testifying in the presence of the accused, his counsel or the
prosecutor as the case may be. The trauma must be of a kind which would
impair the completeness or truthfulness of the testimony of the child.
order under this section, he shall consult with the prosecutor or counsel
subject to the second and third paragraphs of section 25(a).
(b) If the court finds that the child will not be able to testify in open court at
trial, it shall issue an order that the deposition of the child be taken and
preserved by videotape.
(c) The judge shall preside at the videotaped deposition of a child. Objections
to deposition testimony or evidence, or parts thereof, and the grounds for
the objection shall be stated and shall ruled upon at the time of the taking
of the deposition. The other persons who may be permitted to be present at
the proceeding are:
The prosecutor;
The defense counsel;
The guardian ad litem;
The accused, subject to subsection (e);
Other persons whose presence is determined by the court to be
necessary to the welfare and well-being of the child;
One or both of his support persons, the facilitator and interpreter, if
any;
The court stenographer; and
Persons necessary to operate the videotape equipment.
(d) The rights of the accused during trial, especially the right to counsel and to
confront and cross-examine the child, shall not be violated during the
deposition.
(e) If the order of the court is based on evidence that the child is unable to
testify in the physical presence of the accused, the court may direct the
latter to be excluded from the room in which the deposition is conducted.
In case of exclusion of the accused, the court shall order that the testimony
of the child be taken by live-link television in accordance with section 25 of
this Rule. If the accused is excluded from the deposition, it is not necessary
that the child be able to view an image of the accused.
(g) The court may set other conditions on the taking of the deposition that it
finds just and appropriate, taking into consideration the best interests of
the child, the constitutional rights of the accused, and other relevant
factors.
(i) If, at the time of trial, the court finds that the child is unable to testify for a
reason stated in section 25(f) of this Rule, or is unavailable for any reason
described in section 4(c), Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the
5
court may admit into evidence the videotaped deposition of the child in
lieu of his testimony at the trial. The court shall issue an order stating the
reasons therefor.
(j) After the original videotaping but before or during trial, any party may file
any motion for additional videotaping on the ground of newly discovered
evidence. The court may order an additional videotaped deposition to
receive the newly discovered evidence (Sec. 27).
(b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall
consider the time, content and circumstances thereof which provide
sufficient indicia of reliability. It shall consider the following factors:
Whether there is a motive to lie;
The general character of the declarant child;
Whether more than one person heard the statement;
Whether the statement was spontaneous;
The timing of the statement and the relationship between the
declarant child and witness;
Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the
declarant child;
The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is remote;
and
The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no
reason to suppose the declarant child misrepresented the
involvement of the accused.
(c) The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following
situations:
Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental
illness, or will be exposed to sever psychological injury; or
Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been
unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means.
(d) When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be
admitted only if corroborated by other admissible evidence (Sec. 28).
Protective Orders
(a) Protective order -- Any videotape or audiotape of a child that is part
of the court record shall be under a protective order that provides as
follows:
Tapes may be viewed only by parties, their their counsel, their expert
witness, and the guardian ad litem.
No tape, or any portion thereof, shall be divulged by any person
mentioned in subsection (a) to any other person, except as necessary for
the trial.
No person shall be granted access to the tape, its transcription or any
part thereof unless he signs a written affirmation that he has received
and read a copy of the protective order; that he submits to the
jurisdiction of the court with respect to the protective order; and that in
case of violation thereof, he will be subject to the contempt power of the
court.
Each of the tape cassettes and transcripts thereof made available to the
parties, their counsel, and respective agents shall bear a cautionary
notice that the object or document and the contents thereof are subject
to a protective order issued by the court.
No tape shall be given, loaned, sold, or shown to any person except as
ordered by the court.
Within thirty (30) days from receipt, all copies of the tape and any
transcripts thereof shall be returned to the clerk of court for safekeeping
unless the period is extended by the court on motion of a party.
This protective order shall remain in full force and effect until further
order of the court (Sec. 31 [b]).
7
Meaning of DNA
DNA means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of molecules
found in every nucleated cell of the body. The totality of an individual's
DNA is unique for the individual, except identical twin. (Sec. 3 [b], A.M.
No. 06-11-5-SC).
Conditions of issuance
(1) Due notice and hearing; and (2) a showing that:
(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
(b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of
DNA testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA
testing, but the results may require confirmation for good reasons;
(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new
information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and
(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as
potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.
The court my order that the result of the DNA testing be simultaneously
released to the parties. (Section 5).
N.B.: An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately executory and
shall not be appealable.
8
Any petition for certiorari initiated therefrom shall not, in any way, stay the
implementation thereof, unless a higher court issues an injunctive order
(Section 5).
The grant of a DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic
admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may be
obtained as a result thereof.
(c) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be
conclusive proof of non-paternity (Section 9).
If the value of the Probability of Paternity < 99.9%, the results of the DNA
testing = corroborative evidence.
If the value of the Probability of Paternity > 99.9% or higher = there shall be a
disputable presumption of paternity (Section 9[c]).
(3)
Method of Proof
All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic
document may be established by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal
knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records (REE, Rule 9).
The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to
testify on the matters contained therein (REE, Rule 9, Sec. 1).
The affiant shall be made to affirm the contents of the affidavit in open
court and may be cross-examined as a matter of right by the adverse party
(REE, Rule 9, Sec. 2).
(4)
Scope- The Judicial Affidavit Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings and
incidents requiring the reception of evidence before:
(a) The Metropolitan Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the
Municipal Trial Courts, the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the
Sharia Circuit Courts;
(b) The Regional Trial Courts and the Sharia District Courts;
(c) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals,
and the Sharia Appellate Courts;
(d) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court
to receive evidence, including the IntegratedBar of the Philippines
(IBP); and
(e) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure
are subject to the disapproval of the Supreme Court, insofar as their
existing rules of procedure contravene the provisions of this Rule
Note: The Judicial Affidavit Rule shall not apply to small claims cases
under A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC.
Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits- The parties shall file with
the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier
service, not later than five (5) days before pre-trial or preliminary
conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents,
the following:
(a) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of
such witnesses' direct testimonies; and
(b) The parties' documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall be
attached to the judicial affidavits (Sec. 2, Judicial Affidavit Rule).
Effect of False Attestation- a false attestation shall subject the erring lawyer
to disciplinary action, including disbarment.
(5)
Purposes:
o To abbreviate court proceedings;
o To ensure prompt disposition of cases and decongest court dockets;
and
o To further implement the pre-trial guidelines laid down in
Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated 15 January 1999.
(6)
Pilot Rules for Preliminary Conference and Trial on the Issues (A.M. No.
12-8-8-SC)
Scope- These Pilot Rules for Preliminary Conference and Trial on the Issues
shall apply to all civil actions in certain first and second level courts that
have not yet undergone pre-trial.
A. Preliminary Considerations
Sec. 2. Scope
Rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and
hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or the Rules of Court.
Evidentiary rules under the Rules of Court are specifically applicable
only in judicial proceedings.
In quasi-judicial proceedings, the same apply by analogy, or in a
suppletory character, and whenever practicable and convenient (Rule 1,
Sec. 4).
(b) Competence
The evidence must not be excluded by law or by the Rules of
Court.
All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless
some specific rule forbids their admission.
Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when
it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.
19
B. Admissibility
Direct evidence - refers to evidence that directly proves a fact without need to
make inference from another fact.
Circumstantial evidence - refers to proof of the fact or facts from which, taken
either singly or collectively, the existence of a particular fact in dispute may be
inferred as a necessary or probable consequence.
Positive evidence - when a witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur. This
is entitled to greater weight since witness relates matters within his personal
knowledge.
Negative evidence - a witness states that an event did not occur or that the facts
alleged to exist did not actually exist.
20
it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then
describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the
condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same (People of the Philippines v. Dalawis, G.R. No. 179128, 9
November 2015; People v. Punzalan, G.R. No. 199087, 11 November 2015).
The rule on chain of custody under the Section 21, R.A. No. 9165 and its
implementing rules expressly demands the identification of the persons
who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the
authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia
from the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are
presented in court. Moreover, as a method of authenticating evidence, the
chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded
by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is
what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about
every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the
time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched
the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it
was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the
condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was
delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then
describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in
the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain
to have possession of the same.
Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs
or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused.
In this case, however, the records are bereft of any evidence, which would
clearly show that the said plastic sachets were indeed marked in the
presence of the accused. Nor was there any evidence as to the identity of
the individual who brought the seized plastic sachets from the police
station to the PNP (Carlito Valencia v. People, G.R. No. 198804, 22 January
2014).
It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment
the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way
that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from
whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witnesses' possession, the condition in which it was received and the
condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
In warrantless seizures such as a buy-bust operation the physical inventory
and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or office of
the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, consistent with
the "chain of custody" rule (People v. Joselito Beran, G.R. No. 203028, 15
January 2014).
Although ideally the prosecution should offer a perfect chain of
custody in the handling of evidence, "substantial compliance with the legal
requirements on the handling of the seized item" is sufficient. This Court has
consistently ruled that even if the arresting officers failed to strictly
comply with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such
procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized
inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost importance is the
22
Although the Court has recognized that minor deviations from the
procedures under R.A. No. 9165 would not automatically exonerate an
accused, we have also declared that when there is gross disregard of the
procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A. No.
9165), serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized
items that the prosecution presented in evidence. This doubt cannot be
remedied by simply invoking the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties, for a gross, systematic, or deliberate
disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an
irregularity in the performance of official duties (People v. Edao, G.R.
No. 188133, 7 July 2014).
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted
the required physical inventory in the place where the subject shabu
was seized does not automatically render accuseds arrest illegal or the
items seized from him inadmissible. A proviso was added in the
implementing rules that "non-compliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items." Pertinently, it is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items which must be
proven to establish the corpus delicti.
Testimony on perfect chain not required -- The Supreme Court held that,
undeniably, a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard
as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain...what is of
utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items. An astute perusal of Section 21 of the IRR of
RA 9165 readily reveals that the custodial chain rule is not to be
rigorously applied, provided "the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team."
Thus, the supposed procedural infirmities alleged by Quiamanlon with
regard to the custody, photographing, inventory, and marking of the seized
items do not, in any manner, affect the prosecution of the instant case and
do not render her arrest illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible
(People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, 26 January 2011).
and testified on the facts and circumstances of the sale and delivery of the
prohibited drug. (People v. Andres, G.R. No. 193184, 7 February 2011).
Failure to take photographs and inventory the same is not fatal as long as
the integrity and evidentiary value of seized illegal drugs were preserved.
In People v. Presas (G.R. No. 182525, 2 March 2011), the Supreme Court noted
that the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers
conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence
confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, does not automatically render
accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. Notably, the
implementing rules of the IRR provide that "non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures
of and custody over said items." The same provision also states that it must
still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved.
Failure to sign the receipt- The fact that the Receipt/Inventory of Property
Seized was not signed by Atty. Gaspe does not undermine the integrity and
evidentiary value of the illegal drugs seized from accused-appellants. The
failure to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of
seized drugs does not render an arrest of the accused illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is
the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused (People v. Punzalan, G.R. No. 199087, 11 November
2015).
The burden of proof does not shift The burden of evidence shifts from
as it remains throughout the trial party to party depending on the
with the party upon whom it is exigencies of the case in the course
imposed. of the trial.
The burden of proof is generally The burden of evidence is
determined by the pleading filed by generally determined by the
the party. developments of the trial or by
provisions of law.
Negative allegations
a negative allegation does not have to be proven unless the same is an
essential part of the cause of action or defense.
However, in civil cases, even if a negative allegation is an essential part of
the defense, such does not have to be proven if it is only for the purpose of
denying the existence of a document which would properly be in the
custody of the adverse party.
If the criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation or that a
negative averment is an essential element of the crime - the prosecution has
the burden of proving the charge.
Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, or where
the facts are more immediately within the knowledge of the accused, the
onus probandi rests on him.
consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with
his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfil the test of moral certainty,
and does not suffice to produce a conviction. (Bernardino v. People, G.R. Nos.
170453 and 170518, 30 October 2006, 506 SCRA 237, 25).
B. Documentary Evidence
When applicable
The rule is applicable when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document (Rule 130, Sec. 3).
The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a writing are in
issue. When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts,
such as the existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without
reference to its terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be invoked (Heirs of
Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez and Clave, G.R. No. 170604, 2 September 2013).
Meaning of original
The following are considered originals of a document:
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject
of inquiry (Rule 130, Sec. 4);
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same
time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as
originals (Rule 130, Sec. 4);
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being
copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries
are likewise equally regarded as originals (Rule 130, Sec. 4);
(d) An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original
document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output
readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately.
(Rules on Electronic Evidence, Sec. 1);
(e) Copies as equivalent of the originals When a document is in two or
more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents,
or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or
from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by
chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which
accurately reproduces the original. (Rules on Electronic Evidence, Sec. 2)
Sec. 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it.
Nevertheless, where the law specifically provides for the class and
quantum of secondary evidence to establish the contents of a
document, or bars secondary evidence of a lost document, such
requirement is controlling.
Where the nature of the action is in itself a notice, as where it is for the
recovery or annulment of documents wrongfully obtained or withheld
by the other party, no notice to produce said documents is required.
(Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd. v. Buenaflor, 36 OG 3290)
A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the
same is not obliged to offer it as evidence (Rule 130, Sec. 8).
The written agreement is already considered to contain all the things agreed
upon. Being a final agreement any extraneous evidence or parol evidence is
inadmissible for any of the following purposes: (a) to modify, (b) to explain; or
(c) to add to the terms of the written agreement.
Parol Evidence refers to any evidence aliunde, whether oral or written, which is
intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement
embodied in a document.
In sum, two (2) things must be established for parol evidence to be admitted:
first, that the existence of any of the four (4) exceptions has been put in issue in
a partys pleading or has not been objected to by the adverse party; and second,
that the parol evidence sought to be presented serves to form the basis of the
conclusion proposed by the presenting party (Spouses Paras v. Kimwa
Construction and Development, G.R. No. 171601, 8 April 2015).
The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply, and may not properly be invoked by
either party to the litigation against the other, where at least one party to the
suit is not a party or privy of a party to the written instrument in question and
does not base a claim or assert a right originating in the instrument of the
relation established thereby. Thus, if one of the parties is a complete stranger to
the contract, he is not bound by the rule. (See Rule 130, Sec. 9, par. 1)
Parol evidence cannot be introduced to alter or modify the express terms of the
Kasunduan. It is settled that the agreement or contract between the parties
is the formal expression of the parties rights, duties, and obligations and is the
best evidence of the parties intention. Thus, when the terms of an agreement
have been reduced into writing, it is considered as containing all the terms
agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in
interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
agreement (Carganillo v. People, G.R. No. 182424, 22 September 2014).
Parol evidence is based upon the consideration that when the parties have
reduced their agreement on a particular matter into writing, all their previous
30
4. Interpretation of documents
Sec. 10. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning
Sec. 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions
Sec. 12. Interpretations according to intention; general and particular
provisions
Sec. 13. Interpretation according to circumstances
Sec. 14. Peculiar signification of terms
Sec. 15. Written words control printed
Sec. 16. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings
Sec. 17. Of two constructions, which preferred
Sec. 18. Construction in favor of natural right
Sec. 19. Interpretation according to usage
C. Testimonial Evidence
1. Qualification of witnesses
All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known
perception to others, may be witnesses (Rule 130, Sec. 20).
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of
a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground for
disqualification (Rule 130, Sec. 20).
Mental retardation per se does not affect credibility (People v. Rosales, G.R. No.
197537, 24 July 2013).
Mental unsoundness of the witness at the time of the event testified to affects
only his or her credibility. As long as the witness can convey ideas by words or
signs and gives sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions propounded,
she is a competent witness even if she is a mental retardate (People v. Maceda,
G.R. No. 138805, 28 February 2001, 353 SCRA 228).
General Rule: During their marriage, spouses may not testify for or against the
other without the consent of the affected spouse. (Rule 130, Sec. 22).
Exceptions:
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
latter's direct descendants or ascendants. (Rule 130, Sec. 22).
Estranged spouses
The disqualification does not apply in case of estranged spouses. Where the marital
and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be
preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason based
upon such harmony and tranquility fails. In such a case, identity of interests
disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is non-
existent. Likewise, in such a situation, the security and confidences of private
life, which the law aims at protecting, will be nothing but ideals, which
through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home (Alvarez v.
Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, 14 October 2005).
How waived
By not objecting to plaintiff's testimony on prohibited matters (Marella v.
Reyes, 12 Phil. 1).
By cross-examining the plaintiff on prohibited matters. (Tongco v. Vianzon,
50 Phil. 698).
By calling witnesses to testify on prohibited matters. (Arroyo v. Azur, 76
Phil. 493).
When the plaintiff's deposition is taken by the representative of the estate
or when counsel for the representative cross-examined the plaintiff as to
matters occurring during the deceased's lifetime (Goni, et al., v. Court of
Appeals, et al., 144 SCRA 231).
Applicability:
Scope of protection extends during or after the marriage. (Rule 130, Sec.
24 [a]).
Since the confidential nature of the communication is the basis of the
privilege, the same cannot be invoked where it was not intended to be
kept in confidence by the spouse who received the same, as in the case
of a dying declaration of the husband to his wife as to who was his
assailant.
34
Waiver of protection:
(a) Failure to object to presentation; or
(b) Through any conduct that may be construed as implied consent
(Lacurom v. Jacoba, A.C. No. 5921, 10 March 2006).
Requisites:
(i) Relationship of lawyer and client;
(ii) Privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential communication
between them in the course of, or with the view of professional
employment;
(iii) Client has not given his consent to the disclosure of the communication.
(Rule 130, Sec. 24[b]; Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180564, 22 June
2010).
Persons covered:
(i) The attorney;
(ii) The attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without
the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the
knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity (Rule 130, Sec.
24[b]).
Waiver of protection
The client may waive the protection of the Attorney-Client Privilege
Rule. If the client waives the privilege, even his attorney cannot
invoke it.
The Regala Doctrine
General Rule: A lawyer may NOT invoke the privilege and refuse to
divulge the name or identity of his client.
35
Exceptions: (1) When a strong probability exists that revealing the name
would implicate that person in the very same activity for which he
sought the lawyers advice; (2) When disclosure would open the client
to liability; (3) When the name would furnish the only link that would
form the chain of testimony necessary to convict (Regala v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938, 20 September 1996).
Requisites:
(i) The physician is authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
(ii) The information was acquired or the advice or treatment was given by
him in his professional capacity for the purpose of treating and curing
the patient
(iii) The information, advice or treatment, if revealed, would blacken the
reputation of the patient;
(iv) The privilege is invoked in a civil case whether the patient is a party
thereto or not (Rule 130, Sec. 24 [c]).
Waiver of protection
This privilege belongs to the patient, so that it is only he that can claim
or waive it. It is waivable expressly or impliedly (See Penn. Mutual Life
Ins. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind. 92).
Example: Under Rule 28, the court may order a party to submit to a
physical or mental examination, so long as the mental or physical
condition is in dispute. The party examined may request a report of the
examination. By doing so, he waives any privilege he may have in that
action regarding the testimony of every other person who has
examined him in respect of the same examination (Rule 28, Sec. 4).
Information elicited during consultation with a physician in the
presence of third parties removes such information from the mantle of
the privilege (Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91114, 25 September 1992).
What is protected is the tenor of the consultation. The number of times
a patient consulted with his doctor is not privileged. (Lim v. Court of
Appeals, supra).
36
Mediation
Information obtained through mediation shall be privileged and
confidential (R.A. No. 9285, Sec. 9[a]).
A party, a mediator, or a nonparty participant may refuse to disclose
and may prevent any other person from disclosing a mediation
communication (R.A. No. 9285, Sec. 9[b]).
37
Arbitration
The arbitration proceedings, including the records, evidence and the
arbitral award, shall be considered confidential and shall not be
published except (1) with the consent of the parties, or (2) for the
limited purpose of disclosing to the court of relevant documents in
cases where resort to the court is allowed herein.
Provided, however, that the court in which the action or the appeal is
pending may issue a protective order to prevent or prohibit disclosure
of documents or information containing secret processes,
developments, research and other information where it is shown that
the applicant shall be materially prejudiced by an authorized disclosure
thereof (R.A. No. 9285, Sec. 23).
2. Testimonial privilege
Though some claim that partnerships and joint ventures are totally
different animals, there are very few rules that differentiate one from
the other; thus, joint ventures are deemed "akin" or similar to a
partnership. In fact, in joint venture agreements, rules and legal
incidents governing partnerships are applied.
The res inter alios acta rule has two branches, to wit:
i. The rule that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided
(Rule 130, Sec. 128); and
ii. The rule that the evidence that one did or did not do a certain
thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not
do the same or similar thing at another time (Rule 132, Sec. 34).
iii.
Admission Confession
It is a statement of fact which
does not involve an It involves an acknowledgement of
acknowledgement of guilt or guilt or liability.
liability.
(b) Admissions by agent or one who has a joint-interest with the party (Rule
130, Sec. 29);
(c) Admission of co-conspirator (Rule 130, Sec. 30);
(d) Admission of privy of the party (Rule 130, Sec. 30).
The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its
existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator :
(h) The conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde;
(i) The admission was made during the existence of the conspiracy; and
(j) The admission relates to the conspiracy itself. (Rule 130, Sec. 30; Tamargo v.
Antiporda, G.R. No. 177727, 19 January 2010).
Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, or
omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former.
Requisites:
(a) There must be a relation of privity between the party and the
declarant;
(b) The admission was made by the declarant, as predecessor in
interest, while holding title to the property; and
(c) The admission is in relation to said property (Rule 130, Sec. 31).
Privity in estate may have arisen by: (1) succession; (2) by acts mortis causa; or
(3) by acts inter vivos.
40
Requisites -- Any act or declaration made in the presence and within the
observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is
such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, may be given in
evidence against him, under the following requisites:
(a) He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other person;
(b) He must have had the opportunity to deny it;
(c) He must have understood the statement.
(d) He must have an interest to object as he would naturally have done if the
statement was not true;
(e) The facts are within his knowledge; and
(f) he fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is material
to the issue. (Rule 130, Sec. 32; People v. Ciobal, G.R. No. 86220, 20 April
1990; People v. Ranario, 49 Phil. 220)
Voluntary re-enactment
Voluntary participation in the re-enactment of the crime conducted by police is
considered tacit admission of complicity. In such cases, the accused actually
committed positive acts without protest or denial when he was free to refuse.
Had he not actually participated in the commission of the offense for which he
is charged, he would have protested being made to take part in the
reenactment thereof (People v. Fong, G.R. No. L-7615, 14 March 1956).
Judicial confession - one made before a court in which the case is pending and in
the course of legal proceedings therein; can sustain conviction by itself.
requisites:
41
Extrajudicial confession -- one made in any other place or occasion and cannot
sustain a conviction unless corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti. (Rule
133, Sec. 3).
Requisites:
(a) It must be voluntary;
(b) It must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent
counsel;
(c) It must be express; and
(d) It must be in writing (People v. Domantay, G.R. No. 130612, 11 May 1999).
Corpus delicti means the substance of the crime; it is the fact that a crime has
actually been committed (People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 180762, 4 March 2009).
In arson, the corpus delicti is generally satisfied by proof of the bare
occurrence of the fire, e.g., the charred remains of a house burned down and
of its having been intentionally caused.
In murder or homicide, the corpus delicti is the fact of death (People v. Garcia,
99 Phil. 381), which may be proved even circumstantially (People v. Sasota, 91
Phil. 111; People v. Moro Ansang, 93 Phil. 44).
In robbery or theft, the fact of loss (People v. Niem, 75 Phil. 668).
In an affray, the fact that pistol shots were heard and a bystander was killed
by one of the shots constitute evidence of corpus delicti, which is the violent
death of a person, whether feloniously caused or not (People v. Nocum, 77
Phil. 1018)
Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible
to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time(Rule
130, Sec. 34).
However, such evidence may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge;
identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like (Rule 130,
Sec. 34).
5. Testimonial knowledge
It is the belief of impending death and not the rapid succession of death that
renders the dying declaration admissible (People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 111149, 5
September 1997).
In the case at bar, it appears that not all the requisites of a dying
declaration are present. From the records, no questions relative to the
second requisite was propounded to Januario. It does not appear that
the declarant was under the consciousness of his impending death when
he made the statements. The rule is that, in order to make a dying
declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent death
must be entered by the declarant. It is the belief in impending death and
not the rapid succession of death in point of fact that renders a dying
44
Victim need not state that he has lost all hope of recovery -- It is sufficient that
circumstances are such as to inevitably lead to the conclusion that at the time
the declaration was made, the declarant would not expect to survive the injury
from which he actually died. The degree and seriousness of the wounds and
the fact that death supervened thereafter constitute substantial evidence of the
victim's consciousness of his impending death (People v. Tanaman, et al., G.R.
No. 71768, 28 July 1987).
Requisites:
(a) The declaration is made by:
(i) A person deceased; or
(ii) A person who is unable to testify (i.e. in foreign country or with
physical/mental impairments)
(b) The declaration is against the interest of the declarant:
(c) The fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far
contrary to declarants own interest, that a reasonable man in his position
would not have made the declaration, unless he believed it to be true.
((Rule 130, Sec. 38; Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111692, 9 February
1996).
The theory under which declarations against interest are received in evidence
notwithstanding they are hearsay is that the necessity of the occasion renders
the reception of such evidence advisable and, further that the reliability of such
declaration asserts facts which are against his own pecuniary or moral
interest (Parel v. Prudencio, G.R. No. 146556, 19 April 2006).
Requisites:
(a) Witness testifying as to reputation or tradition must be a member, by
consanguinity or affinity, of the same family as the subject;
(b) Such tradition or reputation must have existed in that family ante litem
motam. (Rule 130, Sec. 40; People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 154278, 27 December
2002).
Requisites:
(a) Witness testifying as to reputation or tradition must be a member, by
consanguinity or affinity, of the same family as the subject;
(b) (2) Such tradition or reputation must have existed in that family ante litem
motam. (Rule 130, Sec. 40; People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 154278, 27 December
2002).
Two types:
(a) Spontaneous statements; and
46
The rule in res gestae applies when the declarant himself did not testify
and the testimony of the witness who heard the declarant complies
with the following requisites:
(i) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
(ii) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive
or devise; and
(iii) the statements concerned the occurrence in question and its
immediately attending circumstances (prior or subsequent) (Rule
130, Sec. 42; Maturillas v. People, G.R. No. 163217, 18 April 2006).
A sudden attack on a group peacefully eating lunch on a school
campus is a startling occurrence. Considering that the statements of
the bystanders were made immediately after the startling
occurrence, they are, in fact, admissible as evidence given in res
gestae (People v. Feliciano, G.R. No. 196735, 5 May 2014).
Requisites:
(a) The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify;
(b) The entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to which they
refer;
(c) The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
(d) The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of
a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or religious;
(e) The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or
duty (Rule 130, Sec. 43; Jose, Jr. v Michaelmar Phils., Inc., et al., G.R. No.
169606, 27 November 2009).
Entries in the course of business are accorded unusual reliability because their
regularity and continuity are calculated to discipline record keepers in the
habit of precision. If the entries are financial, the records are routinely balanced
and audited. In actual experience, the whole of the business world function in
reliance of such kind of records (LBP v. Monets Export and Manufacturing Corp.,
G.R. No. 184971, 19 April 2010).
Requisites:
(a) Entries were made by: (i) (i) a public officer in the performance of his
duties; or (ii) by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined
by law;
(b) The entrant had personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or such facts
were acquired by him from reports made by persons under a legal duty to
submit the same; and
(c) Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner in the official records
(Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, G.R. No. 162243, 3 December 2009).
Requisites:
(a) The court takes judicial judicial notice of published treatise, periodical or
pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science or art; or
(b) A witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in
the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or
calling as an expert in the subject (Rule 130, Sec. 46).
(d) The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue
involved in the present case; and
(e) The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the
former case.
7. Opinion rule
The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in
evidence regarding; (a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate
knowledge; (b) a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; (c) the
mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted; and (d) his
impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person
(Rule 130, Sec. 48).
Expert witness not necessary if the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is applicable-
Where the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur is warranted, an
expert testimony may be dispensed with in medical negligence cases. Resort to
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as an exception to the requirement of an expert
testimony in medical negligence cases may be availed of if the following
essential requisites are satisfied: (1) the accident was of a kind that does not
ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency
that caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged;
and (3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or
contribution of the person injured (Rosit v. Davao Doctors Hospital, et al., G.R.
No. 210445, 7 December 2015).
8. Character evidence
General rule: Character evidence is not admissible (Rule 130, Sec. 51).
Exceptions:
(a) Criminal cases
Accused may prove his good moral character pertinent to the moral
trait in the offense charged.
Prosecution may present character evidence pertaining to accuseds
bad moral character pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged only in rebuttal.
50
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.
Classification of presumptions
Presumption of Law Presumption of Fact
Praesumptiones Juris Praesumptiones hominis
A deduction which the law A deduction which reason draws
expressly directs to be made from facts proved without an express
from particular facts. direction from the law to that effect.
Based on rules, laws, and Discretionary.
jurisprudence.
Types:
1. 1. Conclusive (juris et de
jure)
2. 2. Disputable (juris
tantum or prima facie)
belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission,
be permitted to falsify it (Rule 131, Sec. 2 [a]).
The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. (Rule 131,
Sec. 2 [b]).
Court is compelled to take judicial notice; takes place at the court's own initiative.
The court shall take mandatory judicial notice of the following (Rule 129, Sec. 1):
Existence and territorial extent of states;
52
Court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are
capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because
of their judicial functions. at the court's initiative, or on request of a party; requires
a hearing and presentation of evidence.
A judicial admission must be made in the same case in which it is offered. If made
in another case or in another court, it must be proven as in any other fact, but
entitled greater weight. This is admissible unless:
Made only for purposes of the first case;
Withdrawn with the permission of the court; and
Court deems it proper to relieve the party.
Admissions during pre-trial in civil and criminal cases. (N.B.: In criminal cases the
admission must be reduced in writing and signed by accused and counsel [Rule
118, Sec. 4]).
Admissions by counsel are generally conclusive upon a client absent any gross
negligence which deprives counsel of due process of law or there is outright
deprivation of property or liberty (Cuenco v. Talisay Tourist Sports Complex, G.R. No.
174154, 17 October 2008).
Foreign laws -- Foreign laws may be taken judicial notice in the following
instances:
When the foreign law refers to the law of nations. (Rule 129, Sec. 1).
When the court takes judicial notice of a published treatise, periodical or
pamphlet on a subject of law as a learned treatise. (Rule 130, Sec. 46).
54
To prove foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and
comply with Rules 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Rules of Court.
Law of Nations
Under the 1987 Constitution, the Philippines adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land (1987 Constitution,
Article II, Section 2).
Being part of the law of the land, they are therefore technically in the nature of
local laws and thus subject to mandatory judicial notice.
Municipal ordinances
Generally, courts are required to take judicial notice of laws. However, courts
are not mandated to take judicial notice of municipal ordinances unless the
charter of the concerned city provides for such judicial notice. (City of Manila v.
Garcia, 1967). But inferior courts sitting in the respective municipalities or cities
are mandated to take judicial notice thereof. The reason is that violations of the
ordinances are usually vested to the inferior courts exclusively in the exercise
of their original jurisdiction.
If an inferior court took judicial notice of a fact and there was an appeal, such
court taking the appeal should likewise take judicial notice. (U.S. v. Blanco, 37
Phil. 126).
Court Orders
Courts are required to take judicial notice of the decisions of appellate courts
but not of the decisions of coordinate courts.
In fact, a court may not take judicial notice of the decision or the facts involved
in another case tried by the same court itself unless the parties introduce the
same in evidence or doing so is convenient.
D. Presentation of Evidence
A. Examination of Witnesses
Rights of a witness
(a) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and
from harsh or insulting demeanor;
(b) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
(c) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
(d) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an
offense unless otherwise provided by law; or
(e) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it
be to the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be
presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final
conviction for an offense. (Rule 132, Sec. 3).
Obligations of a witness:
(a) A witness must answer questions, although his answer may tend to
establish a claim against him (Rule 132, Sec. 3, par. 1).
(b) A witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an
offense (Rule 132, Sec. 3, par. 5).
(c) A witness must testify under oath or affirmation (Rule 132, Sec. 1).
Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC), the judicial affidavits
of the parties witnesses shall take the place of such witnesses direct
testimonies. As such, the parties documentary or object evidence, if any shall
be attached to the judicial affidavits.
Scope
(a) Any matter stated in the direct examination;
(b) or connected therewith (Rule 132, Sec. 5);
(c) If unwilling/hostile/adverse party witness cross is limited to matters
stated during direct examination. (Rule 132, Sec. 12)
Purpose
(a) To test witness accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest
or bias, or the reverse; and
(b) To elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (Rule 132, Sec. 5).
Nature
(a) Fundamental right -- The right of a party to confront and cross-examine
opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature,
or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial
56
Purpose
(a) to explain; or
(b) to supplement his answers given during the cross- examination. (Rule 132,
Sec. 6).
Scope
(a) Any matter covered during re-direct examination;
(b) Other matters, upon the courts discretion. (Rule 132, Sec. 7).
Purpose
(a) To test witness accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or
bias, or the reverse; and
(b) to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.
57
After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded, the
witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The court will grant or
withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice may require. (Rule
132, Sec. 9)
A showing of some concrete, substantial grounds for recall, i.e. such as
particularly identified material points were not covered, or particular vital
documents were not presented to the witness or the cross-examination was
conducted in so inept manner as to result in a virtual absence thereof (People v.
Rivera, 200 SCRA 786).
Recantation of a witness
Courts look with disfavor upon retractions, because they can easily be
obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for monetary
considerations. Hence, a retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier
declaration. They are generally unreliable and looked upon with
considerable disfavor by the courts (People v. Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, 5
October 2011).
The rule is settled that in cases where previous testimony is retracted and a
subsequent different, if not contrary, testimony is made by the same
witness, the test to decide which testimony to believe is one of comparison
coupled with the application of the general rules of evidence (People v.
Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, 5 October 2011)
Exceptions:
(a) On cross-examination;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a
witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a
deaf-mute;
58
A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to
by the witness, or contrary to that which he has previously stated.
General rule: A misleading question is not allowed.
Exceptions: none.
All other writings are private (Rule 132, Sec. 19, par. 3).
o Baptismal Certificate is not a Public Document- We have already
held in Cabatania v. Court of Appeals that "while a baptismal
certificate may be considered a public document, it can only serve
as evidence of the administration of the sacrament on the date
specified but not the veracity of the entries with respect to the
child's paternity;" and that baptismal certificates were "per
se inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation," and thus "cannot
be admitted indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove
[filiation]." (Alado v. Alcoran, G.R. No. 163362, 8 July 2015).
60
Absent the attestation of the officer having the legal custody of the records
and the certificate to that effect by a Philippine foreign service officer, a mere
copy of the foreign document is NOT admissible as evidence to prove foreign
law (Wildvalley Shipping Co. Ltd. v. CA, G.R. No. 119602, 6 October 2000).
The fact that the documents were certified as true copies of the original by
the PCGG does not enhance its admissibility. These documents have
remained private even if it is in the custody of the PCGG. What became
public are not the private documents (themselves) but the recording of it in
the PCGG. For, "while public records kept in the Philippines, of private
writings are also public documents...the public writing is not the writing
itself but the public record thereof. Stated otherwise, if a private writing itself
is inserted officially into a public record, its record, its recordation, or its
incorporation into the public record becomes a public document, but that
does not make the private writing itself a public document so as to make it
admissible without authentication (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, Tantoco Jr., G.R.
No. 18881, 21 April 2014)."
The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.
The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified (Rule 132,
Sec. 34).
Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the
opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and such objection is
found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order the
answer given to be stricken off the record (Rule 132, Sec. 39).
65
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers
which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper (Rule 132, Sec. 39).
The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular
point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the
same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. But
this power should be exercised with caution. (Rule 133, Sec. 6)
When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear
the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties,
67
but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral
testimony or depositions. (Rule 133, Sec. 7).
Examples of motions which require presentation of evidence:
Motion for bail;
Application for TRO/Injunction; or
Motion to dismiss.