Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evidence
Preliminary Considerations
c.
2.
3.
4.
proposition
Factum probans evidentiary fact or the fact by which
the factum probandum is to be established
azereth
5.
6.
substitutionary
evidence, that which is inferior to the primary
evidence and is permitted by law only when
the best evidence is not available
Positive and Negative Evidence
a.
Positive when a witness affirms that a fact
did or did not occur
determined
by
prevailing
exclusionary rules of evidence
Otherwise, waived
Conditional admissibility where the evidence at the
time it is offered appears to be immaterial or irrelevant
unless it is connected with the other facts to be
subsequently proved, such evidence may be received on
condition that the other facts will be proved thereafter,
otherwise the evidence will be stricken out
page 1
Preliminary Considerations
should be admitted for any and all the purposes for which
it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of
law for its admissibility
Curative admissibility treats upon the right of a party
to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where
the court has admitted the same kind of evidence of the
adverse party
Theories:
1.
American rule admission of such incompetent
evidence, without objection by the opponent
does not justify such opponent in rebutting it
by similar incompetent evidence
2.
English rule if a party has presented
inadmissible evidence. The adverse party may
resort to similar incompetent evidence
3.
Massachusetts rule adverse party may be
permitted to introduce similar incompetent
evidence in order to avoid a plain and unfair
prejudice caused by the admission of the other
partys
To determine application:
1.
WON incompetent evidence was reasonably
objected to, and
2.
WON, regardless of the objection vel non, the
admission will cause a plain and unfair
prejudice to the party against whom it is
admitted
Evidence
azereth
page 2
Admissible unless:
1.
Made only for purposes of the first case
2.
Withdrawn with the permission of the
court
3.
Court deems it proper to relieve the party
Admissions in a pleading which have been withdrawn or
supersede by an amended pleading
Evidence
Admissibility of Evidence
Rule 130 Rules of Admissibility
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
SECTION 1 - OBJECT AS EVIDENCE
Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses
of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in
issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by
the court.
Includes:
1.
Examination of the anatomy of a person or of
any substance taken therefrom
2.
Conduct
of
tests,
demonstrations,
or
experiments
3.
Examination of representative portrayals of the
object in question
Observations of the court may be amplified by
interpretations
afforded
by
testimonial evidence,
especially be experts
Documents are considered object evidence if the purpose
is to:
1.
Prove their existence or condition or the nature
of the handwritings thereon
2.
Determine the age of the paper used or the
blemishes or alterations thereon
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Documents as evidence consists of writings or any
material containing letters, words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expressions offered
as proof of their contents
1. BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Section 3 ORIGINAL DOCUMENT MUST BE PRODUCED;
EXCEPTIONS
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence shall be admissible other than
the original document itself, except in the following
cases:
azereth
page 3
Admissibility of Evidence
a.
b.
c.
d.
Secondary
evidence
cannot
inceptively
be
introduced as the original writing itself must be
produced in court
Evidence
Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga vs. Reyes (55 Phil 905)
On the issue as to the contents of the articles sent by
the accused for publication, the manuscript was the best
evidence; but on the issue as to what was actually published,
a copy of the newspaper publication was the best evidence.
2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE
Section
5
WHEN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
IS
UNAVAILABLE
When the original document has been lost or destroyed,
or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof
of its execution or existence and the cause of its
unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove
its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in
some authentic document, or by the testimony of
witnesses in the order stated.
azereth
page 4
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Parol Evidence
Best Evidence
azereth
2
3
4
page 5
Admissibility of Evidence
Palanca vs. Fred Wilson & Co. (87 Phil 506)
The phrase capacity of 6,000 liters used in connection
with a distilling apparatus was held to be a latent
ambiguity which had to be clarified by parol evidence to
determine whether it meant receiving, treating, or the
producing capacity of the machine
Evidence
Section 17 - OF TWO CONSTRUCTIONS, WHICH
PREFERRED
When the terms of an agreement have been intended in
a different sense by the different parties to it, that
sense is to prevail against either party in which he
supposed the other understood it, and when different
constructions of a provision are otherwise equally
proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable
to the party in whose favor the provision was made.
Section 18 - CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF NATURAL
RIGHT
When an instrument is equally susceptible of two
interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the
other against it, the former is to be adopted.
Section 19 - INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO USAGE
An instrument may be construed according to usage, in
order to determine its true character.
C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
1. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
Section 20 - WITNESSES; THEIR QUALIFICATIONS
Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all
persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
their known perception to others, may be witnesses.
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.
Section 21 - DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF
MENTAL INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY
The following persons cannot be witnesses:
a.
Those whose mental condition, at the time of
their production for examination, is such that
they are incapable of intelligently making
known their perception to others;
b.
Children whose mental maturity is such as to
render them incapable of perceiving the facts
respecting which they are examined and of
relating them truthfully.
azereth
Rules on interpretation
page 6
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
3.
Marital Disqualification
Rule
Partial disqualification
Complete disqualification
Requisites:
1.
Witness offered for examination is a party plaintiff,
or the assignor of said party, or a person in whose
behalf a case is prosecuted
azereth
page 7
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Marital Privilege
Marital Disqualification
Can
only
apply
if
the
marriage is existing at the
time the testimony is offered
Requisites:
1.
There is an attorney-client relation
2.
Privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential
communication between them in the course of
professional employment
3.
Client has not given his consent to the disclosure of
the communication
Requisites:
1.
Physician is authorized to practice medicine, surgery
or obstetrics
2.
Information was acquired or the advice or treatment
was given by him in his professional capacity for the
purpose of treating or curing the patient
3.
Information, advice or treatment, if revealed, would
blacken the reputation of the patient
4.
Privilege is invoked in a civil case, whether the
patient is a party thereto or not
azereth
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Requisites:
1.
It was made to the public officer in official
confidence
2.
Public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the
communication
Others
page 8
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Confessions
Involves
an
acknowledgement of guilt or
liability
Must be express
Otherwise
would
be
self-serving
and
inadmissible
Judicial admission one made in connection with a
judicial proceeding in which it is offered
Extrajudicial admission any other admission
Declarations Against
Interest
Must
have
been
made
against the proprietary or
pecuniary interest of the
parties
azereth
Criminal cases involving criminal negligence or quasioffenses are allowed to be compromised, hence an offer
of settlement is not an admission of guilt
Offer to pay or the actual payment of medical bills by
reason of victims injuries not admissible to prove civil
or criminal liability
First branch of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet
Exceptions: third person is a partner, agent, or has joint
interest with the party, or is a co-conspirator or a privy
of the party
page 9
Admissibility of Evidence
children. Lucila denies the allegation. The evidence of the
defense tends to show that the children might have eaten one
of the sliced poisoned bread used by their father in poisoning
the rats.
3/9 witnesses for the prosecution:
1.
Rodolfo Quilang testified that he saw Lucila deliver
something wrapped in a piece of paper to Alfonso and
instructed him by sign language to deliver the same to
the Velasco children. He never saw what was inside the
piece of paper. His testimony as to WON he saw the
parcel delivered to the children was a series of
contradictions. He is what the defense counsel calls and
eleventh-hour witness
2.
Federico Jaime and Ceferino Velasco did not see Lucila
deliver to Alfonso the alleged parcel, as well as the
alleged instruction. Both claimed that they learned the
information from Pipe after interviewing him by means of
sign language. Testimony of Jaime was confusing. There
is nothing in the testimony of Velasco indicating that
Alfonso pointed to Lucila as the source of the poisoned
bread.
Issue: WON the testimonies of Jaime and Velasco may be
admitted
Held: No
Ratio: The evidence is pure hearsay. It violates the principle of
res inter alios acta. Alfonso, who was the source of the
information, was never presented as a witness either for the
defense or the prosecution. Testimony of Velasco cannot be
considered as part of res gestae because when the
information was allegedly obtained by Velasco from Alfonso,
nobody was poisoned yet. With regard to the testimony of
Jaime, there is no showing that the revelation was made by
Alfonso under the influence of a startling occurrence.
The failure of the defense counsel to object to the
presentation of incompetent evidence does not give such
evidence probative value. The lack of objection may make any
incompetent evidence admissible. But admissibility of
evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence.
Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative
value
Evidence
Requisites:
1.
That the partnership, agency or joint interest is
established by evidence other than the act or
declaration
2.
That the act/declaration must have been within the
scope of the partnership, etc.
3.
Such act/declaration must have been made during
the existence of the partnership, etc.
Admissions made in connection with the winding up
still admissible
Admission by counsel admissible against client (agentprincipal)
Limitation:
1.
admission should not amount to a compromise
2.
admission should not amount to a confession
of judgment
azereth
you
But Section 29 is an exception: admission of another can
be taken against you fair?
Except:
1.
If made in the presence of the coconspirator who expressly or impliedly
(tacit admission, Rule 130.32) agreed
therein
2.
Where the facts stated in the said
admissions are confirmed in the individual
extrajudicial confessions made by the coconspirators after their apprehension
3.
as a circumstance to determine the
credibility of a witness
4.
as circumstantial evidence to show the
probability
of
the
co-conspirators
participation in the offense
Requisites:
1.
There must be a relation of privity between the
party and the declarant
2.
The admission was made by the declarant, as
predecessor in interest, while holding title to the
property
3.
The admission is in relation to said property
Privity in estate may have arisen by succession, by acts
mortis causa or by acts inter vivos
page 10
Admissibility of Evidence
Section 32 - ADMISSION BY SILENCE
An act or declaration made in the presence and within
the hearing or 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, and when
proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in
evidence against him.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Evidence
Rule
133,
Section
3
EXTRAJUDICIAL
CONFESSION, NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR
CONVICTION
An extrajudicial confession made by an accused,
shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
azereth
Section 33 CONFESSION
The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt
of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily
included therein, may be given in evidence against him.
page 11
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Except if:
1) Co-accused impliedly adopted said confession
by not questioning its truthfulness
2) Interlocking confessions accused persons
voluntarily
and
independently
executed
identical confessions without conclusion,
azereth
3)
page 12
Admissibility of Evidence
interview he conducted. This testimony was admitted
over the objection of the defense
7.
Dr. Ronald Bandonill conducted an autopsy of the
victim.
Defense presented Domantay as its lone witness. Domantay
denied the allegations against him. He denied Edwards claim.
He admitted that he passed the bamboo grove but said that
he did not know that Jennifer was following him. He admitted
hiring Mejia to get to Malasiqui to meet his brother, who did
not come. He denied confessing to SPO1 Espinoza and he
denied having a grudge against Jennifers parents because of
a boundary dispute. He admitted being interviewed by Manuel
but denied ever admitting anything to the reporter.
Domantay was convicted by the trial court
Issue: WON the extrajudicial confessions made by Domantay
to SPO1 Espinoza and Manuel are admissible
Held: No and Yes, respectively
Ratio: Art III, Sec 12 of the 1987 Constitution applies to
custodial investigation, when the investigation is no longer a
general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a
particular person as a suspect. RA 7438 extended the
constitutional guarantee to situations in which an individual
has not been formally arrested but has merely been invited
for questioning.
Requirements for admissibility of extrajudicial confessions:
1.
It must be voluntary
2.
It must be made with the assistance of a competent and
independent counsel
3.
It must be express
4.
It must be in writing
When Domantay was brought to the police station he was
already under custodial investigation and the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution apply to him. Even though he
waived the assistance of counsel, the waiver was not put into
writing nor made in the presence of counsel. Therefore the
waiver is invalid and the confession is inadmissible. The
bayonet is also inadmissible in evidence as it was a fruit of a
poisonous tree.
Domantays confession to Manuel is admissible. The Bill of
Rights does not concern itself with the relation between
private individuals. The prohibitions therein are primarily
addressed to the State and its agents.
Domantay claims that the atmosphere during the interview
was tense and intimidating. The Court does not agree. There
is no indication that the presence of the police officers exerted
any undue pressure or influence on Domantay and coerced
him into giving his confession. There is also no evidence that
Manuel was a police beat reporter and it has not been shown
that his purpose in conducting the interview was to elicit
incriminating information from Domantay.
Domantays extrajudicial confession is corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti, as required by Rule 133, Sec 3.
People vs. Mantung (1999)
Facts: Maribel Mayola and Renjie Balderas were found dead
inside the vault room of the Maywood branch of Cebuana
Lhuiller where they were employed. The jewelries kept inside
the safe were all gone and the cash drawer had been emptied
of its contents. In the counter, a holster was placed on top of
a letter addressed to Mary Ann Gordoncillo, district manager
of Cebuana Lhuiller. The letter was written by Guiamad
Mantung, the security guard assigned to the branch. Mantung
wrote in Filipino that he killed Mayola and Balderas because
they gave him pork which his Moslem religion prohibited him
from eating. He also admitted taking the cash and jewelry
inside the vault, claiming that he needed the money. He wrote
another letter addressed to his wife, which was found in the
office logbook. Mantung was later arrested in Sultan Kudarat,
Cotabato and several pieces of jewelry believed to be part of
the loot were recovered from him. After his arrest, he was
immediate brought to Paramour where he was presented to
the media at a press conference called by Mayor Joey
Marquez. When Mayor Marquez then asked him if he is the
one who killed the two employees, Mantung answered yes and
said that he killed the victims because they induced him to eat
pork. The news about Mantons admission to the killings
appeared in the Inquirer and Manila Bulletin the following day.
Clippings of these reports were presented as evidence by the
prosecution during the trial.
The defense presented the lone testimony of Mantung to
substantiate his claims of innocence. He claimed that on the
day of the incident, he was locking one of the doors of the
shop when 3 men approached him from behind and one of
them held him at gunpoint. Mayola and Balderas saw what
was happening and shouted for help. Mantung was taken to
azereth
Evidence
the comfort room when he heard 2 gunshots and the shouts of
Mayola and Balderas stopped. The men took him out, pushed
him inside a red car and blindfolded him. Afterwards, he felt
the car stop and he was left alone by his captors. He then
seized the opportunity to escape. He saw that they stopped in
the pier so he mingled with the people and boarded a ship to
Cebu and from there went to Cotabato. He denied that pieces
of jewelry were recovered from him. He refuted the reports
saying he admitted to the killing of the victims in the press
conference. According to him, he did not tell anyone what
happened because he was confused and he did not know what
to do.
Issue1: WON Mantungs admission during the press
conference is admissible
Held1: Yes
Ratio1: The clippings of the news articles reporting Mantungs
confession is hearsay because their writers were not
presented to affirm the veracity of the reports. However,
Ricardo Diago, an employee of Cebuana Lhuiller present
during the press conference, was presented as rebuttal
witness to prove that Mantung indeed claimed responsibility
for the killings.
The constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not
apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through
questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary
manner whereby accused orally admitted having committed a
crime. The rights under Sec 12 are guaranteed to preclude the
slightest use of coercion by the State as would lead the
accused to admit something false, not to prevent him from
freely and voluntarily telling the truth (People vs. Andan).
There is nothing to show that Mantungs admission was
coerced or made under duress.
Ladiana vs. People (2002)
Facts: Josue Ladiana, a police officer, was accused of killing
Francisco San Juan, a Barangay Captain. The case was filed in
the Sandiganbayan and Ladiana was found guilty of homicide.
The prosecution presented 5 witnesses:
1.
Caridad San Juan wife of the victim. She testified that
San Juan was the Barangay Captain of Brgy. Salac,
Lumban, Laguna. She said that she was in her house
when an unidentified woman came and told her that her
husband was killed by Ladiana. She also presented the
death certificate of her husband. (Cross) She admitted
that she did not witness the killing of her husband.
2.
PO2 Leopoldo Cacalda Jr. He recounted that somebody
whose name he could not recall reported to him about an
existing trouble in the scene of the incident. He
responded by going to the scene, accompanied by
another person. There, he saw the dead body of San
Juan. He gathered from the people milling around the
body that it was Ladiana who killed San Juan. He
immediately left to look for Ladiana. He later learned that
Ladiana surrendered to the police. (Cross) He testified
that he did not witness the incident. He also said that it
was the people around the incident who told him that
Ladiana already left. He also saw a stab wound on
Ladianas right bicep but he did not ask him how he got
it.
3.
Dr. Rogelio Javan performed the necropsy
4.
SPO2 Percival Gabinete his testimony was dispensed
with upon the admission of the defense that he was part
of the group that responded to the incident
5.
Mario Cortez retired Assistant Prosecutor of Laguna.
Prior to the conduct of examination-in-chief of Cortez,
defense counsel admitted to the authorship, authenticity,
and voluntariness of the execution of the counteraffidavit of Ladiana. In the counter-affidavit, Ladiana
admitted shooting Francisco but he allegedly did so in
self-defense as Francisco was then attacking Ladiana and
had in fact already inflicted a stab wound on the arm of
Ladiana. Cortez emphasized that he was not the one who
conducted the PI. He also said that he would not be able
to recognize the face of the affiant in the counteraffidavit but maintained that there was a person who
appeared and identified himself as Josue Ladiana before
him.
Defense filed a Demurrer to Evidence
Issue: WON the counter-affidavit executed by Ladiana during
the preliminary investigation is admissible although no counsel
was present when he executed it
Held: Yes
Ratio: The constitutional guarantee applies only during
custodial investigations. Custodial investigation is the
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a
page 13
Admissibility of Evidence
person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of
freedom of action in any significant way.
The Court held that the right to counsel does not extend to
PIs. A PI is an inquiry or a proceeding to determine whether
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is
probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. A person
undergoing PI before a public prosecutor cannot be considered
as being under custodial investigation.
However, the accused possesses rights that must be
safeguarded:
1.
Right to refuse to be made witness
2.
Right not to have any prejudice whatsoever imputed to
him by such refusal
3.
Right to testify on his own behalf, subject to crossexamination by the prosecution
4.
While testifying, the right to refuse to answer a specific
question that tends to incriminate him for some crime
other than that for which he is being prosecuted
Ladianas counter-affidavit is not an extrajudicial confession, it
is only an admission. In confession, there is an
acknowledgement of guilt. In an admission, there is merely a
statement of fact not directly involving an acknowledgement
of guilt or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which
one is charged. In the counter-affidavit, Ladiana admits
shooting San Juan but denies having done it with criminal
intent since he claimed that it was done in self-defense.
There is no doubt as to the voluntariness of the counteraffidavit. The admissions of Ladiana made through his counsel
during the trial are very clear.
In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing their
untruth or by showing that they were made by mistake.
Ladiana never offered any rationalization why he made the
admission.
4. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE
Section 34 SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE
Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at
one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did
not do the same or similar thing at another time; but it
may be received to prove a specific intent or
knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit,
custom or usage, and the like.
azereth
Evidence
5. TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE
Section 36 TESTIMONY GENERALLY CONFINED TO
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE; HEARSAY EXCLUDED
A witness can testify only to those facts which he
knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his own perception, except as otherwise
provided in these rules.
page 14
Admissibility of Evidence
3.
c.
d.
azereth
Evidence
People vs. Sabio (1981)
It is the belief in the impending death at the time the
statement was made, and not the rapid succession of death,
that renders the dying declaration admissible.
page 15
Admissibility of Evidence
4.
Evidence
Requisites:
1.
Witness testifying thereto must be a member, by
consanguinity or affinity, of the same family as the
subject
2.
Such tradition or reputation must have existed in
that family ante litem motam
Persons statement of date of birth and age declaration
of family tradition
Common Reputation
Section 41 COMMON REPUTATION
Common
reputation
existing
previous
to
the
controversy, respecting facts of public or general
interest more than 30 years old, respecting marriage or
moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments
and inscriptions in public places may be received as
evidence of common reputation
or
Admissible to prove:
Marriage
Moral character
Established by:
1.
Testimonial evidence of competent witness
2.
Monuments and inscription in public places
3.
Documents containing statements of reputation
Reputation opinion of him by others
Character inherent qualities of a person
Requisites:
1.
The actor or declarant is dead and unable to testify
2.
The act or declaration is made by the person related
to the subject by birth or marriage
3.
The relationship between the declarant or the actor
and the subject is shown by evidence other than
such act or declaration
4.
The act or declaration was made prior to the
controversy
azereth
page 16
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Res Gestae
Section 42 PART OF THE RES GESTAE
Statements made by a person while a startling
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances
thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the 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
Dying Declaration
Statement
may
precede,
accompany, or be made after
the
homicidal
act
was
committed
Trustworthiness
is
based
upon its being given under
the awareness of impending
death
be
azereth
Requisites:
1.
The person who made the entry must be dead or
unable to testify
2.
The entries were made at or near the time of the
transaction to which they refer
3.
The entrant was in a position to know the facts
stated in the entries
4.
The entries were made in his professional capacity
or in the performance of a duty, whether legal,
contractual, moral or religious
5.
The entries were made in the ordinary or regular
course of business or duty
page 17
Admissibility of Evidence
3.
Evidence
Commercial Lists
Section 45 - COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE
Evidence of statements of matters of interest to
persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list,
register, periodical, or other published compilation is
admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant
matter so stated if that compilation is published for use
by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally
used and relied upon by them therein.
Learned Treatises
Section 46 - LEARNED TREATISES
A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a
subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible as
tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if
the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in
the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in
the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his
profession or calling as expert in the subject.
Requisites:
1.
The court takes judicial notice thereof
2.
The same is testified to by a witness expert in the
subject
CA took judicial notice of the Ballantyne Scale of Values 8
Legal treatises also included
Requisites:
1.
Witness is dead or unable to testify
2.
His testimony or deposition was given in a former
case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,
between the same parties or those representing the
same interests
azereth
3.
7. OPINION RULE
Section 48 - GENERAL RULE
The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as
indicated in the following sections.
Section 49 - OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS
The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he shown
to posses, may be received in evidence.
Section 50 - OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESSES
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; and
c.
The mental sanity of a person with whom he is
sufficiently acquainted.
page 18
Admissibility of Evidence
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the
emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
Factors:
1.
Training and education
2.
Particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts
of the case
3.
Presentation of authorities or standards upon
which his opinion is based15
Generates doubt
14
azereth
Evidence
Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan (1985)20
Where the supposed experts testimony would constitute
the sole ground for conviction and there is equally expert
testimony to the contrary, the constitutional presumption of
innocence must prevail
page 19
Admissibility of Evidence
c.
Criminal cases
Civil cases
Evidence
Burden of Proof
Burden of Evidence
azereth
Criminal cases
page 20
Evidence
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
r.
Presumptions of Law
Presumptions of Fact
s.
Praesumptiones juris
Praesumptiones hominis
Discretion is vested in
tribunal as to drawing
inference
t.
the
the
u.
v.
w.
Types:
1.
Conclusive (juris et de
jure)
2.
Disputable
(juris
tantum or prima facie)
1) Conclusive Presumptions
Section 2 CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
The following instances are conclusive presumptions:
a.
Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act,
or omission, intentionally and deliberately led
another to believe a particular thing true, and to
act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation
arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be
permitted to falsify it;
b.
The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his
landlord at the time of the commencement of the
relation of landlord and tenant between them.
2) Disputable Presumptions
Section 3 DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION
The
following
presumptions
are
satisfactory
if
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome
by other evidence:
a.
That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
b.
That an unlawful act was done with unlawful
intent;
c.
That a person intends the ordinary consequences
of his voluntary act;
d.
That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
e.
That evidence willfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced;
f.
That the money paid by one to another was due to
the latter;
azereth
x.
y.
page 21
cc.
dd.
ee.
ff.
gg.
hh.
ii.
jj.
kk.
azereth
Evidence
page 22
Par (dd) taken from Art 259 of the Civil Code, in line
with Art 168 of the Family Code
Par (jj) requisites:
1.
Deaths occurred in a calamity
2.
There are no particular circumstances from which it
can be inferred that one died ahead of the other
Evidence
Presentation of Evidence
Rule 132 Presentation of Evidence
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Section 1 EXAMINATION TO BE DONE IN OPEN COURT
The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or
hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or
affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to
speak, or the question calls for a different mode of
answer, the answers of a witness shall be given orally
Section 2 PROCEEDINGS TO BE RECORDED
The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including
the questions to be propounded to a witness and his
answer thereto, the statements made by the judge or
any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference
to the case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or
stenotype or by other means of recording found
suitable by the court.
A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by
the official stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and
certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie
a correct statement of such proceedings.
May provide that affidavits and counteraffidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral
testimony
Testimony of witness should be elicited by questions of
counsel
azereth
page 23
Presentation of Evidence
Also, issue was raised during crossexamination, hence she did not
waive the right
Unless otherwise provided by law refers to
immunity statutes wherein the witness is
granted immunity from criminal prosecution
azereth
Evidence
Section 8 - RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION
Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the
adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on
matters stated in his re-direct examination, and also on
such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its
discretion.
cross
examination shall only be on the subject of his
examination-in-chief
page 24
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
azereth
Impeachment
is
incomplete
if
witness is not given the chance to
explain the discrepancy
page 25
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
American jurisprudence:
azereth
Private documents
documents
commercial
and
private
Rules of authenticity
In addition, American jurisprudence also gives:
page 26
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
Section 27 - PUBLIC RECORD OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT
An authorized public record of a private document may
be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof,
attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
appropriate certificate that such officer has the
custody.
Section 28 - PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD
A written statement signed by an officer having the
custody of an official record or by his deputy that after
diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is
found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied
by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as
evidence that the records of his office contain no such
record or entry.
Section 29 HOW JUDICIAL RECORD IMPEACHED
Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
a.
Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer,
b.
Collusion between the parties, or
c.
Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to
the proceedings.
Rule 39 Sec 1
21
2
azereth
page 27
Presentation of Evidence
Macadangdang vs. CA (1980)
A baptismal certificate is proof only of the baptism
administered by the priest who baptized the child but not
the veracity of the declarations and statements in the
certificates concerning the relationship of the person
baptized
Death certificate
Evidence
Section 36 OBJECTION
Objection to evidence offered orally must be made
immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the
oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as
the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to
within three (3) days after notice of the offer unless a
different period is allowed by the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be
specified.
Section 37 - WHEN REPETITION OF OBJECTION
UNNECESSARY
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of
the examination of a witness that the question being
propounded are of the same class as those to which
objection has been made, whether such objection was
sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to
repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse
party to record his continuing objection to such class of
questions.
Section 38 RULING
The ruling of the court must be given immediately after
the objection is made, unless the court desires to take a
reasonable time to inform itself on the question
presented; but the ruling shall always be made during
the trial and at such time as will give the party against
whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation
presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection
need not be stated. However, if the objection is based
on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the
objection on one or some of them must specify the
ground or grounds relied upon.
Section 39 - STRIKING OUT ANSWER
Should a witness answer the question before the
adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its
objection to the same, and such objection is found to be
meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and
order the answer given to be stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking
out of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or
otherwise improper.
Section 40 - TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE
If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded
by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to
or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is
oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and
other personal circumstances of the witness and the
substance of the proposed testimony.
Also in People vs. Jalosjos (2001) and People vs. Fruna (2002)
azereth
page 28
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
Prats & Co. vs. Phoenix Insurance Co. (52 Phil 807)
In a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of
first instance, in the early stages of the development of the
proof, to know with any certainty whether testimony is
relevant or not; and where there is no indication of bad faith
on the part of the attorney offering the evidence, the court
may, as a rule, safely accept the testimony upon the
statement of the attorney that the proof offered will be
connected later
People vs. Diano (CA, 66 OG 6405)
Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be
considered for any other purpose
Sheraton-Palace hotel vs. Quijano (CA, 64 OG 9118)
A document or writing which is admitted not as
independent evidence but merely as part of the testimony of a
witness does not constitute proof of the facts related therein
24
azereth
28
page 29
Presentation of Evidence
azereth
Evidence
People vs. Rivera (CA, 58 OG 68)
By credibility of a witness is meant his integrity,
disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testimony he
has given as distinguished from the credibility of his testimony
Arroyo vs. El Beaterio del Santissimo Rosario de Molo
(1968)
To hold that a particular person is competent to testify
upon a given matter does not mean that his testimony
thereon must be believed by the court or must be deemed by
it to be of sufficient probative value to establish the point
which it was intended to prove. Competency of a witness is
one thing, and it is another to be credible witness. Courts
allow a person to testify as a witness upon a given matter
because he is competent but may thereafter decide whether
to believe or not to believe his testimony
US vs. Macuti (26 Phil 170)
It is a well-settled doctrine that the demeanor, the
emphasis, gestures and inflection of the voice of a witness,
while testifying, are potent aids in the proper evaluation of his
credibility
Mondragon vs. CA (1974)
When a witness makes two sworn statements and these
two statements incur in the gravest contradictions, the court
cannot accept either statement as proof. The witness by his
own act of giving false testimony impeaches his own
testimony and the court should exclude it from all
consideration
People vs. Reyes (CA, 50 OG 665)
It has been said that perhaps the most subtle and
prolific of all fallacies of testimony arises out of unconscious
partisanship. Upon the happening of an accident, the
occasional passengers on board of a streetcar are very apt to
side with the employees in charge of the car (citing Wellman,
The Art of Cross-Examination)
People vs. Juarez (CA, 57 OG 2518)
The fact that a person has reached the twilight of his
life is not always a guaranty that he would tell the truth. It is
also quite common that advanced age makes a person
mentally dull and completely hazy about things which have
happened to him and, at times, it weakens the resistance to
outside influence
US vs. Laban (21 Phil 297)
The record of a PI constitutes no part of the final
proceedings in a cause, unless it is presented in evidence, and
the facts adduced therein are evidence only for the purpose of
testing the credibility of the witnesses
page 30
Index
Or intense grief
Relationship of witness to the victim does not impair
his clear and positive testimony nor give it lesser credit
Evidence
azereth
Factors:
1.
Witness opportunity to view the criminal at the
time of the crime
2.
Witness degree of attention at the time
3.
Accuracy of any prior description given by the
witness
4.
Level of certainty demonstrated by the witness
at the identification
5.
Length of time between the crime and the
identification
6.
Suggestiveness of the identification procedure
Res ipsa loquitur the fact of the occurrence of an
injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may
permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence
or make out a plaintiffs prima facie case and present a
question of fact for the defendant to meet with an
explanation
page 31
Index
Evidence
Doctrine is merely evidentiary or procedural in
nature
Reputation
or
cohabitation
merely
corroborative
azereth
page 32