Evidence 2003

1
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
EVIDENCE
Rule 130 RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
prove its contents in some authentic document, or by testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (Sec. 5; People vs. Dismuke, 53 SCAD 182, G.R. No. 108453, July 11, 1994). Q: When may secondary evidence be shown if the original of a document is in the possession of the adverse party. A: If the document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. (Sec. 6). Q: A: How may a public document be proved? When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (Sec. 7).
1. Q: A:
Best Evidence Rule
State the best evidence rule. When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself. (Sec. 3)
Q: The rule is that, no evidence shall be admissible other than the document itself. Are there exceptions? A: Yes, and they are: (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; (b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice; (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. (Sec. 3). Q: A: What are considered originals of a document? They are: (a) When the original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry; (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; (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. (Sec. 4).
Q: During the trial, X moved for the production of a document. Is it obligatory for him to offer it in evidence? A: No. A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. (Sec. 8) 3. Parol Evidence Rule
Q: State the rule when the terms of the agreement are put to writing. A: When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. (Sec. 9). Q: Under what circumstances may a party present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement? A: A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading: (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement; (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto; (c) The validity of the written agreement; or (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors-in-interest after the execution of the written agreement. The term agreement includes wills. (Sec. 9). Q: A contract of sale of a motor vehicle was entered into between A and B. Later on, a controversy arose where the seller contended that there was actually no consideration in the sale and that the deed was merely a security for the time deposit placements of the buyers relatives with the bank. May the deed of sale be proved or altered by parol evidence? Why? No. It is a well-accepted principle of law that evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict or defeat
Q: State the extent of applicability of the best evidence rule. A: It is only applied to prove the contents of a document, but not the truth thereof. It prohibits the evidence of the contents of a document other than the original, unless the contents are the subjects of inquiry. 2. Secondary Evidence
Q: How may the original of a lost or destroyed document be proved? A: 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
A:
Prepared by the REMEDIAL LAW SECTION Chief CHRISTIAN PAUL ULPINDO Assistant Chief MAGDALENA ERFE Members YVONNE BINWAG, SHARON BANAGEN, CHARLES JAVIER CALAPINI, BRIAN CRISPIN, QUOINA GABOL, RAYMOND MENDOZA, RUSSEL SABADO, MICHELLE EXIOMO and ANA MAY CORPUZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
2
the opration of a valid instrument. (American Factors [Phils.] Inc. vs. CA, Tire Corporation, et al., [CA] 49 O.G. 189; Ortanez vs. CA, 78 SCAD 261, et al., G.R. No. 107372, Jan. 23, 1997). While parol evidence is admissible in a variety of ways to explain the meaning of written contracts, it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contracts additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing, unless there has been fraud or mistake. (Yu Tek & Co. vs Gonzales, 29 Phil. 384; see also De La Rama vs. Ledesma, 143 SCRA [1986]. In one case, the petitioner failed to produce any instrument or written document which would prove that the deed of sale in question was only a security for the time deposit placements of respondents relatives in the petitioner bank. The two (2) main witnesses for the petitioner, namely, Messrs. Eudela and Pangilinan, were not mere employees of the bank. They were bank officers; one being a lawyer (Pangilinan), and supposed to be equipped in legal and banking knowledge and practices. As such, they were expected to know the consequences of their act of signing a document which outrightly transferred ownership over the subject vehicle in favor of respondent Santos. They could have incorporated in the deed of sale (if such was the intention or agreement of the parties) a stipulation that transfer of ownership and registration of the vehicle in Santos name were conditioned on the failure of his relatives to recover their time deposit placements in petitioner bank. No such stipulation was incorporated in the deed of sale which was an outright and unconditional transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle to respondent Santos. (Pioneer Savings and Loan Bank vs. CA, et al.,45 SCAD 25, G.R. No. 105419, Sept. 27,1993). Q: A: May parol evidence be presented to show that one party was defrauded into signing it? Yes. Parol evidence is admissible to show that a contract was fraudulently misread to one not able to read and write and that he was by such fraud indeed to give his signature that were it not for the misrepresentation, he would not have signed the document. (De la Cruz vs. Capinpin). State the reason why parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a contract? This is so because spoken words could be notoriously unreliable, unlike a written contract which speaks of a uniform language. (De Leon vs. CA, 204 SCRA 612; Abella vs. CA, 71 SCAD 210, G.R. No.107606, June 20, 1996). May parol evidence be presented to show prior or contemporaneous acts or agreements to vary transaction? As a rule, no. It is a well-accepted rule that evidence is inadmissible to vary, contradict, or defeat the operation of a valid transaction. While parol evidence is admissible in a variety of ways to explain the meaning of written contracts, it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing unless there has been fraud or mistake, (Dela Rama vs. Ledesma).

Q: A:
X sold his house and lot with right to repurchase to Y. Can he prove it to be one of sale with mortgage? Yes. Even when a document appears on its face to be sale with pacto de retro, the owner of the property may prove that the contract is really a loan with mortgage by raising as an issue the fact that the document does not express the true intent and agreement of parties. In this case, parol evidence then becomes competent and admissible to prove that the instrument was in truth and in fact given merely as a security for the payment of the loan. And upon proof of the truth of such allegations, the court will enforce the agreement of the aprties at the time of the execution of the contract. This principle is applicable even if the purported sale on pacto de retro was registered in the name of the transferee and a new certificate of title was issued in the name of the latter. (Olea vs. CA, et al., 61 SCAD 100, G.R. No. 117389, May 11, 1995). What is the extent of the applicability of the parol evidence rule? The parol evidence rule applies to an agreement in writing, regardless of whether the written contract is a public or private document. (Inciong, Jr. vs. CA, et al., 71 SCAD 287, G.R. No.96405, June 26, 1996).
Q: A:
Q: A:
Q: A:
RULE 131

BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS

` BURDEN OF PROOF ( onus probandi ) DEFINED: Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law ( sec. 1 Rule 131 ) ` BURDEN OF EVIDENCE DEFINED: Burden of evidence is the duty of a party, at any particular time during the trial, to create a prima facie case in his favor, or to overthrow one when created against him. BURDEN OF PROOF & BURDEN OF EVIDENCE, DISTINGUISHED: BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF EVIDENCE -never shifts -shifts to 1 party when -determined by the the other party has pleadings created a prima facie -a legal presumption case creates the necessity of -determined by the presenting evidence to progress of the trial meet the prima facie case -a legal presumption creates a prima facie case & shifts burden of evidence to the other party ` PRIMA FACIE CASE DEFINED: A prima facie case is one which is supported by sufficient evidence and will support a finding in the absence of evidence to controvert it. WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF? In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who will fail if he offers no evidence competent to show the fact averred as the basis for the relief he seeks to obtain. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the essential elements of the offense with which the accused is charged. WHAT MATTERS NEED BE PROVED? As a general rule, all facts in issue and relevant facts must be proved by evidence. WHAT MATTERS NEED NOT BE PROVED? The following classes of facts need not be proved: i. those within the judicial notice of courts ii. those admitted iii. those legally presumed MUST A NEGATIVE ALLEGATION BE PROVED?
Generally, a negative allegation need not be proved. However, it must be proved when, in a civil action, it is an essential part of the cause of action or, in a criminal action, it is an essential element of the crime alleged. People vs Tiozon 198 S 368 There being no proof that accused-appellant had no license to possess the firearm in question, he could not be convicted for illegal possession of firearm. Although proof of the existence or non existence of such license can, with more facility, be adduced by the defendant, it is nevertheless, incumbent upon the party alleging the want of the license to prove the allegation. Naturally, as the subject matter of the averment is one which lies peculiarly within the control or knowledge of the accused, prima facie evidence thereof on the part of the prosecution shall suffice to cast the onus upon him. People vs Manalo 230 S 309 ISSUE: Accused-appellant maintains that since the absence of a license or authority is an essential ingredient of the crime ( violation of the anti-drug law ), proof of such negative allegation should have been presented by the prosecution. HELD: The negative averment that the accused had no license or authority to sell shabu has been fairly indicated by the following circumstances, deduced from and established by the testimony of the arresting officers, viz: the accused was caught selling shabu not in a hospital or pharmacy at an unholy hour xxxxxxxx. She delivered the drug to the poseurbuyer. Proof of these circumstances thus shifted the onus on the accused. She could have verily disproved these damning circumstances by mere presentation of a copy of her license. People vs Mesal 244 S 166 The presentation of either the testimony of a representative of , or a certification from the PNP Firearms & Explosives Unit, may be dispensed with to prove illegal possession of firearm where other evidence firmly and undisputably established that the accused did not have, and could not possibly have, the requisite license or authority to possess a rifle which only military men are authorized to possess. People vs Mendi 19 Feb. 2001 Appellant must be acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove the 2nd element of the offense which is non-possession of a license. People vs Mesal is inapplicable as the firearm involved in this case, a .38 cal. Smith & Wesson paltik revolver, is not one exclusively issued to the military. PRESUMPTION DEFINED: A presumption is an inference of the existence or nonexistence of some fact which common sense draws from the
4
connection, relations and coincidence of facts and circumstances with each other. CLASSES OF PRESUMPTIONS: A. Presumption ` juris or of law a deduction which the law considers as established from facts proven. B. Presumption hominis or of fact a deduction or inference which reason or experience draws from other facts proved. CLASSES OF PRESUMPTION JURIS: A. B. Conclusive Presumption or Presumption et de Jure that whish is not permitted to be overcome by any proof to the contrary, however strong. Disputable Presumption or Presumption Juris Tantum that which suffices until overcome by contrary evidence. INSTANCES OF CONCLUSIVE

Sec. 3 Rule 131 ( a kk ) enumerates the disputable presumptions; those that are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence.
Discussions on some of the disputable presumptions: a.) that a person is innocent of crime or wrong; The accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved by the prosecution. If the prosecution fails, it fails utterly, even if the defense is weak or even if there is no defense at all. ( People v Castro 4 Oct. 1989 ) If the evidence gives rise to 2 possibilities, one consistent with the defendants innocence and another indicative of his guilt, that which favors the accused should be considered. ( People v Go 142 S 238 ) b.) that an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent; A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of be innocent. c.) that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns; In the absence of proof tending to show the contrary, where a person is killed by an accident to which there are no eyewitnesses, the presumption of the law is that he was in the exercise of due care. d.) that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;This presumption is INAPPLICABLE where: i. the evidence is at the disposal of both parties ii. the suppression was not willful iii. the evidence suppressed was merely corroborative or cumulative iv. the suppression is an exercise of a privilege
WHAT ARE THE PRESUMPTIONS?
The following are instances of conclusive presumptions: 1. Equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais and 2. Estoppel by deed ie. against tenant WHAT IS THE RULE ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL OR ESTOPPEL IN PAIS? The Rule is that 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. ( sec. 2(a) Rule 131 ) WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE RULE? The Rule is based on grounds of public policy and good faith, it being intended to afford protection against injustice and fraud by denying to a person the right to repudiate his acts, admissions or representations which have been relied on by the person to whom they were directed and whose conduct they were intended to, and did, influence. WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF ESTOPPEL IN PAIS? 1. 2. 3. 4. there must have been a representation or concealment of material facts; the representation must have been made with knowledge of the facts; the party to whom the representation was made must have been ignorant of the truth of the matter; and the representation must have been with intention that the other party would act upon it.
WHAT IS THE RULE ON ESTOPPEL AGAINST TENANT? The Rule is that 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. ( sec. 2(b) Rule 131 )
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

Section 1. Examination to be done in open court.
RULE 132

How may the examination of a witness be done/ How oral evidence is given? Answer: 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 the witness shall be given orally. : It is usually given orally, in open court. Therefore, generally the testimonies of witness cannot be presented in affidavit. -One instance when the testimonies of witnesses may be given in affidavits is under the rule on summary procedure. PURPOSE: to enable the court to judge the credibility of the witness by the witness manner of testifying their intelligence and their appearance. The form and nature of the questions that may and may not be propounded to a witness are as follows: Questions must not be indefinite or uncertain; Questions must be relevant; Questions must not be argumentative; Questions must not call for conclusion of law; Questions must not call for opinion or hearsay evidence; Questions must not call for illegal answer; Questions must not call for self-incriminating testimony; Questions must not be leading Questions must not tend to degrade reputation of witness; Questions must not be repetitious NOTE: The testimony of a witness in court cannot be considered self-serving since ha can be subjected to crossexamination. Self-serving evidence is one made out of court and is excluded on the same ground as hearsay evidence. An instance would be; The deprivation of a witness to the right of cross-examination. Section 3: Rights and Obligations of a witness What are the rights of a witness? Answer: The rights of a Witness are: 1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor; 2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require; 3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue; 4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law; 5) 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. NOTE: The exception refers to immunity statutes wherein the witness is granted immunity from criminal prosecution for offenses admitted in his testimony, e.g. under Sec. 8, R.A. 1379, the law providing for the forfeiture of unlawfully acquired
property; and under P.D. 749 in prosecutions for bribery and graft. Classification of Immunity Statutes Use immunity prohibits use of witness compelled testimony and its fruit in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution despite invocation of rights against self-incrimination. Transactional Immunity grants immunity to the witness from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimony relates. NOTE: For purposes of evidence, Right against self incrimination refers to testimonial compulsion. Right against self-incrimination is granted only in favor of individuals; hence, a corporation cannot invoke that privilege as the question testimony can come only from a corporate officer or employee who has a personality distinct from that of the corporation. Right against self-incrimination extends to administrative proceedings with a criminal or penal aspect. 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 at issue would be presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense. WITNESS PROTECTION SECURITY AND BENEFIT ACT RA 6981: SEC.10 State Witness - person who has participated in the commission of a crime and desires to be a witness for the state shall be admitted into the program whenever the following circumstances are present: 1) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under RPC or its equivalent under special laws; 2) absolute necessity for his testimony; 3) there is no direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed; 4) his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its involving moral turpitude; 5) he does not appear to be the most guilty; and 6) he has not at any time been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. SEC.11 Sworn Statement - before any person is admitted into the program he shall execute a sworn statement describing in detail the manner the offense was committed and his participation therein. If his application is denied, said sworn statement and other testimony given in support of said application shall not be admissible in evidence, except for impeachment purposes. SEC. 12 Effect of admission of a state witness into the program The certification of admission into the program by the department shall be given full faith and credit by the provincial or city prosecutor who is required not to include the witness in a criminal complaint or information and if included therein to petition the court for his discharge in order that he can be utilized as a state witness.. Admission into the program shall entitle such state witness to immunity from criminal prosecution for the offense in which his testimony will be given and used.
6
SEC. 13 Failure or Refusal of the Witness to Testify Failure without just cause when lawfully obliged to do so, shall be prosecuted fro contempt. If he testifies falsely or evasively, he shall be liable for perjury. His immunity shall be removed and he shall be subject to contempt or criminal prosecution. Must a witness answer any question asked? Answer: Yes, a witness must answer questions, although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him. (Sec. 3) Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness State the order of examination of an individual witness. Answer: The order of examination of an individual witness may be examined is as follows: a) b) c) d) Direct examination by proponent; Cross-examination by opponent; Re-direct examination by proponent; Re-cross examination by opponent. (Sec.4) the the the the

PARTY CALLING THE FOLLOWING WITNESSES ARE NOT BOUND BY THEIR TESTIMONY: 1) 2) 3) adverse party; hostile witness; unwilling witness.
Hostile witness- a witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of: a) his adverse interest b) unjustified reluctance to testify c) or his having mislead the party into calling him to the witness stand. Section 9. Recalling witness GENERAL RULE: After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of court. EXCEPTION: 1) The examination has not been concluded; and 2) recall has nor been expressly reserved with the approval of the court. Section 10. Leading and Misleading questions
PURPOSES OF CROSS-EXAMINATION 1. To discredit the witness; 2. To discredit the testimony of the witness; 3. To clarify certain matters; 4. To elicit admissions from a witness. SCOPE OR LIMITS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION: 1. ENGLISH RULE-where a witness is called to testify to a particular fact, he becomes a witness for all purposes and may be fully cross-examined upon all matters material to the issue, the examination not being confined to the matters inquired about in the direct examination. 2. AMERICAN RULE-restricts cross-examination to facts and circumstances which are connected with the matters that have been stated in the direct examination of the witness. Under Philippine Jurisdiction, we follow the two rules, specifically under the following instances: In civil cases, we follow the English Rule, which allows the cross-examination to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue (Sec. 6), but this does not mean that a party by doing so is making the witness his own in accordance with Section 5. In two instances we follow the American Rule, 1) the accused may only be crossexamined on matters covered by direct examination 2) hostile witness. When cross-examination cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party who offered the witness, the incomplete testimony is rendered incompetent and should be stricken from the record. Except where the prosecution witness was extensively cross-examined on the material points and thereafter failed to appear and cannot be produced despite a warrant for his arrest.
What is a leading question? Answer: Questions which suggest to the witness the answer which the examining party desires. May a leading Question be allowed? Answer: As a rule, leading questions may not be allowed. But there are exceptions like: 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; d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party. (Sec. 10) Under the rule on examination of a child witness, corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a child. His testimony, if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment subject to the standard of proof required in criminal and non-criminal cases (Sec. 22 of the Rule on examination of a child witness)
What is a Misleading question? Answer: one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness or contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is NOT allowed. Only one counsel should be allowed to examine a witness in a single stage. However, the other counsel may make objection to testimony.
7
REASONS: 1) To protect the witness from undue and confusing interrogation; and 2) To secure system and brevity by giving the control of the interrogation to a single hand. When Questions preliminary? Answer: When the question does not touch on any issue. A question that merely suggests a subject without suggesting an answer or a specific thing is not a leading question. Example: State whether anything occurred between you and the defendants on the evening of January 9, 1913. Section 11. Impeachment of adverse partys witness. WAYS OF IMPEACHING ADVERSE PARTYS WITNESS: 1) By contradictory evidence; 2) By evidence that the general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity of the witness is bad; or 3) By prior inconsistent statements. PROCEDURE FOR IMPEACHING WITNESS BY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS (LAYING THE PREDICATE) 1. The statement must be related to him with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present; - if the statement be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them; and 2. He must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain it. NOTE: Where the previous statements of a witness are offered as evidence of an admission, and not merely to impeach him, the rule on laying the predicate does not apply. May a party impeach his own witness? Answer: As a rule no, except, if the witness is an unwilling or hostile witness or if the witness is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party. (Sec.12) Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. In case of a hostile witness Where the witness is the adverse party or the representative of a judicial person which is the adverse party; and When the witness is not voluntarily offered but is required by law to be presented by the proponent as in the case of subscribing witness. May evidence of good moral character of an accused be presented? Answer: As a rule, no. Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached. (Sec. 14) Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. REVIVAL OF PRESENT MEMORY/PRESENT RECOLECTION REVIVED-a witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or

under his direction as the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter. PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED/REVIVAL OF PAST RECOLLECTION- a witness may also testify from such writing or record, though he retains no recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made, but such evidence must be received with caution. PRESENT MEMORY REVIVED Memory is obscure but there is still memory The main evidence is the testimony of the witness and the memorandum The witness simply testifies that he knows that the memorandum is correctly written by him or under his direction; no need to swear. PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED Recollection is zero The main evidence is the memorandum Witness must swear that the writing correctly states the transaction.
The memorandum from which the witness may be permitted to refresh his memory need not be an original writing. It is sufficient if it is shown that the witness knows the copy to be a true one, and his memory refreshed thereby enables him to testify from his own recollection of the facts, independent of his confidence in the accuracy of the copy.
State the rule when part of an act, declaration or writing is given in evidence by one party Answer: When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. (Sec. 17) State the nature of the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus Answer: The rule does nor really lay down a categorical test of credibility. (People vs. Manalasan, 189 SCRA 619; See also People vs. Letigo, etal., G.R.No. 112968, Feb. 13, 1997). It is not a positive rule of law or of universal application. It should not be applied to portions of the testimony corroborated by other evidence, particularly where the false portions could be innocent mistakes. Moreover, the rule is not mandatory but merely sanctions a disregard of the testimony of a witness if the circumstances so warrant. To completely disregard all the testimony of a witness on this ground, his testimony must have been false on material point and the witness must have a conscious and deliberate intention to falsify a material point. It has been held that as long as the mass of testimony jibes on material points, the slight clashing statements dilute neither the credibility nor the veracity of the testimony. Inconsistencies and contradictions on minor details do not impair the credibility of witnesses as they are but natural they even enhance credibility as these discrepancies indicate that the response are honest and unrehearsed. (People vs. Pacapac, et al., 63 SCAD 173, G.R. No. 90623, Sept. 7. 1995) What are the components of identification testimony?
8
Answer: Identification testimony has at least three (3) components(which may be the causes of misidentification): 1) Witnessing a crime, whether as a victim or a bystander, involves perception of an event actually occurring; 2) The witness must memorize details of the event; and 3) The witness must be able to recall and communicate accurately. Danger of unreliability in eyewitness testimony arises at each of these three stages, for whenever people attempt to acquire, retain and retrieve information accurately, they are limited by normal human fallibilities and suggestive influences. (People vs. Teehankee, 64 SCAD 808, G.R. Nos.111206-08, Oct 6, 1995) What are the ways of out-court identification of suspects conducted by the police? Answer: 1) Show-ups, where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. 2) Mug shots, where the photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect; and 3) Line-ups, where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose of identification. (People vs. Teehankee, supra.) a)

by anyone who saw the document executed or written; or b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. (Sec. 20) PUBLIC WRITING DISTINGUISHED FROM PRIVATE WRITING: PUBLIC WRITING As to authenticity a public document is admissible evidence, without further proof of its genuineness and due execution a public instrument is evidence even against third persons, of the fact which gave rise to its due execution and to the date of the latter certain transactions must be in a public document, otherwise they will not be given any validity PRIVATE WRITING a private writing must be proved relative to its due execution and genuineness-its authenticity before it may be received in evidence. a private writing binds only the parties who executed them or their privies insofar as due execution and date of the document are concerned.
As to persons bound
Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder admissible. RULE ON COMPLETENESS: When Part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing, or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or recode necessary may also be given in evidence. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS Section 19. Classes of documents. AUTHENTICATION-PROVING the due execution and genuineness of the document. CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS: For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either in public or private (Sec. 19). PUBLIC DOCUMENTS: 1. The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; 2. Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testimonies; and 3. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein. How may a private document be proved before it is admitted in evidence? Answer: Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: As to validity of certain transactions
The following are private writings which may be admitted in evidence without previous proof of its authenticity and due execution: 1. When the genuineness and due execution of the document is admitted by the adverse party; 2. When such genuineness and due execution are immaterial to the issue; 3. When the document is an ANCIENT DOCUMENT. NOTE: Ancient Document Rule applies only if there are no other witnesses to determine authenticity. RULE 130, Sec. 34 When may previous conduct or act be received in evidence? When they are offered to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like. (Sec. 34, Rule 130) If an offer to pay money in writing is rejected without valid cause, what is the rule? An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or property. (Sec. 35, Rule 130)

What is the Hearsay Rule? 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 provided in the rules. 5. What is hearsay evidence? Hearsay derived not through the perception of the person testifying but acquired through information from others. Are there exceptions to the Hearsay Rule? Yes. They are: 1. Dying declaration- the declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. To be admissible in evidence, what are the requisites that must be present for dying declaration to be admissible in evidence The dying declaration must: a.. concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarants death b. that at the time it was made, the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death c. that he was a competent witness d. that his declaration is offered in evidence in a criminal case for homicide, murder or parricide in which the declarant is the victim; and e. the declaration must be complete A dying declaration may be oral or written 2. Declaration against interest- the declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify, against the interest of the declarant, if 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, may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons. Act or declaration about pedigree- the act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage, may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The word pedigree includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree- the reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness, testifying thereon be also a member of the
family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree. Common reputation- Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, respecting facts of public or general interest more than 30 years old, or respecting marriage or moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation. Part of res gestae- statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior to 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 re gestae. Entries in the course of business- entries made at, or near the time of the transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. Entries in official records- entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by la, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. commercial lists and the like- evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in alist, 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.
6.
7.
8.
9.
3.
10.Learned treatises- a published treaties, 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. 11. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding- the testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross examine him.
4.
10
What is the Opinion Rule-the opinion of a witness is not admissible. Is this absolute? No, there are exceptions and they are the following: 1. If the witness is an expert 2. if witness is an ordinary witness, it may be received in evidence only on matters regarding: i. the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge ii. a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity and iii. the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person. Is character Evidence admissible? As a rule, no. The exceptions are; a. In criminal cases: i. the accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged; ii. unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged; iii. 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. b. In civil cases Evidence of the moral character of aparty in a civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. c. Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached.

The declarant is not present and available for crossexamination in violation of the other partys right to confront and cross-examine the witness. FORM OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE May be oral/verbal or in writing.
Q: Private Respondent Corporation was chartered by Petitioner Corporation to transport copper concentrates. The cargo was loaded on board at Poro Point, San Fernando, La Union and unloaded in Japan. An alleged shortage was reported. Petitioner made a claim for loss which respondent refused to pay. Thus, this suit for damages. The issue here is whether or not petitioners witnesses had personal knowledge of the actual weight of copper concentrate loaded on the vessel and discharged in Japan. ANS.: No, they did not have such personal knowledge. Lumibao, the marketing assistant of Pet. Corporation had no part in the preparation of the bill of loading and the Draft Survey Report prepared by OMIC. Nor was he present when the copper concentrates were loaded on the vessel or when the cargo was unloaded in Japan. He merely relied on the declarations made by other persons that 2,243.496 wet metric tons were indeed loaded and that the cargo was short by 355 metric tons when unloaded in Japan. The same maybe said of witness Cayabyab. While present at the loading site and familiar with the procedure followed in loading the cargo, he admitted that he could not state for certain that no spillage occurred as his attention was not at all times focused on the loading operation. Moreover, none of the documents he identified were signed by him. He only witnessed the signing of these documents by other people. Hence, he was in no position to testify as to the truth or falsity of the figures contained therein. The testimonies of these witnesses were thus HEARSAY. It has been held; any evidence, whether oral or documentary, is HEARSAY if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of another person who is not on the witness stand. Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has no probative value unless the proponent can show that the evidence falls within the exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule. (Benguet Exploration, Inc. Vs. CA, February 9, 2001). Q: Petitioner was convicted for the crime of murder before the lower courts. He now appeals to the Supreme Court, presenting an affidavit executed by a certain Elena de Sagun vda. De Gatdula, stating that her late husband admitted to her the killing of a certain person by the name of Mario Anacay, the victim in this case. Is Elenas affidavit admissible? ANS.: NO, for it is patently hearsay. It appears therein that she learned of the identity of the alleged culprit when her husband, who died in 1983, purportedly admitted to her of having killed Mario Anacay on May 24, 1981. In other words, she had no personal knowledge of the killing of Mario Anacay except for the information allegedly revealed to her by her late husband. It is an established doctrine that when the evidence is based on what was supposedly told the witness, the same is without any
TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE
Sec. 36-41, RULE 130 HEARSAY EVIDENCE One whose probative force depends in whole or in part on the competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce it. HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE 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. Thus,hearsay evidence is inadmissible. REASON FOR THE RULE
11
evidentiary value or weight, being patently hearsay. (Barrera Vs. People, February 19, 2001). INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENT One made by a third person intended not to establish the truth of the facts asserted in that statement, but only to prove the tenor of the statement. DOCTRINE OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENT Where, regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, the fact that it has been made is relevant, the hearsay rule does not apply, but the statement may be shown. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such fact. i.e. where statement is the fact in issue: -In a prosecution for slander, a witness may testify that he heard the accused utter the slanderous words, for the making of the statements is the principal fact in issue, and witness is called upon to testify as to a matter within his personal knowledge. There is here no question of hearsay involved. i.e. where statement is a circumstantial evidence: 1. 2. 3. Statements of a person showing his state of mind, knowledge, belief, intention, ill will and other emotions. Statements of a person, which show his physical condition, as illness and the like. Statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to the state of mind of another, that is, knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the latter. Statements, which may identify the date, place and person in question. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness.

Admissible if it falls under the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE: 1. Dying Declaration 2. Declaration Against Interest 3. Act or Declaration About Pedigree 4. Family Reputations or Tradition Regarding Pedigree 5. Common Reputation 6. Part of the Res Gestae 7. Entries In The Course of Business 8. Entries in Official Records 9. Commercial Lists And The Like 10. Learned Treatises 11. Testimony or Deposition At A Former Proceeding 1. DYING DECLARATION/ANTE MORTEM STATEMENT/STATEMENT IN ARTICULO MORTIS. Statement made by a person after the mortal wound has been inflicted, under a belief that death is certain, stating the facts concerning the cause of and the circumstances surrounding the homicide.
REASONS FOR THE ADMINISSIBILITY OF DYING DECLARATIONS: 1. NECESSITY Because the declarants death renders impossible his taking the witness stand and it often happens that there is no other equally satisfactory proof of the crime. 2. TRUSTWORTHINESS The declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and every hope of this world is gone; when every motive to falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth.
4. 5.
REQUISITE OF A DYING DECLARATION 1. The declaration must relate to the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarants death (how, where, when, why, by whom). NOTE: statements referring to the antecedents of the fatal encounter or opinions, impressions or conclusions of the declarant are not admissible. 2. The declaration must have been made under the consciousness of an impending death, taking into consideration: a. The words or statements made by the person or any conduct or actions or acknowledgment that he is going to die. (There is abandonment of the hope of survival.) b. Seriousness or gravity of the wound -However, should the victim express hope of recovery, despite the seriousness of his wounds, any statement he makes would not be considered a dying declaration. 2. The declarants death is the subject of inquiry (both in civil and criminal cases)
MAY OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSION OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL? NO. The failure of a party to object to the admission of hearsay evidence constitutes a waiver of his right to make such objection, and consequently, the evidence offered may be admitted. WHAT WEIGHT IS GIVEN TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE ADMITTED WITHOUT OBJECTION? Our Supreme Court held that although the question of admissibility can not be raised for the first time on appeal, yet if the evidence is hearsay, it has no probative value and should be disregarded, whether objected to or not.
MULTIPLE HEARSAY/HEARSAY TWICE REMOVED A hearsay declaration, which within itself contains a hearsay statement.
12
3. The declarant is competent as a witness at the time of the declaration. NOTE: It is not necessary that if he survives, he is competent. It is enough that he is competent at the time of the declaration. 4. The declaration should have been made freely and voluntarily. 5. The victim must die but need not be immediately. NOTE: The intervening time from the making of the declaration up to the actual death of the declarant is immaterial, as long as the declaration was made under the consciousness of impending death (US Vs. Mallari, 29 Phil. 14) which is a question of fact for the trial court to determine (People Vs. Extra July 30, 1976) and as long as no retraction was made by the declarant until his demise. Where the gravity of the wound did not diminish, the admissibility of the dying declaration is not affected by the fact that the declarant died hours or days later (People Vs. Devaras et al, February 27, 1971) or even 14 days later (People Vs. Jacinto, November 29, 1984). It is the belief in impending death at the time the statement was made and not the rapid succession of death, that renders the dying declaration admissible. (People Vs. Sabio, January 27, 1981). ** However, the interval of time between the declaration and the death of the declarant may be taken into account where the declaration is ambiguous as to whether the declarant believed that his death was imminent when he made such declaration. Thus, where the declarant stated that he would not die if treated, such statement indicates an awareness of death and the nature of his wound and his death an hour later qualifies such statement into a dying declaration or at least as part of the res gestae (People Vs. Antonio, Aug. 25, 1970). Where, shortly after he was wounded, the victim was asked as to whether he would die and which he replied I cannot ascertain and he died the following day, his statement is admissible both as part of the res gestae and as dying declaration (People Vs. Gueron, March 25, 1983). But where the victim, when asked as to whether he thought he would die replied I dont know his declaration was not made under the consciousness of his imminent death and does not qualify as an ante mortem statement, although the same was admitted as part of the res gestae since it was made immediately after the incident. (People Vs. Laquinon, Feb. 28, 1985.) DESTRUCTION OF THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF A DYING DECLARATION: 1. HOW? Impeach the testimony

i.e. Show that the declaration was made out of hatred or that the wound of the declarant could have deranged his mental faculties. 2. Prove the falsehood of the declaration i.e. The use of profane language; statements which contradict the dying declaration; establish the nature and extent of the inquiry. Attack the witness, that is, if he actually heard the declaration.
3.
FORM OF A DYING DECLARATION It needs not be in any particular form. A dying declaration may be a communication by means of signs, an oral statement, a mere formal statement, or answers to questions put by the person to whom the declaration is made, writing signed by the declarant or an affidavit. If the dying declaration has been made orally, it may be proved by the testimony of the witness who heard the same or to whom it was made. The better practice is for the witness to repeat what the declarant said. Where the declaration is made by question and answer, the entire conversation, question and the answer, should be given so far as possible.
But if the witness cannot state the exact language of the declarant, he may state the substance of the declaration, although subject to criticism as to its accuracy. Where the dying declaration was reduced to writing and signed/approved by the declarant, it must be proved by the writing itself, which must be authenticated and proved as any document offered in evidence. The writing is the best evidence. But where the absence of the original writing has been satisfactorily accounted for, the declaration may be established by secondary evidence. DOCTRINE OF COMPLETENESS OF DYING DECLARATION A dying declaration must be complete. To be complete does not mean that it should contain everything that constitute the ges restae of the subject of declarants statement, but is should express in full all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect of such fact. It must include all that the declarant wished or intended to include (People Vs. de Joya, Nov. 8, 1991). 2. DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
-Admissible in evidence if the declarant dies, become insane or is not available as a witness.
13
-Admissible in its entirety including parts not against interest if the latter are substantially connected with the subject matter as that covered by the part against interest.

2.
Admission 1. 2. 3. Person making the statement is alive Person admitting is a party to a case Used against the person admitting and those identified with him Primary Evidence 1.
Declaration Against Interest The declarant is dead, in sane or is unable to testify. 2. Person admitting need not be a party to the case 3. Used against third persons 4.
3.
-Dead, insane/mentally incapacitated, physically incompetent, of advanced age, has lost the power of speech. The declaration must concern facts cognizable by the declarant. -He must have knowledge of it or he has a duty to know it. The circumstance must render it improbable that a motive to lie exists.
REASONS FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OFDECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST: 1. 2. NECESSITY The only mode of proof available. TRUSTWSORTHINESS Presumption that men will not testify if what they will say will be prejudicial to their own interest. FORM OF DECLARATION INTEREST -May be oral or written. AGAINST
Secondary evidence 4. (used only if the declarant is dead, insane or unable to 5. Not necessarily testify. against interest 5. Against interest
3. ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE PEDIGREE - is the history of family descent, which is transmitted from one generation to another by both oral and written declaration and by traditions. It includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, dates and places where the facts occurred, names of relatives. REASONS FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF DECLARATIONS REGARDING PEDIGREE: 1. 2. NECESSITY Because facts occurred many years before trial and were known to only a few people. TRUSTWORTHINESS The natural effusions of those who talk over family affairs when no special reason for bias or passion exists, are family trustworthy.
SELF SERVING DECLARATION -Is a statement favorable to the interest of the declarant. It is not admissible in evidence as proof of the facts asserted since its introduction in evidence would open the door to frauds and perjuries.
SCOPE OF THE RULE: a. DECLARATION AGAINST MORAL INTEREST -i.e. acknowledgement of a natural child. b. DECLARATION AGAINST PECUNIARY INTEREST Those which may bar in whole or in part the declarants money claim or which may give rise to a monetary claim against him. DECLARATION AGAINST PROPRIETARY INTEREST -Those, which are at variance with the declarants property rights. DECLARATION AGAINST PENAL INTEREST -i.e. Acknowledgement of the commission of the crime.
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Declarant is dead or unable to testify. Pedigree is in issue. Declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in question (relationship may be by birth or affinity). Declaration must be made before the controversy occurred (ante litem motam) The relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in question must be shown by evidence other than such act or declaration (proof of relationship may be either direct or circumstantial).
c.
d.
REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY: 1. Declarant is not available to testify.
4. FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITON REGARDING PEDIGREE Such declarations and statements as have come down from generation to generation from deceased relatives in such a way that even
14
though it cannot be said or determined which of the deceased relatives originally made them, or was personally cognizant of the facts therein stated, yet it appears that such declarations and statements were made as family history, ante litem motam, by a deceased person connected by blood or marriage with the person whose pedigree is to be established. 2. REQUISITE FOR ADMISSIBILITY 1. There is controversy with respect to the pedigree of any member of a family. 2. The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person concerned existed previous to the controversy. 3. The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition regarding the pedigree of the person concerned must be a member of the family of said person, either by consanguinity of affinity. 3.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST common to all the citizens of the state or to the entire people. i.e. public boundaries MATTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST common only to a single community or to a considerable number of persons forming part of the community.
The common reputation must have been ancient, that is, more than 30 years old. The reputation must have been one formed among a class of persons who were in a position to have some sources of information and to contribute intelligently to the formation of the opinion. The common reputation must have been existing previous to the controversy.
4.
HOW PROVEN?
-By the testimony of witnesses, old maps and old surveys, monuments and inscriptions in public places.
*REQUISITE FOR ADMISSIIBILITY OF COMMON REPUTATION RESPECTING MARRIAGE 1. The common reputation must have been formed previous to the controversy; 2. The common reputation must have been formed in the community or among the class of persons who are in a position to have sources of information and to contribute intelligently to the formation of the opinion.
general reputation; others
-Means opinion or belief formed by

-Admissible to prove: a. Facts of public or general interest more than thirty years old b. Marriage c. Moral character
5. COMMON REPUTATION
*REASON FOR ADMISSIBILITY: 1. NECESSITY arising from the inherent difficulty of obtaining any other evidence other than that in the nature of common reputation. TRUSTWORTHINESS arising from the a) the publics general interest therein; b) the fact that the falsity or error of such evidence could be expressed or corrected by other testimony since the public are interested in the same. CHARACTER -It refers to the inherent qualities of the person.
*REQUISITE FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF COMMON REPUTATION RESPECTING MORAL CHARACTER: 1. That it is the reputation in the place where the person in question is best known; 2. That it was formed before the controversy occurred;
2.
6. PART OF THE RES GESTAE RES GESTAE -Things done - Event speaking through the mouth of another -Things done, spontaneous statement or utterances made during the occurrence of the event. RATIONALE FOR ADMISSION -Statement made instinctively at the time of a specific transaction or event, without the opportunity for formulation of statements favorable to ones own cause are likely to cast important light upon the matter in issue; as to such statement, the law creates a presumption of their truthfulness.
REPUTATION -It applies to the opinion which others may have formed and expressed of his character.
REQUISITE FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF COMMOM REPUTATION RESPECTING FACTS OF A PUBLIC OR GENERAL INTEREST. 1. The facts must be of public or general interest and more than 30 years old.
15

PARTS OF THE RES GESTAE

1. SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT - Statements/exclamations made immediately after some existing occasions by a participant or spectator and asserting the circumstances of that occasion as it is observed by him. Words, exclamations, utterances while a startling occurrence is taking place before or after (statements related to the event) i.e. Youre driving fast!
While the statements of the victim may not generally qualify as a dying declaration because it was not made under the consciousness of impending death, it may still be admissible as part of the res gestae if it was made immediately after the incident. However, where the elements of both are present, the statement may be admitted both as a dying declaration and as part the res gestae. *FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN SPONTANEITY OF A STATEMENT: DETERMINING THE
2.VERBAL ACTS - Equivocal acts which are susceptible of different interpretations. - i.e. A gave money to B. This may mean payment of debt or for safekeeping, a bribery, etc. *REQUISITE FOR ADMISSIBILITTY SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS: 1. OF
2.
There must be a startling occurrence sudden occurrence of an event or happening, which is capable of inducing emotional exclamations or nervous excitement without the exercise of sufficient efforts on the part of the spectator. i.e. collusion. The statement must be spontaneous Made immediately during, before or after the startling occurrence/instinctive, not a product of analysis, deductive or inductive reasoning. The circumstances immediately surrounding the act or transaction in question and the conditions immediately preceding and following it may ordinarily be shown as part of the res gestae, unless some other rule of exclusions such as the one excluding parol evidence, would be violated thereby.
NOTE:
3.
The statement must relate to the circumstances of the startling occurrence. -They must be relevant to and must explain and illustrate the facts of the transaction in issue. RES GESTAE -Can be made by the killer himself after or during the killing or that of a third person. -Statement may precede, accompany or be made after the homicidal act was committed. -Based on the spontaneity of the statement
1. Time Element The time that elapsed between the occurrence of the act or transaction and the making of the statement. -The interval of time between the startling occurrence and the statement depends upon the circumstances, but such statement must have been made while the declarant was under the immediate influence of the startling occurrence, hence, it is generally required to have been made immediately prior or subsequent to the event. However, if the declarant was rendered unconscious after the startling occurrence, his statements relative thereto upon regaining consciousness are still part of the res gestae regardless of the time that intervened in between. If the statement was made under the influence of a startling event and the declarant did not have the opportunity to concoct or contrive a story, even if made 9 hours after the killing, the statement is admissible as part of the res gestae (People Vs. Berame, July 30, 1976). However, the element of spontaneity is lacking in the alleged ante-mortem statement taken some 39 hours after the incident. Thirty-nine hours is too long a time to be considered subsequent immediately to the startling occurrence. Even as contemplated by the rules, statements given a day after the incident in answer to questions propounded by an investigator cannot be considered part of the res gestae (People Vs. Precadios, Jan. 5, 2001). 2. The place where the statement was made. -It should be made in the crime scene. If in another place, it becomes doubtful. 3. The condition of the declarant when he made the statement. -i.e. just receive serious injury, suffering severe pain or was under intense excitement. 4. The presence or absence of intervening occurrences between the occurrence and the statement relative thereto. -i.e. attention to other matters, receipt of medical assistance. 5. The nature and circumstances of the statement itself. *REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF VERBAL ACTS: 1. Act or occurrence characterized must be equivocal, (ambiguous, vague, doubtful, not clear)
DYING DECLARATION -Can be made only by the victim. -Made only after the homicidal attack has been committed. -Its trustworthiness is based upon its being given under an awareness of impending death. NOTE:
16
2. 3. 4. Verbal acts must characterize or explain the equivocal act. I.e. This is in payment of my debt. Equivocal act must be relevant to the issue. Verbal act must be contemporaneous with equivocal act. Declaration must accompany the act they describe or relate to and be made simultaneously with its occurrence or so near thereto as to form a part thereof.

** The official need not be dead or unable to testify. Just present the records in court; the official need not be called to testify. REQUISITE FOR ADMISSIBILITY: 1. The entries were made by a public officer in the performance of his duties or by a person in the performance of a duty enjoined by law. *WHEN IS THE RECORD MADE ON THE PERFORMANCE OF ONES DUTY: a) When it is expressly required by law. i.e. records of death, birth, marriage. b) When the nature of the office requires the appropriate recording of events. i.e. Keeping of police blotters; NBI; Prosecutors office. When the keeping of the records is required by superiors.
7. ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS *RATIONALE FOR ADMISSION: 1. NECESSITY best available evidence 2. TRUSTWORTHINESS *REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY: 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 transactions to which they refer. -Contemporaneous with the time of transaction. -The entries, however, need not be made at the time of the occurrence to which they relate or even on the same day, but it is sufficient if they are made within a reasonable time thereafter, in the ordinary course of the business of the party making them. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries. -However, if the entry is based on reports, oral or written of numerous persons cooperating who had personal knowledge of their own items, but did not themselves make the entries, the entries may be received, either by calling the entrant alone to the stand or by the testimony of one who can verify the method of compiling them. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or religious. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. 2.
c)
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. -Personal knowledge: through his senses -Official knowledge: subordinates are duty bound to report the facts needed with utmost honesty. The knowledge of the subordinate is knowledge of the superior. i.e. Sheriffs return, return of search warrant, election returns.
3.
3.
Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner in the official records.
HOW ARE OFFICIAL ENTRIES PROVED? 1. Production of the books or records themselves. 2. Production of a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof. 9. LEARNED TREATISES TREATISES works done by experts, which are published. The author must be acknowledged as an expert. EXPERTS authors recognized in their own fields. i.e. dictionaries, encyclopedia, compendium by Regalado RATIONALE FOR ADMISSIBILITY: 1. NECESSITY Unavailability of expert witness or if available the tremendous expense in hiring them. 2. TRUSTWORTHINESS no motive to misrepresent.
4.
5.
NOTE: If the entrant is available as a witness, the said entries will not be admitted as exception to the hearsay rule, but they may nevertheless be availed of by said entrant as a memorandum to refresh his memory while testifying on the transactions reflected. 8. ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS. -Made in the performance of the duties by a public officer or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. Such are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. They are presumed to be true until and unless rebutted.
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY: 1. If the court takes judicial notice that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet, is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. 2. A witness expert in the subject testifies that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical,
17
or pamphlet, is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. THESIS? - NO

-present stenographic notes or transcript of records.But if other party refuses to admit,present the stenographer or clerk of court. OPINION RULE
10.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. i.e.SCRA,journals,official publications-Official Gazette,Phil.Reports RATIONALE FOR ADMISSIBILITY: 1.Necessity -inaccessibility of the authors,compilers or publisher in other jurisdiction and also because of the great practical inconvenience in summoning each individual whose personal knowledge has gone to make up the final result. 2.Trustworthiness -accurate and thus canbe relied upon for commercial and professional purposes. 11.TESTIMONY PROCEEDING OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER
OPINION-an inference or conclusion drawn from facts. -as a general rule,the opinion of a witness is not admissible in evidence.(SEC. 48,RULE 130) EXCEPTIONS: 1.EXPERT OPINION -The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge,skill,experience or training which he is shown to possess may be received in evidence. EXPERT-one possessing ,in regard to a particular subject or department of human activity,knowledge not usually acquired by other persons. How is knowledge acquired by an expert? 1.Training 5.Habit 2.Education 6.Occupation 3.Careful study 7.Trade 4.Experience Subjects of expert testimony: 1.Handwriting 4.Typewritten letters 2.Ballistics 5.Drug cases 3.Fingerprints 6.Valuationofproperties
-the testimony in a previous case may be used in a present case. -it may be a criminal,civil,administrative or labor case so long as there was an opportunity to cross-examine. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY: 1.The witness whose testimony is offered in evidence is dead or unable to testify. -insanity or mental incapacity,loss of memory thru old age or disease. -physical disability by reason of sickness or advanced age -witness is kept away by contrivance of opposite party -witness cant be found after diligent search. 2.Identity of parties -substantial identity,that is,identity of interest. 3.Identity of issues -need not be the principal issue so long as similar to the previous ones. 4.Opportunity of cross-examination of witness -actual cross-examination not necessary.It is enough that the opportunity to cross-examine was had. NOTE: Subsequent failure or refusal to appear at the second trial or hostility since testifying at the first trial does not amount to inability to testify. How to introduce evidence?
***CONDITIONS TESTIFY:
BEFORE
AN
EXPERT
CAN
1.The issue must be one which requires the assistance of an expert. 2.Witness must be an expert. -prove this by: a)ask opponent if he accepts the witness to be an expert b)qualify the expert:show through series of questions on the following factors: 1.academic background 2.experience 3.professional standing 4.training 5.how fair is his/her opinion **Effect of failure to qualify: -The experts opinion becomes that of an ordinary person. STEPS: 1.Qualify the witness 2.Present facts and ask his opinion a)ask him about matters which he has first hand knowledge. b)ask him on the procedures c)ask him on the facts arrived at and reported by other experts,thru hypothethical questions(assume certain
18
facts to be true and based on such assumed facts,expert will arrive at an answer) d)ask his opinion on facts established by evidence **An expert cant give an opinion on the opinion of other people. ***What is the value of an experts opinion? -The court has the discretion to weigh and rule on the opinion.Courts are not bound,the opinion is not conclusive but merely advisory because such may be erroneous or may be contradicted by others. 2.OPINION OF AN ORDINARY WITNESSES -The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given may be received in evidence regarding: 1.The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge. i.e.physical features, voice, residence, address 2.A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity because: a)he has seen the person write b)he has seen the writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged Ways of proving handwriting: 1.testimony of experts 2.testimony of ordinary witnesses who has sufficient familiarity with the handwriting. 3.comparison of genuine handwriting with the questioned handwriting. 3.The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. -2 instances: 1.Subscribing witness to the document for which its validity is questioned.i.e.will 2.If sufficiently acquainted i.e.members of the family,friend,neighbor,officials of the barangay ***The opinion on a persons mental condition is based on the external conduct of the person. ***The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion,behavior,condition or appearance of a person.But not as to his motives. RULE 131 BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS What is burden of proof? It is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. What does burden of evidence or burden of going forward with the evidence mean?

It is defined as that logical necessity which rests on a party at any particular time during the trial to create a prima facie case in his favor, or to overthrow one when created against him. Burden of proof distinguished from burden of evidence. The burden of proof rests upon the prosecution from the first to the last stage, it is determined by the pleadings and it never shifts while burden of evidence shifts to the defense when prosecution establishes prima facie case and goes back to the prosecution when the defense overcomes the prosecutions evidence, it is determined by logic in the progress of the trial. What does presumption of law mean? It is a conclusion or deduction drawn by reasonable and logical inference from the usual probabilities attendant upon associated facts What are the kinds of presumptions? The kinds are: 1. Presumption hominis or of fact are those which the experience of mankind has shown to be valid, founded on general knowledge and information; inferences which naturally arise in common experience from particular circumstances or known facts. 2. Presumption juris or law - are those which the law requires to be drawn from the existence of established facts in the absence of contrary evidence on the subject, deductions which the law expressly directs to be made from particular facts. Presumption of law are usually classified as follows: 1. Conclusive presumptions/presumptions juris et de jure 2. Disputable or rebuttable presumption or presumptions juris tantum What is the rule on survivorship? The rule is: 1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have survived; 2. If both were above the age of sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived; 3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to have survived; 4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the male is deemed to have survived, if the sex be the same, the older; 5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived. RULE 130 Sec. 51 CHARACTER EVIDENCE CHARACTER DEFINED: Character is the sum total of a persons attributes; his intellectual, emotional and psychological qualities, impressed on him by nature or habit, which distinguishes him from another. [ In Evidence, the Rule on Admissibility encompasses only MORAL character. ] HOW IS CHARACTER TO BE PROVEN:
19

in the community.
Character is to be proved only by reputation
3.) The GOOD or BAD moral character of the OFFENDED party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
REPUTATION DEFINED: Reputation means what a person is estimated, said, supposed , or thought, to be by others. RULE: Character evidence is not, generally, admissible. ( sec. 51 ) EXCEPTIONS: a.) In Criminal Cases 1.) The accused may prove his GOOD moral character which is PERTINENT to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
This Rule is applied with frequency in cases of homicide and sex offenses.
. In rape cases, the character of the woman is not ordinarily directly in issue, but evidence of previous unchastity may be circumstantially relevant and admissible on the question of her consent. When the woman consents to the act, no crime of rape is committed. Thus, the main issue is often whether the woman did consent. Hence, the womans disposition to unchastity would have probative value and would be admissible on behalf of the accused. . In homicide cases, if the theory of the accused is that he acted in self defense, the known violent character of the deceased is admissible to show that it has produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary. [ This rule does not apply to cases of murder. The character of the deceased in a prosecution for murder where the killing is committed with treachery or premeditation is inadmissible. ] In summary, i. The accused may prove: . his own good moral character and . the bad moral character of the offended party. ii. The prosecution may prove: . his own good moral character and . the bad moral character of the accused but only in rebuttal. iii. Character to be proved must be relevant. b.) In Civil Cases Evidence of the moral character of A PARTY in a civil case is admissible only when PERTINENT to the issue of character involved in the case. ` Putting character in issue or ` character involved in the issue is a technical expression which does not mean simply that character may be affected by the result, but that it is of particular importance in the suit itself, as the character of the plaintiff in an action for slander, or that of a woman in an action for seduction. In the following actions, evidence of character is admissible because reputation or character is necessarily involved: - libel & slander - breach of promise of marriage the defendant may justify the breach upon the ground that he discovered the plaintiff to be of unchaste character & therefore he refused to marry her.
CHARACTER MUST BE RELEVANT:

Only pertinent traits, those involved in the offense charged, are provable by a defendant in a criminal case. For example, on a charge of rape, character for chastity; on a charge of assault, character for peaceableness; on a charge of corruption, character for honesty are provable. On the other hand, in a case of murder, the defendants character for truth is irrelevant and, therefore, not provable.
REASON FOR ALLOWING ACCUSED TO PROVE HIS GOOD MORAL CHARACTER:

The principle upon which good character may be proved is that it affords a presumption against the commission of a crime. This presumption arises from the improbability, as a general rule, as proved by common observation and experience, that a person who has uniformly pursued an honest and upright course of conduct will depart from it and do an act so inconsistent with it. 2.) UNLESS in REBUTTAL, the PROSECUTION may not prove his (accused) BAD moral character which is PERTINENT to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
REASON FOR ALLOWING PROSECUTION TO PROVE BAD CHARACTER OF ACCUSED IN REBUTTAL:

The object of permitting the prosecution to introduce such evidence is not for the purpose of showing the bad character of the defendant, but it is for the purpose of refuting his claim that he has a good character and thus to prevent the court from drawing therefrom the inference that the accused is innocent of the crime charged.
20
- damages for seduction the actual or reputed character of the woman is at issue. i. In summary, In criminal cases, evidence of the good character of the accused is admissible in evidence because there is a fair and just presumption that a person of good character would not commit a crime. In civil cases, unless the character of a party be directly put in issue by the proceedings itself, evidence of his general character is not admissible. c.) In the case provided for in Rule 132, section 14. Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached. The character or reputation of a witness must be attacked or impeached before testimony sustaining his character or reputation can be admitted. It is not necessary that there shall be a successful impeachment of the witness, but an attempt to impeach his character, even though unsuccessful, warrants the introduction of testimony as to his good character. WHAT MORAL CHARACTER OF THE WITNESS IS INVOLVED: The trait involved as a witness is that for veracity or truth telling and that the trait may or may not have any probative value as to the offense charged. CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS 1. PRIVATE DOCUMENTS a. Written Official Acts - court decisions, laws passed by Congress, orders or proclamations of the President. Rules and Regulations promulgated by Dept. Secretaries, Filing of information in court, b. Records of Official Acts - Minutes of meetings, conducted by Local Government Officials, sovereign body, judicial, marriage contract, receipt(collection of money),return of search warrant(they conducted a search) Note : Papers or documents coming from public officers. if they have no reference to the official act of the officers are NOT public documents. How Can Official Record Can Be Proven? 1. .By Official Publication of the Act - Philippine Reports, 0fficial Gazette. Newspapers of Genera] Circulation 2. By a copy attested by the Officer who has Legal custody of the record: i.e.Certified True Copy.signed and sealed by Public Officer The copy to be taken from the custodian must be literal copy. A mere summary of the contents thereof is insufficient c. Documents acknowledged before the notary public documents which give rights or extinguish obligations. E.g. Deed of Sale, deed of donation, articles of incorporation. easements, etc.

ii.
Except: Wills and Testaments. Why? Because they are not intended to be scrutinized by the public. Note: Affidavits, although notarized are not public documents. why? Because they are hearsay. d. Public Records kept in the Philippines of Private Documents required by law to be kept therein. Hence, they are private documents. To effect their validity .however, the law requires that they be kept as public records. E.g. Deed of Sale of a parcel of land needs to be registered to be valid,the public document is the record kept in the Register of Deeds. Probative Value of Public Documents 1. Written Official Acts - conclusive 3 Entries in Official Records - prima facie evidence of facts stated therein.presunied correct unless otherwise proven. How? By clear and convincing evidence PROOF OF AUTHENTICITY OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS a. Signature of the public officer b. Seal of the Office c. Certification Probative value of certified true copy: it proves prima fade the original to have been in the public office when it was made. Conclusive. WHY ARE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS EXEMPTED FROM AUTHENTICATION Because the presumption of validity Furthermore, the signature of the officer, as well as the seal of office of the public officer, is considered in authentication. HOW ARE FOREIGN LAWS PROVEN A. By certification of the officer having charge of the original copy of the law, under the seal of the country state. B. By an official copy of the law, published under the authority of the state, and purpoting to contain such law. C. Testimony of an expert PRIVATE DOCUMENTS- documents executed by a private person, without the intervention of a notary public or other persons legally authorized. IMPORTANCE OF KNOWING WHETHER A DOCUMENT IS PUBLIC OR PRIVATE To be able to know the ff: 1. the binding effect of the document; i.e., if public, it is binding to third persons; if private, it is binding between the parties only 2. whether or not it is necessary to authenticate the document; i.e., if public, no need to authenticate,ifprivate,must be authenticated. REASONS: a. Irremovabil of public record b. to prevent loss of public record
21
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS As to Admissibility admissible even without proof of due execution and genuineness PRIVATE DOCUMENTS -not admisssible without proofs of due execution and genuineness

As to Persons Bound -only parties and their even against third persons privies As to Validity of Certain Transactions -substantive law requires that certain transactions be in public instrument to be valid
2. When the due execution and genuineness of the document is admitted by the adverse party 3. When the due execution and genuiuneness of the document is immaterial 4. When the document need only to be identified 5. When the writing is a public document 6. It is a notarial document,acknowledged,proved or certified Probative value of notarial document: prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument/document involved. IRREMOVABILITY OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS/RECORDS Reasons: 1. To prevent inconveniences on the part of the legal custodian, i.e. disruption of work 2. To prevent counterfeiting Joss or destruction of public documents - if document is brought out. the one who took it out may be held liable for infidelity of public record Exception to the Rule of Irremovability - Upon order of the court, when the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of the case. PUBLIC RECORD OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT - entry of record How is it Proved: 1. Certified copy of the page which contain the recording 3. Ask for the presentation of the original record. How? Ask the court to issue a subpoena duces tecum to the public officer having custody thereof Probative Value of Public Record - it is a proof of the existence of a private document in public record, but not a proof of the validity of the private document. HOW JUDICIAL RECORD IS IMPEACHED: By evidence of: 1. Want of jurisdiction of the court or judicial officer 2. Collusion between the parties - e.g. legal separation: Parities agreed to separate 3. Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. It must be extrinsic and collateral to the matter tried and not a matter which was actually or potentially in issue in the action.(extrinsic fraud: means whereby the judgment was procuredHOW IS LACK OF RECORD BE PROVED: The certificate of the custodian that he has diligently searched for a document or an entry of a specified tenor and has been unable to find it.; ought to be usually a satisfactory evidence of its non-existence. ALTERATIONS IN DOCUMENT Alteration: It is a change in the instrument by a party thereto or one entitled there under or one in privity with such a person after the instrument has been signed or fully executed. without consent of the other party to it by an erasure, interlineation, addition or substitution of material affecting the identity of the instrument or contract. rights and obligations of parties. It imports some fraud or improper design on the part of the person entitled there under to change the effect of the instrument. How may alteration in a writing be explained? A party producing a genuine writing, which appears to have been altered, must explain in the following manner: a. He may show that another made the alteration. b. He may show tat the alteration was made with the consent of the parties affected by it;
Authentication: the process of showing before the court the due execution and genuineness of the document; the process of proving that the document is not spurious or counterfeit or that the document is the same document executed by a person. HOW TO PROVE THE DUE EXECUTION AND AUTHENTICITY OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT: 1. Direct Testimony of-witness - any person present during the execution of the same 2. Proof of genuineness of signature or handwriting of the maker- if no person can be presented. How? 2.1. comparison with other genuine documents which are in the handwriting of the person or the court 2.2 . familiarity of the handwriting - those who are familiar with the handwriting of the person; 2.3 . testimony of those who have seen the person write 2.4 . testimony of an expert 3. Authentication by contents - since the witness knows the contents of the documents, because no other person knows it 4. Style of writing 5. Authentication- by nature of reply letter PROOF OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY (Authentication) - accounting from the time of existence of the writing up to the time it is shown before the court; tracing how it came to the court, who is in possession thereof, and the condition of the object is the same from the time it is found to the time it is presented in court; i.e. it is not altered. E.g. bullet is extracted from the body of the victim- Who extracted it? Where was it extracted? Where was it placed after it was extracted? Where is it now? If the chain is broken, the authenticity of the document is lost. INSTANCES WHEN THE PRIVATE DOCUMENTS NEED NOT VS. AUTHENTICATED: 1. When the document is ancient - In existence for 30 years or more. To be reckoned from execution to the date it is being offered. It is admissible without proof of due execution because the witnesses are no longer available. Requisites: a. It is in existence for 30 years or more b. It is genuine and found in proper custody - It is not necessary that the person is strictly entitled to possession. It is enough if the person in whose custody the document is found is so connected with it that he may reasonably be supposed to be in possession with it without fraudc. It is unblemished by any alteration or any suspicious circumstance
22
c. He may show that the alteration was properly or innocently made d. He may show that the alteration did not change the meaning/language of the instrument. A party presenting the writing should have accounted for the alteration when he introduced the paper in evidence, and not endeavor to explain the alterations afterwards. DOCUMENTARY LANGUAGE EVIDENCE IN AN UNOFFICIAL

1. OBJECTION - procedure whereby a lawyer informs the court that evidence offered should not be presented because it violates the Rules of Procedure . e.g. "We object to Exhibit A because it is hearsay, self-serving, a forgery ,etc. Objection to What? a. the witness b. the testimony of the witness c. the question - invoke the grounds enumerated in the rules of Evidence d. the admission of a documentary evidence: to exhibit or to the purpose Kinds of Objection: a. Object to the formal offer of the documentary evidence - by making objection or comment on each and every evidence presented or on the purpose of the evidence. The comment may either be an OBJECTION or an ADMISSION or plain SILENCE (NO OBJECTION) b. Object to the testimony of the witness, -by objecting to the question or to the Answer of the witness; i.e. How it is phrased, the substance thereof, etc. Basis: Violation of the Rules of Evidence Violation of Substantive Law HOW TO OBJECT ON A WINESS TESTIMONY? A. State the ground for the objection. It must be specific, unless: it is apparent, that there is a ground for the object! on. e.g. "Question/answer is irrelevant". If ground is not stated, the objection is deemed waived. Failure to object merely affects the admissibility of the matter objected to, NOT the weight thereof. B. Objection must be made clearly with utmost courtesy. C. "Try to avoid incessant objections, i.e, mobjections which have no limits, causing irritation. GROUNDS FOR OBJECTING: a. question is irrelevant b. question is vague c. question has already been answered d. multiple question e. witness is incompetent f. witness is not qualified g. question has no basis h. question requires an answer which is privileged i. question is leading j. question calls for hearsay evidence k. witness is asked to testify on what is already alleged in the pleadings 1. question is self-incriminatory m. when the proper foundation has not been laid n. when opposed is impeaching his own witness o. question calls for opinion of the witness An objection to evidence must not be raised for the first time on appeal Even if the questions were asked by the judge, the party has a right to object to evidence which he considers not admissible. The tria! judge may object to a question propounded to a witness on cross-examination since he may on his own motion deal with offered evidence, however, this is not ordinarily to be commended. CONTINUING OBJECTION - may be imposed by the counsel for the adverse party if the other party keeps on asking incompetent questions or when the answers elicited are hearsay, etc.How done? The counsel for the adverse party shall manifest before the court that he is interposing a continuing objection.
GEN. RULE: Documents written in an unofficial language are admissible in evidence when accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino, EXCEPTIONS: 1. People vs. Gaco 37 Off Gaz. 1684 No objection regarding its adrnissibility is raised by the party against whom it is offered.it must be presumed that the language in which the document is written is understood by all, and the document is admissible in evidence. 2. Ahgavs.Cabilingl8P415 When there is presented in evidence an exhibit written in any language other than Spanish(now Filipino), if there is an appeal, that exhibit should be translated into Spanish (no tilipino) by the official interpreter of the court, or a translation should be agreed upon by the parties, and both original and translation send to the court. 3. Dionisio vs. Dionisio 45 P 699 The refusal of the court a quo to allow counsel for appellant time to present an English translation of exhibit 1 (affidavit) is not reversible error Section 33,ruleI32 expressly requires that documents written in an unofficial language, other than the national language be accompanied with translation in English and Spanish prepared before the trial, and it lies within the discretion of the trial court to allow or not to allow the attorneys time to present such a translation without interrupting/delaying the proceedings. OFFER OF EVIDENCE RULE: Any evidence, which a party desires to submit for the consideration of the court, must be formally offered because it is the duty of the judge to rest his findings of facts and his judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. The offer maybe made in any form sufficient to show that the party is ready and willing to submit the evidence to the court. The purpose for which the evidence is presented must be specified because it is the duty of a party to select the competent from the incompetent in offering testimony and he cannot impose this duty upon the trial court. RULE: A party who has introduced evidence is not entitled as a matter of right to withdraw it. It is discretionary with the court to allow it or not. EXCEPTION: A party may withdraw it anytime before the court has passed on its admissibility. WHEN TO MAKE AN OFFER: 1. Testimonial Evidence : at the time the witness is called to testify 2. Documentary and Object Evidence: after all the witnesses have given their testimonies on the witness stand. REMEDIES
23
It therefore means that even if the adverse party's lawyer does not say "objection', the questions of the other counsel are deemed objected to. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE a. subsequent evidence is not of the same kind. Thus, in an action to probate a will destroyed by the testatrix allegedly of unsound mind, based on facts dissimilar from those supporting other witness' opinions, could not excuse failure to objection other witnesses. b, When the question has not been answered. When? When they are once objected to and not answered are later repeated and answered without objection, the objection is waived. c. Where in competency of evidence is shown later. Where evidence is apparently competent when it is admitted over objection but its in competency is made apparent by testimony which follows, the objection must be repeated, followed by a motion to strike out, or it is waived. d. Where objection to evidence was sustained but reoffered at a later stage of trial. e- Where evidence admitted on condition and the condition is not fulfilled. E.g. the condition that its competency or relevancy will be shown by further evidence and the condition is not fulfilled, the objection must be repeated. f. Where the court reserves the ruling on the objection. RULING OF OBJECTIONS The court need not state the reason for sustaining or overruling an objection. 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/s relied upon. IS ERRONEOUS RULING AS TO THE QUESTION OF ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OR ITS REJECTION A GROUND FOR NEW TRIAL? NO, if it shall appear to the court before which such objection is raised that, independently of the evidence objected to and admitted, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision, or that if the rejected evidence had been received, it would not have varied the decision. If the result is otherwise, a new trial shall be granted. POSSIBLE RULINGS ON THE OFFER: 1. The exhibits are admitted 2. The exhibits are denied 3. The exhibits are admitted, but not tile purpose 2. PROFFER OR OFFER OF PROOF - when the objection is sustained, the proponent may present proof of the testimony of the witness and or relevancy or importance of the question and answer How? Request that the document be attached to the records of the case Why? Because if case is appealed, the appellate court shall have a basis in determining whether or not the lower court committed an error in rejecting the document and in order for the court to find the evidentiary value of the document-

4. MOTION TO STRIKE - a motion addressed to the statement of the witness, so that the same will deleted or erased from the record. Two Instances: a. When the Question is objectionable and the witness answered. Here lawyer was not given the chance to object because the witness answered immediately after the question was asked. b. b.When the Question is proper but the answer is irrelevant or improper or immaterial Effect: As If there is no answer When is it Necessary? -as soon as the grounds therefore becomes apparent-Why is the Motion to Strike Out Necessary? -in order to preserve the right of the objecting party to a review of the ruling of the trial court on appeal. 5. TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE Where the court refuses to permit the counsel to present testimony which he thinks is competent, material and necessary to prove his case, the method of properly preserving the record to the end that the question may be saved for purposes or review is through the making of an offer of proof. Two Fold Purpose: a. to inform the court what is expected to be proved b. procuring exceptions to the exclusion of the offerred evidence so that the upper court may determine from the record whether the proposed evidence is competent. How? The counsel shall manifest before the court that "Had the witness been allowed to testify, he should have answered..." Then ask. the court that the answer be recorded. THE FOLLOWING REMEDIES ARE TO BE AVAILED OF WHEN THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED AND THE OPPONENT BELIEVES THAT THE COURT'S RULING IS ERRONEOUS: 1. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - if this motion is denied, the remedy is to make the offer of record.m Counsel here, must point out which part of the evidence must be considered by the court. 2. TAKE AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULING OF THE COURT - counsel objected but the court overruled the same. He therefore manifests that the Court's ruling is erroneous. Warn the court that if he loses the case, he shall appeal and point out the error in the appellate court. RULE 133 WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE: What happens if the evidence of plaintiff and defendant are equal or in equipoise? The case will be decided in favor of the defendant Factors to be Considered by the Judge in determining Preponderance of Evidence: 1. Facts and circumstances of the case - court studies all angles 2. Intelligence of the witness - not IQ but the ability of the witness to answer into straightforward manner. Did he correctly see the incident in question? Can he convince the Court that he is narrating the truth on what he saw, observed and heard? 3. Manner in which the witness testifies - in order to determine whether or not the witness is telling the truth, the behavior of a
24
person when testifying, to determine whether he is lying or telling the truth- E.g. perspiring, fidgeting. tensed 4. Nature of the facts on to which the witness testifies 5. Personal Credibility of the Witness - refers to the reputation of a witness 6. Means and opportunity of knowing what the witness is testifying on - manner of observation; i,e, if he was only a few feet from the crime scene 7. Probability or Improbability of their testimony - through human experience, the court can determine whether or not the witness is exaggerating his testimony. The testimony must not only come from a credible witness. but the testimony must be credible in itself. Is the story in accordance with human experience. 8. Number of witnesses. It is the substance of the testimony of a witness that should be considered not their number or quantity. EXCEPT in cases of: a. conflicting testimonies - here number of witnesses is to be considered b./n case of treason - two witnesses must testify to the same overt act in open court 9. Interest or Want of Interest of Witness in the case - refers to the witness' bias, prejudice or motive because the person for whom he is testifying is his friend, etc. Relationship per se does not affect the credibility of a witness. Proof of existence of bias and prejudice must be present. PRINCIPLES TO BE CONSIDERED BY A JUDGE IN DETERMINING PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE: 1. "Falsus in Uno,Falsus in Omnibus" - False in one, false in all. Hence, when paret of the testimony of a witness is untrue, all or the whole of his testimony shall not be believed. 2. Alibi - defense that a person is innocent of the crime because at the time of its commission, the accused is eelsewhere. Basis. Person cannot be in the same place at the same time. When must the court disregard the defense of alibi: a. when there is positive identification of the accused. b. When the place of the commission of the crime is accessible to the place where the accused was found. c. When the accused alleges selfdefense - it is incumbent on the part of the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the existence ofself-defense-d. When the accused makes a denial of fact of the commission of the crime. PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - means moral certainty; not necessarily 100% free of error; not absolute certainty. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Sufficient to Warrant Conviction if: a. there is more than one circumstance b. the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved c. a combination of all circumstances is suchj as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. EXCEPT: Homicide Case 1. accused was seen running away from the scene of the crime with a bolo. 2. Two days before the killing, accused was heard to take revenge against the victim 3. After the killing, the accused went into hiding. 4. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS APPLICABLE WHEN THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE TO THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.

PROOF OF MOTIVE IS MATERIAL EXCEPT WHEN: THERE IS POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED.
BINDING EFFECT OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE TRIAL COURT: It is entitled to great respect. It should not be disturbed on appeal, because it is the trial court which had the opportunity to observe the behaviour and demeanor of the witnesses. Except: The appellate court may review the findings of fact by the Trial Court when the latter has overlooked certain facts of substance or value or significance which may affect or may change th e outcome of the case. BINDING EFFECT OF FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE COURT OF APPEALS They are binding and final in the Supreme Court. Exceptions: 1. when the finding of the CA is grounded primarily on speculation or if tey are not supported by strong evidence. 2. When the inference of the Ca is manifested by mistake 3. When the conclusion of the CA is based on a misapprehension of facts 4. When the findings of facts are conflicting 5. When the findings are contrary to the admission of the witnesses 6. When the findings of facts ware premised on the supposed absence of evidence or when such are contradicted by evidence on record 7. When the findings of facts are without citation of evidence.
PERPETUATION OF EVIDENCE - case when a witness would want to give his testimony earlier, because he has to go abroad Remedy: Offer the testimony of the witness ahead and keep the same. When the action is filed, present the document before the court. STEPS TAKEN IN PERPETUATING A WITNESS' TESTIMONY 1.-File a Petition in court, stating the witness inability to testify 2.Court will set a date to take the witness testimony. This is similar to a direct examination. How to take the testimony? -through a deposition under oath and with notice to the adverse party.

Evidence 2003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

Best Evidence Rule

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

WHAT ARE THE PRESUMPTIONS?

PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

Admissible if it falls under the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY: 1. Declarant is not available to testify.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

general reputation; others

-Means opinion or belief formed by

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

PARTS OF THE RES GESTAE

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

Character is to be proved only by reputation

CHARACTER MUST BE RELEVANT:

REASON FOR ALLOWING ACCUSED TO PROVE HIS GOOD MORAL CHARACTER:

REASON FOR ALLOWING PROSECUTION TO PROVE BAD CHARACTER OF ACCUSED IN REBUTTAL:

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

You might also like