Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
1|Patio,Erica
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
2|Patio,Erica
2. Multiple Admissibility
- When the evidence is relevant AND competent for two or more
purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or all the
purposes for which it is offered
- PROVIDED it must satisfy all the requirements for its admissibility.
3. Curative Admissibility
- The right of the party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf
where the court has admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by
the adverse party.
- 3 Theories of Curative Admissibility cited by Wigmore
o American rule the admission of incompetent evidence
w/out objection by the opponent, does not justify rebutting it
by similar incompetent evidence.
o English rule if inadmissible evidence is admitted, the
adverse party may resort to similar inadmissible evidence
o Massachusetts rule similar incompetent evidence may be
admitted in order to avoid a plain and unfair prejudice
caused by the admission of the other partys evidence
- What should be determined to apply the curative admissibility
rule?
1. w/n the incompetent evidence was seasonably objected to
Lack of objection: waiver of the right to object admissibility
BUT does NOT deprive him to introduce similar rebutting
evidence
2. w/n the admission of such evidence will cause a plain and
unfair prejudice to the party against whom it was admitted
When the admissible evidence has been improperly
excluded, the other party should not be permitted to
introduce similar evidence
Stonehill, et al. v. Diokno: Documentary evidence illegally obtained, is
inadmissible on a timely motion or action to suppress. (Applies to illegally
obtained confessions)
Collateral Matters, defined: Matters other than the facts in issue and which
are offered as a basis for inference as to the existence or non-existence of the
facts in issue
- GR: Collateral matters are INADMISSIBLE or not allowed
- EXC: when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue (Circumstantial
Evidence or evidence of relevant collateral facts)
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
3|Patio,Erica
may:
-
Notes:
Judicial Notice (JN), Defined: cognizance of certain facts which judges
may properly take and act on without proof.
- JN is based on convenience and expediency.
- JN relieves the parties from the necessity of introducing evidence to
prove the fact noticed. The fact is proven by JN.
- The stipulation and admission of the parties or counsel cannot
prevail over the operation of the doctrine of judicial notice, and such
are all subject to the operation of the doctrine.
Two kinds of JN:
- Mandatory
- Discretionary
How JN May be Taken by the Court:
1. On its own initiative or motion
2. When it is requested or invited by the parties
Note: In Either Case, the court may allow the parties to be heard on the
matter in question
- The purpose of the hearing: NOT for the presentation of evidence
o but to afford the parties reasonable opportunity to present
information relevant to the propriety of taking such JN or to
the tenor of the matter to be noticed
o Also to notify them of the courts intention to take JN
(no notice = improper JN)
What stage may the court take judicial notice of a fact?
- During trial;
- After trial and before judgment;
- On Appeal
Republic v. CA: JN must be exercised with caution and every reasonable
doubt on the subject must be resolved in the negative.
Judicial Notice of Laws
- GR: courts of justice are required to take JN of the laws
- EXC: In case of ORDINANCES, the rule is different
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
4|Patio,Erica
o BY an official publication
o BY a duly attested and authenticated copy thereof
- Absent the above evidence: The Doctrine of Processual
Presumption shall apply
o The foreign law is presumed to be the same as that in the RP
- Note: Exceptions to the required proof in Sec 24 and 25:
o Testimony of a witness who was an active member of the
California Bar and who is familiar with the laws with a full
quotation of the cited law was accepted as sufficient proof.
o An affidavit of an US attorney which does not state the
specific law but merely contained his interpretation of the
facts of the case is NOT sufficient proof.
How UNWRITTEN Foreign Law May be Proved
- Rule 130, Sec 46: A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a
subject of such law or a testimony of a written expert
Sec. 4. Judicial admissions.
An admission verbal or written,
- made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same
case,
does not require proof.
The admission may be contradicted ONLY by showing:
- that it was made through palpable mistake or
- that no such admission was made. (2a)
Notes:
Judicial Admissions May be Made IN:
1. The pleadings filed by the parties
2. In the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or
stipulations
3. In other stages of the judicial proceeding, as in pre-trial of the case
Note: Depositions, written interrogatories, or requests for admission are also
considered judicial admissions
To be considered a judicial admission:
- GR: It must be made in the SAME case in which it is offered
- EXC: It may be made in another case or another court PROVIDED:
o It be proved as in the case of any other fact
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
5|Patio,Erica
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
6|Patio,Erica
[RULE 130]
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
Sec 1. Object as evidence.
Objects as evidence are:
- those addressed to the senses of the court.
When an object is relevant to the fact in issue:
- it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. (1a)
Notes:
- When an object is relevant to a fact in issue, the court may acquire
knowledge thereof by actually viewing the object the object is
called real evidence
- Also known as autoptic proference, physical or demonstrative
evidence
- It is the highest form of evidence
- Even if other evidence have been introduced, it will not prevent the
court from viewing an object to resolve the issue
- Also, the fact that an ocular inspection has been held does not
preclude a party from introducing other evidence on the same issue.
Requirements of an Ocular Inspection (OI)
- An OI conducted by the judge w/o notice to or the presence of the
parties is invalid, as an OI is part of the trial.
- W/N an OI is to be made lies in the discretion of the court.
When can a Court Refuse the Introduction of Object (real) Evidence and
Rely on Testimonial Evidence Alone:
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
7|Patio,Erica
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
8|Patio,Erica
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
9|Patio,Erica
Notes:
1st Exception to the Best Evidence Rule: When the original is lost or
destroyed
What Must be Proved by Satisfactory Evidence in Order for Secondary
Evidence May be Admissible:
1. Due execution of the original : proved through the testimony of either:
a. The person/s who executed it
b. The person before whom its execution was acknowledged or
c. Any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered or
who thereafter saw it and recognized the signatures, or
d. One to whom the parties previously confessed its execution
2. Loss, destruction or unavailability of all such originals
- The cause must NOT be due to the offerors bad faith
- Loss or Destruction may be Proved BY:
o Any person who knew of such fact
o Anyone who, in the judgment of the court had made a
sufficient examination in the places where the document or
papers of similar character are usually kept by the person in
whose custody the document was and had been unable to
find it
o Anyone who has made any other investigation which is
sufficient to satisfy the court that the document is indeed
lost.
- Duplicates must be accounted for: Only when ALL cannot be
presented can it be considered unavailable/lost/destroyed
3. Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to
produce the original
PNB v. Olila: When the original is OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the court
(ex. Abroad), secondary evidence is ADMISSIBLE
What Constitutes Secondary Evidence? (Note: Applies to BOTH 1st and
2nd Exceptions to the Primary Evidence Rule)
1. A copy of said document
2. A recital or its contents in an authentic document or
3. The recollection of witnesses
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
10 | P a t i o , E r i c a
3rd Exception to the Best Evidence Rule: When the original consists of
numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court
w/out great loss of time
Requisites for the 3rd Exception to Apply:
1. The voluminous character of the records must be established and
2. Such records must be made accessible to the adverse party so that
their correctness may be tested on cross examination
Instances When the Original Must STILL be Produced
1. When the detailed contents of the records of accounts are challenged
for being hearsay or
2. Issues are raised as to the authenticity or correctness of the detailed
entries
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
11 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Note:
When the document is produced, it must fulfill the requisites of admissibility
to be admitted. The party demanding it is also NOT obliged to offer it.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
12 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
13 | P a t i o , E r i c a
3rd Exception to the Parol Evidence Rule: The validity of the written
agreement
4. INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
When:
- the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be
deciphered, or
- the language is not understood by the court,
the evidence:
- OF persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand
the language
- is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the
language. (14)
Sec. 17. Of Two constructions, which preferred.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
14 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
15 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Notes:
Unsound Mind, defined: That which affects the competency of the witness
which includes any mental aberration, whether organic or functional, or
induced by drugs or hypnosis.
Rules on the Qualification of Soundness of Mind
- GR: Unsoundness of mind does not per se render a witness
incompetent, one may be medically insane but in law capable of
giving competent testimony.
Note: As long as the witness can convey ideas by words or signs and give
sufficiently intelligent answers to questions propounded, she is competent as
a witness EVEN if one is feeble-minded, a mental retardate, or is
schizophrenic.
When Should a Witness be of Sound Mind?
- ONLY at the time of their production for examination
- Mental unsoundness of the witness at the time the fact to be testified
occurred Affects ONLY his credibility.
When are Deaf-mutes Competent Witnesses?
- When they: (1) Can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an
oath; (2) Can comprehend facts they are going to testify to and; (3)
Can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter.
Presumption of Soundness of Mind
- GR: Every person is presumed to be of sound mind and the person
challenging such has the burden of proving otherwise
- EXC: Prima Facie Presumption of Incompetency when:
o The person has been recently found to be of unsound mind
by a court of competent jurisdiction
o One is an inmate of an asylum for the insane
In the Case of a Child Witness, the Court in Determining his
Competency Must Consider his Capacity:
- At the time the fact to be testified to occurred, such that he could
receive correct impressions thereof;
- To comprehend the obligation of an oath; and
- To relate those facts truthfully at the time he is offered as a witness.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
16 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Hence, the court should take into account his capacity for observation,
recollection and communication.
When is a Child Considered a Competent Witness
- GR: A child is competent if he can perceive and make known his
perception
- EXC: IF the childs testimony is punctured w/ serious
inconsistencies as to lead one to believe that the child was coached.
An Intelligent Boy is Undoubtedly the Best Observer
- A child is little influenced by the suggestions of others and describes
objects and occurrence as he has really seen them
- Children of sound mind are likely to be more observant of incidents
which take place within their view than older people.
Child Witness
Ordinary Witness
Only the judge is allowed to ask Opposing counsels are allowed to
questions to the child during ask
preliminary examination
Leading questions are allowed
They are generally not allowed
Testimony in a narrative from is It is NOT allowed
allowed
The child witness is assisted by a An ordinary witness is not assisted
facilitator
Sec. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage.
During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or
against the other:
- without the consent of the affected spouse,
EXCEPT:
- in a civil case by one against the other, or
- in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or
the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. (20a)
Notes:
Rule on Marital Disqualification (Spousal Immunity):
- GR: During the marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may
testify for or against the other w/o the consent of the affected spouse
EXCEPTIONS: Rule on Disqualification does NOT Apply When:
1. When the testimony was made outside the marriage
2. In a civil case by one spouse against another
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
17 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Notes:
Such plaintiff must be the real party in interest and not a mere
nominal party.
The disqualification does NOT apply:
o when the counterclaim has been interposed by the defendant
as the plaintiff would thereby be testifying in his defense
o when the deceased contracted with the plaintiff through an
agent and said agent is alive and can testify, but the
testimony of the plaintiff should be limited to acts performed
by the agent.
Assignor, defined: Assignor of a cause of action which has arisen,
and not the assignor of a right assigned before any cause of action
has arisen
Interest in the outcome of the suit, per se, does not disqualify a
witness from testifying
Requirement No. 3: The case is upon a claim or demand against the estate
of such person who is deceased or of unsound mind
-
The rule does not apply where it is the administrator who brings an
action to recover property allegedly belonging to the estate or the
action is by the heirs of a deceased who represented the latter
This is restricted to debts or demands enforceable by personal
actions upon which money judgments can be rendered.
An action for damages for breach of agreement to devise property for
services rendered is a claim against an estate
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
18 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Negative testimony (testimony that a fact did not occur during the
lifetime of the deceased) is NOT covered by the prohibition as such
fact exists even after the decedents demise
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
19 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Note: Waiving Sec 22 does not prevent the spouse from invoking sec 24 and
vice versa. So even if the information is not confidential, the spouse may still
invoke sec 22 which is an absolute disqualification.
[ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE]
Requisites for the Disqualification Based on Attorney-Client (A-C)
Privilege to Apply
1. There is an attorney and client relation;
2. The privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential
communication between them in the course of professional
employment;
3. The client has not given his consent to the attorneys testimony.
Note: IF the attys secretary or clerk is sought to be established then
BOTH the consent of the atty and the client is required.
Note: The client owns the privilege and therefore he alone can invoke it.
Prohibition is also applicable even to a counsel de oficio.
Basis: public policy
Confidential Communication: The attorney must have been consulted in
his professional capacity EVEN if no fee has been paid.
- It includes preliminary communications made for the purpose of
creating the A-C relationship. (But if it is not for the purpose of
creating the A-C relationship it will not be protected even if the
client subsequently hires the same attorney)
- Includes verbal statements as well as documents or papers entrusted
to the attorney
Instances when the A-C Privilege Does NOT Apply:
1. Intended to be made public;
2. Intended to be communicated to others;
3. Intended for an unlawful purpose;
4. Received from third person not acting in behalf or as agent of the
client;
5. Made in the presence of third parties who are strangers to the
attorney-client relationship.
The period to be considered is:
- the date when the privileged communication was made by the client
to the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past or
with respect to a crime intended to be committed in the future
BUT Communication Regarding:
- A crime already committed - is privileged communication
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
20 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
21 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Art. 233 of the Labor Code - All information and statements made at
conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communications
and shall not be used as evidence in the NLRC, and conciliators and
similar officials shall not testify in any court regarding any matter taken
up at the conciliation proceedings conducted by them.
Anti-Graft Cases
2. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
Sec. 25. Parental and filial privilege.
No person may be compelled to testify against his:
- parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.
(20a)
Notes:
- It is not a rule of disqualification but was a privilege NOT to testify
- hence it was referred to as filial privilege
Admission
An admission is a statement of fact
which does not involve an
acknowledgement of guilt or liability
It may be express or tacit
May be made by third persons
Confession
It involves an acknowledgment of
guilt or liability
Must be express
Can be made only by the party
himself and in some instances, is
admissible against his co-accused
Express Admissions, defined: are those made in definite, certain and
unequivocal language.
Implied Admissions, defined: are those which may be inferred from the
acts, declarations or omission of a party. Therefore, an admission may be
implied from conduct, statement of silence of a party.
Requisites for Admissions to be Admissible
1. They must involve matters of fact and not of law;
2. They must be categorical and definite;
3. They must be knowingly and voluntarily made;
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
22 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
Criminal Cas
GR: An offer of compromise b
be received in evidence as an im
guilt.
23 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Principle
Res be
Inter Alios Acta Alteri Noceree Non Debet: Things done
In criminal cases however, the
accusedofmay
between
ought not to injure those who are not parties to it.
permitted to prove that such offer
wasstrangers
not made
st
1
Part:
Sec
under consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid 28, rule 130
- 2nd Part: Sec 34, rule 130
criminal action.
- EXC: to the Rule: When the 3rd person is a
o Sec 29: A partner, agent, joint owner, joint debtor, or has a
Instances when Offer of Compromise is Admissible
joint interest with the party
- In cases of violation of the internal revenue laws
o
Sec 30: A co-conspirator
o Since the law provides that the payment of any IR tax may
o Sec 31: A privy of the party
be compromised, and all criminal violations may likewise be
compromised EXC those already filed and those involving
Basis of the GR: A party is not bound by any agreement to which he has no
fraud.
knowledge and to which he has not given his consent. His rights cannot be
- In rape cases
prejudiced by the declaration, act or omission of another EXC by virtue of a
o GR: In effect it may be compromised by actual marriage
particular relation between them.
o EXC: An offer to compromise for monetary consideration is
an implied admission.
Basis of the EXC: A third party may be so united in interest with the partyo People v. Valdez: An offer of marriage during the
opponent that the other persons admissions may be receivable against the
investigation is an admission of guilt
party himself. The term privy is the orthodox catchword for the relation.
Good Samaritan Rule: An offer to pay or the actual payment of the
medical, hospital or other expenses by reason of the victims injuries is not
admissible to prove civil or criminal liability.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
24 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Notes:
Requisites for This Exception To Apply:
1. That the partnership, agency, or joint interest is established by
evidence other than the act or declaration
o Partnership relation must be shown;
2. The act or declaration is within the scope of the partnership, agency
or joint interest
o With regard to a non-partnership affair: The fact that each
partner has individually made a substantially similar
admission does not render the aggregate admission
competent against the firm.
3. Such act or declaration must have been made during the existence of
the partnership, agency or joint interest.
o Statements made after the partnership has been dissolved do
not fall within the exception
o BUT if they are made in connection with the winding up of
the partnership such admission is STILL admissible.
Rule on Admission Made By Counsel
- GR: They are ADMISSIBLE against the client as the counsel acts in
representation and as an agent of the client
- EXC: It must not amount to a compromise or confession of
judgment (Because in compromise, the rule requires the consent of
the client)
Joint Debtor, defined: It does not refer to mere community of interest but
should be understood according to its meaning in solidum and not
mancomunada.
Sec. 30. Admission by conspirator.
The act or declaration of a conspirator:
- relating to the conspiracy and
- during its existence,
may be given in evidence:
- against the co-conspirator
- AFTER the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of
declaration. (27)
Notes:
Application of the Requirement that the Conspiracy must Preliminarily
be Proved by Evidence other than the Conspirators Admission
- Applies ONLY to extrajudicial acts or statements
- NOT to judicial admission as to a testimony given on the witness
stand at the trial where the party adversely effected has the
opportunity to cross examine the declarant
An Admission by a Conspirator is Admissible Against his Co-conspirator
- Such conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde
o Conspiracy must be established by prima facie proof in the
judgment of the court;
- The admission was made during the existence of the conspiracy
o After the termination of a conspiracy, the statements of one
conspirator may not be accepted as evidence against any of
the other conspirators;
- The admission related to the conspiracy itself
o Should relate to the common object.
Existence of the Conspiracy May be Inferred:
- From the acts of the accused
- From the confessions of the accused
- Or by prima facie proof thereof
Note: If there is no independent evidence of the conspiracy the
extrajudicial confession CANNOT be used against his co-accused (res inter
alios rule applies to both EXJ and J admissions)
- Here, there is no need to produce direct evidence - independent
circumstantial evidence will suffice.
Quantum of Evidence to Prove Conspiracy: Clear and convincing
evidence
Rules on Extrajudicial Admissions Made by a Conspirator AFTER the
conspiracy had terminated and BEFORE the trial
- GR: NOT admissible
- EXC: Admissible against the co-conspirator IF:
1. Made in the presence of the co-conspirator who expressly or
impliedly agreed therein as there is tacit admission under Sec 32
2. Where the facts stated in said admission are confirmed in the
individual extrajudicial confessions made by the co-conspirators
after their apprehension (interlocking confessions)
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
25 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Notes:
To be Admissible the FF Requisites Must Concur:
1. He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other
person;
2. He must have had the opportunity to deny it
3. He must have understood the statement;
4. He must have an interest to object, such that he would naturally have
done so, as if the statement was not true;
5. The facts are within his knowledge;
6. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is
material to the issue.
The rule on admission by silence applies:
- Where a person was surprised in the act or
- Even if he is already in the custody of the police.
- Applies to both civil and criminal cases
Rules on Voluntary Participation in a Reenactment of the Crime
Conducted by the Police
- GR: It is considered a tacit admission of complicity.
- Note: To be given any evidentiary weight, the validity and efficacy
of the confession must first be shown.
Note: Implication of guilt is not derived from mere silence but from the
acquiescence in participating in the reenactment
Application of The Rule:
- DOES NOT Apply IF: the statements adverse to the party were
made in the course of an official investigation, as where:
o he was pointed out in a custodial investigation and was
neither asked to reply nor comment on such imputations or
o when the party had a justifiable reason to remain silent, as
when he was acting on advice of counsel
- It May Apply: To adverse statements in writing IF the party was
carrying on a mutual correspondence with the declarant.
o However, if there was no mutual correspondence, the rule is
relaxed since such prompt response can generally not be
expected if the party still has to resort to a written reply.
Basis of Rule: It is basic instinct or a natural reaction to resist or deny a false
statement
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
26 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
27 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
28 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time
- is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or
similar thing at another time;
BUT it may be received to prove:
- a specific intent or knowledge; identity, plan, system, scheme, habit,
custom or usage, and the like. (48a)
Notes:
Principle of Res Inter Alios Acta: Things done between strangers ought not
to injure those who are not parties to it.
- 1st Part: Sec 28, rule 130; 2nd Part: Sec 34, rule 130
Note: Sec 34 applies to both civil and criminal cases and is strictly enforced
in all cases where it is applicable
GR: 1st Sentence of Codal
EXC: Where the evidence or similar acts may prove:
1. A specific intent or knowledge;
2. Identity;
3. A plan, system or scheme;
4. A specific habit; or
5. Established customs, usages and the like
Basis: Evidence must be confined to the point in issue in the case on trial.
Evidence of collateral offenses must not be received as substantive evidence of
the offense on trial.
Purpose: To compel the defendant to meet charges of which the indictment
gives him no information, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of issues,
and thus diverts the attention of the court from the charge immediately before it.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
29 | P a t i o , E r i c a
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. (49a)
Notes:
- This section complements the rule on tender of payment (Art. 1256,
NCC) by providing that said offer of payment must be made in
writing.
- Such tender must, however, be followed by consignation of the
amount in court in order to produce the effects of valid payment.
5. TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE
Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay
excluded.
A witness can testify ONLY to those facts:
- which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is,
- which are derived from his own perception,
EXCEPT as otherwise provided in these rules. (30a)
Notes:
Hearsay Rule (HR), defined: Any evidence, whether oral or documentary is
hearsay of its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the
witness but on the knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand.
(Including: all assertions not subjected to cross-examination)
- GR: Hearsay evidence is excluded or INADMISSIBLE as evidence
- Ratio: It is excluded because the party against whom it is presented
is deprived of his right to cross-examine the persons to whom the
statements or writings are attributed.
- Note: If one has personal knowledge it is not hearsay anymore
Inadmissibility of hearsay evidence MAY be WAIVED: By not objecting
to such evidence. (Ratio: since the right to cross-examine may also be
waived) Repeated failure to cross-examine is an IMPLIED waiver
Value of Hearsay Evidence
- Hearsay Evidence alone is insufficient to establish a fact
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
30 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
31 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
32 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
33 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Note: Reputation between the declarant and the person subject of inquiry
must be legitimate unless the issue is the legitimacy itself.
EXCEPTION NO. 4: FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION
REGARDING PEDIGREE
pedigree
Witness is a member of the family
Testimony is about family reputation or
tradition covering matters of pedigree.
The witness himself is the one to whom
the fact relates. No need to establish
relationship by independent evidence.
Section 40
Family reputation or tradition regarding
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
34 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Spontaneous Statements
1. The principal act, the res gestae, be
a startling occurrence;
2. The statements were made before
the delcarant had the opportunity to
contrive
3. The statements must refer to the
occurrence in question and its
attending circumstances
4. The statement must be
spontaneous.
The res gestae is the startling
occurrence
Statements may be made prior,
during or immediately after the
startling occurrence.
Verbal Acts
1. The res gestae or principal act or to
be characterized must be equivocal;
2. Such act must be material to the issue
3. The statements must accompany the
equivocal act.
4. The statements give a legal
significance to the equivocal act
Dying Declarations
Can be made only by the victim.
Made only after the homicidal
attack has been committed.
Trustworthiness based upon in its
being given in awareness of
impending death.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
35 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Note: If both elements for res gestae and dying declarations are present
they may be admitted as both.
When Must the Statement or Act be Made:
GR: While the declarant was under the immediate influence of the startling
occurrence. Hence, done immediately prior, during or subsequent to the
events.
EXC:
- If the declarant was unconscious statements regarding the event will
still be admissible
- If the declarant did not have the opportunity to concoct or contrive a
story it is still admissible even if statement was made after hours
Statements or Outcries as Part of Res Gestae are Admissible:
- To establish the identity of the assailant
- To prove the complicity of another person in the crime
- To establish an admission of liability on the part of the accused
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
36 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Note: The entrant must have been competent with respect to the facts stated
in his entries.
- Entries made by a priest in the register of the facts of baptism are
NOT admissible to prove the date of birth or its relation to persons
o A priest is not competent to testify to the truth of these facts.
- BUT church registries are ADMISSIBLE as evidence of the facts
with respect to marriage solemnized by the priest (BUT needs to be
authenticated)
- If the certificate is transmitted to a public officer it is admissible
w/o a need for prior authentication.
Entries in Official Records May be Proved: See Sec 24 and 25 Rule 132
Probative Value: Also prima facie of the facts stated therein
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
37 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Notes:
Notes:
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
38 | P a t i o , E r i c a
The mater is res inter alios and cannot invoked as res judicata
It may only be admitted in a civil case by way of inducement or to
show a collateral fact relevant to the issue in the civil action
It may not be admitted to prove the plaintiffs action or the
defendants defense it is not binding upon the parties in the civil
action
Ratio: Parties are not the same and different rules of evidence are
applicable to each
7. OPINION RULE
Sec. 48.General rule.
The opinion of witness is not admissible EXCEPT as indicated in the
following sections. (42)
Notes:
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
39 | P a t i o , E r i c a
facts are presented to him and on the assumption that they are true,
formulates his opinion on the hypothesis.
Probative Value of Expert Evidence
- W/N the courts are bound by the testimony of an expert: DEPENDS on
the nature of the inquiry.
o ONLY when the subject of inquiry is of such a technical nature
that a layman can possibly have no knowledge thereof that courts
must depend and rely upon experts.
- Conflicting expert evidence have neutralizing effect on contradictory
conclusions. They generate doubt.
- A non-expert private individual, may examine certain contested
documents, it is not necessarily null and void if there are facts w/in his
knowledge which may help the court in the determination of the issue.
Rules on Handwriting Expert Evidence
- Value of such expert evidence depends upon the assistance that he
affords in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics,
dissimilarities as regards spontaneity, rhythm, pressure of a pen, loops,
strokes, and discrepancies between genuine and false specimens
- Expert evidence on handwriting is at best weak and unsatisfactory. It
is very unreliable. It is not conclusive. It has less weight than direct and
credible testimonies of witnesses as to matters w/in their personal
observation.
- It is not necessarily binding especially when the expert was not presented
as a witness to give the adverse party an opportunity to cross-examine.
- When the inquiry merely involves a comparison of existing signatures,
an opinion of an expert is not necessary.
- Other factors that should be considered: The position of the writer, the
condition of the surface in which the paper is placed, his state of mind,
feelings and nerves, kind of pen and paper.
- It is common knowledge that the writing of a person changes as time
elapses. It changes as one advances in age.
- From the ink alone, it is impossible to determine the ink writings age.
On Paraffin Tests for Firearm Use
- Paraffin Tests are NOT conclusive as to the presence of gunpowder
since other compounds with nitrates can give the same reaction. It is
unreliable since the only thing it can definitely establish is the presence
or absence of nitrates BUT not if its source is a firearm
- Tobacco, cosmetics, fertilizers, fireworks can give a positive result as
well.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
40 | P a t i o , E r i c a
It also doesnt definitely establish the distance where the gun was
fired. Blackening and burning around the wound better establishes the
short distance of the gunshot.
Rules on Paternity Testing
- Blood tests on filiation of a child, competently conducted by
qualified persons are admissible on the non-paternity of a person
- It is however, inconclusive to affirm paternity but can only show a
possibility of such fact absent any other evidence.
On DNA Testing
- DNA evidence based on genetic code is admissible to prove
paternity since except for identical twins, each persons DNA is
distinct and unique
- In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, it is necessary to
consider how the samples were collected, handled, the possibility of
contamination and w/n the standards of procedure were followed
- Obtaining DNA does not violate the right against selfincrimination.
- The probative value or weight of DNA analysis is subject to the
requisites of evaluation
o Less than 99.9%: Corroborative Evidence
o 99.9% or higher: Rebuttable Presumption
On Evidence Obtained By Sound Recording
- Tape Recording is admissible provided the ff requisites are first
established:
1. Recording device was capable of taking testimony
2. The operator of the device was competent
3. No changes, additions or deletions have been made
4. The testimony was elicited and voluntarily made w/o any kind of
inducement
5. The establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the
recoding
6. The identity of the speakers
7. The manner of the preservation of the recording
- A witnesses declaration that the sound recording represents a true
portrayal of the voices satisfies the requirements of authentication.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
41 | P a t i o , E r i c a
(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.
(b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible ONLY
when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.
(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14, (46a, 47a)
Notes:
Character, defined: The aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to
and distinguish an individual person.
Rules on the Admissibility of Character Evidence:
- GR: Character evidence is NOT admissible in evidence
Ratio: The evidence of a persons character does not prove that such person
acted in conformity with such character or trait in a particular occasion.
In Criminal Cases
- GR: The prosecution may not prove the BAD Moral Character (MC) of
the accused which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged.
- EXCEPTION:
o The prosecution may prove BAD MC at the rebuttal stage - IF
the accused, in his defense attempts to prove his GOOD MC.
o GOOD or BAD MC of the offended party may always be proved
if such evidence tends to establish the probability or
improbability of the offense charged.
- EXC to the EXC:
o Proof of the bad character of the victim is not admissible:
In a murder case: If the crime was committed through
treachery and evident premeditation
In a rape case: If through violence and intimidation
o In prosecution for rape, evidence of complainants past sexual
conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be
admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds that
such evidence is material and relevant to the case. (RA 8505)
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
42 | P a t i o , E r i c a
[RULE 131]
BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS
Sec 1. Burden of proof.
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. (1a, 2a)
BURDEN OF PROOF
Burden of Proof or onus probandi, defined: Obligation imposed upon a
party who alleges the existence of facts necessary for the prosecution of his
action or defense to establish the same by the requisite quantum of evidence.
Proof, defined: The establishment of a requisite degree of belief in the mind
of the trier of fact as to the fact in issue.
Criminal Cases
Proof
beyond
reasonable
doubt
To Sustain
Conviction
Preliminary
Investigation
Evidence as to engender a
well-founded belief as to
the fact of the commission
of the crime and the
respondents probable guilt
Issuance of
Warrant of
Arrest
Probable Cause:
Reasonable ground to
believe that the
accused has committed
the offense .
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
43 | P a t i o , E r i c a
3
4
Preponderance of evidence
Substantial evidence
Defendan
t
Cross
Claimant
Burden of Evidence
Shifts from party to party depending upon the
exigencies of the case in the course of the trial
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
44 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Classifications of Presumptions
Presumptions of Law
(praesumptiones juris)
Definition: A deduction which the
law expressly directs to be made
from particular facts.
A certain inference must be made
whenever the facts appear which
furnish the basis of the inference
Reduced to fixed rules and form
part of the system of jurisprudence
Presumptions of Fact
(praesumptiones hominis)
Definition: A deduction which reason draws
from facts proved without an express direction
from the law to that effect
Discretion is vested in the tribunal as to
drawing the inference.
Derived wholly and directly from the
circumstances of the particular case by means
of the common experience of mankind
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
45 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
46 | P a t i o , E r i c a
The court rendering the judgment is presumed to have jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties and to have rendered a judgment valid in every
respect.
- Jurisdictionispresumedinallcases,beitsuperiororinferiorcourt.
- However,jurisdictionmaynotbepresumedwhentherecorditself
showsthatjurisdictionhasnotbeenacquiredortherewassomething
ontherecordshowingtheabsenceofjurisdiction.
(o)That all the matters within an issue raised in a case:
- were laid before the court and passed upon by it; and
in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted
for arbitration:
- were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
(p)That private transactions have been fair and regular;
Presumption that Private Transactions have Been done Fairly and
Regular (P)
An individual intends to do right rather than wrong and intends to do only
what he has the right to do.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
47 | P a t i o , E r i c a
In the absence of proof to the contrary, there is a presumption that all men act
fairly honestly, and in good faith.
(q)That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
Those who were engaged in a given trade or business are presumed to be
acquainted with the general customs and usages of the occupation and with
such other facts as are necessarily incident to the proper conduct of the
business.
(r)That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
(s)That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient
consideration;
(t)That an endorsement of a negotiable instrument was made:
- before the instrument was overdue and
- at the place where the instrument is dated;
(u)That a writing is truly dated;
(v)That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course
of the mail;
Presumption in Paragraph (V)
For the Presumption in Par (V) to Arise, It Must Be Proved:
- That the letter was properly addressed with postage pre-paid and that
it was actually mailed
- IF the said letter was not returned to the sender: It is presumed that it
was received by the addressee
Service of Pleadings By Mail (Sec 10, Rule 13)
- Service is complete upon the expiration of 10 days after mailing
UNLESS the court otherwise provides
- If by registered mail: The service is complete upon actual receipt by
the addressee (If he fails to claim his mail from the post w/in 5 days
from date of 1st notice service is complete from the expiration of
such time)
3
-
A person who:
has been in danger of death under other circumstances and
whose existence has not been known for 4 years;
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
48 | P a t i o , E r i c a
(dd) That IF the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another
marriage:
- within 300 days after such termination of the former marriage,
these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:
1
-
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was
conformable to the law or fact;
(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and
ordinary nature habits of life;
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with
things of the nature;
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published
by public authority, was so printed or published;
(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting to contain reports of cases
adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is published, contains
correct reports of such cases;
(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property
to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
49 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Par (KK)
Par (JJ)
The parties are NOT required to perish in
It is Required that the deaths
a calamity
occurred during a calamity
It only applies to questions of
It applies to cases not involving
successional rights
successional rights
Provides a presumption of simultaneity in Provides for presumptions of
the deaths of the persons called to succeed survivorship
each other
Sec. 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
50 | P a t i o , E r i c a
[RULE 132]
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Sec 1. Examination to be done in open court.
The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing:
- shall be done in open court, and
- under oath or affirmation.
UNLESS:
- the witness is incapacitated to speak, or
- the questions calls for a different mode of answer,
the answers of the witness shall be given orally. (1a)
Sec.2. Proceedings to be recorded.
The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, INC:
- the questions propounded to a witness and his answers thereto,
- the statements made by the judge or any of the parties, counsel, or
witnesses with reference to the case,
shall be recorded:
- by means of shorthand or stenotype or
- by other means of recording found suitable by the court.
A transcript of the record of the proceedings:
- made by the official stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and
- certified as correct by him
shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings. (2a)
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
51 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Notes:
Rules For Admissibility
- GR: The testimony of the witness must be given in open
- EXC: Such requirement may be supplanted
o In civil cases, by depositions pursuant to and under the
limitations of Rules 23 and 24
o In criminal cases, by depositions or conditional
examinations, pursuant to Sec 12 to 15 Rule 119 and Rule
123, or by the records of the preliminary investigation
How Oral Evidence is Given
- GR: It is usually given orally in open court. Therefore, generally,
the testimonies of witnesses cannot be presented in affidavits.
- EXC: Testimonies of witnesses may be given in affidavits is under
the Rules of Summary Procedure (BP 129)
Purpose: to enable the court to judge the credibility of the witness by the
witness manner of testifying, their intelligence, and appearance.
GR: Testimony of witnesses shall be given under oath or affirmation.
- Two fold object in requiring a witness to be sworn:
1. By affecting the conscience of the witness to compel him to
speak the truth;
2. If he willfully falsifies that truth, that he may be punished by
perjury.
- The right to have the witness sworn may be waived
o If a party fails to object to the taking of the testimony of a
witness without the administration of an oath, he will be deemed
to have waived his objection.
How Testimony of the Witness Should be Elicited
- By question of counsel
- The court may also propound questions either on the direct or crossexamination of the witness or suggest questions to counsel.
Note: The testimony of a witness cannot be considered self-serving if he is
subjected to cross-examination.
Questions propounded to a witness must:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
52 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Ordinary Witness
May be compelled to testify by
subpoena having only the right to
refuse to answer a particular
incriminating question at the time it
is put to him.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
53 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
54 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Leading Question, defined: One which suggests to the witness the answer
desired.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
55 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Notes:
GR: One who voluntarily offers a witness testimony is bound by such (i.e.
cannot impeach or contradict),
EXCEPTIONS:
1 In case of a hostile witness or an unwilling witness
2 Where the witness is an adverse party or the representative of a
juridical person which is the adverse party or
3 When the witness required is NOT voluntarily offered but is required
by law to be presented (ex. Subscribing witness to the will)
A Party Can Impeach a Witness of the Adverse Party BY:
1 Contradictory evidence from testimony in same case
2 Evidence of prior inconsistent statement
3 Evidence of bad character and
4 Evidence of bias, interest, prejudice or incompetence
5 Evidence of mental, sensory derangement or defect
6 Evidence of conviction of an offense which affects credibility of
witness. (People v. Givera 349 SCRA 573 (2001)
Other Modes of Impeaching Aside From Sec 11
1 By involving him during Cross-E in contradiction
2 By showing the impossibility or improbability of his testimony
3 By proving action or conduct of the witness inconsistent with his
testimony
4 By showing bias, interest or hostile feeling against the adverse party
Note: Impeachment is LIMITED to bad reputation for lack of veracity and
NOT for lack of morals
Rehabilitation of Witnesses: An impeached witness may be allowed on
redirect to attempt to rehabilitate (to restore the witness credibility) by the
party who called the witness to the stand
Note: An impeached witness does not stricken his testimony
Sec. 12. Party may not impeach his own witness.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
56 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
57 | P a t i o , E r i c a
at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew
that the same was correctly written or recorded;
but in such case:
- the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected BY the
adverse party, who may, IF he chooses:
o cross examine the witness upon it, and may read it in
evidence.
So, also, a witness may testify from such writing or record, though he
retain 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. (10a)
Notes:
Application of the Article ONLY when it is shown beforehand that there
is a need to refresh the memory of the witness.
Revival of Present Memory
Sec. 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the
remainder, the remainder admissible.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
58 | P a t i o , E r i c a
For the purpose of their presentation evidence, documents are either public or
private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
RP, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public:
- EXCEPT last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the RP, of private documents required by law to be
entered therein.
All other writings are private. (20a)
Notes:
Authentication, defined: The process of proving the due execution and
genuineness of the document
Document, defined: A deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by
which something is proved, evidenced or set forth.
Classes of Documents
- Public Documents: A document acknowledged before persons
authorized to administer oaths. Official Documents
o A document to be public must be an official written act of a
public officer
o A foreign decision purporting to be the written record of an
act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country is a
public writing.
- Private Documents: Includes commercial documents
However, private documents required by law to be entered in public
records may be considered public documents
- Note: If a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public
record, its record, its recordation or its incorporation into the public
record becomes a public document BUT that does NOT make the
private writing itself a public document so as to make it admissible
w/o authentication.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
59 | P a t i o , E r i c a
4. When the authenticity and due execution of the document has been
expressly and impliedly admitted by failure to deny the same under
oath (ex. Actionable documents)
Additional Ground in Beda Reviewer:
5. When such genuineness and due execution are immaterial to the
issue
Authenticity and
Due Execution of
a Private
Document
Proved by:
1. Testimony of the purported writer
2. A witness who actually saw the person writing the
Handwriting
instrument (Sec 20a)
3. A witness familiar with such handwriting (Sec 22) and
who can give his opinion thereon, such opinion being
an exception to the opinion rule
4. A comparison by the court of the questioned
handwriting and admitted genuine specimens thereof
(Sec 22)
5. Expert Evidence (Sec 49)
Note: Sec 22 merely enumerated the methods of proving handwriting but it
does not give preference or priority to a particular method
Handwriting Experts NOT Mandatory; Weight of Expert Testimony: It
depends upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing
marks, characteristics, discrepancies in and between genuine and false
specimen of writings which would ordinarily escape notice or detection by an
untrained observer
Ancient Documents
- 3 Requirements (See codal Sec 21)
- An ancient document is said to be in the proper custody if it is in the
place in which and under the care of the person with whom it would
naturally be.
- Ratio: The fact of its coming from the natural and proper place tends to
remove presumptions of fraud and strengthen the belief of its
genuineness
- By merely producing the document: it establishes prima facie its own
authenticity. The burden then shifts to the adverse party to prove
otherwise.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
60 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Ratio:
- Necessity: practical impossibility of requiring the officials attendance as
a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions occurring in the
course of his duty
- Trustworthiness: There is a presumption of regularity, legality and
accuracy
Ratio:
1. To enable others to use the record;
2. To prevent the serious risk of loss;
3. To prevent its exposure to wear and tear
Sec. 27. Public record of a private document.
An authorized public record of a private document may be proved:
- by the original record, or
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
61 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Note: If a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public record, its
record, its recordation or its incorporation into the public record becomes a
public document BUT that does NOT make the private writing itself a public
document so as to make it admissible w/o authentication.
Sec. 28. Proof of lack of record.
A written statement:
- signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his
deputy
- that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is
found to exist in the records of his office,
- accompanied by a certificate as above provided,
is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record
or entry. (29)
Notes:
Notarial Document, defined: One which is duly acknowledged before a
notary public. (It is a public document)
- The notary must be duly authorized and must have notarized said
document in accordance with the Notarial Law.
Probative Value of a Notarial Document: It is evidence of the facts
expressed therein
When a Certified True Copy is Presented It Should Comply With the FF
to be Admissible:
1. The provisions that should appear in the certification or attestation of
the said copy (Sec 24 & 25)
2. It must have the documentary stamp affixed unless specifically
exempted as in the case of baptismal or birth certificate.
Note: It is presumed that the requisite stamps have been affixed to the
original copy of a document where only the carbon copies thereof are
available
Note: When a special power of attorney is executed and acknowledged
before a notary public or other competent officer in a foreign country, it
cannot be admitted in evidence in RP courts unless it is certified as such in
accordance with Sec 24.
Public Instruments do NOT Have Uniform Probative Value
- The law does not specifically provide that the contents of public
instruments w/o distinction are equally evidence against 3 rd parties
- The probative value of public instruments depends on the kind of
document that is presented in evidence.
Rules on Baptismal Certificates (BC)
- Issued by priests during the Spanish regime: Considered public
documents
- Issued after the Spanish regime: Considered private documents and
cannot even be considered as prima facie evidence of the fact that gave
rise to its execution (it is considered hearsay unless the priest who
performed the baptismal rites are produced)
Note:
- BCs are not sufficient proof of paternity or recognition of a child. It
is only proof of the baptism administered but not the veracity of the
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
62 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Note: BCs may be used to determine the minority of the victim in statutory
rape
Note: Death Certificates is not proof of the cause of death its probative
value being confined only to the fact of death
- Statements therein regarding the duration of illness and the cause of
death are mere hearsay.
- However, it is admissible to prove residence of decedent at the time
of death.
GR: The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally
offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
EXC: If there was repeated reference thereto in the course of the trial by
adverse partys counsel and of the court, indicating that the documents were
part of the prosecutions evidence.
- Two requisites must concur: (Pp v. Napta)
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
63 | P a t i o , E r i c a
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)
Notes:
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
64 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Classifications of Objections:
1. General Objection It does not go beyond declaring the evidence as
immaterial, incompetent, irrelevant or inadmissible. It does not specify
the grounds for objection. Broadside Objection
2. Specific Objection It states why or how the evidence is irrelevant or
incompetent.
Requirements to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence:
1. One has to object to the evidence
2. The objection must be timely made and
3. The grounds for the objection must be specified (specific objections)
Effect of General Objection:
- Failure to specify the grounds is a waiver of objection
- BUT when evidence is excluded upon a mere general objection, the
ruling will be upheld IF any ground in fact existed for the exclusion.
When to make Objection: (If not made w/in such time = waived)
Offer
Time to Object
Offered orally
Made immediately after the offer is
made
Question propounded in the
Made as soon as the grounds thereof
course of the oral examination of a
shall become reasonably apparent
witness
Offer of evidence in writing
W/in 3 days after notice of the offer
unless a different period is allowed by
the court.
Note: the formal offer of evidence at the time the witness is called to testify
is necessary to enable the court to intelligently rule on any objection.
- Proponent must: Show its evidence, materiality and competence
- Adverse party must: Promptly raise any objection thereto
Note: A document admitted not as an independent evidence but merely as
part of the testimony of a witness does NOT constitute proof of the facts
related therein.
Sec. 37.When repetition of objection unnecessary.
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a
witness:
- that the question being propounded are of the same class as those to
which objection has been made,
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
65 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Here, it is proper for the court to take reasonable time to study the
questions
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
66 | P a t i o , E r i c a
their intelligence,
their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are
testifying,
- the nature of the facts to which they testify,
- the probability or improbability of their testimony,
- their interest or want of interest, and also
- their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear
upon the trial.
The court may also consider:
- the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily
with the greater number. (1a)
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
2 Witnesses w/ Conflicting
Testimonies
The court shall adopt the
testimony which he believes
to be true
67 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
68 | P a t i o , E r i c a
o
o
Rules on Affidavits
- They are subordinated in importance to open court declarations
(Since they are oftentimes executed when the affiant is at a high pitch of
excitement and when his mental state is not as to afford him a fair
opportunity of narrating in full the incident when it transpired)
- They are not complete reproductions of what the declarant has in
mind (since the are generally prepared by the administering officer)
- Ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete, hence discrepancies
between the statements of the affiant and that made on the witness stand
do not necessarily discredit him
- It is an affidavit is only prima facie evidence of weak probative force
- When the affidavit is inconsistent with the testimony the latter is
invariably believed.
- Omissions and misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent.
Note: These rules do not apply when the omission in the affidavit refers to a
very important detail
Non-Payment of Taxes: Indicative of the fact that the claimant does not
believe himself to be the owner of the property.
Continuous Payment: Great weight in favor of ownership
Tax declarations: NOT conclusive evidence of ownership BUT if
accompanied by open, adverse and continued possession in the concept of an
owner they constitute evidence of great weight
On the Motive of the Accused in a Criminal Case
GR: Motive is immaterial and since it is not an element of a crime it need
not be proved
- Mere proof of motive, no matter how string, cannot sustain a
conviction if there is no other evidence establishing the guilt of the
accused
EXC: Evidence of motive is relevant or essential in the ff instances:
1. When the identity of the assailant is in question
2. To determine the voluntariness of the criminal act or the sanity of the
accused
3. To determine from which side the unlawful aggression commenced, as
where the accused invoked self-defense wherein unlawful aggression on
the part of his opponent is an essential element
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
69 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury taken with the
surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a
presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiffs prima facie case
The rule is however, considered as merely evidentiary or in the
nature of a procedural rule the application does NOT dispense with
the requisite of proof of negligence.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
70 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Note: Not only prior and coetaneous actuations of the accused in relation to
the crime but also his acts or conduct after thereto can be considered as CE of
Guilt
Note: Motive becomes important when the evidence of the crime is purely
circumstantial
Sec. 5.Substantial evidence.
In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be
deemed established IF:
- it is supported by substantial evidence, or
- that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (n)
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
71 | P a t i o , E r i c a
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]
72 | P a t i o , E r i c a