Professional Documents
Culture Documents
b)
J. Opinion Rule
Rule 130, Sec. 48. General rule The opinion of a witness is
not admissible, except as indicated in the following sections.
Rule 130, Sec. 49. Opinion of expert witness 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.
Rule 130, Sec.50. Opinion of ordinary witness The opinion
of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received
in evidence regarding
a)
b)
adequate knowledge;
A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity;
c)
and
The mental sanity of a person with whom he is
sufficiently acquainted.
Layug v. CA
F: Teresita (priv. respondent) filed a petition for habeas corpus
against her husband (petitioner) to regain custody of her two
children, but it was dismissed by the trial court which ruled in
favor of the latter. Petitioner presented the testimonies of two
expert witnesses a social worker and psychologist to show
People v, Fundano
F: Fundano was charged with 3 counts of rape committed
against his 15 y.o. daughter, Melody. The prosecution
presented Melody and an NBI Medico-Legal Officer (Dr.
Victoria) as its witnesses. Melody was examined by Dr. Victoria
who found that while she had no hymenal injuries and that her
hymen was still intact, it admitted a 2.8 cm diameter tube
without injury.
Fundano argued that he left Manila (Makati where the alleged
rape took place) for Bicol years ago, that he would only visit
from time to time, and that he was bedridden in Bicol during
the material dates when the rape was committed. This was
corroborated by his witnesses. RTC Makati found him guilty.
Among his claims, Fundano questioned Dr. Victorias lack of
expertise since he claimed the prosecution did not establish
the witness qualifications.
H: The SC affirmed the conviction, finding his defense of alibi
untenable. Further, the Court ruled that the defense was
unable to impeach the credibility of the expert witness Dr.
Victoria. The mere statement that the prosecution was unable
to present Dr. Victorias qualification was insufficient.
At any rate, neither the medical report nor the testimony of
witnesses other than the complainant is indispensable when
the complainants testimony is credible.
Doctrine: Before one may be allowed to testify as an expert
witness, his qualifications must first be established by the party
presenting him, i.e., he must be shown to possess the special
skill or knowledge relevant to the question to which he is to
express an opinion.
An expert witness may be impeached, or the weight of his
K. Character Evidence
Rule 130, Sec. 51. Character evidence not generally
admissible; exceptions
Mariano v. Roxas
F: Mariano filed an administrative complaint for forgery and
dishonesty against Susan Roxas, Clerk III of the CA Third
Division with the CA. The former alleged that the latter bought
jewelry from her but, she didnt pay in full, leaving a balance of
P12, 110. Mariano further alleged that Roxas authorized her
to collect her (Roxas) benefits to answer for her obligation, but
this authority was revoked without informing Mariano, which
constitutes dishonesty.
In her defense, Roxas argued that she overpaid, as shown by
typewritten receipts Mariano allegedly signed.
but Mariano claimed that her signature was forged and that
she never issues typewritten receipts. This fact was
corroborated by her witness, Lorna Caraga, her friend and
former office mate, and was familiar with her signature.
Mariano also claimed that she Roxas didnt overpay her.
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.
2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove
his bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral
trait involved in the offense charged.
3) The good or bad moral character of the offended
party may be proved if it tends to establish any
reasonable degree the probability or improbability of
the offense charged.
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.
b)
Definition
Character is the aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to
and distinguish an individual person. Its what the person really
is. (Riano)
B. General Rule
Character evidence is inadmissible. (Rule 130, Sec. 51)
Reason for the rule
Character is irrelevant in determining a controversy because
evidence of ones character is not admissible to prove that a
person acted in conformity with such character or trait in a
particular occasion. Otherwise, the trial would be like a
popularity contest.
3.
Exceptions
1. CRIMINAL CASES
a) Accused - May prove his/her good moral
character, which is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged. (Rule 130, Sec.
51[a]1)
Ex. In estafa, perjury, or false testimony, may prove
moral trait for honesty or probity.
b)
c)
2.
CIVIL CASES
CSC v. Belagan
F: In 1996, Belagan, who is the Superintendent of DECS in
Baguio City, was charged with two separate complaints for
sexual harassment and dereliction of duty. These were filed
before DECS by Magdalena Lapuz, the owner of a pre-school,
and Ligaya Annawi, a public school teacher.
Lapuz alleged that she applied for a permit to operate with
DECS and that, during the school inspection, while the two of
them were alone, Belagan hugged her and kissed her on the
cheeks. He even asked her out on a date, but she declined.
Eventually, her application was granted.
DECS found him guilty and dismissed him. Upon appeal, the
Civil Service Commission dismissed Ligayas complaint and
affirmed that of Lapuz.
Belagan filed an MR wherein he tried to establish the
complainants bad reputation by enumerating her several
offenses for oral defamation, grave threats, malicious mischief,
among others. He claimed that this would cast doubt on her
character, integrity, and credibility. However, his MR was
denied.
The CA reversed the CSC resolution and dismissed Lapuzs
complaint.
H: On the issue of whether the complaining witness was
credible, the SC ruled in the affirmative. The general rule is
that the character of a party is legally irrelevant in determining
a controversy, but exceptions are provided in Sec. 51, Rule
5
Marquez to murder.
Even assuming that the rule applies, not every good or bad
charged.
than a factual inquiry into the merits of the case. After all, the
business of the court is to try the case, and not the man; and
arose, or at the time of the trial and prior, but not at a period
b)
integrity.
People vs. Lee
F: Lee was charged with the murder of Joseph Marquez.
According to the victims mother, she saw the former firing at
his son inside their house. In his defense, Lee claimed that he
was in his house when the crime took place; that the victim
had a bad reputation in their neighborhood as a thief and drug
addict; and that some other person with a grudge against the
victim shot him. The trial court found him guilty.
H: SC affirmed his conviction; Proof of the bad moral
character of Joseph is irrelevant to determine the probability
or improbability of his killing because Lee did not allege that
the victim was the aggressor or that the killing was made in
self-defense. Also, the presence of treachery as an
aggravating circumstance negates the necessity of proving
the victims bad character to establish the probability or
improbability of the offense and qualifies the killing of Joseph
falsify it.
The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his
landlord at the time of the commencement of the
c)
intent;
That a person intends the ordinary consequences of
d)
e)
f)
if produced;
That money paid by one to another was due to the
g)
latter;
That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to
h)
the latter;
That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has
i)
been paid;
That prior rents or installments had been paid when
j)
latters
testimonial
evidence
corroborated
by
its
evidence for the presumption is the prima facie proof of the fact
presumed.
B. Kinds of presumptions
1.
on
the
credibility
of
witnesses
unless
some
2.
A. Conclusive Presumptions
Rule 131, Sec. 2 (infra)
A. Definition
Presumption an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law
which requires such fact to be assumed from another fact or
group of facts found or otherwise established in the action.
(Blacks Law Dictionary)
It is an inference as to the existence of a fact not actually known,
arising from its usual connection with another which is known, or
a conjecture based on past experience as to what course of
human affairs ordinarily take. (Perez v, Ysip)
Effect of presumptions
A party in whose favor the legal presumption exists may rely on it
to establish a fact in issue. There is no need to introduce
held that after recognizing the validity of the lease contract for
two years, the petitioner spouses are barred from alleging the
automatic cancellation of the contract on the ground that the
respondents lost ownership of the house after Virgilio
acquired title over the lot.
D, Disputable presumptions
Alicbusan vs. CA
11