Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Oath
Out-of-court declarant who made the hearsay statement commonly speaks or writes without the solemnity of the oath administered to
witnesses in a court of law.
RATIONALE: As a ceremonial and religious symbol, it may induce in the witness a feeling of special obligation to speak the truth and also,
it may impress upon the witness the danger of criminal punishment for perjury, to which the judicial oath or an equivalent solemn
affirmation would be a prerequisite condition.
Wigmore: “objection for want of oath” incidental and not essential and suggests that this is demonstrated by the fact that a hearsay
statement, even if under oath, is still rejected.
Not the only requirement ≠ not important requirement
Cross-Examination
Main justification for the rule in the modern world
RATIONALE: Lack of opportunity for the adversary to cross-examine the absent declarant whose out-of-court statement is reported by
the witness.
Bentham: Cross-examination was a distinctive feature of the English trial system. One which most contributed to the prestige of the
institution of jury trial. He called it a “security for the correctness and completeness of testimony”
DEFINITION OF HEARSAY
From Federal Rules of Evidence 801:
“Statement” [1] oral or written assertion OR [2] non-verbal conduct of a person, IF it is intended by the person as an assertion
“Declarant” - a person who makes a statement
“Hearsay” - a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the
truth of the matter asserted.
Conduct as hearsay
1. Non-verbal conduct
2. So-called “implied assertions”
3. Silence as hearsay
RAV says:
What makes hearsay hearsay? If it is offered “for the truth of the matter asserted therein” aka FOTOMAT
A. Testimonial Knowledge
Rule 130, Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge. – 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.
Regalado:
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 some other person not on the witness stand.
RATIONALE: Party against whom it is presented is deprived of the right and opportunity to cross-examine the persons to whom the
statements or writings are attributed.
If a party does not object to the hearsay evidence, the same is admissible, as a party can waive his right to cross-examine
REPEATED FAILURE OF A PARTY TO CROSS-EXAMINE: implied waiver of such right and the testimony of said witness who died thereafter
should not be excluded from the record.
Standing alone, hearsay evidence is insufficient to establish a fact in issue BUT when no objection is interposed thereto, it is, like any
other evidence to be considered and given the importance it deserves. (Manliclic v Calaunan)
Hearsay not objected to may be admissible BUT whether objected to or not, it has no probative value and as opposed to direct primary
evidence, the latter always prevails.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION: Sec. 28 of Rule on Examination of Child Witness – Hearsay testimony of a child describing any act or attempted act
of sexual abuse is admissible in any criminal proceeding, subject to certain prerequisites and the right of cross-examination by the
adverse party. Admissibility of the statements shall be determined by courts in light of specified subjective and objective
considerations which provide sufficient indicia of reliability of the witness.
People v. Brioso Murder; Silverio Daria was gunned by appellants Brioso and Affidavits are generally not prepared by the affiants
(1971; JBL Reyes, J.) Taeza. Suspected motive was the spouses’ disapproval of themselves but by another who uses his own language in
Taeza for their daughter. Niece of wife (and neighbor) writing the affiants' statements, which may thus be either
witnessed the incident. Mario Taeza’s alibi was alleged committed or misunderstood by the one writing them. For this
corroborated by Silverio’s son, Antonio’s affidavit. Court reason, and for the further reason that the adverse party is
rejected the affidavit. deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants,
affidavits are generally rejected in a judicial proceeding as
ISSUE: WON Antonio’s affidavit is admissible? NO hearsay, UNLESS the affiants themselves are placed on the
witness stand to testify thereon
People v. Cusi Robbery in band with homicide; Sgt. Bano testified in court - While the testimony of a witness regarding a statement
(1965; Dizon, J.) about the extrajudicial confession of one of the accused made by another person, if intended to establish the truth of
(Puesca) as to the names of his other co-conspirators. Defense the facts asserted in the statement, is clearly hearsay
objected on the ground of hearsay. Judge directed the witness evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the
to answer the question but without mentioning or giving the statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the
names of the accused who had interposed the objection. In statement was made or the tenor of such statement.
other words, the witness was allowed to answer the question Chi’s interp: Not hearsay because he is testifying on what he
and name his co-conspirators except those who had raised the heard from the declarant, ergo testimony is based on personal
objection. knowledge.
- The purpose of the prosecuting officer is nothing more than
ISSUE: WON the sergeant’s testimony is hearsay? NO to establish the fact that the accused had mentioned to Sgt.
Bano the names of those who conspired with him to commit
the offense charged, without claiming that Puesca's statement
or the answer to be given by Sgt. Bano would be competent
Page 3 of 28
evidence:
(1) absence of cross examination; (2) absence of demeanor
evidence, and (3) absence of the oath.
B. Exceptions
RATIONALE FOR EXCEPTIONS: Necessity for such evidence and/or the assumption that, in the ordinary course of events, the same are
trustworthy.
NOT COVERED: Statements/writings of person not on the witness stand are being offered NOT to prove the TRUTH of facts stated therein
but only to prove that those statements were ACTUALLY MADE or those writings were EXECUTED.
1) RATIONALE: Because he heard the same or saw the execution of document, as these are matters of fact derived from his own
perception and the purpose is only to prove either that the statement was made or the tenor thereof.
“Doctrine of independently relevant statements” – Independent of whether the facts stated are true or not, they are RELEVANT since
they are facts in issue OR are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue.
E.g. of “fact in issue”: A witness may testify to the statements made by a person if, for instance, the fact that such statements were made
by the latter would indicate the latter’s mental state or physical condition.
E.g. of “circumstantial evidence of fact in issue”: (Resolution on MR Estrada v Desierto) Statements made by a person…
1) Showing his state of mind i.e. mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill will and other emotion
2) Which show his physical condition e.g. illness
3) From which an inference may be made as to the state of mind of another i.e. knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith
4) Which may identify the date, place and person in question
5) Showing the lack of the credibility of a witness
Newspaper clippings or facts published in newspapers are hearsay and have no evidentiary value UNLESS substantiated by persons with
personal knowledge of said facts (People v Arguel)
1. Dying Declaration
Rule 130, Section 37. 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.
Regalado:
Also known as “ante mortem” statement or a statement in “articulo mortis”
REQUISITES FOR THE ANTE MORTEM DECLARATION EXCEPTION TO APPLY:
1. Death is imminent
2. Declarant is conscious of the fact of imminent death
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. (Pp v Sabio)
How do you know that the declarant is “conscious” of his imminent death? Consider…
a. words or statements of the declarant on the same occasion
b. conduct at the time the declaration was made
c. serious nature of his wounds as would necessarily engender a belief on his part that would not survive
therefrom, especially when he died an hour thereafter
“I’d die if not treated” + died 1 hour later = Indicates awareness of death, ergo ante mortem statement (Pp v Antonio)
“I cannot ascertain” + died the following day = Res gestae and ante mortem statement
“It all depends” + progressively improved = Not ante mortem (Pp v Lanza)
3. The declaration refers to the CAUSE and SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES of such death
4. Declaration relates to the facts which the victim is competent to testify to
5. Declarant would have been competent witness had he survived
6. Declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry
7. Declarant should have died
a. The intervening time from the making of the declaration up to the actual death is immaterial.
b. He should not have retracted his statement before he died
After dying declaration is proved and admitted, credibility and weight should be determined by the courts under the same rules in testing
the weight and credibility of any other testimonial evidence. E.g. Dying declaration could have been blurred by the disorder and rapidity
of events
Therefore, dying declaration must be accepted with utmost care and should be considered in light of all the facts proved in the case.
Statements not admissible even if dying declaration:
1) Statements referring to antecedents of the fatal encounter
2) Opinions, impressions or conclusions of the declarant
Form of dying declaration: may be oral, written OR made by signs which could be interpreted and testified to by a witness thereto
How to rebut dying declaration?
Page 5 of 28
McCormick:
People v. Laquinon Murder; Ante mortem statement of Pablo Remonde, made to “Where the victim, when asked as to whether he thought he
(1985; Concepcion, Jr., J) barrio captain, that he was allegedly shot by KM members would die, replied “I don’t know” his declaration was NOT
because he was suspected as an informer. MADE under the consciousness of his imminent death and
DOES NOT QUALIFY as an ante mortem statement, although
ISSUE: WON victim’s statement is admissible as ante mortem the same was admitted as part of the res gestae since it was
statement? NO, but admissible as res gestae made immediately after the incident.”
- The dying declaration of the deceased Pablo Remonde is
NOT ADMISSIBLE as an ante-mortem declaration since the
deceased was in doubt as to whether he would die or not.
The declaration fails to show that the deceased believed
himself in extremist, "at the point of death when every hope
of recovery is extinct, which is the sole basis for admitting this
kind of declarations as an exception to the hearsay rule."
People v. Sabio Robbery with homicide; Victim was a single octogenarian sari- “It is the belief in impending death at the time the statement
(1981; Melencio-Herrera, J.) sari store owner. He identified to the police that Sabio was his was made and not the rapid succession of death that renders
attacker and then died three days later at the hospital. the dying declaration admissible.”
Defense’s argument: No evidence showing that when the - The seriousness of the injury on the victim's forehead which
declaration was uttered the declarant was under a had affected the brain and was profusely bleeding; the
consciousness of an impending death; that, in fact, the victim victim's inability to speak until his head was raised; the
had hopes of recovery or his first word to his rescuing spontaneous answer of the victim that "only Papu Sabio is
grandnephew was for the latter to fetch the police. responsible for my death"; and his subsequent demise from
the direct effects of the wound on his forehead, strengthen
ISSUE: WON the ante mortem statement is admissible? YES the conclusion that the victim must have known that his end
was inevitable.
- That death did not ensue till three days after the declaration
was made will not alter its probative force since it is not
indispensable that a declarant expires immediately thereafter.
- The fact that the victim told his grandnephew Camilo to
fetch the police, does not negative the victim's feeling of
hopelessness of recovery but rather emphasizes the
realization that he had so little time to disclose his assailant to
the authorities.
- The mere failure of the police to confront the accused with
the ante mortem declaration the first time the latter was
arrested and incarcerated from October 5 to October 6, 1965,
neither militates against the fact of its execution considering
that it was evidence that the police was under no compulsion
to disclose.
People v. Salison Murder; Victim and his parents sought the help of the purok - SC agrees with SolGen’s position: “The records do not
(1996; Regalado, J.) leader who wrote down the statements of the victim before disclose that the defense offered any objection to the
he died the following day. admission of the declaration. Thus, the defense waived
Defense: whatever infirmity the document had at the time of its
- The written statement, which was reduced into writing by submission as evidence. The declaration can be translated into
witness Patricia Alcoseba and purporting to be a dying English or Pilipino as it is already admitted in evidence and
declaration, is inadmissible as evidence since it was in the forms part of the record.”
Cebuano regional language and was not accompanied with a - At the time the deceased made the declaration he was in
translation in English or Pilipino. great pain. He expressed a belief on his imminent death and
- It was not made by the deceased “under the consciousness the hope that his declaration could be used as evidence
of an impending death.” regarding the circumstances thereof. A person would not say
so if he believes he would recover and be able to testify
ISSUE: WON the written agreement is admissible as ante against his assailants.
mortem statement? YES - At all events, assuming that declaration is not admissible as a
dying declaration, it is still admissible as part of the res gestae,
since it was made shortly after the startling incident and,
under the circumstances, the victim had no opportunity to
contrive.
- While such statement was given, as in the nature of things
they are generally in oral form, they are not thereby rendered
inadmissible as they may even be communicated by means of
signs. If the declarations have thereafter been reduced to
writing and signed by the declarant, the writing is generally
held to be the best evidence, and it must be produced.
Page 6 of 28
Rule 130, Section 38. 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 declarant’s 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.
Regalado:
Distinguish between “admissions against interest” AND “declarations against interest”
ADMISSIONS AGAINST INTEREST DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST
Made by a party to a litigation OR by one in privity with or Made by a person who is neither a party nor in privity with a
identified in legal interest with such a party party to the suit
Admissible whether or not the declarant is available as a Admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness
witness
Used only against person admitting and those identified with Used even against third persons
him in legal interest
McCormick:
Two main requirements
1) Declaration must state facts that are against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the declarant OR the making of the
declaration itself must create evidence that would harm such interest
2) The declarant must be unavailable at the time of trial
3) MINOR QUALIFICATION: interest involved must not be too indirect or remote
Rationale?
1) People generally do not lightly make statements that are damaging to their interest safeguard of special trustworthiness
justifying most of the exceptions to the hearsay rule
2) Historical development
Difference between “admissions against interest” and “declarations against interest”
ADMISSIONS AGAINST INTEREST DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST
Not necessary that it be against the interest of the party Must be against the interest of the declarant (as opposed to
making the admission; may be self-serving “self-serving”)
Person admitting is dead OR alive Declarant must be dead or unable to testify
Personal knowledge NOT required Personal knowledge required
What kind of interest?
1)
Determining what is against interest; confrontation problems
1) Time aspect – harm must exist at the time the statement is made; otherwise it can exert no influence on declarant to speak
accurately and truthfully
2) Nature of statement
3) Factual setting
4) Motive: Actual state of mind of declarant
People v. Majuri Parricide; Muslim fugitive stabbed his infidel wife and admitted - The testimony of the accused that he was married to the
(1980; Aquino, J.) the commission of the crime to Sgt. Majuri pleaded guilty. On deceased was an admission against his penal interest. It was a
automatic review at the SC. confirmation of the maxim semper praesumitur matrimonio and
Defense’s argument: Marriage was not indubitably proven. the presumption "that a man and woman deporting themselves
as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of
ISSUE: WON the defense’s argument stands in view of the marriage"
adverse declarations made by the defendant? NO - He and the deceased had five children. He alluded in his
testimony to his father-in-law. That implies that the deceased
was his lawful wife. The fact that he bitterly resented her
infidelity, her failure to visit him in prison and her neglect of
their children are other circumstances confirmatory of their
marital status.
People v. Toledo Homicide; Duel between Holgado and Toledo over a land Reexamine the declaration of third parties made contrary to
(1928; Malcolm, J.) dispute. Morales died right away but Holgado died only a month their penal interest.
later. Toledo, Holgado’s servant, intervened in the fight and
Page 7 of 28
3. Pedigree
Rule 130, Section 39. 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 fact
of family history intimately connected with pedigree.
Regalado:
REQUISITES FOR THE ACT/DECLARATION ON PEDIGREE EXCEPTION TO APPLY:
1. Actor/declarant is dead OR unable to testify
2. Act/declaration is made by a person related to subject by birth or marriage
- Rules does not require any specific degree of relationship, but the WEIGHT to which such act/declaration is entitled may
be affected by the degree of relationship
3. The relationship between the declarant/actor and the subject is shown by evidence other than such act/declaration
4. Act/declaration was made ante litem motam i.e. prior to the controversy
Such statements prevail over the mere opinion of the judge (US v Agadas)
BUT cannot generally prevail over the secondary statement of the father (US v Evangelista)
McCormick:
Traditional rule: Declarations of the person whose family situation is at issue are admissible, as are declarations by other members of the
family.
Liberal view: Declarations by non-family members with a close relationship (“intimate associates”) to the family are also admitted.
Conditions for admissibility:
1) Only upon showing that declarant is unavailable
2) Statement was made before the origin of the controversy giving rise to the litigation in which the statement is offered
3) There was no apparent motive for the declarant to misrepresent the facts
Gravador v. Mamigo Gravador was separated (forced retirement) from his work as “A person’s statement as to his date of birth and age, as he
(1967; Castro, J.) elementary school principal based on pre-war records (i.e. learned of these from his parents or relatives, is an ante litem
Insular Teacher’s Card and Employee’s Record) showing him motam declaration of a family tradition.”
to be 66 years old already (Nov. 26, 1897). In response, he Court gave three reasons:
showed affidavit of his neighbors and other post-ward records 1. Although a person can have no personal knowledge of the
showing him to be younger by three years (Dec. 11, 1901). date of his birth, he may testify as to his age as he had learned it
Both baptismal cert and birth cert were destroyed by the war. from his parents and relatives and his testimony in such case is
TC ruled in favor of Gravador – basis: [1] post war were an assertion of a family tradition.
correct, [2] his brother’s declaration in cadastral proceeding 2. The import of the declaration of the his brother, contained in
were Gravador was co-owner to the effect that he was 23 a verified pleading in a cadastral case way back in 1924, to the
years old in 1924. effect that the petitioner was then 23 years old, can not be
ignored. Made ante litem motam by a deceased relative, this
ISSUE: Between post-war and pre-war records, what is statement is at once a declaration regarding pedigree within the
controlling as to Gravador’s age? Post war records intendment and meaning of Sec 33 of Rule 130.
- Thus, Dec. 11, 1901 is established as the date of birth not only
by evidence of family tradition but also by the declaration ante
litem motam of a deceased relative.
3. Parties are agreed that the Gravador has a brother,
Constantino, born on June 10, 1898 and who retired on June 10,
1963 with full retirement pay. Gravador then could not have
been born earlier than Constantino, in 1897 as pre-war records
indicate, bec Constantino is admittedly older than he.
People v. Alegado Statutory rape; Alegado argues that the actual age (12 years - The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the offended
(1991; Gutierrez, Jr., J.) old) of the offended party at the time of the alleged incidents party herself and her maternal grandfather, as to the fact that
of rape was not established with certainty. the victim was born on Sep. 5, 1976 do not constitute hearsay
evidence as claimed by Alegado but rather fall under the
The date of birth of the rape victim is being put in issue; exceptions to the hearsay rule as provided under sections 39
The declaration of the victim's grandfather relating to tradition and 40 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
Page 8 of 28
(sending a child to school upon reaching the age of seven) - Citing Lazatin v Campos: Declarations in regard to pedigree,
existed long before the rape case was filed; although hearsay, are admitted on the principle that they are
That the witness testifying to the said tradition is the maternal natural expressions of persons who must know the truth.
grandfather of the rape victim. - Pedigree testimony is admitted because it is the best that the
nature of the case admits AND because greater evil might arise
from the rejection of such proof than from its admission.
- 3 requisites for its admissibility were met in this case:
(1) that there is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any of
the members of a family;
(2) that the reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person
concerned existed previous to the controversy; and
(3) that the witness testifying to the reputation or tradition
regarding the pedigree of the person must be a member of the
family of said person.
- Citing Gravador v Mamigo: Testimony of a person as to his age
is admissible although hearsay and though a person can have no
personal knowledge of the date of his birth as all the knowledge
a person has of his age is acquired from what he is told by his
parents – he may testify as to his age as he had learned it from
his parents and relatives and his testimony in such case is an
assertion of family tradition.
Tison v. CA Action for reconveyance of land and apartment thereon; Niece - Niece’s testimony that aunt recognized her as the niece
(1997; Regalado, J.) and nephew wanted to inherit from their childless aunt by Such a statement is considered a declaration about pedigree
right of representation. Aunt’s husband sold the land. To which is admissible, as an exception to the hearsay rule, under
prove their filiation, petitioners presented the ff docu evid: Section 39, Rule 130, subject to the following conditions:
[1] family picture; (1) that the declarant is dead or unable to testify;
[2] baptismal certificates of their dad and aunt; (2) that the declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is
[3] certificates of destroyed records of birth of dad and aunt; the subject of inquiry;
[4] death certificates of dad and aunt; [4] certification of (3) that such relationship be shown by evidence other than the
destroyed records of live birth of petitioners declaration; and
[5] joint affidavits of Pablo Verzosa and Meliton Sitjar attesting (4) that the declaration was made ante litem motam, that is, not
to the parents, date and place of birth of petitioner; only before the commencement of the suit involving the subject
[6] joint affidavit of Juliana Cariaga and Manuela Cariaga matter of the declaration, but before any controversy has arisen
attesting to the fact of marriage between aunt and her thereon.
husband; - There is no dispute with respect to the first, second and fourth
[7] marriage certificate of aunt and husband elements. What remains for analysis is the third element, that
Both CA and RTC granted demurrer to evidence is, whether or not the other documents offered in evidence
sufficiently corroborate the declaration made by Teodora
EVIDENCE in issue: Aunt Teodora’s declaration that they were Dezoller Guerrero in her lifetime regarding the pedigree of
her niece and nephew petitioner Corazon Dezoller Tison or, if at all, it is necessary to
present evidence other than such declaration.
ISSUE: WON petitioners failed to meet the quantum of proof - American jurisprudence: Distinction must be made as to when
required by Article 172 FC to establish legitimacy and filiation? the “relationship of the declarant” may be proved by the very
NO declaration itself/by other declarations of said declarant, AND
when it must be supported by evidence aliunde.
- The primary proof to be considered in ascertaining the GENERAL RULE: Where the party claiming seeks recovery against
relationship between the parties concerned is the testimony of a relative common to both claimant and declarant, but not from
niece to the effect that Aunt Teodora in her lifetime, or the declarant himself or the declarant’s estate, the relationship
sometime in 1946, categorically declared that the former is of the declarant to the common relative may not be proved by
Teodora’s niece. the declaration itself. There must be some independent proof
of this fact.
EXCEPTION: The requirement that there be other proof than the
declarations of the declarant as to the relationship, does not
apply where it is sought to reach the estate of the declarant
himself and not merely to establish a right through his
declarations to the property of some other member of the
family.
4. Family Tradition
Rule 130, Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. – The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to a controversy,
in respect to the pedigree of any one of their members, may be received in evidence IF the witness testifying thereon is also a member of their
family, either by consanguinity OR affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings in rings, family portraits and the like,
may be received as evidence of pedigree.
Regalado:
REQUISITES FOR THE FAMILY TRADITION EXCEPTION TO APPLY:
1. Witness testifying thereto must be a member, by consanguinity or affinity, of the same family as the subject
2. Such reputation or tradition must have existed in that family ante litem motam
Page 9 of 28
Ferrer v. de Inchausti Petitioner’s mother’s right to succeed to the inheritance of In view of the fact that Ramon Martinez Viademonte is now
(1918; Torres, J.) grandmother; Grandmother’s second husband partitioned the dead, the testimony of Joaquin Jose de Inchausti referring to the
grandmother’s property into four parts (three children from said deceased is admissible, for they are members of the same
second marriage and the son from the first marriage) to the family, in accordance with the provisions of section 281 of Act
exclusion of the plaintiffs’ mother. No. 190, and consequently, the conclusion is that Rosa Matilde
- Page 9 of Ramon Martinez de Viademonte’s (alleged brother) is the same Rosa Matilde Robles which is mentioned in Exhibit
daybook which he kept during his lifetime, a memorandum 6; and because she was born in 1852, in no manner could she be
appears: “On Sep. 1, 1852, at 7:00 PM, a child 3-days old, a legitimate daughter of Ramon Viademonte and Isabel
named Rosa Matilde Robles, according to the baptismal Gonzalez, whose marriage was dissolved in 1836 by the death of
certificate issued by the acting rector Don Ramon Fernandez of the husband.
the Cathedral Church of Manila, was delivered to my mother; - The law does not require that the entries in the said booklet
this child was baptized by the priest Don Remigio Rodriguez be made at the same time as the occurrence of those events;
with the authority of said rector, and according to the baptismal hence, the written memorandum in the same is not subject to
certificate, it was a child of unknown parents." This the defect attributed to it. The witness Joaquin Jose de Inchausti
memorandum agrees with the above-mentioned baptismal declared affirmatively that the memorandum under
certificate of Rosa Matilde Robles. consideration has been written in the handwriting of his brother
- Joaquin Jose de Inchausti stated that one day he was assured Ramon Martinez de Viademonte, whose handwriting he was
by his half-brother Ramon Martinez Viademonte that Rosa familiar with, and the testimony of this witness contains some
Matilde was not his sister, but that she was only a mere reference to a member of the family, now dead, and concerning
protégée and that her true name was Rosa Matilde Robles, and the family genealogy of the same.
that on that occasion the said brother showed him the
certificate of birth taken from the parochial church.
- Ramon (brother) is now dead.
ISSUES:
1. WON Joaquin’s aforementioned testimony is hearsay? NO
2. WON it is necessary to prove that the entries in said book
were made at the same time that those events occurred? NO
5. Common Reputation
Rule 130, Section 41. Common reputation. – Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, respecting [1] facts of public or general
interest more than 30 years old OR [2] respecting fact of marriage OR moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in
public places may be received as evidence of common reputation.
Regalado:
“Common reputation” – definite opinion of the community in which the fact to be proved is known or exists; general or substantially
undivided reputation as distinguished from a partial or qualified one, although it need not be unanimous.
- How is common reputation established?
1) By testimonial evidence of competent witness
2) By monuments and inscriptions in public inscriptions
3) By documents containing statements of reputation
“Character” refers to inherent qualities of a person, WHILE “reputation” is the opinion of him by others. However under this section,
character is permitted to be established by his common reputation.
“Matters of public interest” – are those of national interest
“Matters of general interest” – are those affecting inhabitants of a particular region or community
Ferrer v. de Inchausti See preceding case Evidence may be given upon trial of monuments and
(1918; Torres, J.) inscriptions in public places as evidence of common reputation;
and entries in family Bibles or other family books or charts;
engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, as evidence of
pedigree.
City of Manila v. Del Action to recover possession of two lands occupied by Del Villegas’ testimony was merely hearsay. It consisted of what he
Rosario Rosario. Witness Juan Villegas testified that the land in question had learned from some of the oldest residents in that section of
(1905; Mapa, J.) was formerly included in the Gran Divisoria, and that all the land the city. His testimony was introduced by the plaintiff
included in it belonged to the city. In this particular his apparently for the purpose of proving that the city was
testimony is at variance with that of the preceding witness, who generally considered the owner of the land. Such testimony,
testified that the land belonged to the Central Government. however, does NOT constitute the “common reputation”
referred to in the section mentioned.
“Common reputation” is equivalent to universal reputation. The
testimony of this witness is not sufficient to establish the
presumption referred to.
6. Res Gestae
Rule 130, Section 42. Part of the res gestae. – Statements made by a person [1] while a “startling occurrence” is taking place OR [2] immediately
prior OR subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the rest gestae. So, also, statements
Page 10 of 28
accompanying an “equivocal act” material to the issue AND giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.
Regalado:
What is the “rule of res gestae”?
Literally “things done”
There are two types:
a. Spontaneous statements in connection with a startling occurrence relating to that fact and in effect forming part thereof
b. Statement accompanying equivocal act, otherwise known as “verbal acts” on the theory that they are the verbal parts of the act
to be explained
REQUISITES FOR THE FIRST TYPE OF RES GESTAE EXCEPTION TO APPLY:
1. Principal act (res gestae) must be a startling occurrence
2. Statements forming part thereof were made before the declarant had the opportunity to contrive
3. Statements refer to the occurrence in question and its attending circumstances
REQUISITES FOR THE SECOND TYPE (“verbal acts”) OF RES GESTAE EXCEPTION TO APPLY:
1. Principal act (res gestae) to be characterized must be equivocal
2. Such act must be material to the issue
3. Statements must accompany the equivocal act
4. Statements must give a legal significance to the equivocal act
McCormick:
Convenient vehicle for escape from the hearsay rule in two primary situations
1) Explain the admissibility of statements that were not hearsay at all
2) Justify the admissibility of statements which today come within the exceptions i.e.
a. Statements of present tense impressions
b. Excited utterances
c. Statements of present bodily conditions
d. Statements of present mental states and conditions
Two main policies or motives are discernible in recognition of res gestae
1) Desire to permit each witness to tell his story in a natural way by telling all that happened at the time of the narrated incident,
including those details that give life and color to the story
2) Recognition of spontaneity as the source of special trustworthiness
People v. Lungayan Rape; 48 year old barrio captain allegedly raped a 52 year old - TC considered the revelation of the complainant to her
(1988; Gancayco, J.) widow thrice married in the muddy floor of the market one daughter Silveria of what happened to her when she returned
sultry night. She had muddy clothes and bruised bodies. home as part of the res gestae. It is important to stress that her
statement must not only be spontaneous. It must also be made
ISSUE: WON Agripina was raped? NOooooo. “They must have at a time when there was no opportunity for her to concoct or
succumbed to the temptation of the flesh. One thing led to the develop her own story.
other until they had sexual intercourse. Perhaps the - As the Court observed, the complainant did not immediately
complainant did not initiate or motivate the sexual interlude. In go home after the sexual encounter. She took a walk. She spent
the least, she must have abetted it if not willingly submitted to some time thinking of what to do. Her clothes were muddy. She
the advances of the appellant. Indeed, they were in ecstasy for had some bruises on her body and back because she was lying
almost one hour. Such mutual and passionate lovemaking can down on the ground during the sexual intercourse and their
certainly not be characterized as involuntary. It was free and passionate interlude. She had enough time to make a decision
without any compulsion.” I just had to quote it hahahaha. on what will be the nature of her story. Her revelation cannot
thus be categorized as part of the res gestae.
People v. Putian Murder; Putian allegedly stabbed Panimdim was in the groin ISSUE: WON Panimdim’s ante mortem statement was part of
(1976; Aquino, J.) during a barrio dance. Pat. Arturo Yap arrested Putian (after he the res gestae? YES
was seen possessing a dagger and scabbard) and surrendered
RAV says: him to the guard at the municipal hall. Yap went to the victim in - The res gestae rule embraces (a) spontaneous exclamations
- Take note of the time the clinic and there he wrote on a paper victim’s declaration. and (b) verbal acts. TC admitted Panimdim's statement as a
interval Putian’s appeal: spontaneous statement made after the commission of a felony
- The statements were in [1] Panimdim's statement was not spontaneous as it was “made - TC did not err in characterizing Panimdim's statement as a part
response to the police’s several hours after the incident.” of the res gestae and as proving beyond reasonable doubt that
questions. Is that a correct [2] The requisite that the declarant gave the statement before Putian inflicted upon him the stab wound that caused his death
application? Hindi naman he had time to devise or contrive was not present in this case. five days later in the hospital.
excited utterance yan di ba! [3] Because the statement is in narrative form, it is not the - “Although a declaration does not appear to have been made
statement contemplated in the rule. by the declarant under the expectation of a sure and impending
SolGen: death, and, for the reason, is not admissible as a dying
[1] Statement was in question-and-answer form and that declaration, yet if such declaration was made at the time of,
Panimdim's answers were spontaneous, candid, or immediately after, the commission of the crime, or at a time
straightforward, direct, brief, concise, natural and devoid of any when the exciting influence of the startling occurrence still
design or deliberation. continued in the declarant's mind, it is admissible as a part of
[2] The fact that Patrolman Yap added the surname Putian to the res gestae”
the name "Guirmo", which was mentioned by the victim, did - Panimdim's statement was given sometime after the stabbing
not destroy the probative value of the statement because the while he was undergoing treatment at a medical clinic. He had
Page 11 of 28
appellant could have shown that there were other persons in no time to concoct a falsehood or to fabricate a malicious
the locality named Guirmo but he failed to do so. charge against Putian. No motive has been shown as to why he
[3] A declaration made by a person immediately after being would frame up Putian.
wounded, pointing out or naming his assailant, may be
considered as part of the res gestae and is admissible in
evidence
People v. Tolentino Robbery with homicide; Mother who went to uncle’s wake The trial court had correctly applied the principle of res gestae,
(1993; Nocon, J.) came back to three dead children and OFW husband’s salaries namely:
gone (1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling
occurrence;
Evidence in issue: Geraldine’s (one of the dead daughters) (2) that the statements were made before the declarant had
mention of the names of their attackers time to contrive or devise; and
(3) that the statements made must concern the occurrence in
question and its immediately attending circumstances
which are all present in the case at bar as Geraldine had named
accused-appellant as one of the perpetrators in the commission
of the crime immediately after the occurrence of the stabbing
incident.
Rule 130, Section 42. Entries in the course of business. – Entries made at or near the time of the transaction to which they refer, by a person
deceased or otherwise 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.
Palmer v. Hoffman Negligence; Railroad engineer made a signed statement (accident report), upon being interviewed by asst. superintendent of railroad
(1943; Douglas, J.) company and representative of Public Service Commission.
ISSUE: WON TC properly excluded that statement on the ground that it was not “made "in the regular course" of business”? YES
HELD: The engineer's statement which was held inadmissible in this case falls into quite a different category. It is not a record made for the
systematic conduct of the business as a business. An accident report may affect that business in the sense that it affords information on
which the management may act. It is not, however, typical of entries made systematically or as a matter of routine to record events or
occurrences, to reflect transactions with others, or to provide internal controls. The conduct of a business commonly entails the payment of
tort claims incurred by the negligence of its employees. But the fact that a company makes a business out of recording its employees’
versions of their accidents does not put those statements in the class of records made "in the regular course" of the business within the
meaning of the Act. If it did, then any law office in the land could follow the same course, since business, as defined in the Act, includes the
professions. We would then have a real perversion of a rule designed to facilitate admission of records which experience has shown to be
quite trustworthy. Any business, by installing a regular system for recording and preserving its version of accidents for which it was
potentially liable, could qualify those reports under the Act. The result would be that the Act would cover any system of recording events or
occurrences provided it was "regular," and though it had little or nothing to do with the management or operation of the business as such.
Preparation of cases for trial, by virtue of being a "business" or incidental thereto, would obtain the benefits of this liberalized version of
the early shop book rule. The probability of trustworthiness of records because they were routine reflections of the day to day operations
of a business would be forgotten as the basis of the rule. Regularity of preparation would become the test, rather than the character of the
records and their earmarks of reliability acquired from their source and origin and the nature of their compilation. We cannot so completely
empty the words of the Act of their historic meaning. If the Act is to be extended to apply not only to a "regular course" of a business, but
also to any "regular course" of conduct which may have some relationship to business, Congress, not this Court, must extend it. Such a
major change which opens wide the door to avoidance of cross-examination should not be left to implication. Nor is it any answer to say
that Congress has provided in the Act that the various circumstances of the making of the record should affect its weight, not its
admissibility. That provision comes into play only in case the other requirements of the Act are met. reports are not for the systematic
conduct of the enterprise as a railroad business. Unlike payrolls, accounts receivable, accounts payable, bills of lading, and the like, these
reports are calculated for use essentially in the court, not in the business. Their primary utility is in litigating, not in railroading.
Philamlife v. Principal were Galang spouses. Capital Assurance, on spouses’ behalf Philamlife. Witness must have personal knowledge of the
Capital Assurance entered into a MOA with Philamlife. Later on, Philamlife discovered transactions to which the entries refer
Corp. additional account by way of unreported premium collections and now
(No. 40001-R; Mar 7, demands payment therefor. Bacani chief of accounts control office no
1975) personal knowledge of the account; merely computed on debit memos
Statement of accounts, memorandum of agreement
6. Official Records
Rule 130, Section 44. 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 law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
Caltex v. Africa Damages; Fire broke out at the Caltex Service Station and HELD: There are three requisites for admissibility under Rule
(1966; Makalintal, J.) spread to neighboring houses. 130, Sec. 44:
Both TC and CA ruled out the 3 reports as “double hearsay” (a) that the entry was made by a public officer, or by another
The material facts recited in the reports as to the cause and person specially enjoined by law to do so;
Page 12 of 28
circumstances of the fire were not within the personal (b) that it was made by the public officer in the performance of
knowledge of the officers who conducted the investigation. Was his duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty
knowledge of such facts, however, acquired by them through specially enjoined by law;
official information? As to some facts the sources thereof are (c) that the public officer or other person had sufficient
not even identified. Others are attributed to Leopoldo knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have been
Medina(employee at the gas station); to Leandro Flores (driver acquired by him personally or through official information
of the tank truck); and to Mateo Boquiren (could not give any - Of the three requisites just stated, only the last need be
reason as to the origin of the fire). considered here. To qualify their statements as “official
information” acquired by the officers who prepared the reports,
ISSUE: WON reports on the fire prepared by the Manila Police, the persons who made the statements not only must have
Fire Departments and by a certain Captain Tinio of the AFP (re personal knowledge of the facts stated but must have the duty
history of gas station) are admissible as exception from the to give such statements for record.
hearsay rule? NO The reports in question do not constitute an exception to the
hearsay rule; the facts stated therein were not acquired by the
reporting officers through official information, not having been
given by the informants pursuant to any duty to do so.
People v. Leones Rape; Pillow humping sales lady Irene Dulay cries rape against The written entries in the clinical case record showing the date
(1982; Guerrero, J.) the 4th year civil engineering son of her employer (despite the of her admission in the hospital, her complaint of vaginal
fact that she was having her menstrual period then) assisted by bleeding and the diagnosis of “Healing lacerated wide at 2
the latter’s sister while everyone else in the house were at the o'clock and 10 o'clock hymen" are prima facie evidence of the
beach. However, medical report shows that the lasceration facts therein stated, the said entries having been made in
were already healing only three hours after her alleged official records by a public officer of the Philippines in the
defloration. performance of his duty especially enjoined by law, which is
that of a physician in a government hospital.
ISSUE: WON evidence prove Leones’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt? NO
Manalo v. Robles Trans. Civil aspect of a homicide through reckless imprudence; Taxi - A sheriff’s return is an official statement made by a public
Co., Inc. owned by company collided with a truck killing a young boy. official in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by the
(1956; Montemayor, J.) Driver imprisoned, parents claim indemnity from company law and forming part of official records, and is prima
through its subsidiary liability. facie evidence of the facts stated therein. The sheriff's making
Evidence in question: copy of the decision in the criminal case the return need not testify in court as to the facts stated in his
convicting Hernandez of homicide through reckless imprudence, entry.
the writs of execution to enforce the civil liability, and the - Citing Prof. Wigmore: “To the foregoing rules with reference to
returns of the sheriff showing that the two writs of execution the method of proving private documents an exception is made
were not satisfied because of the insolvency of Hernandez, the with reference to the method of proving public documents
sheriff being unable to locate any property in his name. executed before and certified to, under the land of seal of
certain public officials. The courts and the legislature have
ISSUE: WON defendants should be allowed to cross examine the recognized the valid reason for such an exception. The litigation
sheriff? NO is unlimited in which testimony by officials is daily needed, the
occasion in which the officials would be summoned from his
The law reposes a particular confidence in public officers that it ordinary duties to declare as a witness are numberless. The
presumes they will discharge their several trust with accuracy public officers are few in whose daily work something is not
and fidelity; and therefore, whatever acts they do in discharge done in which testimony is not needed from official statements,
of their public duty may be given in evidence and shall be taken host of official would be found devoting the greater part of their
of their public duty may be given in evidence and shall be taken time to attending as witness in court or delivering their
to be true under such a degree of caution as the nature and depositions before an officer. The work of Administration of
circumstances of each a case may appear to require. government and the interest of the public having business with
officials would alike suffer in consequence.”
People v. Cabuang Robbery with rape and homicide; Two 19 yr old cousins were - Entries in a police blotter, though regularly done in the course
(1993; Feliciano, J.) coming home late from a common friend’s house when the of performance of official duty are not conclusive proof of the
accused (their barriomates) accosted them in an uninhabited truth of such entries.
place. The unfriendly cousin was able to run and hide while the - Citing People v. Santito, Jr: Entries in official records like a
friendly one (who chatted with the accused) was found dead the police blotter are only prima facie evidence of the facts therein
following morning. Anyway, cousin 1 was in a state of shock that set out, since the entries in the police blotter could well be
she could not give a coherent statement in the morning so the incomplete or inaccurate.
police officer deferred obtaining her sworn statement til the - Testimony given in open court during the trial is commonly
afternoon. much more lengthy and detailed than the brief entries made in
ISSUE: Accused points out to the first entry in the police blotter the police blotter and the trial court cannot base its findings on
which stated that the assailants were “still unidentified” a police report merely, but must necessarily consider all other
evidence gathered in the course of the police investigation and
presented in court.
People v. San Gabriel Murder; Fistfight in North Harbor. Advance Information Sheet Entries in official records cannot defeat the positive and candid
(1996; Bellosillo, J.) prepared by Pat. Steve Casimiro which did not mention him at testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Police blotters are
all and named only “Ramon Doe” as the principal suspect only prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated and not
conclusive. The entry in the police blotter is not necessarily
- The Advance Information Sheet does not constitute an entitled to full credit for it could be incomplete and inaccurate,
exception to the hearsay rule, hence, inadmissible. The public sometimes from either partial suggestions or for want of
officer who prepared the document had no sufficient and suggestions or inquiries, without the aid of which the witness
personal knowledge of the stabbing incident. Any information may be unable to recall the connected collateral circumstances
possessed by him was acquired from Camba which therefore necessary for the correction of the first suggestion of his
could not be categorized as official information because in memory and for his accurate recollection of all that pertain to
Page 13 of 28
order to be classified as such the persons who made the the subject. It is understandable that the testimony during the
statements not only must have personal knowledge of the facts trial would be more lengthy and detailed than the matters
stated but must have the duty to give such statements for the stated in the police blotter.
record. In the case of Camba, he was not legally so obliged to - Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty
give such statements by a public officer or by a person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated.
- To be admissible in evidence 3 requisites must concur: (a) The
entry was made by a police officer or by another person
specially enjoined by law to do so; (b) It was made by the public
officer in the performance of his duties or by such other person
in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and, (c)
The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of
the facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him
personally or through official information.
9. Commercial Lists
State v. Lungsford Knowing possession of stolen vehicle; Vehicle identification No record of probable reliability of NATB: court found the ff
(1979; King, J. A. D.) number and National Automobile Theft Bureau to factory trace data on NATB Nonprofit corporation, national in scope,
the 1968 Road Runner, factory order number in the stamped on financed by over 500 automobile insurance company; purpose
the radiator brace; packing slip also came from another vehicle of the organization: prevent and reduce theft losses of
automobile; repository for all vehicle information and
Relied on the NATB factory trace information saying that it was indentification number on all American and some foreign made
already stolen at the time the defendant bought it . cars; essentially an informational warehouse, a registry for the
industry
Ratio: too difficult to call to the witness tsand those who have
participated in their preparation or compilation
Rule 130, Sec. 48. General Rule. – The opinion of a witness 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) The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge
(b) The handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, appearance OR condition of a person.
B. Cases:
Dilag & Co. v. Merced Stolen truck entrusted to secretary-treasurer; motor number Witness was Jose Aguilar who has been working with the
(1949) and certain features of its stolen truck (e..g general appearance, Bureau of Public Works having occupied as the position of
paint of the hood, wooden running board on the left side, two inspector in charge of weighing and measuring trucks and
iron bars supporting the glass windshield, welded tie rod, verifying their motor numbers; chief of registration division for
welded propeller shaft and half inch screw on the cylinder head 8 years
and hole in the radiator cause by a blow from the fan belt
found in the ocular inspection; corroborated by the mechanic
U.S. v. Trono Murder; 3 people were arrested in connection with theft of a - We cannot give any credit to the testimony of this physician
(1904; Mapa, J.) revolver and were ill-treated by butt of a gun. Municipal because the facts which would serve as a foundation to his
president discharged them, and mother of deceased reported conclusion are manifestly inexact.
the beating incident to justice of peace. Deceased suffered great - There is nothing in the case to show that the deceased had
pain esp in urinary area, he peed droplets of blood. The two ever suffered from hypertrophic cirrhosis. The ailment which
other arrested persons testified that they heard (not see) the the deceased had at the time referred to by the physician was
groans and supplications of the deceased. cholera, according to the mother of the deceased who testified,
besides, referring to the time to which this case refers, that her
Evidence in issue: Certificate and testimony of the physician, Dr. son was of a robust constitution and suffered no ailments
Icasiano that death of Perez was not due to the wounds whatever.
inflicted, which were not serious, but to hepatic colic brought - When the death had taken place, the family of the deceased
on by hypertrophic cirrhosis, from which the deceased had been repeatedly requested the physician, Icasiano, to examine the
suffering for a long time body, which the latter flatly refused to do, and warned them, on
the other hand, to bury him quickly, under the pretext that he
had died of cholera.
- It appears from the testimony of Raymunda Perez that said
physician is an intimate friend of the accused.
- Expert testimony no doubt constitutes evidence worthy of
meriting consideration, although not exclusive, on questions of
a professional character. The courts of justice, however, are not
bound to submit their findings necessarily to such testimony;
they are free to weight them, and they can give or refuse to give
them any value as proof, or they can even counterbalance such
evidence with the other elements of conviction which may have
been adduced during the trial.
People v. Adoviso Murder; CAFGU member shot 88 year old Emeterio and his 35 A polygraph is an electromechanical instrument that
(1999; Kapunan, J.) year old grandson Rufino. Allegedly hired killers by Galicia family simultaneously measures and records certain physiological
who lost in a land dispute. Shooting incident were witnessed by changes in the human body that are believed to be involuntarily
the family members of the victims. caused by an examinee’s conscious attempt to deceive the
questioner. The theory behind a polygraph or lie detector test
Evidence in issue: On the premise that the TC rendered the is that a person who lies deliberately will have a rising blood
judgment of conviction on the basis of “mere conjectures and pressure and a subconscious block in breathing, which will be
speculations,” appellant argues that the negative result of the recorded on the graph.
Page 15 of 28
polygraph test should be given weight to tilt the scales of justice However, American courts almost uniformly reject the results
in his favor. of polygraph tests when offered in evidence for the purpose of
establishing the guilt or innocence of one accused of a crime,
whether the accused or the prosecution seeks its introduction,
for the reason that polygraph has not as yet attained scientific
acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining
truth or deception.
The rule is no different in this jurisdiction. Thus, in People v.
Daniel, stating that much faith and credit should not be vested
upon a lie detector test as it is not conclusive. Appellant, in this
case, has not advanced any reason why this rule should not
apply to him.
State v. Garver - Murder in the course of attempted assault and robbery; GR: A lay witness may testify only as to facts and not to opinions
(1950; Lusk, J.) Garver’s mother (Mitchell) testified on the issue of her son’s or conclusions.
insanity and related history from infancy to the day of the EXCEPTION: Witnesses may be permitted to use shorthand
alleged crime, including his illnesses, both mental and physical, descriptions which are, in reality, opinions, in presenting to the
his moral delinquencies, his crimes and “whatever else might court their impressions of the general conditions of a person.
throw light on his mental condition.”
- Court struck from the record her statements “such a terrible
shape” and “mentally and physically ill”
of previously published epidemiological (human statistical) and that the testimony must be grounded in "knowledge."
studies. 2. Assist the trier of fact
- CA applied the Frye test (systolic BP deception test): Standard 3. Judge’s threshold determination if it will indeed assist the
for expert testimony - Technique must be “generally accepted” trier of fact - This entails a preliminary assessment of whether
as reliable in the relevant scientific community. the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is
scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or
ISSUE: Does the Frye standard still stand in view of the methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue." This
enactment of Federal Rule 702? NO preliminary assessment can turn on whether something has
been tested, whether an idea has been subjected to scientific
peer review or published in scientific journals, the rate of error
involved in the technique, and even general acceptance, among
other things. It focuses on methodology and principles, not the
ultimate conclusions generated.
United States v. Bonds Murder; Hell’s Angels shot Hartlaub in his van who they The Supreme Court explained that "a rigid 'general acceptance'
(1993; Batchelder, Circuit mistaken as a member of the rival gang Outlaws. Mr. Bond’s requirement would be at odds with the 'liberal thrust' of the
Judge) sample was extracted because he had ricochet wound and it Federal Rules and their 'general approach of relaxing the
was identified he had a rare enzyme found only in 1% of male traditional barriers to "opinion" testimony.' The "austere"
Caucasians. general acceptance standard, "absent from and incompatible
with the Federal Rules of Evidence, should not be applied in
Evidence in issue: DNA federal trials."
Rule 131, Section 1. Burden of Proof. – “Burden of proof” is the duty of the party to present evidence on a fact in issue necessary to establish his
claim or defense by the amount required by law.
Regalado:
“BURDEN OF PROOF” or “ONUS PROBANDI” is the 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.
Quantum of evidence:
1) Civil cases – preponderance of evidence
2) Criminal cases
Issuance of warrant of arrest after PI – probable cause
Filing of an information – probable cause
Sustain a conviction – evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
3) Charges of misconduct against judge – clear and convincing evidence
4) Ground for removal of judges – beyond reasonable doubt
5) Administrative cases e.g. Agrarian cases – substantial evidence
Who carries the burden of proof?
1) Civil – party who would be defeated if no evidence were given on either side
2) Criminal – always on the prosecution
“Burden of proof” vs. “burden of evidence”
3) In civil cases, even if negative allegation is an essential part of the cause of action or defense, such negative allegation DOES NOT have to be
proved, if it is only for the purpose of denying the existence of a document which should properly be in the custody of the adverse party.
GENERAL RULE: If criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation OR negative averment is an essential element of a crime, the
prosecution has the burden of proving the charge.
EXCEPTION: Where the negative of the issue does not permit of direct proof, OR where the facts are more immediately within the
knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi rests on him.
E.g. if the charge is that he does not have license, the burden of proof that he has a license is a matter which is peculiarly within his
knowledge and must establish that fact or suffer conviction (Pp v Macalaba).
In most cases, party who has the burden of pleading a fact will have the burdens of producing evidence and persuading the jury of its
existence as well.
*Chi: it is one thing to show them something and another thing to convince them that to believe it as true.
ALLOCATION OF BURDENS – burden of proof does not always follow burden of pleading.
o Negative averments/allegations: Where the facts with regard to an issue lie peculiarly in the knowledge of a party, that party
has the burden of proving the issue. E.g. payment, discharge in bankruptcy and license
o Risk of failure of proof may be placed upon the party who contends that the more unusual event has occurred. E.g. business
relationship exists, it’s unlikely that the services are performed gratuitously
Burdens of producing evidence and of persuasion with regard to any given issue are both generally allocated to the same party. Usually,
each is assigned but once in the course of the litigation and a safe prediction of that assignment can be made at the pleading stage.
However, initial allocation of the burden of producing evidence may not always be final. The shifting nature of that burden may cause
both parties to have the burden with regard to the same issue at different points in the trial.
Similarly, although burden of persuasion is assigned only once—when it is time for a decision—a prediction of the allocation of that
burden, based upon the pleadings may have to be revised when evidence is introduced at trial.
No key principle governing the apportionment of the burdens of proof. Allocation will depend upon the weight that is given to any one or
more of several factors:
1) Natural tendency to place the burdens on the party desiring change
2) Special policy considerations such as those disfavoring certain defenses
3) Convenience
4) Fairness
5) Judicial estimate of probabilities
B. Cases:
1. Civil Cases
Pornellosa v. LTA Compel Director of Lands to execute deed of sale of residential - A party claiming a right granted or created by law must prove
(1986; Padilla, J.) lot and annul sale to Guzman; Santa Clara Estate was acquired by his claim by competent evidence. A plaintiff is duty bound to
the government under CA 539. Pornellosa thought they were prove his allegations in the complaint. He must rely on the
buying 200 sqm from San Jose but the truth is the latter split the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of that of his
lot into two and sold the other half to Guzman. opponent.
- CA found that in the deed of sale executed by San Jose in favor
of Pornellosa, “the area of the lot on which San Jose's house
Page 18 of 28
stood had not been specified, nor had the boundaries thereof
been mentioned;” and that there is no showing of the extent of
the alleged vendor's holding or interest. Besides, petitioners
have not presented any document or evidence showing that the
Rural Progress Administration had agreed to sell to them the
residential lot in litigation. Granting that the Guzman is not
entitled to acquire by purchase the said residential lot, still that
fact does not relieve the petitioners from the duty of proving by
competent evidence the allegations of their complaint.
IFC v. Tobias Action to recover unpaid balance of PN; Tobias bought a Dodge - Sales aspect: seller of personal property bought on installment
(1977; Martin, J.) truck from Leelin Motors and executed PN & chattel mortgage has 3 options under A1484 in case of purchaser’s default
on truck. Leelin indorsed PN & assigned the chattel to IFC. Tobias (demand payment, cancel, foreclose). Foreclosure must be more
paid directly to IFC but defaulted so IFC demanded the surrender than mere demand to surrender possession of chattel.
of truck. Tobias willingly and voluntarily surrendered truck - To hold the IFC in estoppel, it must be shown that when it gave
because it met an accident and is in the custody of Leelin the respondent the choice of either paying the balance of the
already. IFC naturally refused the useless truck and instead purchase price or of surrendering the truck, it had already
collected cash. Tobias contends that IFC is estopped. knowledge of the accident and the consequent damage to the
truck. Here, IFC claims no knowledge of the accident when it
ISSUE: WON IFC is estopped by their demand for the surrender of gave Tobias the choice of either paying the balance of the
the truck? NO promissory note or of surrendering the truck. - Absurd that IFC
would make such offer either to pay the balance on the PN or to
Negative allegations do NOT have to be proved, surrender the truck in question if it knew that the truck has had
EXCEPT where such negative allegations are essential parts of an accident. The more plausible thing it would have asked Tobias
the cause of action or defense in a civil case OR are essential is to ask for the balance on the promissory note.
ingredients of the offense in a criminal case or defenses thereto. - Besides the allegation of IFC that it had “NO KNOWLEDGE OF
THE ACCIDENT” is a negative allegation and needs no evidence
to support it, not being an essential part of the statement of the
right on which the cause of action is founded.
- It is therefore Tobias who has the burden of disproving the
claim of petitioner that he has no knowledge of the accident
when it made the offer to respondent either to pay the balance
on the promissory note or to surrender the truck. Respondent
failed in this.
2. Criminal Cases
People v. Pajenado Murder and illegal possession; Carlito P. killed Carlos Tapong - In a criminal case for illegal possession of firearms, the
(1977; Concepcion, J.) with a gun. Homicide lang dapat. Treachery was not proved and prosecution has to prove the absence of license therefor.
illegal possession. - It is true that People vs. Lubo and People vs. Ramos could be
invoked to support the view that it is incumbent upon a person
charged with illegal possession of a firearm, to prove the
- It cannot be denied that the lack or absence of a license is an issuance to him of a license to possess the firearm, but We are,
essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession of a of the considered opinion that under the provisions of Section
firearm. The information filed against appellant in Criminal Case 2, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court which, provide that in criminal
No. 3558 of the lower court specifically alleged that he had no cases the burden of proof as to the offense charged lies on the
"license or permit to possess" the .45 caliber pistol mentioned prosecution and that a “negative fact alleged by the
therein. Thus it seems clear that it was the prosecution's duty prosecution” must be proven if “it is an essential ingredient of
not merely to allege that negative fact but to prove it. the offense charged", the burden of proof was with the
- Citing U.S. vs. Tria: The accused was charged with having prosecution in this case to prove that the firearm used by
criminally inscribed himself as a voter knowing that he had none appellant in committing the offense charged was not properly
of the qualifications required to be a voter. It was there held licensed.
that the negative fact of lack of qualification to be a voter was - The mere fact that the adverse party has the control of the
an essential element of the crime charged and should be proved better means of proof of the fact alleged, should not relieve
by the prosecution. the party making the averment of the burden of proving it. This
- Citing People vs. Quebral: Accused was charged with illegal is so, because a party who alleges a fact must be assumed to
practice of medicine because he had diagnosed, treated and have acquired some knowledge thereof, otherwise he could not
prescribed for certain diseases suffered by certain patients from have alleged it.
whom he received monetary compensation, without having - Familiar instance of this is the case of a person prosecuted for
previously obtained the proper certificate of registration from doing an act or carrying on a business, such as, the sale of liquor
the Board of Medical Examiners, as provided in Section 770 of without a license. How could the prosecution aver the want of a
the Administrative Code, this Court held that if the subject of license if it had acquired no knowledge of that fact?
the negative averment like, for instance, the act of voting - Accordingly, although proof of the existence or non-existence
without the qualifications provided by law is an essential of such license can, with more facility, be adduced by the
ingredient of the offense charged, the prosecution has the defendant, it is, nevertheless, incumbent upon the party
burden of proving the same, although in view of the difficulty of alleging the want of the license to prove the allegation.
proving a negative allegation, the prosecution, under such Naturally, as the subject matter of the averment is one which
circumstance, need only establish a prima facie case from the lies peculiarly within the control or knowledge of the
best evidence obtainable. accused prima facie evidence thereof on the part of the
In the case at bar: Both appellant and the Solicitor General prosecution shall suffice to cast the onus upon him.
agree that there was not even a prima facie case upon which to
Page 19 of 28
3. Presumptions
Rule 131, Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. – The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to belief a particular thing is
true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
(b) The tenant is not permitted deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant
between them.
Rule 131, Section 3. Disputable presumptions. – The following presumptions are satisfactory IF uncontradicted, BUT may be contradicted AND
overcome by other evidence:
Rule 131, Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. – There is no presumption of illegitimacy or legitimacy of a child born after 300
days following the [1] dissolution of marriage OR [2] separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the illegitimacy or legitimacy of such child must
prove his allegation.
Regalado:
Elements of estoppel in pais re party claiming: Elements of estoppel in pais re party estopped:
1. lack of knowledge and means of acquiring such knowledge 1. conduct which amounts to false representation or concealment
2. reliance upon the conduct of the party estopped 2. intention OR at least, expectation (on the part of doer) that the other
3. action based thereon of such character as to change his position party shall act upon such conduct
prejudicially 3. knowledge of real facts
o Deviations from bursting bubble theory aka Criticisms by Professor Morgan: It gives to presumptions an effect that is too slight
and evanescent when viewed in the light of the reasons for the creation of the rules. These presumptions were based on some
policy considerations which remain to stand even after the presumption had been rebutted.
o Conflicting presumptions: E.g. in case of double marriages (bigamy?): presumption of validity of marriage vs. presumption of
continuance of lives and marriage relationships.
Thayer wants to disregard both presumptions
Courts don’t agree with Thayer: Weightier presumption prevails, where one of the presumptions is grounded in a
predominant social policy (chi: look at the rationale behind the presumption)
Another alternative: Create new presumption
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
Permissive Presumption – one that will permit the jury to find the presumed facts, but neither compels the acceptance of such facts nor
allocates a burden of persuasion to the defendant with regard to those facts. Regardless of how the state characterizes the presumption,
the courts will analyze the jury instructions to determine their possible effect on the jury.
CONSTITUTIONALITY ACCEPTABLE: considering all of the evidence in the case, there is a rational connection between the basic facts
proved by the prosecution and the ultimate fact presumed and the latter is more likely than not to flow from the former.
Mandatory Presumption – one that shifts the burden of production or persuasion to the defendant.
Dictum in Allen: Presumption that clearly shifts nothing other than burden of production will be scrutinized in the same wy as a
permissive presumption and pass constitutional muster if it meets a rational connection test.
Pascual v. Angeles Recovery of possession of certain lands; Pascual inherited land This action arises out of the contract of lease and presupposes
(1905; Torres, J.) from his sister and the land was occupied by Angeles who hasn’t in the lessor a right to the ownership or possession of the
paid rent for two years and even claims the land as his own. property. For this reason he cannot be compelled to prove his
title thereto. The tenant cannot deny the title of his landlord at
the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and
tenant between them.
Ormachea v. Trillana Trillana bought merchandise worth P4,000 from Ormachea; did Since the vales existed, and were in the possession of the
(1909; Torres, J.) not pay in two years so complaint to recover money using 135 creditor, it was because the amounts they called for had not yet
documents/vales as evidence of indebtedness. Trillana says he been paid, inasmuch as an obligation can only be presumed to
paid periodically in tuba, remaining balance should be paid in have been fulfilled when the proofs of its existence have been
kind not money. returned to the debtor.
ISSUE: WON the vales raises the presumption that Trillana still
had unsettled accounts with Ormachea? YES
People v. Padiernos Husband was a big guy employed at Bureau of Customs and - The presumption that suppressed evidence is unfavorable
(1976; Concepcion, J.) issued with a gun kept under his mattress. Accused wife stabbed does NOT apply where the evidence was at the disposal of
husband allegedly because he was unfaithful, she later plead both the defense and the prosecution. In the case at bar, the
self-defense (husband beat her for stealing P1K to give to her alleged statement of prosecution witness Letty Basa was in the
brother) possession of the police authorities. Hence, the defense could
Evidence in issue: Statement of Letty Basa, deceased’s cousin have requested the court below to issue a subpoena requiring
the police to produce such statement, but as the defense failed
ISSUE: Non-presentation of the written statement of this to do that, they cannot now argue that said statement if
witness to the police which she allegedly did not sign, gave rise produced would have been adverse to the prosecution.
to the presumption that it “contained declarations disastrous to
the prosecution case”?
Yee Hem v. United States Concealment of quantity of smoking opium; Yee Hem was guilty - The law of evidence is full of presumptions either of fact or
(1925; Sutherland, J.) of violating statute that creates a disputable presumption that law. The former are, of course, disputable, and the strength of
smoking opium imported after April 1 (hence illegal). any inference of one fact from proof of another depends upon
the generality of the experience upon which it is founded.
ISSUE: WON Congress has power to enact the provisions in - Legislation providing that proof of one fact shall
respect of the presumptions arising from the unexplained constitute prima facie evidence of the main fact in issue is but
possession of such opium and from its presence in this country to enact a rule of evidence, and quite within the general power
after the time fixed by the statute? YES of government. Statutes, national and state, dealing with such
methods of proof in both civil and criminal cases abound, and
- Compel witness against himself? No. It does no more than to the decisions upholding them are numerous.
make possession of the prohibited article prima facie evidence - Requisites so that a legislative presumption of one fact from
of guilt. It leaves the accused entirely free to testify or not as he evidence of another may not constitute a denial of due process
chooses. If the accused happens to be the only repository of the of law or a denial of the equal protection of the law:
facts necessary to negative the presumption arising from his 1. it is only essential that there shall be some rational
possession, that is a misfortune which the statute under review connection between the fact provided and the ultimate fact
does not create, but which is inherent in the case. presumed, and
2. that the “inference of one fact from proof of another” shall
not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate.
3. it must not, under a guise of regulating the presentation of
evidence, operate to preclude the party from the right to
present his defense to the main fact thus presumed.
- Every accused person, of course, enters upon his trial clothed
with the presumption of innocence. But that presumption may
Page 22 of 28
RAV says:
Let’s take note of common presumptions.
C. REE, Rule 10
People v. Estenzo
(1976)
Galman v. Pamaran
(1985)
2. Leading Questions
4. Cross-Examination
5. Impeachment by Bias
8. Refreshing Recollection
9. Recalling Witnesses
2. Cases:
Buniag v. CA Apolonio Buniag only put his thumbmark on the deed of sale - The deed of sale is not notarized and is, therefore, a private
(1988; Cortes, J.) (written in English) over his typewritten name. The document writing, whose due execution and authenticity must be proved
was also not notarized. before it can be received in evidence.
TC: Vacate the property, Bautista! CA reversed and deed of - How to prove due exec and authen of private writing?
sale was validly executed; relying on the testimony of (a) By anyone who saw the writing executed;
Bautista’s sister for the due exec and authen of the deed of (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the
sale. maker; or
(c) By a subscribing witness.
ISSUE: WON the deed of sale is admissible in evidence? NO, - No showing also that the contents were explained to
due execution and authenticity of the deed of sale not having Apolonio so he could understand it. TC made a finding that he
been satisfactorily proven. was illiterate because he only printed his thumbmark.
- Brigida did not furnish details surrounding the execution.
Heirs of Lacsa v. CA
(1991; Padilla, J.)
Bartolome v. IAC - First two requirements were met, but the third (no
(1990; Fernan, C.J.) alteration/ circumstance of suspicion) was not.
Pacific Asia Overseas Enforcement of the Dubai court decision translated from The Dubai decision purports to be the written act or record of
Shipping Corp. v. NLRC Arabic to English an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country, and
(1988; Feliciano, J.) therefore a public writing under Section 20 (a) of Rule 132 of
the Revised Rules of Court.
How to prove a public of official record of a foreign country?
Zalamea v. Court of Action for damages; Although confirmed tickets, it is not an The U.S. law or regulation allegedly authorizing overbooking
Appeals assurance of accommodation as overbooking of flights allowed has never been proved. Foreign laws do not prove themselves
(1993; Nocon, J.) by US laws. nor can the courts take judicial notice of them. Like any other
TWA’s sole evidence: statement of Ms. Lather, a customer fact, they must be alleged and proved.
service agent, in her deposition that the Code of Federal
Regulations of the Civil Aeronautics Board allows overbooking.
No official publication of said code was presented as evidence.
ISSUE: WON Government failed to lay a proper foundation for computer, were made available to defense counsel for
admission of the printouts, which were simply a computerized inspection. Defense counsel also had adequate opportunity to
compilation of information taken from the enrollment inquire into the accuracy of the input procedures and
certification forms submitted by Weatherspoon and programming used. Under the circumstances, we believe that
keypunched onto a tape fed into the computer? a sufficient showing of the reliability of the printouts was
made to warrant their admission into evidence under the
standards set out in US v. Russo.
Perma Research v. Singer Perma gave to Singer exclusive license to perfect, manufacture While it might have been better practice for opposing counsel
Co. and market their patented antiskid device. All the tests were to arrange for the delivery of all details of the underlying data
(1976) disastrous, the device was not fail safe. and theorems employed in these simulations in advance of
trial to both avoid unnecessarily belabored discussion of highly
ISSUE: WON the results of computer simulation offered by technical, tangential issues at trial AND protect truly
Perma to prove that the mechanism was perfective were proprietary aspects of the programs, the trial judge did not
admissible? YES abuse his discretion in allowing the experts to testify as to this
particular basis for their ultimate conclusion that the Perma
device was indeed perfectible. On the record before us,
however, we hold that Singer has not shown that it did not
have an adequate basis on which to cross-examine plaintiff's
experts.
2. Cases:
People v. Cariño
(1988)
Interpacific Transit v. prosecution introduced photocopies of the airway bills
Aviles supposedly received by the accused for which they had not
(1990) rendered proper accounting
when the certified photocopies of the said bills formally were
offered, 3 in evidence, the defense interposed no objection
De los Reyes v. IAC
(1989)
People v. Yatco
(1955)
PHILAMGEN v. Sweet
Lines, Inc.
(1992)
Catuira v. CA
(1994)
Sheraton Palace v. Affidavit of Sheraton’s comptroller of defendant’s indebtedness
Quijano (C.A.) for unpaid hotel accommodations.
Vda. de Onate v. CA
(1995)
B. REE, Rule7
C. Cases:
U.S. v. Lasada
(1910)
People v. Abendan
(1948)
People v. Solayao
(1996)
People v. Lorenzo
(1995)
Page 28 of 28