I.

Introduction
A. Scope

EVIDENCE
D. Evidence Compared
1. To PROOF IT IS THE RESULT
OF SUCH FACT. OR EFFECT OF EVIDENCE; WHEN THE REQUISITE

Rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (Rule 128, Sec 2.)

QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE OF A PARTICULAR FACT HAS BEEN DULY ADMITTED AND GIVEN WEIGHT, THE RESULT IS CALLED THE PROOF

B. Definition
It is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truth respecting a matter of fact. (Rule 128, Sec. 1.) Bustos v. Lucero (81 PHIL 640) (Evidence) is the mode and manner of proving competent facts in judicial proceedings.

2. To FACTUM PROBANDUM THE ULTIMATE FACT OR THE FACT SOUGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED; REFERS TO THE PROPOSITION (EX. VICTIM WAS STABBED) 3. To FACTUM PROBANS THE EVIDENTIARY FACT OR THE
THAT ESTABLISH THE PROPOSITION

FACT

BY

WHICH

THE

FACTUM

PROBANDUM IS TO BE ESTABLISHED; REFERS TO THE MATERIALS

(EX. BLOODY

KNIFE)

C. Classification
1. Evidence is classified in the Rules of Court according to form a. OBJECT A.K.A. REAL EVIDENCE; DIRECTLY ADDRESSED
TO THE SENSES OF THE COURT AND CONSISTS OF TANGIBLE THINGS EXHIBITED OR

II. Admissibility (rule 130)

A. When Determined
The admissibility of evidence is determined at the time it is offered to the court (Cf. Rule 132, Sec. 35) Abrenica v. Gonda (94 PHIL 739) Every objection to the admissibility of evidence shall be made at the time such evidence is offered, or as soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibility shall have become apparent, otherwise the objection shall be considered waived.

AUTOPTIC PREFERENCE b. DOCUMENTARY SUPPLIED BY

EVIDENCE BY

DEMONSTRATED;

REFERRED

TO

AS

WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS

OR DERIVED FROM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS

c. TESTIMONIAL

SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THROUGH

THE TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION OF A WITNESS

2. Other classifications a. DIRECT PROVES

THE FACT IN DISPUTE WITHOUT

AID OF ANY INFERENCE OR PRESUMPTION

B. Kinds
CONDITIONAL
EVIDENCE AT THE TIME OFFERED APPEARS TO BE IMMATERIAL OR IRRELEVANT UNLESS IT IS CONNECTED WITH OTHER FACTS TO BE SUBSEQUENTLY PROVED; SUCH EVIDENCE MAY BE RECEIVED IN CONDITION THAT THE OTHER FACTS WILL BE PROVED THEREAFTER ; THERE SHOULD BE NO BAD FAITH

CIRCUMSTANTIAL PROOF A FACT OR FACTS FROM WHICH, TAKEN SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY, THE EXISTENCE OF
THE PARTICULAR FACT IN DISPUTE MAY BE INFERRED AS A NECESSARY OR PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE; IT IS EVIDENCE OF RELEVANT COLLATERAL FACTS

b.

CUMULATIVE

EVIDENCE OF THE SAME KIND AND

MULTIPLE

EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT AND COMPETENT FOR TWO CONSIDERS THE RIGHT OF A PARTY TO INTRODUCE

OR MORE PURPOSES

TO THE SAME STATE OF FACTS

CORROBORATIVE

ADDITIONAL

EVIDENCE

OF

CURATIVE

INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE IN HIS BEHALF WHERE THE COURT HAS ADMITTED THE SAME KIND OF EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE ADVERSE PARTY

DIFFERENT CHARACTER TO THE SAME POINT

c.

PRIMA FACIE

THAT WHICH, STANDING ALONE,

IS SUFFICIENT TO MAINTAIN THE PROPOSITION AFFIRMED

CONCLUSIVE

THAT CLASS OF EVIDENCE WHICH THE EVIDENCE) LAW REGARDS THESE

LAW DOES NOT ALLOW TO BE CONTRADICTED

d.

PRIMARY (BEST

C. Evidence must be RELEVANT and COMPETENT

Evidence is admissible only when it is: a) relevant to the issue; and is b) not excluded by LAW or the Rules of Court (Rule 128, Sec. 3) 1. Relevance a. THE EVIDENCE
EXISTENCE. ALLOWED,

AS AFFORDING QUESTION

THE GREATEST CERTAINTY OF THE FACT IN

SECONDARY
PERMITTED BY LAW UNAVAILABLE

ONLY

(SUBSTITUTIONARY
WHEN THE BEST

EVIDENCE) EVIDENCE IS

e.
SEE

POSITIVE

WHEN WITNESS AFFIRMS THAT A FACT

DID OR DID NOT OCCUR

(THERE

IS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE) OF A FACT

HAS SUCH A RELATION TO THE FACT IN

NEGATIVE
OR KNOW

WHEN WITNESS STATES THAT HE DID NOT THE OCCURRENCE

ISSUE AS TO INDUCE BELIEF IN ITS EXISTENCE OR NON-

OF

(TOTAL

EVIDENCE

ON COLLATERAL MATTERS SHALL NOT BE IT TENDS IN ANY REASONABLE

DISCLAIMER OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE)

EXCEPT

WHEN

DEGREE TO ESTABLISH THE PROBABILITY OR IMPROBABILITY OF THE FACT IN ISSUE.

(RULE 128, SEC. 4)

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

1 of 39

ONE UP LAW

b.
HAS C.

IN CONTROVERSY.

RELEVANT RATIONAL

EVIDENCE IS ANY CLASS OF EVIDENCE WHICH PROBATIVE VALUE TO ESTABLISH THE ISSUE MATTERS ARE MATTERS OTHER THAN THE

COLLATERAL

FACTS IN ISSUE AND WHICH ARE OFFERED AS A BASIS FOR INFERENCE AS TO THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF THE FACTS IN ISSUE.

WHAT

THE

RULES

PROHIBIT ARE IRRELEVANT

COLLATERAL MATTERS.

between fact B and the issues in the case. If B has been placed in issue by the pleadings or the pre-trial order or by consent of the parties then evidence tending to establish the actuality of B is material. iv. Evidence may be relevant but may be immaterial in the case! 2. Competence EVIDENCE IS COMPETENT IF IT IS NOT EXCLUDED RULES OF COURT. (RULE 128, SEC. 3)

d.
i.

COMPARED TO MATERIALITY Relevant evidence is evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove any matter provable in an action. Material evidence is evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings. ii. The test of relevancy is the logical relation of the evidentiary fact in issue (i.e. whether the former tends to establish the probability or improbability of the latter). Materiality is determined by whether the fact it intends to prove is in issue or not. As to whether a fact is in issue or not is in turn determined by the substantive law, the pleadings, the pretrial order and by the admissions or confessions on file. iii. Relevance refers to the tendency in reason of offered fact A to prove fact B. If the existence of A makes the actuality of B more probable, than A is relevant to B. Materiality refers to the relationship 3. Exclusionary Rules under the 1987 Constitution a. SECS. 2 & 3, ART. III UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES; PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE. ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF
THIS SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN ANY PROCEEDING.

BY LAW OR THE

People vs. Turco (2000) Since admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance and competence, admissibility is therefore an affair of logic and law. On the other hand, the weight to be given to such evidence depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided in Rule 133 and the jurisprudence laid down by the court. Bautista vs. Aparece (1995) Relevant evidence is one that has any value in reason as tending to prove any matter probable in an action. Evidence is said to be material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings, while competent evidence is one that is not excluded by law in a particular case.
CABLE, OR BY USING ANY OTHER DEVICE OR ARRANGEMENT, TO SECRETLY OVERHEAR, OR INTERCEPT, OR BY RECORD USING A SUCH DEVICE COMMUNICATION SPOKEN WORK

COMMONLY KNOWN AS A

DICTAPHONE

OR DICTOGRAPH OR

DETECTAPHONE OR WALKIE-TALKIE OR TAPE RECORDER , OR HOWEVER OTHERWISE DESCRIBED. X X

SEC. 4. ANY COMMUNICATION OR EXISTENCE, CONTENTS, SUBSTANCE,

MEANING OF THE SAME OR ANY

SPOKEN WORD, OR THE PURPORT, EFFECT, OR OR ANY THEREOF,

b.

SEC. 12, ART III MIRANDA RIGHTS; RIGHT TO COUNSEL; PROHIBITION ON TORTURE, FORCE, VIOLENCE, THREAT, INTIMIDATION, OR OTHER MEANS WHICH VITIATE THE FREE WILL; PROHIBITION OF SECRET DETENTION PLACES, SOLITARY, INCOMMUNICADO; ANY CONFESSION OR ADMISSION OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THIS OR SECTION 17 HEREOF SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. C. SEC. 17, ART III NO PERSON SHALL BE COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF. 4. Statutory Rules of Exclusion SEC. 201, NIRC AN INSTRUMENT,

PART

INFORMATION THEREIN CONTAINED, OBTAINED OR SECURED BY ANY PERSON IN VIOLATION OF THE PRECEDING SECTIONS OF THIS

ACT

SHALL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE IN ANY QUASI-JUDICIAL, LEGISLATIVE OR

JUDICIAL, B.

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OR INVESTIGATION .

RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (RULE 4, SECTION 2) c. CIVIL CODE PRESUMPTIONS E.G., ARTICLE 2185 AS TO PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE WHEN THERE IS
VIOLATION OF TRAFFIC RULES OR LAWS

DOCUMENT OR PAPER

d.

WHICH IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE STAMPED AND WHICH HAS BEEN SIGNED, ISSUED, ACCEPTED OR TRANSFERRED WITHOUT BEING DULY STAMPED, SHALL NOT BE RECORDED, NOR SHALL IT OR ANY COPY THEREOF OR ANY RECORD OF TRANSFER OF THE SAME BE ADMITTED OR USED IN EVIDENCE IN ANY COURT UNTIL THE REQUISITE STAMP OR STAMPS SHALL HAVE BEEN AFFIXED THERETO AND CANCELLED. A.

COMMERCIAL LAWS E.G. SEE ARTICLE 448 OF COMMERCE (EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT CONFLICTING ENTRIES IN MERCHANTS BOOKS
THE CODE

OF OF

SEC. 1.
BEING

R.A. 4200 (WIRE-TAPPING ACT) IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY

BY ALL THE PARTIES TO

PERSON, NOT ANY PRIVATE

AUTHORIZED

Gaanan vs. IAC (1986) An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a Dictaphone, dictograph or the other devices enumerated in Sec. 1 of RA 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as tapping the wire or cable of a telephone line.

COMMUNICATION OR SPOKEN WORD, TO TAP ANY WIRE OR

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

2 of 39

ONE UP LAW

Salcedo-Ortaez vs. CA (1994) RA 4200 expressly makes tape recordings of tapped conversations inadmissible in evidence absent a clear showing that both parties to the phone conversations allowed the recording.

B)WHEN THE ORIGINAL IS IN THE CUSTODY OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM THE EVIDENCE IS OFFERED, AND THE LATTER FAILS TO PRODUCE IT AFTER REASONABLE NOTICE; C)WHEN THE ORIGINAL CONSISTS OF NUMEROUS ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH CANNOT BE EXAMINED IN COURT SOUGHT D)WHEN WITHOUT TO BE GREAT LOSS OF FROM A TIME AND THE FACT THE THE

D. Rules on Admissibility of OBJECT, DOCUMENTARY and TESTIMONIAL evidence

1. Object (Real) Evidence Rule 130, Sec. 1. DEFINITION: EVIDENCE ADDRESSED TO THE SENSES OF THE COURT. SECTION 1 WHEN AN OBJECT IS RELEVANT TO THE FACT IN ISSUE, IT MAY BE EXHIBITED TO, EXAMINED OR VIEWED BY THE COURT. THE
COURT MAY REFUSE THE INTRODUCTION OF OBJECT

ESTABLISHED ORIGINAL IS

THEM

IS ONLY IN

GENERAL RESULT OF THE WHOLE; AND THE PUBLIC RECORD CUSTODY OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR IS RECORDED IN A PUBLIC OFFICE.

ORIGINAL 1. THE 2.

OF A

DOCUMENT

ORIGINAL OF THE DOCUMENT IS ONE THE CONTENTS OF A DOCUMENT IS IN TWO OR MORE COPIES EXECUTED AT

WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY.

WHEN WHEN

EVIDENCE AND RELY ON TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE ALONE IF:

(A)

OR ABOUT THE SAME TIME, WITH IDENTICAL CONTENTS, ALL SUCH COPIES ARE EQUALLY REGARDED AS ORIGINALS. AN ENTRY IS REPEATED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS, ONE BEING COPIED FROM ANOTHER AT OR NEAR THE EQUALLY REGARDED AS ORIGINALS.

ITS

EXHIBITION IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY, MORALS OR DECENCY

(5 MORAN,
V.

OP, CIT., P.72);

(B )

3.

ITS BEING VIEWED WOULD

RESULT IN DELAYS, INCONVENIENCE NECESSARY EXPENSES OUT OF PROPORTION TO THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF SUCH OBJECT

(PEOPLE

TIME OF THE TRANSACTION, ALL THE ENTRIES ARE LIKEWISE

TAVERA, 47 PHIL 645); (C) SUCH EVIDENCE WOULD BE CONFUSING OR MISLEADING (PEOPLE V. SAAVEDRA, [CA], 50 O.G. 5407); OR (D) TESTIMONIAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
ALREADY PRESENTED CLEARLY PORTRAYS THE OBJECT IN QUESTION AS TO RENDER A VIEW THEREOF UNNECESSARY

AFFIDAVITS
BEING THE OR BEST AFFIANTS

AND

DEPOSITIONS HENCE ARE AVAILABLE

ARE AS

CONSIDERED IF WITNESSES.

NOT THE

EVIDENCE,

NOT

ADMISSIBLE

SEC.6).

(RULE 133,

DEPONENTS

THE

CONTENTS OF SUCH AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS ARE NOT THE ISSUES IN THE CASE BUT ARE ONLY INTENDED AS EVIDENCE TO

US v. Tan Teng (23 PHIL 145) Object evidence includes any article or object which may be known or perceived by the use of any of the senses. It includes the examination of the anatomy of a person or of any substance taken therefrom. Sison vs. People (1995) Photographs can be identified by the photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness or accuracy. 2. Documentary Evidence Rule 130, Sec. 2. DEFINITION: WRITINGS OR ANY MATERIAL CONTAINING LETTERS, WORDS, NUMBERS, FIGURES, SYMBOLS OR OTHER MODES OF WRITTEN EXPRESSION OFFERED AS PROOF OF THEIR CONTENTS. People v. Camacho (44 PHIL 484) A document is a deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by which something is proved, evidenced or set forth. a. BEST EVIDENCE RULE SECS. 3-4 GENERAL RULE: WHEN EXCEPTIONS: A)WHEN
THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY IS THE CONTENTS OF A DOCUMENT, NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ITSELF. THE ORIGINAL HAS BEEN LOST OR DESTROYED, OR

(REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, VOL. II, P. 684).

ESTABLISH THE ISSUES IN CONTROVERSY -VIS

a.1. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (RULE 4) VISBEST EVIDENCE RULE SEC. 1. ORIGINAL OF AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT AN
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT SHALL BE REGARDED AS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT UNDER THE

EVIDENCE RULE
SIGHT OR ACCURATELY.

BEST
DATA

IF IT IS A PRINTOUT OR OUTPUT READABLE BY MEANS, SHOWN TO REFLECT THE

OTHER

SEC. 2. WHEN A

COPIES

AS EQUIVALENT OF THE ORIGINALS IS IN TWO OR MORE

DOCUMENT

COPIES

EXECUTED AT OR ABOUT THE SAME TIME WITH IDENTICAL CONTENTS, OR IS A COUNTERPART PRODUCED BY THE SAME IMPRESSION AS THE ORIGINAL, OR FROM THE SAME MATRIX, OTHER OR BY OR THE MECHANICAL BY CHEMICAL TECHNIQUES OR ELECTRONIC OR RERECORDING, REPRODUCES REPRODUCTION, WHICH BY THE

EQUIVALENT

ACCURATELY

FOREGOING, COPIES OR DUPLICATES SHALL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THE ORIGINAL IF: QUESTION OR IS RAISED TO AS TO THE THE A GENUINE OF OF THE THE AUTHENTICITY COPY IN LIEU

ORIGINAL.

NOTWITHSTANDING

ORIGINAL; OR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD BE UNJUST INEQUITABLE ADMIT ORIGINAL.

CANNOT BE PRODUCED IN COURT, WITHOUT BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF THE OFFEROR;

People vs. Tan (1959) Carbon copies are deemed duplicate originals. They may be introduced as evidence without accounting for the non-production of the original.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

3 of 39

ONE UP LAW

People vs. Tandoy (1990) The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry. It does not apply when the issue is only as to whether or not such document was actually executed or in the circumstances relevant to its execution. Lee v. People (2004) Before the onset of liberal rules of discovery, and modern technique of electronic copying, the best evidence rule was designed to guard against incomplete or fraudulent proof and the introduction of altered copies and the withholding of the originals. But the modern justification for the rule has expanded from the prevention of fraud to a recognition that writings occupy a central position in the law. The importance of the precise terms of writings in the world of legal relations, the fallibility of the human memory as reliable evidence of the terms, and the hazards of inaccurate or incomplete duplicate are the concerns addressed by the best evidence rule. The offeror of secondary evidence is burdened to prove the predicates thereof: (a) the loss or destruction of the original without bad faith on the part of the proponent/offeror which can be shown by circumstantial evidence of routine practices of destruction of documents; (b) the proponent must prove by a fair preponderance of evidence as to raise a reasonable inference of the loss or destruction of the original copy; and (c) it must be shown that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful search has been made for the document in the proper place or places. It has been held that where the missing document is the foundation of the action, more strictness in proof is required than where the document is only collaterally involved. If the document is one in which other persons are also interested, and which has been placed in the hands of a custodian for safekeeping, the custodian must be required to make a search and the fruitlessness of such search must be shown, before secondary evidence can be admitted. The certificate of the custody of the document is incompetent to prove the loss or destruction thereof. Such fact must be proved by some person who has knowledge of such loss. b. SECONDARY EVIDENCE SECS. 5-8 SECONDARY EVIDENCE a) ORIGINAL
MAY BE INTRODUCED WHEN: DOCUMENT OFFEROR, IS UNAVAILABLE

II. III.

I.

A A

COPY RECITAL OF ITS CONTENTS IN

SOME AUTHENTIC DOCUMENT

THE

TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES. IS IN ADVERSE PARTYS

b)

ORIGINAL
A.

DOCUMENT

CUSTODY OR CONTROL .

IF

AFTER REASONABLE NOTICE IS GIVEN TO ADVERSE THE PARTY OF TO THE PRODUCE DOCUMENT THE IS

THE OF

DOCUMENT AND AFTER SATISFACTORY PROOF EXISTENCE MADE, HE FAILS TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENT, SECONDARY EVIDENCE MAY BE PRESENTED.

c)

ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS A PUBLIC A. ITS CONTENTS MAY

CERTIFIED COPY

RECORD. BE PROVED BY THE BY A

ISSUED

PUBLIC

OFFICER IN CUSTODY THEREOF.

SECTION 8 - A
EVIDENCE.

PARTY WHO CALLS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A

DOCUMENT AND INSPECTS IT IS NOT OBLIGED TO OFFER IT AS

Compania Maritima vs. Allied Free Workers (1977) The voluminous character of the document must be established before evidence other than the original may be introduced. Villa Rey Transit vs. Ferrer (1968) In the case where the original is in the custody of the adverse party, it is not necessary that it be in the actual possession of the adverse party. It is enough that the circumstances show that the writing is in his possession or under his control. Secondary evidence is admissible where the adverse party denies having it in his possession. De Vera vs. Aguilar (1983) All duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for before using copies as evidence. PNB v. Olila (98 PHIL 1002) When the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court, as when it is in a foreign country, secondary evidence is admissible. Citibank v. Teodoro (2003) Applying the above Rule to the present case, before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original sales invoices, the offeror must prove the following: (1) the existence or due execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its nonproduction in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed. The correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents. At the sound discretion of the court, this order may be changed if necessary. In the present case, the existence of the original

(LOST,
OF ITS

DESTROYED OR CANNOT BE PRODUCED IN COURT)

a.

THE

UPON

(1)

PROOF

EXECUTION OR EXISTENCE AND ITS UNAVAILABILITY,

(2)

CAUSE OF

(3)

WITHOUT BAD FAITH

ON HIS PART MAY PROVE ITS CONTENTS BY

(ORDER

HERE MUST BE FOLLOWED):

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

4 of 39

ONE UP LAW

sales invoices was established by the photocopies and the testimony of Hernandez. Petitioner, however, failed to prove that the originals had been lost or could not be produced in court after reasonable diligence and good faith in searching for them. Indeed, the loss of the originals and reasonable diligence in the search for them were conditions that were not met, because the sales invoices might have been found by Equitable. Finally, when more than one original copy exists, it must appear that all of them have been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court before secondary evidence can be given of any one. A photocopy may not be used without accounting for the other originals failed to show that he had subsequently followed up the request. DECS v. Del Rosario (2005) Secondary evidence of the contents of a document refers to evidence other than the original document itself. A party may introduce secondary evidence of the contents of a written instrument not only when the original is lost or destroyed, but also when it cannot be produced in court, provided there is no bad faith on the part of the offeror. However, a party must first satisfactorily explain the loss of the best or primary evidence before he can resort to secondary evidence. A party must first present to the court proof of loss or other satisfactory explanation for non-production of the original instrument. The correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, contents, although the court in its discretion may change this order if necessary. c. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE SEC. 9 PAROL EVIDENCE DEFINITION: ANY EVIDENCE ALIUNDE, ORAL OR WRITTEN , WHICH IS INTENDED OR TENDS TO
IN A DOCUMENT. WHETHER VARY OR

Notes There is latent or intrinsic ambiguity when the writing on its face appears clear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters or circumstances which make the meaning uncertain or where a writing admits of two constructions both of which are in harmony with the language used. Patent or extrinsic ambiguity, on the other hand, is such ambiguity which is apparent on the face of the writing itself and requires something to be added in order to ascertain the meaning of the words used. Parol evidence is not admissible in cases of patent ambiguity otherwise the court would thereby not be construing a contract but would be rather creating a contract between the parties. Mistake here refers to a mistake of fact mutual to the parties or where the innocent party was imposed upon by unfair dealing of the other Imperfection includes an inaccurate statement in the agreement or incompleteness in the writing or the presence of inconsistent provisions therein Differentiated from Best Evidence Rule Parol Evidence Rule (PER) presupposes that the original document is available in court whereas the Best Evidence Rule (BER) contemplates the situation wherein the original writing is not available and/or there is a dispute as to whether said writing is the original PER prohibits the varying of the terms of a written agreement while BER prohibits the introduction of substitutionary evidence in lieu of the original document regardless whether or not it varies the contents of the original PER applies to documents contractual in nature only (exception: wills) while BER applies to all kinds PER can be invoked only when the controversy is between the parties to the written agreement, their privies or any party directly affected thereby whereas BER can be invoked by any party to an action regardless of whether or not such party participated in the writing involved PNB vs. Seeto (1952) The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply to collateral agreements. Pioneer Savings v. CA (226 SCRA 740) The rule does not apply to exclude evidence of conditions subsequent in a deed of sale where such conditions were not stated in the agreement.

CONTRADICT A COMPLETE AND ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT EMBODIED

GENERAL RULE: WHEN THE TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT (INCLUDING WILLS) HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO WRITING, IT IS CONSIDERED AS CONTAINING ALL THE TERMS AGREED UPON AND THERE CAN BE, BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH TERMS OTHER THAN THE CONTENTS OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT. EXCEPTIONS: A PARTY MAY PRESENT EVIDENCE TO MODIFY, EXPLAIN OR ADD TO THE TERMS OF WRITTEN AGREEMENT IF HE PUTS IN ISSUE IN HIS PLEADING: (A) AN INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY, MISTAKE OR IMPERFECTION IN THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT; (B) THE FAILURE OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO
EXPRESS THE TRUE INTENT AND AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES THERETO;

(C) THE VALIDITY OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT; OR (D) THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER TERMS AGREED TO BY
EXECUTION OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT.

THE

PARTIES OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST AFTER THE

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

5 of 39

ONE UP LAW

Woodhouse vs. Halili (1953) It also does not apply if the issue revolves around fraud and false representation since they are incidental to the execution and not to the integration. Lechugas vs. CA (1986) It does not apply either when third parties are involved. Ortaez vs. CA (1997) The exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule must be squarely put in issue. d. INTERPRETATION DOCUMENTS SECS. 10-19
TO ITS TO BE

CHARACTERS, OR WHO UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE, IS ADMISSIBLE TO DECLARE THE CHARACTERS OR THE MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE.

SEC. 17. OF TWO CONSTRUCTIONS, WHICH WHEN THE TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN

PREFERRED.

INTENDED IN A

DIFFERENT SENSE BY THE DIFFERENT PARTIES TO IT, THAT SENSE IS TO PREVAIL AGAINST EITHER PARTY IN WHICH HE SUPPOSED THE OTHER UNDERSTOOD IT, AND WHEN DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTIONS OF A PROVISION ARE OTHERWISE EQUALLY PROPER, THAT IS TO BE TAKEN WHICH IS THE MOST FAVORABLE TO THE PARTY IN WHOSE FAVOR THE PROVISION IS MADE.

OF

SEC. 18. CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF NATURAL RIGHT. WHEN AN INSTRUMENT IS EQUALLY SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO INTERPRETATIONS, ONE IN FAVOR OF NATURAL RIGHT AND THE OTHER AGAINST IT, THE FORMER IS TO BE ADOPTED. SEC. 19. INTERPRETATION
ACCORDING TO USAGE.

SEC. 10. INTERPRETATION OF A WRITING ACCORDING LEGAL MEANING. THE LANGUAGE OF A WRITING IS
PLACE OF ITS OTHERWISE. EXECUTION , UNLESS THE PARTIES

AN

INSTRUMENT MAY BE CONSTRUED ACCORDING TO USAGE, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE ITS TRUE CHARACTER.

INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO THE LEGAL MEANING IT BEARS IN THE INTENDED

SEC. 11. INSTRUMENT CONSTRUED SO AS ALL PROVISIONS. IN THE CONSTRUCTION

EFFECT TO ALL.

TO GIVE EFFECT TO OF AN INSTRUMENT

WHERE THERE ARE SEVERAL PROVISIONS OR PARTICULARS, SUCH A CONSTRUCTION IS, IF POSSIBLE, TO BE ADOPTED AS WILL GIVE

3. Testimonial Evidence Rule 130, Sec. 20 A. WITNESS QUALIFICATIONS: CAN PERCEIVE, AND PERCEIVING, CAN MAKE THEIR PERCEPTION KNOWN TO OTHERS. B. DISQUALIFICATIONS i. By reason of mental incapacity or immaturity Sec. 21

ACCORDING TO INTENTION ; GENERAL

SEC. 12. INTERPRETATION

AND PARTICULAR PROVISIONS. AND WHEN A GENERAL WILL

INSTRUMENT, THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES IS TO BE PURSUED; AND A PARTICULAR A GENERAL PROVISION ONE THAT ARE INCONSISTENT, THE LATTER IS PARAMOUNT TO THE FORMER. PARTICULAR INTENT CONTROL INCONSISTENT WITH IT.

IN

THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN

SO

A IS

SEC. 13. INTERPRETATION ACCORDING FOR THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF

CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT WAS

TO CIRCUMSTANCES. AN MADE, INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING

THE THE

Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others; Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully. i.1. Child Witness Rule (A.M. No. 00-4-07SC, Sec. 6) Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. However, the court shall conduct a competency examination of a child, motu propio or on motion of a party, when it finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court. People vs. Salomon (1993) A mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a witness. People vs. Mendoza (1996) Requisites of competency of a child as witness: capacity of observation; capacity of

SITUATION OF THE SUBJECT THEREOF AND OF THE PARTIES TO IT, POSITION OF THOSE WHOSE LANGUAGE HE IS TO INTERPRET.

MAY BE SHOWN, SO THAT THE JUDGE MAY BE PLACED IN THE

SEC. 14. PECULIAR

SIGNIFICATION OF TERMS.

THE

TERMS OF

A WRITING ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN USED IN THEIR PRIMARY AND GENERAL ACCEPTATION, BUT EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW THAT THEY HAVE A LOCAL, TECHNICAL, OR OTHERWISE PECULIAR SIGNIFICATION, AND WERE SO USED AND UNDERSTOOD, IN THE PARTICULAR INSTANCE, IN WHICH CASE THE AGREEMENT MUST BE CONSTRUED ACCORDINGLY.

SEC. 15. WRITTEN

CONTROLS THE LATTER.

WORDS CONTROL PRINTED.

WHEN

AN

INSTRUMENT CONSISTS PARTLY OF WRITTEN WORDS AND PARTLY OF A PRINTED FORM, AND THE TWO ARE INCONSISTENT, THE FORMER

SEC. 16. EXPERTS

EXPLAINING WHICH AN DECIPHERED, CERTAIN OR THE INSTRUMENT

AND IS

INTERPRETERS

TO THE

BE

USED TO BY

IN IN BE THE

WRITINGS. LANGUAGE

WHEN
IS NOT

CHARACTERS

WRITTEN

ARE

DIFFICULT

UNDERSTOOD

COURT, THE EVIDENCE OF PERSONS SKILLED IN DECIPHERING THE

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

6 of 39

ONE UP LAW

recollection; and capacity of communication. People v. Bustos (45 PHIL 9) An intelligent boy is undoubtedly the best observer to be found. People v. Guzman (107 PHIL 1122) The childs naivete and apparent accuracy makes his testimony most impressive.

Administrator or Other representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring BEFORE the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. Ong Chua v. Carr (53 PHIL 975) However, the survivor may testify against the estate of the deceased where the latter was guilty of fraud which fraud was established by evidence other than the testimony of the survivor. Tongco v. Vianzon (50 PHIL 698) He may also testify where he was the one sued by the decedents estate since the action then is not against the estate. Goi v. CA (144 SCRA 222) He may likewise testify where the estate had filed a counterclaim against him or where the estate cross-examined him as to matters occurring during the lifetime of the deceased. Sunga-Chan v. Chua (363 SCRA 249) The survivor-witness must be a claimant against the estate and not a disinterested third party. iv. Privileged Communication

ii.
22

Marital Disqualification Sec.

Object: Privilege to prevent testimony by other spouse based on an aversion to use judicial compulsion in a litigation to place spouses in an opposing posture that may weaken or destroy their marriage (see People v. Francisco).

General Rule: During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse.

Exceptions: a) In a civil case by one against the other or, b) In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.

People v. Francisco (68 PHIL 694) This privilege is also given to a spouse to prevent the other from testifying in his favor. Arroyo v. Azur (76 PHIL 493) For this rule to apply, the marriage must be valid and existing at the time the testimony was offered. Ordoo v. Daguigan (62 SCRA 270) The wife is competent to testify against her husband in a prosecution against him for raping their daughter.

MARITAL PRIVILEGE Sec. 24 (a) Object: Privilege for confidential communications justified on the ground that it promotes marital harmony; marital partners should be encouraged to share their most closely-guarded secrets as an additional measure of intimacy and mutual support to their marriage Rule: Husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage EXCEPT: In a civil case by one against the other, or

iii.

Dead Mans Statute Sec. 23 A.K.A: Survivorship Rule Object: To guard against the temptation to give false testimony on the part of the surviving party and to put the parties to the suit upon terms of equality in regard to opportunity to produce evidence (Bautista, Basic Evidence). Rule: Parties or assignor of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against An executor or

In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants

Distinguished from Marital Disqualification (Sec. 22) Sec. 22 is broader since it prevents all adverse testimony between spouses and not merely

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

7 of 39

ONE UP LAW

disclosure of confidential communications and may even cover matters occurring prior to the marriage. Sec. 24 is limited to those made during the course of marriage. Where neither spouse is a party, the disqualifying rule is that for marital communications (Sec. 24).

disclosure does not apply to third parties but only to the physician. b) The privilege belongs to the patient, not the physician so that the latter cannot claim it if the patient abandons it. Lim vs. CA (1992) This privilege does not apply when the doctor is presented as an expert witness and only hypothetical problems were presented to him. Krohn v. CA (233 SCRA 146) Plaintiff husband in a suit for annulment of marriage on the ground of his wifes psychological incapacity is allowed to testify on the contents of a confidential psychiatric report made on his wife, a copy of which he allegedly obtained from the examining doctors. His testimony is not a circumvention of the prohibition because his testimony does not have the force and effect of the testimony of a physician who examined the patient and executed the report. Priest- Penitent Privilege Sec. 24 (d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to Any confession made to or Any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs Public Officer Privilege Sec. 24 (e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to communications made to him in official confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. Parental and Filial Privilege Sec. 25 A person cannot be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. Cavili v. Fernando (154 SCRA 610) The specific enumeration in the Rules of disqualified witnesses is understood to exclude the operation of causes of disability other than those mentioned therein. People v. Zheng Bai Hi (338 SCRA 420) The failure of a witness to take an oath prior to his testimony is a defect that may be waived by the parties. v. Admissions and Confessions

US v. Antipolo (37 PHIL 726) A widow of a victim allegedly murdered may testify as to her husbands dying declaration as to how he died the since the same was not intended to be confidential. ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Sec. 24 (b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to Any communication made by the client to him, or

His advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, Nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity

Regala vs. Sandiganbayan (1996) The attorney-client privilege may not be invoked to refuse to divulge the identity of the client, EXCEPT: (1) When a strong probability exists that revealing the name would implicate that person in the very same activity for which he sought the lawyers advice; (2) When disclosure would open the client to liability; (3) When the name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict. Physician-Patient Privilege Sec. 24 (c) Rule: A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a CIVIL CASE, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to Any advice or treatment given by him or

Any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to act in capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient

Bautista Comments: a) The prohibition against the

Admissions Sec. 26

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

8 of 39

ONE UP LAW

Definition: Any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him Types: Verbal or written, express or tacit, judicial or extrajudicial Rule: Any act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. Judicial and Extrajudicial Admissions: Judicial: One made in connection with a judicial proceeding in which it is offered Extrajudicial: Any admission other than judicial. Secs. 26 and 32 of the Rules refer to extrajudicial admissions. Distinguished from Confession: An admission does not involve an acknowledgment of guilt or liability but is merely a statement of fact. An admission maybe express or tacit while a confession must be express. Admissions maybe made by third parties and are, in certain cases, admissible against a party while confessions can be made only by the party himself and are admissible against his co-accused in some instances. Distinguished from Self-serving testimony An admission is made against the interest of the admiter, while a selfserving testimony is in made in favor of the interest of the person making the statement An self-serving statement is made in anticipation of future litigation An admission is admissible in evidence, while self-serving declarations are not Self-serving;Requisites The statement was made extrajudicially The statement is in favor of the declarants interest The statement was made in anticipation of future litigation Viacrucis vs. CA (1986) Such admission may be received in evidence not only against the party who made it or his successors-in-interest but also against third persons. People vs. Alegre (1979) The silence of an accused under custody or his failure to deny statements by another implicating him in a crime cannot be considered

as a tacit confession of his participation in the commission of the crime. Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf (84 PHIL 330) A self-serving declaration is one which has been made extrajudicially by a party in favor of his interests and is not admissible in evidence. Co v. CA (1980) A self-serving testimony refers to an extrajudicial statement being urged for admission in court. It dies not include the partys testimony as a witness in court. Korisu v. Rizal Cement (36 O.G. 1472) Where the statement was not made in anticipation of a future litigation, it is not selfserving. US v. Sarikala (37 PHIL 486) Flight from justice is an admission by conduct and circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt. Admission by Silence Sec. 32 An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him. US v. De la Cruz, 12 PHIL 87 The rule does not apply if the statements adverse to the party were made in the course of an official investigation. Compromises Sec. 27 Civil Cases An offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible against the offeror. Criminal Cases An offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt EXCEPT in cases involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised. A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. People vs. Godoy (1995) It has long been held that in cases of public crimes, the accused is permitted to show that the offer was not made under a

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

9 of 39

ONE UP LAW

consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment of for some other reason which would justify a claim by the accused that the offer was not in truth an admission of his guilt or an attempt to avoid the legal consequences which would ordinarily ensue therefrom. People vs. De Guzman (1996) A plea of forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise. People vs. Yparriguirre (1997) An offer to compromise does not require that a criminal complaint be first filed before the offer can be received as evidence against the offeror. Res Inter Alios Acta Alteri Nocere Non Debet Rule Sec. 28 Definition: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another (First branch of the res inter alios acta rule). Notes: Only the admissions of a partylitigant are admissible as substantive evidence. Those of non-party witnesses may be admitted for impeachment purposes only.

Sec. 29 Requisites: (1) The act/declaration must be within the scope of the authority of the partner or agent. (2) The act or declaration must have been made during the existence of the partnership or agency. (3) The partnership or agency must be shown by evidence other than the act or declaration. This rule applies to the act/declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party. Statements made after a partnership has been dissolved do not fall within this exception.

vi.

Co-conspirators Admission Sec. 30 Requisites: (1) The act/declaration must relate to the conspiracy. (2) It must have been made during the existence of the conspiracy. (3) The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
People vs. Chaw Yaw Shun (1968) The admissibility of a confession by one accused against the other in the same case must relate to statement made by one conspirator during the pendency of the unlawful enterprise and in furtherance of its objects and not to a confession made long after the conspiracy had been brought to an end. People vs. Serrano (1959) Sec. 30, Rule 130 applies only to extrajudicial statements and not to testimony given on the stand. People v. Belen (1963) The existence of the conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused. People v. Alegre (1976) Where there is no independent evidence of the alleged conspiracy, the extrajudicial confession of an accused cannot be used against his co-accused as the res inter alios rule applies both to extrajudicial confessions and admissions. Admission by Privies Sec. 31 Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former. People v. Du ([CA] 68 O.G. 2229) To be admissible, these requisites must concur: (1) There exists a relation of privity between the party and the declarant; (2) admission was made by declarant as predecessor-in-interest while holding title to

An admission by a third-party cannot bind a party-litigant because such third-party admission would be res inter alios acta and therefore hearsay.

People vs. Raquel (1996) Exceptions to the rule that extrajudicial statements of an accused implicating a coaccused may not be utilized against the latter: (1) the co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or adopted the confession by not questioning its truthfulness; (2) the accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical confessions without collusion and without contradiction by the others present; (3) the accused admitted the facts after being apprised of the confession; (4) if they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which was confessed by 1 of the accused and the confession is used only as a corroborating evidence; (5) the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation by the co-conspirator; (6) the confessant testified for his co-defendant; (7) the co-conspirators extrajudicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record. Exceptions to this Rule:

10 of 39

Co-partners/Agents

Admission

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

ONE UP LAW

property; and (3) admission is in relation to said property. Alpuerto v. Perez Pastor (38 PHIL 785) Privity in estate may have arisen by succession, acts mortis causa or acts inter vivos.

E. Conduct Character as Evidence

1. Conduct Secs. 34-35 RULE: EVIDENCE THAT ONE DID OR

and

DID NOT DO A CERTAIN THING

AT ONE TIME IS NOT ADMISSIBLE TO PROVE THAT HE DID OR DID

vii.

Confessions Sec. 33; Rule 115 (e); Cf. Art. III, Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution Definition: A categorical acknowledgment of guilt made by an accused in a criminal case without any exculpatory statement or explanation. Rule: Declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein; may be given in evidence against him. Sec. 17, Art III No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. US v. Tolosa (5 PHIL 616) If the accused admits having committed the act in question but alleges a justification therefore, the same is merely an admission. People vs. Compil (1995) The operative act in determining whether the right against self-incrimination has been violated is when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who has been taken into custody by the police to carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting incriminatory statements and not the signing by the suspect of his supposed extrajudicial confession. People vs. Wong Chuen Ming (1996) By affixing their signatures on the boxes, accused in effect made a tacit admission of the crime charged. These signatures are tantamount to an extrajudicial confession made without the assistance of counsel, which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights. People vs. Yip Wai Ming (1996) Any confession, including a re-enactment without admonition of the right to silence and to counsel, and without counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible in evidence. People vs. Maqueda (1995) The declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be given in evidence against him and any person, otherwise competent to testify as a witness who heard the confession is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood it.

NOT DO THE SAME OR SIMILAR THING AT ANOTHER TIME; BUT IT MAY BE RECEIVED TO PROVE A SPECIFIC INTENT OR KNOWLEDGE; THE LIKE IDENTITY, PLAN, SYSTEM, SCHEME, HABIT, CUSTOM OR USAGE, AND

(SECOND

BRANCH OF RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE).

RULE: AN

OFFER IN WRITING TO PAY A PARTICULAR SUM OF MONEY

OR TO DELIVER A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT OR SPECIFIC PERSONAL PROPERTY IS, IF REJECTED WITHOUT VALID CAUSE, EQUIVALENT TO OR PROPERTY THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION AND TENDER OF THE MONEY, INSTRUMENT,

(MERELY

AN EVIDENTIARY COMPLEMENT TO THE RULE

ON TENDER OF PAYMENT

ART. 1256, CC).

2. Character Sec. 51; Rule 132, Sec. 14 GENERAL RULE: CHARACTER EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE EXCEPTIONS: a. In criminal cases Accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. Prosecution may not prove his bad moral character unless in rebuttal. Offended Party his/her good or bad moral character may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. b. In civil cases Moral character is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. Witness Evidence of his/her good character is not admissible until such character has been impeached. People vs. Irang (1937) While evidence of another crime is, as a rule, not admissible in a prosecution for robbery; it is admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as when it tends to identify defendant as the perpetrator and tends to show is presence at the scene of the crime or in the vicinity of the crime at the time charged, or when it is evidence of a circumstance connected with the crime. People vs. Soliman (1957) Good or bad moral character of the victim is not necessary in a crime of murder where the killing is committed through treachery or premeditation. US v. Pineda (37 PHIL 456) Previous acts of negligence selling barium chlorate instead of potassium chlorate is admissible to show knowledge or intent.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

11 of 39

ONE UP LAW

F.

Hearsay Rule

1. Testimonial Knowledge Sec. 36 DEFINITION OF HEARSAY: ANY EVIDENCE THE PROBATIVE

THE WITNESS STAND.

VALUE OF

WHICH IS NOT BASED ON THE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE WITNESS BUT ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF SOME OTHER PERSON NOT ON

The testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person, if intended to establish the truth of the facts asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence. It is otherwise if the purpose is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made, or the tenor of such statement. People vs. Gaddi (1989) The testimony of a witness on the confession made to him by the accused is not hearsay. He is testifying to a fact which he knows of his personal knowledge (was testifying to the fact that the accused told him that he stabbed the victim) and not to the truth of the statement of the accused. People v. Aguel (1980) Newspaper clippings or facts published in the newspapers are hearsay and have no evidentiary value unless substantiated by persons with personal knowledge of said facts. Mallari v. People (2004) The second to the fourth circumstances are not directly established by the evidence against petitioner. None of the prosecution witnesses testified thereon. A scrutiny of the records of the case reveals that those circumstances were derived from the Written Statements that had been made by petitioners co-accused and presented when Prosecution Witnesses Carvajal and Naive testified. These witnesses were the police investigators who had reduced into writing the statements of Leonardo and Zaldy Bontia at the time of the arrest of the latter two. Section 36 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that witnesses can testify only with regard to facts of which they have personal knowledge; otherwise, their testimonies would be inadmissible for being hearsay. In the present case, neither of the said witnesses had personal knowledge of the second to the fourth circumstances considered by the appellate court, or of the rest of the statements made by the declarants in their respective Written Statements. The witnesses merely attested to the voluntariness and due execution of the Bontias respective extrajudicial confessions. Thus, insofar as the substance of those confessions is concerned, the testimonies of the police witnesses are mere hearsay. This last circumstance cited by the appellate court pertains to a supposed letter of Leonardo Bontia addressed to the victim, containing explicit details regarding the commission of the crime and asking for forgiveness. The latter was presented as part of the testimony of the victim, Erlinda Boyose. However, Leonardo was not presented in court to identify it. No other witness testified as to its genuineness or as to

REASON

FOR RULE:

THE

PARTY AGAINST WHOM SUCH HEARSAY

EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED IS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE STATEMENTS OR WRITINGS ARE ATTRIBUTED.

a. What can a witness testify to? i. A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge ii. Personal knowledge: those derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules. iii. Remember that personal knowledge is that which can be perceived by the FIVE SENSES (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste) b. Child Witness Rule Special Exception (A.M. No. 00-4-07-SC, Sec. 28) i. Hearsay testimony of a child describing any act or attempted act of sexual abuse may now be admitted in any criminal proceeding subject to certain prerequisites and the right of crossexamination by the adverse party. ii. The admissibility of such hearsay statements shall be determined by the court in light of specified subjective and objective considerations which provide sufficient indicia or reliability of the child witness. People v. Ola (1987) If a party does not object to the hearsay evidence, the same is admissible, as a party can waive his right to cross-examine. People v. Valero (1982) Hearsay evidence not objected to maybe admissible but it nevertheless has no probative value and, as opposed to primary evidence, the latter always prevails. People vs. Brioso (1971). The hearsay evidence rule applies also to affidavits when the supposed affiant never identified the affidavit and there was no opportunity for the prosecution to cross-examine him/her. People vs. Cusi (1965)

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

12 of 39

ONE UP LAW

the fact that it had personally and voluntarily been written by him. Incidentally, Boyose received it through the mail, and no one ever attested that it had in fact been written and sent by the same Leonardo Bontia, petitioners coaccused. As we have said earlier, witnesses can testify only with regard to facts of which they have personal knowledge. Testimonial or documentary evidence is hearsay if it is based, not on the personal knowledge of the witness, but on the knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand. Consequently, hearsay evidence -- whether objected to or not -- has no probative value unless the proponent can show that the evidence falls within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, as provided in the Rules of Court. Clearly, none of the exceptions apply to the present case.

DECLARATION

IS OFFERED IN ANY CASE WHEREIN HIS

DEATH IS THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY

People vs. Laquinon (1985) The declaration fails to show that the deceased believed himself in extremis, at the point of death where every hope of recovery is extinct which is the sole basis for admitting this kind of declaration as an exception to the hearsay rule. People vs. Salison (1996) At the time the declaration was made, the declarant was in great pain. He expressed a belief in his imminent death and the hope that it could be used as evidence. US v. Mallari (29 PHIL 14) The intervening time from the making of the declaration up to the actual death of the declarant is immaterial as long as the declaration was made under the consciousness of an impending death. People v. Macandog (01) We agree with the trial court when it upheld the admissibility of the dying declaration of Gloriano, to wit: However, to be valid and admissible in evidence, the following requisites must concur: (a) that the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarants death;(b) that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant was under a consciousness of an impending death; (c) that the declarant is competent as a witness; and (d) that the declaration is offered in a criminal case in which the declarant is the victim. First, the declaration of Gloriano concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of his death, that he was shot by accused Eddie and Nestor Macandog because of a land dispute; second, at the time the declaration was made, Gloriano was under the consciousness of an impending death. As a matter of fact, he died within thirty (30) minutes after making his declaration; third, that at the time Gloriano made his declaration, he was a competent witness since he was still conscious and could still speak competently although he was already dying, and fourth, the declaration of Gloriano was offered in a criminal case for Murder in which he was himself the victim. People v. Latayada (2004)

c. Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statements i. Not covered by hearsay rule (see People v. Cusi above) ii. Independent of whether the facts stated are true or not, they are relevant since they are the facts in issue or are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue. iii. Whether or not the statement made is true is immaterial. What is sought to be proved is the fact that such statement was made. iv. Tenor of statement not truth IMPORTANT: A. There are two main requisites for evidence not to be hearsay. 1) It must be based on personal knowledge (see above for definition) 2) There must be opportunity for crossexamination by the adverse party. (Gulam v. Sps. Santos, 2006) B. The hearsay rule covers all types of evidence (oral, documentary, object; Valencia v. Cabigting, 1991)

2. Exceptions to Hearsay Rule DYING DECLARATION SEC. 37 A.K.A: ANTEMORTEM STATEMENT OR REQUISITES:

STATEMENT IN ARTICULO

MORTIS

DECLARATION DECLARATION DECLARATION

WAS MADE UNDER THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF

AN IMPENDING DEATH REFERS TO CAUSE AND SURROUNDING

CIRCUMSTANCES OF SUCH DEATH REFERS TO FACTS THE PERSON IS

COMPETENT TO TESTIFY TO

True, Payla made no express statement showing that he was conscious of his impending death. The law, however, does not require the declarant to state explicitly a perception of the inevitability

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

13 of 39

ONE UP LAW

of death. The foreboding may be gleaned from surrounding circumstances, such as the nature of the declarants injury and conduct that would justify a conclusion that there was consciousness of impending death. a. DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST SEC. 38 BY WHOM MADE: A PERSON DECEASED, OR UNABLE
AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE DECLARANT TO TESTIFY,

evidence was adduced to prove the alleged inadvertence. And even assuming there was indeed such a mistake, Miguel had ample opportunity to make the rectification in the initial stages of the intestate proceedings. b. PEDIGREE SEC. 39 PEDIGREE: RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY GENEALOGY, BIRTH, MARRIAGE, DEATH, THE DATES WHEN AND THE PLACES WHERE THESE FAST OCCURRED, AND THE NAMES OF THE RELATIVES; EMBRACES ALSO FACTS OF FAMILY HISTORY INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH PEDIGREE. BY WHOM MADE: PERSON DECEASED, OR UNABLE TO TESTIFY SUBJECT OF DECLARATION/ACT: PEDIGREE OF ANOTHER PERSON
RELATED TO HIM BY BIRTH OR MARRIAGE

SUBJECT
TIME IT

OF DECLARATION/ACT: THE FACT ASSERTED WAS AT THE 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

AGAINST

WHOM RECEIVED: AGAINST HIMSELF OR HIS SUCCESSORS

IN INTEREST AND AGAINST THIRD PERSONS.

WHEN
THE

ADMISSIBLE: OCCURRED BEFORE THE CONTROVERSY, AND BETWEEN THE TWO PERSONS IS SHOWN BY

Compared to Admissions against interest Admissions against interest are those made by a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or identified in legal interest with such party and are admissible whether or not the declarant is available as a witness. Declarations against interest are secondary evidence which constitute an exception to the hearsay rule and are admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness. A declarations against interest is the opposite of a self-serving declaration. Fuentes vs. CA (1996) Inability to testify means that the person is either dead, mentally incapacitated or physically incompetent. Mere absence from the jurisdiction does not make him ipso facto unavailable. Heirs of Franco v. CA, (418 SCRA 60) While he explicitly declared that the subject property belonged to Quintin, at the same time he was remarkably silent about his claim that he acquired one-half thereof during the lifetime of Quintin. He asserted his claim to the subject property quite belatedly, i.e., four years after he stated under oath and in a court pleading that it belonged in its entirety to his brother. Thus, the statement and the accompanying silence may be appreciated in more than one context. It is a declaration against interest and a judicial admission combined. A declaration against interest is the best evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute. In the same vein, a judicial admission binds the person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it. In the case at bar, there is no showing of palpable mistake on the part of Miguel when he made the admission. In his Motion to Admit Amended Petition, he merely alleged inadvertence in failing to state his claim of co-ownership. Yet no

RELATIONSHIP

EVIDENCE OTHER THAN SUCH ACT OR DECLARATION .

Notes

The relationship must preliminarily be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. The rules do not require any specific degree of relationship but the weight to which such act or declaration is entitled may be affected by the degree of relationship.

Tison v. CA (276 SCRA 582) 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 or some member of the family. Gravador v. Mamigo (1967) The import of the declaration of the petitioner's brother, contained in a verified pleading in a cadastral case way back in 1924, to the effect that the petitioner was then 23 years old, can not be ignored. Made ante litem motam by a deceased relative, this statement is at once a declaration regarding pedigree within the intendment and meaning of section 33 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Mendoza v. CA (1991) Nevertheless, precisely because of its nature as hearsay evidence, there are certain safeguards against its abuse. Commenting on this provision, Francisco enumerates the following requisites that have to be complied with before the act or declaration regarding pedigree may be admitted in evidence: 1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify. 2. The pedigree must be in issue. 3. The declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in issue.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

14 of 39

ONE UP LAW

4. The declaration must be made before the controversy arose. 5. The relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in question must be shown by evidence other than such declaration. All the above requisites are present in the case at bar. The persons who made the declarations about the pedigree of Teopista, namely, the mother of Casimiro, Brigida Mendoza, and his brother, Hipolito, were both dead at the time of Isaac's testimony. The declarations referred to the filiation of Teopista and the paternity of Casimiro, which were the very issues involved in the complaint for compulsory recognition. The declarations were made before the complaint was filed by Teopista or before the controversy arose between her and Casimiro. Finally, the relationship between the declarants and Casimiro has been established by evidence other than such declaration, consisting of the extrajudicial partition of the estate of Florencio Mendoza, in which Casimiro was mentioned as one of his heirs. Jison v. CA (1998) As to Exhibits "S," "T," "U" and "V," the various notes and letters written by FRANCISCO's(alleged putative father) relatives, namely Mike Alano, Emilio Jison, Mariquit Lopez and Fernando Lopez, respectively, allegedly attesting to MONINA's filiation, while their due execution and authenticity are not in issue, as MONINA witnessed the authors signing the documents, nevertheless, under Rule 130, Section 39, the contents of these documents may not be admitted, there being no showing that the declarants-authors were dead or unable to testify, neither was the relationship between the declarants and MONINA shown by evidence other than the documents in question. (Eds Note: Please take note and caution with Mendoza and Jison and the difference of the two rulings.) c. FAMILY TRADITION SEC. 40 SUBJECT OF EXCEPTION: REPUTATION OR
FAMILY PREVIOUS TO THE

US v. Agadas (36 PHIL 246) Such statement (as to his age) prevails over the mere opinion of the trial judge. US v. Evangelista (32 PHIL 321) However, such statement (as to age) cannot generally prevail over the secondary statement of the father. Jison v. CA (98) It is evident that this provision may be divided into two (2) parts: the portion containing the first underscored clause which pertains to testimonial evidence, under which the documents in question may not be admitted as the authors thereof did not take the witness stand; and the section containing the second underscored phrase. What must then be ascertained is whether Exhibits S to V, as private documents, fall within the scope of the clause "and the like" as qualified by the preceding phrase "[e]ntries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on rights [and] family portraits." We hold that the scope of the enumeration contained in the second portion of this provision, in light of the rule of ejusdem generis, is limited to objects which are commonly known as "family possessions," or those articles which represent, in effect, a family's joint statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a person. These have been described as objects "openly exhibited and well known to the family," or those "which, if preserved in a family, may be regarded as giving a family tradition." Other examples of these objects which are regarded as reflective of a family's reputation or tradition regarding pedigree are inscriptions on tombstones, monuments or coffin plates. d. COMMON REPUTATION SEC. 41 WHAT ARE ADMISSIBLE?

COMMON
MORE

REPUTATION RESPECTING THAN

EXISTING FACTS YEARS OF

PREVIOUS PUBLIC OR OR

TO

THE

CONTROVERSY, INTEREST

GENERAL

30

OLD,

RESPECTING

MARRIAGE OR MORAL CHARACTER

TRADITION EXISTING IN A IN RESPECT TO THE

MONUMENTS

AND INSCRIPTIONS IN PUBLIC PLACES AS

EVIDENCE OF COMMON REPUTATION

PEDIGREE OF ANY ONE OF ITS MEMBERS, MAY BE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE IF THE WITNESS TESTIFYING THEREON BE ALSO A MEMBER OF THE FAMILY, EITHER BY CONSANGUINITY OR AFFINITY

CONTROVERSY,

DOCUMENTARY

OTHER FAMILY BOOKS, CHARTS, ENGRAVINGS ON RINGS, FAMILY PORTRAITS, AND THE LIKE

EVIDENCE ALLOWED:

ENTRIES

IN FAMILY BIBLES OR

Gravador v. Mamigo (1967) A persons statement as to his date of birth and age as he learned of these from his parents or relatives is an ante litem motam declaration of a family tradition.

Notes Common reputation means the general or substantially undivided reputation although it need not be unanimous. Common reputation is the definite opinion of the community in which the fact to be proved is known or exists. Character refers to the inherent qualities of a person while reputation is the opinion of him by others. Under this section, the character of a person is permitted to be established by his

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

15 of 39

ONE UP LAW

common reputation.

8, RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (REE) WHEN MADE: AT, OR NEAR THE TIME OF TRANSACTIONS
THEY REFER

TO WHICH

US v. Chua Chiok (36 PHIL 831) The character of a place as an opium joint may be proved by its common reputation in the community. e. RES GESTAE SEC. 42 DEFINITION: IT LITERALLY MEANS THINGS DONE WHAT ARE ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF THE RES GESTAE? STATEMENTS MADE BY A PERSON WHILE
OCCURRENCE THEREOF IS TAKING

BY

WHOM MADE: A PERSON DECEASED, OR UNABLE TO TESTIFY, OF SUCH EVIDENCE: PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE, IF SUCH

WHO WAS IN A POSITION TO KNOW THE FACTS THEREIN STATED

TREATMENT

PERSON MADE THE ENTRIES IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY OR IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY AND IN THE ORDINARY OR REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS OR DUTY

A STARTING PRIOR OR

REE, RULE 8, SECTION 1. EXCEPTION : A MEMORANDUM,

OR DATA COMPILATION OF

REPORT, ACTS,

HEARSAY

RULE

RECORD EVENTS,

PLACE OR IMMEDIATELY

SUBSEQUENT THERETO WITH RESPECT TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES

CONDITIONS, OPINIONS, OR DIAGNOSES, MADE BY ELECTRONIC , OPTICAL OR OTHER SIMILAR MEANS AT OR NEAR THE TIME OF OR FROM TRANSMISSION OR SUPPLY OF INFORMATION BY A PERSON WITH KNOWLEDGE THEREOF, AND KEPT IN THE REGULAR COURSE OR CONDUCT OF A BUSINESS ACTIVITY, AND SUCH WAS THE REGULAR PRACTICE TO MAKE THE MEMORANDUM, REPORT, RECORD, OR DATA MEANS, ALL OF OF WHICH THE ARE SHOWN OR BY COMPILATION BY ELECTRONIC, OPTICAL OR SIMILAR THE TESTIMONY CUSTODIAN OTHER

STATEMENTS
TO THE

ACCOMPANYING ISSUE, AND

AN

EQUIVOCAL IT A

ACT LEGAL

MATERIAL

GIVING

SIGNIFICANCE.

Notes The rule refers to (a) spontaneous statements in connection with a startling occurrence relating to that fact and in effect forming a part thereof and (b) statements accompanying an equivocal act verbal acts on the theory that they are the verbal parts of the act to be explained. As opposed to dying declarations which are made only after a homicidal attack has been committed, statements, in res gestae, may precede, accompany or be made after such attack. People v. Reyes (82 PHIL 563) A dying declaration can be made only by the victim after the attack while a statement as part of the res gestae may be that of the killer himself after or during the killing. People v. Balbas (1983) Where the elements of both are present, the statement may be admitted both as a dying declaration and as part of the res gestae. People v. Berame (1976) If the statement was made under the influence of a startling event and the declarant did not have the opportunity to concoct or contrive a story, even if made 9 hours after the killing, the statement is admissible as part of the res gestae. Borromeo v. CA (1976) Notes taken regarding a transaction by a person who is not a party thereto and who has not been requested to take down such notes are not part of the res gestae. f. ENTRIES
16 of 39
IN THE

QUALIFIED WITNESSES. OVERCOME BY

RULE 8, SECTION 2. THIS

UNTRUSTWORTHINESS OF

PRESUMPTION MAY BE OF SOURCE THE OF THE

EVIDENCE

INFORMATION OR THE METHOD OR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PREPARATION , TRANSMISSION OR STORAGE THEREOF.

Cang Yui v. Gardner (34 PHIL 376) If the entrant is available as a witness, said entries will not be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule but they may nevertheless be availed of by said entrant as a memorandum to refresh his memory while testifying on the transactions reflected therein. Yek Tong Fire & Marine Insurance v. Gutierrez ([CA], 59 O.G. 8122) There is no overriding necessity to bring into court all the clerks and employees who individually made the entries in a long account. It is sufficient that the person who supervises their work testify that the account was prepared under his supervision and that the entries were regularly entered into in the ordinary course of business. g. OFFICIAL RECORDS SEC. 44 WHEN MADE: ENTRIES MADE AT,
TRANSACTIONS TO WHICH THEY REFER

OR

NEAR

THE

TIME

OF

BY

WHOM MADE: BY A PERSON DECEASED, OR UNABLE TO TESTIFY, OF SUCH EVIDENCE: PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE, IF SUCH

WHO WAS IN A POSITION TO KNOW THE FACTS THEREIN STATED

TREATMENT

PERSON MADE THE ENTRIES IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY OR IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY AND IN THE ORDINARY OR REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS OR DUTY

COURSE

OF

BUSINESS SEC. 43; RULE

Caltex vs. Africa (1966)

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

ONE UP LAW

The report submitted by a police officer in the performance of his duties on the basis of his own personal observation of the facts reported, may properly be constituted as an exception. Salmon, Dexter & Co. v. Wijangco (46 PHIL 386) The entrant must have personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or such facts acquired by him from reports made by persons under a legal duty to submit the same. People vs. Cabuang (1993) Entries in a police blotter are conclusive proof of the truth of such entries. not

GIVEN REGARDING:

OPINION
OF

OF A WITNESS FOR WHICH PROPER BASIS IS A PERSON ABOUT WHOM HE HAS ADEQUATE

a. b. c. d.

IDENTITY

KNOWLEDGE

HANDWRITING WITH WHICH HE HAS MENTAL SANITY OF A PERSON WITH

ACQUAINTED

SUFFICIENT FAMILIARITY WHOM HE IS SUFFICIENTLY

IMPRESSIONS

OF THE EMOTION, BEHAVIOR, CONDITION OR

APPEARANCE OF A PERSON.

(SEC. 50)

Fortus v. Novero (1968) Baptismal certificates or parochial records of baptism are not official records. h. COMMERCIAL LISTS SEC. 45 EVIDENCE OF STATEMENTS OF MATTERS

Dilag Co. vs. Merced (1949) There is no precise requirement as to the mode in which skill or experience shall have been acquired. Scientific study and training are not always essential to the competency of a witness as an expert. Knowledge acquired by doing is no less valuable than that acquired by study. People vs. Adoviso (1999) Polygraph test has not as yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception.

OF INTEREST TO PERSONS

ENGAGED IN AN OCCUPATION CONTAINED IN A LIST, REGISTER, TENDING TO PROVE THE TRUTH OF ANY RELEVANT MATTER

PERIODICAL, OR OTHER PUBLISHED COMPILATION IS ADMISSIBLE AS SO STATED IF THAT COMPILATION IS PUBLISHED FOR USE BY PERSONS ENGAGED IN THAT OCCUPATION AND IS GENERALLY USED AND RELIED UPON BY THEM THEREIN .

i. LEARNED TREATISES SEC. 46 A PUBLISHED TREATISE, PERIODICAL OR PAMPHLET ON A SUBJECT HISTORY, LAW, SCIENCE, OR ART IS ADMISSIBLE AS TENDING

III. What Need Not be Proved and Burden of Proof (rule 129 & 131)
A.
1.

OF TO

Judicial Notice Rule 129

When Mandatory Sec. 1 (mnemonic: SPELL FOG MAP) A. EXISTENCE AND TERRITORIAL EXTENT OF STATES B. THEIR POLITICAL HISTORY C. FORMS OF GOVERNMENT D. SYMBOLS OF NATIONALITY E. LAW OF NATIONS F. ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME COURTS OF THE WORLD AND
THEIR SEALS G. H. I. J. K.

PROVE THE TRUTH OF A MATTER STATED THEREIN IF THE COURT TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE, OR A WITNESS EXPERT IN THE SUBJECT TESTIFIES, THAT THE WRITER OF THE STATEMENT IN THE TREATISE, PERIODICAL OR PAMPHLET IS RECOGNIZED IN HIS PROFESSION OR CALLING AS EXPERT IN THE SUBJECT.

j. PRIOR TESTIMONY SEC. 47 BY WHOM MADE: A WITNESS DECEASED OR UNABLE TO TESTIFY, WHEN GIVEN: IN A FORMER CASE OR PROCEEDING, JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE, INVOLVING THE SAME PARTIES AND SUBJECT
MATTER

AGAINST

WHOM: MAY BE GIVEN IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ADVERSE

PARTY WHO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM

Tan vs. CA (1967) Unable to testify refers to an inability proceeding from a grave cause almost amounting to death as when the witness is old and has lost the power of speech.

POLITICAL CONSTITUTION AND HISTORY OF PHILIPPINES OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE PHILIPPINES LAWS OF NATURE MEASURE OF TIME GEOGRAPHICAL DIVISIONS

THE AND

2.

E.

Opinion Rule Secs. 48-50

3.

When Discretionary Sec. 2 A. MATTERS OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE B. MATTERS CAPABLE OF UNQUESTIONABLE DEMONSTRATION c. MATTERS WHICH OUGHT TO BE KNOWN TO JUDGES
BECAUSE OF THEIR JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS

General Rule: Opinion of a witness is not admissible (Sec. 48) Except: 1. Expert witness OPINION OF A WITNESS ON A MATTER REQUIRING SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, EXPERIENCE OR TRAINING WHICH HE SHOWN TO POSSESS (SEC. 49) 2. Ordinary witness

When Hearing is Necessary Sec. 3 a. DURING THE TRIAL: THE COURT, ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE, OR ON REQUEST OF A PARTY, MAY ANNOUNCE ITS INTENTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ANY MATTER AND ALLOW THE PARTIES TO BE HEARD THEREON.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

17 of 39

ONE UP LAW

b.

AFTER

THE TRIAL BEFORE JUDGMENT OR ON

APPEAL: THE PROPER COURT, ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE OR

(1) Allegations contained in the complaint or answer immaterial to the issues. (2) Facts which are admitted or which are not denied in the answer, provided they have been sufficiently alleged. (3) Those which are the subject of an agreed statement of facts between the parties; as well as those admitted by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case. (4) Facts which are the subject of judicial notice. (5) presumed. Facts which are legally

ON REQUEST OF A PARTY, MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ANY MATTER AND ALLOW THE PARTIES TO BE HEARD

MATTER IS DECISIVE OF A MATERIAL ISSUE IN THE CASE.

THEREON IF SUCH

City of Manila vs. Garcia (1967) Courts are not mandated to take judicial notice of municipal ordinances unless the charter of the concerned city provides for such judicial notice. Tabuena vs. CA (1991) General Rule Courts cannot take judicial notice of the contents/records of other cases even if both cases may have been tried or are pending before the same judge. (Prieto vs. Arroyo, 1965) Exception - In the absence of objection from the adverse party, with the knowledge of the adverse party; or at the request or with the consent of the parties, the case is clearly referred to or the original or part of the records of the case are actually withdrawn from the archives and admitted as part of the record of the case then pending. Yao-Kee vs. Sy-Gonzales (1988) Courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Republic v. Vda. De Neri (04) We find for the petitioner. As applicants in LRC Case No. N-531, the private respondentshad the burden of complying with the statutory requirement of serving the Director of the Bureau of Lands with a copy of their application and amended application, and to show proof of their compliance thereon. However, we also agree with the CA that it was the burden of the petitioner in the trial court to prove the material allegations of its complaint. This is provided in Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court which reads x x x. Obviously, the burden of proof is, in the first instance, with the plaintiff who initiated the action. But in the final analysis, the party upon whom the ultimate burden lies is to be determined by the pleadings, not by who is the plaintiff or the defendant. The test for determining where the burden of proof lies is to ask which party to an action or suit will fail if he offers no evidence competent to show the facts averred as the basis for the relief he seeks to obtain, and based on the result of an inquiry, which party would be successful if he offers no evidence. . All facts in issue and relevant facts must, as a general rule, be proven by evidence except the following:

(6) Facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the opposite party

B. Judicial Admissions Rule 129, Sec. 4

(See also: Rule 10, Sec. 8 admissions in superseded pleadings)
1. Subject ADMISSIONS, VERBAL 2. Proof NOT REQUIRED. 3. How contradicted ONLY BY SHOWING THAT: (A) MADE THROUGH MISTAKE; OR (B) NO SUCH ADMISSION WAS MADE.
OR WRITTEN , MADE BY THE PARTY IN THE

COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAME CASE

PALPABLE

Torres vs. CA (1984) Having been amended, the original complaint lost its character as a judicial admission, which would have required no proof and became merely any extrajudicial admission requiring a formal offer in order to be admissible.

C. Burden of Proof and Presumptions Rule 131

1. Burden of Proof Sec. 1 DEFINITION: DUTY OF A PARTY TO PRESENT
DEFENSE BY THE AMOUNT REQUIRED BY LAW EVIDENCE ON

THE FACTS IN ISSUE NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM OR

2. Presumptions Secs. 2-4 CONCLUSIVE

a.

WHENEVER

A PARTY BY HIS OWN DECLARATION, ACT, ACTS UPON SUCH BELIEF, HE CANNOT IN

OMISSION, HAS LED ANOTHER TO BELIEVE A PARTICULAR THING TO BE TRUE ANY LITIGATION ARISING OUT OF SUCH DECLARATION, ACT OR OMISSION BE PERMITTED TO FALSIFY IT. B.

AND

THE TENANT
HIS

IS NOT PERMITTED TO DENY THE TITLE AT THE TIME OF THE

OF

LANDLORD

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

18 of 39

ONE UP LAW

COMMENCEMENT TENANT BETWEEN THEM. (CRAZY

OF THE RELATION OF LANDLORD AND II.

DISAPPEARED AFTER AGE OF

DISPUTABLE MNEMONIC: LO! I WON 7 PALM CROPS WHILE MP SCOT TOPPED 300 IN JUMP!) A) PERSON IS INNOCENT OF A CRIME OR WRONG B) UNLAWFUL ACT IS DONE WITH AN UNLAWFUL
INTENT C) D) E) F) G) H) I) J)

5 YEARS THE FOLLOWING PERSON

SEA

75,

ABSENCE OF

SHALL BE CONSIDERED DEAD

FOR ALL PURPOSES INCLUDING THE DIVISION OF THE ESTATE AMONG THE HEIRS III. ON BOARD A VESSEL LOST DURING A OR AN AIRCRAFT WITH IS VOYAGE,

MISSING, WHO HAS NOT BEEN HEARD OF FOR

4
IV.

YEARS SINCE THE LOSS OF THE VESSEL OR OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO HAS

AIRCRAFT INTENDS THE ORDINARY CONSEQUENCES OF CONCERNS WOULD BE V.

PERSON

MEMBER PERSON
UNDER YEARS

HIS VOLUNTARY ACT

TAKEN PART IN ARMED HOSTILITIES, AND HAS BEEN MISSING FOR OTHER

PERSON TAKES ORDINARY CARE OF HIS EVIDENCE WILLFULLY SUPPRESSED MONEY THING

YEARS AND WHOSE

WHO HAS BEEN IN DANGER OF DEATH CIRCUMSTANCES

ADVERSE IF PRODUCED PAID BY ONE TO ANOTHER WAS DUE TO THE DELIVERED BY ONE TO ANOTHER BELONGED DELIVERED UP TO THE DEBTOR HAS LATTER

EXISTENCE HAS NOT BEEN KNOWN FOR FOUR

vi.

TO THE LATTER

OBLIGATION PRIOR A

SPOUSE, OF A MARRIED PERSON ABSENT FOR 4 CONSECUTIVE YEARS, MAY CONTRACT A

SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE IF HE OR SHE HAS WELL-FOUNDED BELIEF THAT THE THERE ABSENT IS A SPOUSE IS ALREADY DEATH; OF DISAPPEARANCE, OF DANGER DEATH THE

BEEN PAID RENTS OR INSTALLMENTS HAD BEEN PAID FOUND IN POSSESSION OF A THING WHEN A RECEIPT FOR THE LATER ONES IS PRODUCED PERSON TAKEN IN THE DOING OF A RECENT WRONGFUL ACT IS THE TAKER AND DOER OF THE WHOLE ACT; OTHERWISE, THAT THINGS WHICH A PERSON POSSESSES OR EXERCISES ACTS OF OWNERSHIP OVER, ARE OWNED BY HIM K)

YEARS IN CASE CIRCUMSTANCES MARRYING IN

WHERE

HEREINABOVE A SUMMARY

PROVIDED. PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE
AS

AGAIN, THE SPOUSE PRESENT MUST INSTITUTE PROVIDED THE

PERSON

FAMILY CODE

AND IN THE RULES FOR PREJUDICE OF THE TO THE

IN POSSESSION OF AN ORDER ON HIMSELF PAID THE MONEY OR DELIVERED THE X)

DECLARATION OF PRESUMPTIVE DEATH OF THE ABSENTEE, EFFECT SPOUSE. OF WITHOUT REAPPEARANCE ABSENT

FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE MONEY OR THE DELIVERY OF ANYTHING L) M) N) THE O) HAS THING ACCORDINGLY

PERSON

ACTING IN PUBLIC OFFICE WAS REGULARLY

ACQUIESCENCE THINGS

RESULTED FROM A BELIEF THAT

APPOINTED OR ELECTED TO IT

OFFICIAL DUTY HAS BEEN REGULARLY PERFORMED A COURT OR JUDGE ACTING AS SUCH, WHETHER IN PHILIPPINES OR ELSEWHERE, WAS ACTING IN THE ALL
THE MATTERS WITHIN AN ISSUE RAISED IN A

THE THING ACQUIESCED IN WAS CONFORMABLE TO THE LAW OR FACT Y) HAVE HAPPENED ACCORDING TO THE ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE AND ORDINARY NATURE HABITS OF LIFE Z) AA)

LAWFUL EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION CASE WERE LAID BEFORE THE COURT AND PASSED UPON BY IT; ALL MATTERS WITHIN AN ISSUE RAISED IN A DISPUTE SUBMITTED FOR ARBITRATION WERE LAID BEFORE ARBITRATORS AND PASSED UPON BY THEM P) Q) R) S) T)

PERSONS A

ACTING

AS

COPARTNERS

HAVE

ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT OF CO-PARTNERSHIP MAN AND WOMAN DEPORTING THEMSELVES AS HUSBAND AND WIFE HAVE ENTERED INTO A LAWFUL CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE BB)

PRIVATE ORDINARY THERE

TRANSACTIONS COURSE OF

HAVE

BEEN

FAIR HAS

AND BEEN

PROPERTY

ACQUIRED BY A MAN AND A WOMAN

REGULAR BUSINESS FOLLOWED WAS A SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION FOR A INSTRUMENT WAS GIVEN OR INDORSED CONTRACT

WHO ARE CAPACITATED TO MARRY EACH OTHER AND WHO LIVE EXCLUSIVELY WITH EACH OTHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF MARRIAGE OR UNDER VOID MARRIAGE, HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY THEIR JOINT EFFORTS, WORK OR INDUSTRY. CC) OTHER OR

NEGOTIABLE AN

IN
AND

CASES OF COHABITATION BY A MAN AND A WHO HAVE SUCH ACQUIRE PROPERLY THROUGH THEIR

FOR A SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION INDORSEMENT OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT WAS MADE BEFORE THE INSTRUMENT WAS OVERDUE AND AT THE PLACE WHERE THE INSTRUMENT IS DATED U) V)

WOMAN WHO ARE NOT CAPACITATED TO MARRY EACH THEIR ACTUAL JOINT CONTRIBUTION OF MONEY, PROPERTY INDUSTRY, CONTRIBUTIONS AND CORRESPONDING SHARES INCLUDING JOINT DEPOSITS OF MAILED WAS RECEIVED MONEY AND EVIDENCES OF CREDIT ARE EQUAL DD) NOT KNOWN HUNDRED

A WRITING IS TRULY DATED LETTER DULY DIRECTED AND ABSENTEE

OF

IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF THE MAIL

w)

YEARS,

IF

THE MARRIAGE IS TERMINATED AND THE AFTER SUCH TERMINATION OF THE

IT BEING

MOTHER CONTRACTED ANOTHER MARRIAGE WITHIN THREE DAYS FORMER MARRIAGE, THESE RULES SHALL GOVERN IN THE

WHETHER OR NOT HE IS ALIVE, IS CONSIDERED DEAD FOR ALL PURPOSES EXCEPT FOR SUCCESSION. I.

FOR

THE

PURPOSE

OF

OPENING

HIS

ABSENCE OF PROOF TO THE CONTRARY: I.

SUCCESSION : AN ABSENCE OF

10

YEARS, IF

CHILD BORN BEFORE

180

DAYS AFTER THE

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

19 of 39

ONE UP LAW

SOLEMNIZATION MARRIAGE CONCEIVED AFTER II. THE IS

OF

THE TO SUCH

SUBSEQUENT HAVE BEEN EVEN DAYS

CONSIDERED

DURING

MARRIAGE, OF THE

THOUGH IT IS BORN WITHIN THE TERMINATION MARRIAGE.

300

FORMER

IV. Presentation Evidence (rule 132)

A. Examination of Witnesses

of

CHILD BORN AFTER CELEBRATION IS DURING

180
OF SUCH

DAYS FOLLOWING SUBSEQUENT HAVE BEEN EVEN DAYS TO

THE

THE

MARRIAGE CONCEIVED AFTER EE) FF) GG) THE

CONSIDERED

MARRIAGE,

THOUGH IT BE BORN WITHIN THE TERMINATION OF MARRIAGE.

300

THE

FORMER

THING ONCE PROVED TO EXIST CONTINUES

AS LONG AS IS USUAL WITH THINGS OF THE NATURE

TO BE PRINTED OR PUBLISHED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY, WAS SO PRINTED OR PUBLISHED HH) OF II) WAS TO THE

THE LAW HAS BEEN OBEYED A PRINTED OR PUBLISHED BOOK, A

PURPORTING

PRINTED OR PUBLISHED BOOK, PURPORTING WHERE THE BOOK IS PUBLISHED,

TO CONTAIN REPORTS OF CASES ADJUDGED IN TRIBUNALS COUNTRY CONTAINS CORRECT REPORTS OF SUCH CASES

TRUSTEE OR OTHER PERSON WHOSE DUTY IT REAL PROPERTY TO A PARTICULAR

CONVEY

PERSON HAS ACTUALLY CONVEYED IT TO HIM WHEN SUCH PRESUMPTION IS NECESSARY TO PERFECT THE TITLE OF SUCH PERSON OR HIS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST JJ)

1. How done Rule 132, Sec. 1 A. OPEN COURT B. UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION Mode of answering i. General Rule: oral ii. Exception: Witness is incapacitated to speak or Question calls for a different mode of answer Exceptions in general i. in civil cases, testimony of witness may be given by depositions pursuant to R23 and R24 ii. in criminal cases, by depositions or conditional examinations (R119, R123) iii. Cases covered by Rule on Summary procedure = affidavits allowed People v. Estenzo (1976) Mere presentation of the affidavits of prosecution witnesses subject to crossexamination is not allowed by the Rules. People v. Moreno (88 Phil. 286) The testimony of the witness should be elicited by questions of counsel. But the court may itself propound questions either on the direct or cross examination of the witness. Co v. CA (1980) The testimony of a witness in court cannot be considered self-serving since he can be subjected to cross examination. Self-serving evidence is one made out of court and is excluded on the same ground as hearsay evidence, i.e., deprivation of the right of crossexamination. Heirs of Sabanpan v. Comorposa (03) Petitioners assert that the CA erred in disregarding the Affidavits of their witnesses, insisting that the Rule on Summary Procedure authorizes the use of affidavits. They also claim that the failure of respondents to file their position paper and counter-affidavits before the MTC amounts to an admission by silence. The admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value. Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue. Thus, a

PERSONS PERISH IN THE SAME CALAMITY, AND IT IS SHOWN WHO DIED FIRST, AND THERE IT ARE CAN NO BE CIRCUMSTANCES FROM WHICH

EXCEPT

FOR PURPOSES OF SUCCESSION , WHEN

NOT

PARTICULAR

INFERRED, THE SURVIVORSHIP IS DETERMINED FROM THE PROBABILITIES RESULTING FROM THE STRENGTH AND THE AGE OF I. THE RULES: II. SEXES, ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING

BOTH < 15: OLDER SURVIVED; BOTH > 60: YOUNGER SURVIVED; III. ONE <15; OTHER >60: <15 SURVIVED; IV. BOTH >15, <60 AND THE SEX BE DIFFERENT, THE MALE IS DEEMED TO HAVE SURVIVED, IF THE SEX BE THE SAME, THE OLDER; V. ONE < 15 OR >, AND THE OTHER BETWEEN THOSE AGES, THE LATTER IS DEEMED TO HAVE
SURVIVED KK)

THAT

IF THERE IS A DOUBT, AS BETWEEN TWO

OR MORE PERSONS WHO ARE CALLED TO SUCCEED EACH OTHER , AS TO WHICH OF THEM DIED FIRST, WHOEVER ALLEGES THE DEATH OF ONE PRIOR TO THE OTHER, SHALL PROVE THE SAME; IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF, THEY

SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE DIED AT THE SAME TIME.

(5A) People vs. Padiernos (1976) The presumption that evidence not produced or willfully suppressed is adverse to the party, will not apply if the evidence is at the disposal of both the defense and the prosecution and if the evidence is merely conclusive.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

20 of 39

ONE UP LAW

particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence. People v. Cadley (2004) Appellant draws attention to the fact that the judge who wrote the decision did not hear the case, hence, did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. That a judge did not hear a case does not necessarily render him less competent in assessing the credibility of witnesses. He can rely on the transcripts of stenographic notes of their testimony and calibrate them in accordance with their conformity to common experience, knowledge and observation of ordinary men. Such reliance does not violate substantive and procedural due process of law.

TO DEGRADE HIS REPUTATION , UNLESS IT TO BE THE VERY FACT AT ISSUE OR TO A FACT FROM WHICH THE FACT IN ISSUE WOULD BE PRESUMED.

BUT

A WITNESS MUST ANSWER TO

THE FACT OF HIS PREVIOUS FINAL CONVICTION FOR AN OFFENSE.

In 3.4 above, unless otherwise provided by law refers to immunity statutes, such as those in which the witness is granted immunity from criminal prosecution for offenses admitted, e.g., Sec. 8 RA 1379

2. Proceedings to be Recorded Rule 132, Sec. 2 THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF A TRIAL/HEARING, INCLUDING THE QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED TO
A WITNESS AND HIS ANSWER THERETO

a.

STATEMENTS MADE BY THE JUDGE

OR ANY OF THE PARTIES, COUNSEL OR WITNESSES WITH REFERENCE TO THE CASE

How recorded? by shorthand by stenotype or iii. other means found suitable by the court b. Transcript i. made by the official stenographer, stenotypist or recorder ii. shall be certified as correct iii. deemed prima facie a correct statement of such procedings i. ii. 3. Rights and Obligations Rule 132, Sec. 3 OBLIGATION OF A WITNESS: ANSWER QUESTIONS, ALTHOUGH HIS ANSWER MAY TEND TO ESTABLISH A CLAIM AGAINST HIM. RIGHTS OF A WITNESS: 3.1 TO BE PROTECTED FROM IRRELEVANT, IMPROPER, OR INSULTING QUESTIONS, AND FROM HARSH OR INSULTING DEMEANOR ; 3.2 NOT TO BE DETAINED LONGER THAN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE REQUIRE; 3.3 NOT TO BE EXAMINED EXCEPT ONLY AS TO MATTERS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUE; 3.4 NOT TO GIVE AN ANSWER WHICH WILL TEND
TO SUBJECT HIM TO A PENALTY FOR AN BY OFFENSE LAW; OR UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED

RA 1379 Section 8. Protection against self-incrimination. Neither the respondent nor any other person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, correspondence, memoranda and other records on the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to prosecution; but no individual shall be prosecuted criminally for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege against selfincrimination, to testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and conviction for perjury or false testimony committed in so testifying or from administrative proceedings.

4. Order in the Examination Rule 132, Sec. 4 4.1 DIRECT EXAMINATION RULE 132, SEC. 5 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF OF A WITNESS BY THE
PARTY PRESENTING HIM ON THE FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE.

4.2 CROSS-EXAMINATION RULE 132, SEC. 6

MAY

WHEN MATTERS
BE

CONDUCTED :

UPON

TERMINATION OF DIRECT EXAMINATION COVERED: WITNESS BY THE

CROSS-EXAMINED

ADVERSE PARTY AS TO

(A) ANY

MATTERS OR

STATED

IN THE DIRECT THEREWITH,

EXAMINATION,

CONNECTED

WITH SUFFICIENT FULLNESS AND FREEDOM TO TEST HIS ACCURACY AND TRUTHFULNESS AND FREEDOM FROM INTEREST OR BIAS, OR THE REVERSE, AND

(B) TO

ELICIT ALL IMPORTANT

FACTS BEARING UPON THE ISSUE.

3.5
21 of 39

NOT

TO GIVE AN ANSWER WHICH WILL TEND

Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. CIR (1978) When cross-examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party who offered the witness, the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

ONE UP LAW

incompetent and should be stricken from the record Dela Paz vs. IAC (1987) Implied waiver of cross-examination The party was given the opportunity People v. Gorospe (1984) Striking out of answers not warranted when the prosecution witness was extensively cross-examined on the material points, even if the cross-examination has not been concluded. 4.3 RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION RULE 132, SEC. 7

2. 3.

4. or

On preliminary matters; When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute; Of an unwilling or hostile witness;

WHEN

CONDUCTED : AFTER THE OF THE WITNESS

CROSS-EXAMINATION HAS BEEN CONCLUDED

(Sec. 12) A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his (a) adverse interest, (b) unjustified reluctance to testify, or (c) his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. 5. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.
QUESTIONS:

WHY
THE

CONDUCTED: TO EXPLAIN HIS ANSWERS GIVEN CROSS-EXAMINATION.

OR

SUPPLEMENT

DURING

ON

RE-DIRECT-EXAMINATION , THE COURT IN ITS DISCRETION MAY ALLOW QUESTIONS ON MATTERS NOT DEALT WITH DURING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. 4.4 RE-CROSS EXAMINATION RULE 132, SEC. 8 ADVERSE PARTY MAY RE-CROSSEXAMINE THE WITNESS ON MATTERS STATED IN HIS RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION, AND ALSO ON SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS MAY BE ALLOWED BY THE COURT IN ITS DISCRETION, UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION .

MISLEADING

THOSE

THAT ASSUME AS TRUE A FACT

NOT YET TESTIFIED TO BY THE WITNESS, OR CONTRARY TO THAT WHICH HE HAS PREVIOUSLY STATED

NOT ALLOWED.

See Summary of Child Witness Rule below for procedure for child witnesses 5. Recalling Witnesses Rule 132, Sec. 9 AFTER THE EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS HAS BEEN CONCLUDED BY BOTH SIDES HAS BEEN CONCLUDED, THE WITNESS CANNOT BE RECALLED WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT. THE COURT WILL
GRANT OR WITHHOLD LEAVE IN ITS DISCRETION AS THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE.

People v. Dela Cruz ( 2002) It is usual and proper for the court to permit leading questions in conducting the examination of a witness who is immature; aged and infirm; in bad physical condition; uneducated; ignorant of, or unaccustomed to, court proceedings; inexperienced; unsophisticated; feeble-minded; of sluggish mental equipment; confused and agitated; terrified; timid or embarrassed while on the stand; lacking in comprehension of questions asked or slow to understand; deaf and dumb; or unable to speak or understand the English language or only imperfectly familiar therewith. 7. Impeachment of Witnesses 7.1. IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE PARTYS WITNESS RULE 132, SEC. 11 HOW DONE: BY CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE; BY EVIDENCE
THAT HIS GENERAL REPUTATION FOR TRUTH, HONESTY OR INTEGRITY IS BAD; OR BY EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS MADE AT OTHER TIMES STATEMENTS INCONSISTENT WITH HIS PRESENT TESTIMONY.

People vs. Rivera (1991) There must be a satisfactory showing of some concrete, substantial ground (i.e. particularly identified material points were not covered in the cross-examination; particularly described vital documents were not presented to the witness; the cross-examination was conducted in so inept a manner as to result in a virtual absence thereof. 6. Leading and Misleading Questions Rule 132, Sec. 10 LEADING QUESTIONS: QUESTIONS THAT SUGGEST TO THE WITNESS THE ANSWER, WHICH THE EXAMINING PARTY DESIRES, ARE LEADING QUESTIONS. a. General Rule: Not allowed b. Exceptions: 1. On cross examination;

EVIDENCE
ACTS

OF IS NOT

PARTICULAR ALLOWED

WRONGFUL

EXCEPT THAT IT MAY BE SHOWN BY THE EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS, OR THE RECORD OF THE JUDGMENT, THAT HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF AN OFFENSE.

7.2. IMPEACHMENT 132, SEC. 12

OF

OWN WITNESS RULE

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

22 of 39

ONE UP LAW

GENERAL RULE:

THE

PARTY

PRODUCING A WITNESS IS NOT ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THE LATTERS CREDIBILITY.

EXCEPTION #1: THE

WITNESS

IS AN UNWILLING OR HOSTILE WITNESS.

present testimony cannot serve as basis for impeaching her credibility unless a) her attention was directed to the inconsistencies or discrepancies and b) she was given an opportunity to explain said inconsistencies. Ysmael v. Hashim (50 Phil 132) Where the previous statements of a witness are offered as evidence of an admission, and not merely to impeach him, the rule on laying the predicate does not apply. People v. Relucio (1978) Unless the witness is given opportunity to explain the discrepancy, impeachment is incomplete. the the

1. A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his a. adverse interest,

b.

unjustified reluctance to testify, or c. his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. EXCEPTION #2 : WHEN
THE WITNESS IS AN ADVERSE PARTY OR AN OFFICER, DIRECTOR , OR MANAGING AGENT OF A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE CORPORATION OR OF A PARTNERSHIP OR ASSOCIATION WHICH IS AN ADVERSE PARTY

People v. Molo (1979) A defect in the impeachment of the witness is deemed waived if no objection on that ground is raised when the document involved is offered for admission. 8. THE Exclusion and Separation of Witnesses Rule 132, Sec. 15
JUDGE MAY EXCLUDE FROM THE COURT ANY WITNESS NOT AT

THE TIME UNDER EXAMINATION, SO THAT HE MAY NOT HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF OTHER WITNESSES.

1. The impeachment may be made by the party presenting the hostile or unwilling witness in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of bad character. He may also be impeached and crossexamined by the adverse party, but such crossexamination must only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief. 7.3. Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statements Rule 132, Sec. 13

THE

JUDGE MAY ALSO HAVE THE

WITNESSES SEPARATED AND PREVENTED FROM CONVERSING WITH EACH OTHER UNTIL ALL HAVE BEEN EXAMINED.

People v. Sandal (54 Phil 883) Another assignment of error alleged by the appellants in this instance deals with the trial court's refusal to admit a certain witness presented by the defense. The court took this stand for the reason that this witness had been present during the hearing notwithstanding the court's order that all witnesses leave the court room. Under such circumstances it lies within the court's discretion to admit or reject the testimony of the witness. People v. Lua Chu (56 Phil 44) With regard to the trial judge's refusal to order the exclusion of Juan Samson, the principal witness of the Government, from the court room during the hearing, it is within the power of said judge to do so or not, and it does not appear that he has abused his discretion. 9. Refreshing Recollection of Witnesses Rule 132, Sec. 16 9.1 REVIVAL OF PRESENT MEMORY A WITNESS MAY BE ALLOWED TO REFRESH HIS MEMORY RESPECTING A FACT, BY
ANYTHING WRITTEN OR RECORDED BY HIMSELF OR UNDER HIS DIRECTION AT THE TIME WHEN THE FACT THEREAFTER , OR AT ANY OTHER TIME WHEN THE FACT WAS FRESH IN HIS MEMORY AND KNEW THAT THE SAME WAS CORRECTLY OCCURRED, OR IMMEDIATELY

BEFORE
BY

A WITNESS CAN BE IMPEACHED THAT HE HAS MADE AT THE

EVIDENCE HIS

OTHER TIMES STATEMENTS INCONSISTENT WITH PRESENT STATEMENTS MUST BE RELATED TO HIM, WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TIMES AND PLACES AND THE PERSONS PRESENT, AND HE MUST BE ASKED WHETHER HE MADE SUCH STATEMENTS, AND IF SO, BE ALLOWED TO EXPLAIN THEM; IF THE STATEMENTS BE IN WRITING THEY MUST BE SHOWN TO THE WITNESS BEFORE ANY QUESTION IS PUT TO HIM CONCERNING THEM TESTIMONY:

(LAYING

THE PREDICATE).

People v. Castillano (2003) The statements of a witness prior to her

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

23 of 39

ONE UP LAW

WRITTEN OR RECORDED,

WRITING OR RECORD?

(RULE 132, SECTION 17)

ACT, DECLARATION ,

BUT

IN SUCH CASE THE WRITING OR BE PRODUCED AND MAY BE

THE

WHOLE OF THE SAME SUBJECT MAY

RECORD

MUST

INSPECTED BY THE ADVERSE PARTY, WHO MAY, IF HE CHOOSES, CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS UPON IT, AND MAY READ IT IN EVIDENCE.

BE INQUIRED INTO BY THE OTHER , AND WHEN DETACHED CONVERSATION, WRITING OR RECORD IS GIVEN CONVERSATION, WRITING OR

IN EVIDENCE, ANY OTHER ACT, DECLARATION , RECORD NECESSARY TO ITS UNDERSTANDING MAY ALSO BE GIVEN IN EVIDENCE.

THIS

PART

OF

THE

PROVISION

APPLIES

WHEN

THE

WITNESS REMEMBERS THE FACTS REGARDING HIS ENTRIES AND IS ENTITLED TO GREATER WEIGHT.

Borromeo v. CA (76) As may be observed, this provision applies only when it is shown beforehand that there is need to refresh the memory of the witness, which is not the case here. Nowhere in the record is there any indication that Alcantara needed during her testimony the aid of any memorandum in respect to the matters contained in the notes in dispute. Besides, under the above witness does not constitute evidence, and may not be admitted as such, for the simple reason that the witness has just the same to testify on the basis of refreshed memory. In other words, where the witness has testified independently of or after his testimony has been refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute, such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative evidence. It is self-evident that a witness may not be corroborated by any written statement prepared wholly by him. He cannot be more credible just because he support his opencourt declaration with written statements of the same facts even if he did prepare them during the occasion in dispute, unless the proper predicate of his failing memory is priorly laid down. What is more, even where this requirement has been satisfied, the express injunction of the rule itself is that such evidence must be received with caution, if only because it is not very difficult to conceive and fabricate evidence of this nature. This is doubly true when the witness stands to gain materially or otherwise from the admission of such evidence, which is exactly the case of Crispina Alcantara. 9.2 PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED A WITNESS MAY TESTIFY FROM SUCH WRITING OR RECORD, (AS IN THE CASE IN REVIVAL OF PRESENT MEMORY) THOUGH HE
RETAIN NO RECOLLECTION OF THE PARTICULAR FACTS, IF HE IS ABLE TO SWEAR THAT THE WRITING OR RECORD CORRECTLY STATED THE TRANSACTION WHEN MADE; BUT SUCH EVIDENCE MUST BE RECEIVED WITH CAUTION .

B. Authentication Documents

and

Proof

of

1. Classes of Documents 1.1 PUBLIC DOCUMENTS RULE 132, SEC. 19 Antillon v. Barcellon (37 Phil 148) x x x generally include notarial documents and are admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof as to its authenticity and due execution Pacific Asia Shipping v. NLRC (1988) Translations of a foreign judgment (a public document) from Arabic to English must be made by an official court interpreter of the Philippines or foreign governments or by a competent and accurate translator Adriano v. De Jesus (23 Phil 350) Only baptismal certificates issued by the priests during the Spanish regime are considered public documents 1.1.1-A Written official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country; Records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country. How Proven (Rule 132, Sec. 24) The record may be evidenced by: (1) an official publication thereof; (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the record is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul-

1.1.1-B

THIS
RECALL

RULE THE

APPLIES FACTS

WHERE

THE

WITNESS IS

DOES

NOT TO

INVOLVED

AND

ENTITLED

LESSER WEIGHT.

WHAT
PART

IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF GIVING IN EVIDENCE A OF AN ACT, DECLARATION, CONVERSATION ,

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

24 of 39

ONE UP LAW

general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. Wildvalley Shipping v. CA, (00) This section outlines the requisites for admissibility in evidence of a foreign public document. A mere copy of the foreign document, without the attestation and the certificate, is not admissible in evidence to prove foreign law

execution 1.1.3 Public Records (kept in the Philippines) of Private Documents required by law to be entered therein How Proven = Sec. 27 Such may be proved by the original record, or a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. Probative Value = Rule 132, Sec. Such documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of execution

23 Contents of Attestation (Rule 132, Sec 25): The attestation must state that the copy is a correct copy of the original or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. Irremovability of Record (Rule 132, Sec. 26): Any public record, an official copy of which is admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the office in which it is kept, except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case. Probative Value (Rule 132, Sec. 23): Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated People v. Llandelar (2001) While the birth certificate is primary evidence of a victims age in a case of statutory rape, in the absence of such evidence, the victims minority may be proved by other documentary evidence such as her baptismal certificate or other authentic records. 1.1.2 Notarial Documents except last wills and testaments; How Proven (Rule 132, Sec. 30) Notarial documents may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. Probative Value (Rule 132, Sec. 23) Such documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of

(Note: The public document is not the writing itself but the public record thereof.) Proof of Lack of Record (Sec. 28) A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody, is admissible to prove that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. 1.2 PRIVATE DOCUMENTS 1.2.1. If Offered as Authentic How Proven (Rule 132, Sec. 20) Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (1) by anyone who saw the document executed or written; or (2) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. Authentic Document Rule (Rule 132, Sec. 21) Requisites: (1) The private document is more than 30 years old; (2) It is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine; (3) It is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion. If all requisites have been met, no other evidence of its authenticity is required. Thus, the general rule is that private documents need preliminary proof of authenticity and due 1.1.4

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

25 of 39

ONE UP LAW

execution. How Genuineness of Handwriting is Proven (Rule 132, Sec. 22) It may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because a) he has seen the person write, or b) has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given c) by a comparison made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. Expert evidence may also be admitted to prove the genuineness of the handwriting (Rule 130, Sec. 49) Method b) is an exception to the opinion rule (see Rule 130, Secs. 48, 50) Lopez v. CA, (78) Section 22 merely enumerates the methods of proving handwriting but does not give preference or priority to a particular method 1.2.2. If not offered as authentic

IV.

WAS

OTHERWISE

PROPERLY OR INNOCENT MADE, OR

v.
DID NOT

THAT CHANGE

THE THE

ALTERATION MEANING OR

LANGUAGE OF THE INSTRUMENT.

4. Seal Rule 132, Sec. 32 THERE SHALL BE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

IS CONCERNED.

SEALED AND UNSEALED

PRIVATE DOCUMENTS INSOFAR AS THEIR ADMISSIBILITY AS EVIDENCE

5. Documents Written in an Unofficial Language Rule 132, Sec.33 NOT ADMISSIBLE UNLESS ACCOMPANIED WITH A TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH OR FILIPINO; PARTIES OR THEIR ATTORNEYS ARE DIRECTED TO HAVE SUCH TRANSLATION PREPARED BEFORE TRIAL.

C. Offer and Objection

1. Offer of Evidence Rule 132, Sec, 34 WHY MADE? FOR EVIDENCE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT COURT SHALL CONSIDER NO EVIDENCE, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY OFFERED. IN MAKING THE OFFER, THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE EVIDENCE IS OFFERED MUST BE SPECIFIED, BECAUSE SUCH
EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE FOR SEVERAL PURPOSES UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF

MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY

1.1 When to make offer (Rule 132, Sec. 35)

Testimonial Evidence: at the time the witness is called to testify. Documentary AND Object Evidence: after the presentation of a partys testimonial evidence; offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. 2. Objection - Rule 132, Sec. 36 TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE: MUST BE OBJECTED TO IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE OFFER IS MADE. OBJECTION TO A QUESTION PROPOUNDED
IN THE COURSE OF THE ORAL EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS APPARENT. SHALL BE MADE AS SOON AS THE GROUNDS THEREFORE SHALL BECOME REASONABLY

How Proven (Rule 132, Sec. 20) The document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. E.g. When one offers a falsified document in evidence, then it is not offered as authentic. It is because the factum probandum is not the authenticity of the document. 2. Impeachment of Judicial Record Rule 132, Sec. 29 HOW DONE BY EVIDENCE OF (A) WANT OF JURISDICTION IN THE COURT OR JUDICIAL OFFICER; (B) COLLUSION BETWEEN THE PARTIES; OR (C) FRAUD IN THE PARTY OFFERING THE RECORD, IN RESPECT TO THE PROCEEDINGS. 3. Alterations Rule 132, Sec. 31 a. THE PARTY PRODUCING A DOCUMENT AS GENUINE,
EXECUTION, IN A PART MATERIAL TO THE DISPUTE, MUST ACCOUNT FOR THE ALTERATION.

WHEN OFFER
ALLOWED

DONE IN WRITING: SHALL BE OBJECTED TO WITHIN

DAYS AFTER NOTICE OF THE OFFER UNLESS A DIFFERENT PERIOD IS WHICH HAS IN TO BY THE COURT. THE GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION MUST BE SPECIFIED IN ANY CASE.

BEEN ALTERED AND APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ALTERED AFTER ITS QUESTION

DO SO WOULD RESULT IN THE INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE.

FAILURE

b.

HE

MAY SHOW THAT THE ALTERATION WAS MADE I. II. BY ANOTHER , WITHOUT WAS MADE WITH HIS THE

CONCURRENCE, OR III. IT, OR CONSENT OF THE PARTIES AFFECTED BY

2.1 When repetition is unnecessary (Rule 132, Sec. 37) It shall not be necessary to repeat the objection when it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the questions being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made, whether such objection was sustained or overruled. It shall be sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to such

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

26 of 39

ONE UP LAW

class of questions. 2.2 Ruling (Rule 132, Sec. 38) Given immediately after the objection is made, unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented; but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling. The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. However, if the objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. 3. Motion to Strike Rule 132, Sec. 39 a. THE COURT MAY SUSTAIN AN OBJECTION AND ORDER

People vs. Tavera (47 Phil. 645) Reservation of a ruling by the court on an objection to the admissibility of evidence, without subsequently excluding the same, amounts to a denial of an objection Vda. De Flores v. WCC (1977) Documents marked as exhibits during the hearing but which were not formally offered in evidence cannot be considered as evidence nor shall they have evidentiary value. People v. Mate (1981) In a criminal case for kidnapping with murder, the defect caused by the absence of formal offer of exhibits were cured by the identification of the exhibits by testimony duly recorded and the incorporation of the said exhibits in the records of the case. Keller v. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship (38 Phil. 514) A court may treat the objection as a continuing one, motu proprio.

THE

ANSWER GIVEN TO BE STRICKEN OFF THE RECORD SHOULD A WITNESS ANSWER THE QUESTION BEFORE THE ADVERSE PARTY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE FULLY ITS OBJECTION AND SUCH OBJECTION IS FOUND TO BE MERITORIOUS.

b.

THE

COURT MAY ALSO, UPON PROPER MOTION, ORDER THE OUT OF ANSWERS, WHICH ARE INCOMPETENT,

STRIKING

IRRELEVANT OR OTHERWISE IMPROPER.

4. Tender of Excluded Evidence Rule 132, Sec. 40 a. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: THE OFFEROR MAY HAVE THE SAME ATTACHED OR MADE PART OF THE RECORD. b. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE: THE OFFEROR MAY STATE FOR THE
RECORD THE NAME AND OTHER PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE WITNESS AND THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PROPOSED TESTIMONY.

V. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence (rule 133)

Required Quantum of Evidence
A. Preponderance of Evidence (Civil Cases) Rule 133, Sec. 1 1. How determined? THE COURT MAY CONSIDER: A. ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE; B. THE WITNESSES MANNER OF TESTIFYING; C. THEIR INTELLIGENCE; D. THEIR MEANS AND OPPORTUNITY OF KNOWING THE FACTS TO WHICH THEY TESTIFY; E. THE PROBABILITY OR IMPROBABILITY OF THEIR TESTIMONY; F. THEIR INTEREST OR WANT OF INTEREST; G. PERSONAL CREDIBILITY SO FAR AS THE SAME MAY LEGITIMATELY APPEAR UPON THE TRIAL; H. NUMBER OF WITNESSES (NOTE PREPONDERANCE THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY EQUATED WITH THE NO. OF WITNESSES)

Interpacific Transit vs. Aviles, (1990) There is a distinction between identification of documentary evidence and its formal offer as an exhibit. The former is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence while the latter is done only when the party rests his/her case. That a document has been identified does not mean that it will be offered. Catuira vs. CA, (1994) While there was no offer of the testimony, petitioner waived this defect by failing to object when the ground became reasonably apparent the moment private respondent was called to testify without any prior offer having been made. Vda. De Orate vs. CA, (1995) The rule requiring that there must be a formal offer of evidence before the evidence can be considered may be relaxed provided the evidence must have duly identified by testimony duly recorded and they must have been incorporated in the records of the case.

B. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Criminal Cases) Rule 133, Sec. 2

1. What is proof beyond reasonable doubt? A. THAT DEGREE OF PROOF
WHICH MIND. B. PRODUCES CONVICTION IN AN UNPREJUDICED CERTAINTY IS

ABSOLUTE

NOT REQUIRED, ONLY MORAL CERTAINTY.

People v. Cabrera (1990) Findings of the judge who tried the case and heard the witnesses are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless there are substantial facts and

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

27 of 39

ONE UP LAW

circumstances which have been overlooked and which, if properly considered, might affect the result. People v. Escalante (1984) and People v. CA, (2000) If the issue revolved on the identification of the accused or credibility of witness and one judge heard the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, but a different judge penned the decision, the above rule does not apply since the latter judge is not in a better position than the appellate courts to make the determination. Caluna v. Vicente (1951) As a general rule, the number of witnesses should not in and by itself determine the weight of evidence. The numerical factor may be considered in case of conflicting testimonies of witnesses. People v. Juliada (54 Phil 485) The testimony of the offended party is not essential to convict an accused if there are already other evidence to prove guilt. People v. Vinas (1968) Inconsistencies or contradictions on mere details in the testimony of a witness do not materially impair the credibility of such witness, but on the contrary such are indications of veracity rather than prevarication. People v. Baao (1986) The present rule in the Philippines is that the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not an absolute one nor mandatory and binding upon the court which may accept or reject portions of the witness testimony depending on the inherent credibility thereof or the corroborative evidence in the case. People v. Hijada (04) The perpetrators of the crime saw to it that no one was left alive who could testify against them. Hence, no eyewitness could be presented who would directly link appellants to the crime. Nevertheless, the Court has held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: a) there is more than one circumstance; b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Habagat Grill v. DMC Urban, (2005) Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. Where the evidence presented by one side is insufficient to ascertain the claim, there is no preponderance of evidence. In criminal cases in

which the quantum of evidence required is greater than in civil cases, the testimony of only one witness -- if credible, straightforward, and worthy of belief -- is sufficient to convict. Under Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, among the facts and circumstances to be considered by the court in determining which of the presented evidence has superior weight is the witnesses means and opportunity to know the facts to which they testify. (see this case for discussion on factors affecting means and opportunity to know the facts to which they testify). Quinto v. Andres (05) Insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned, the prosecution or the private complainant is burdened to adduce preponderance of evidence or superior weight of evidence. Although the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is stronger than that presented by the defendant, he is not entitled to a judgment if his evidence is not sufficient to sustain his cause of action. The plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of the defendants.

C. Substantial Evidence (Administrative/Quasi-Judicial Cases) Rule133, Sec. 5

1. What is substantial evidence? THE AMOUNT OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE WHICH A
REASONABLE MIND

MIGHT ACCEPT AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION

D. Extrajudicial Confessions Rule 133, Sec. 3

AN
EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION MADE BY AN ACCUSED, IS NOT A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR CONVICTION BY EVIDENCE OF CORPUS DELICTI.

UNLESS

CORROBORATED

Corpus delicti means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. It is made up of two things the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result. People v. Garcia (99 Phil 381) In murder, the fact of death is the corpus delicti. People v. Mutuc (1984) Where there is doubt as to the identity of a cadaver, in the absence of any other evidence, there is no corpus delicti. People v. Comendador (1980) The expression corpus delicti is not synonymous with the whole charge so as to require that all the elements of the crime be

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

28 of 39

ONE UP LAW

established independently of the extrajudicial confession.

MOTU
WHEN TO

PROPRIO OR ON MOTION OF A PARTY, IT FINDS THAT SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT

EXISTS REGARDING THE ABILITY OF THE CHILD PERCEIVE, REMEMBER, FROM COMMUNICATE, FALSEHOOD, OR

E. Circumstantial Evidence Rule 133, Sec. 4

1. Requisites for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction a. THERE IS MORE THAN 1 CIRCUMSTANCE; b. THE FACTS FROM WHICH THE INFERENCES ARE DERIVED ARE PROVEN; AND c. THE COMBINATION OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS SUCH
AS TO PRODUCE A CONVICTION BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

DISTINGUISH COURT.

TRUTH

APPRECIATE THE DUTY TO TELL THE TRUTH IN

(SS6)
SEEKING MUST OF A COMPETENCY PROOF OF EXAMINATION . COMPETENCY PRESENT

PARTY

EXAMINATION NECESSITY

COMPETENCY FOR A

THE B. WHO ARE THE -

AGE OF THE CHILD BY ITSELF IS NOT A BASIS

SUFFICIENT EXAMINATION.

ALLOWED TO ATTENDJUDGE AND NECESSARY COURT

(SS6(A))

Under the RPC, one cannot be convicted of treason by means of circumstantial evidence (Art. 114, RPC, see two witness rule) MAY THE YES
POINT COURT STOP THE INTRODUCTION OF FURTHER UPON CANNOT ANY BE PARTICULAR REASONABLY POINT WHEN TO THE BE

PERSONNEL;

THE COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES; THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM; SUPPORT PERSON/S FOR THE CHILD; AND THE DEFENDANT, UNLESS THE COURT
DETERMINES THAT COMPETENCE CAN BE FULLY EVALUATED IN HIS ABSENCE.

TESTIMONY? THE SAME

EVIDENCE UPON IT IS ALREADY SO FULL THAT MORE WITNESSES TO EXPECTED ADDITIONALLY WITH CAUTION. PERSUASIVE; THIS POWER SHOULD BE EXERCISED

(RULE 133, SECTION 6)

WILL THE COURT DISPOSE OF A MOTION WHICH IS

(SS6(C)) C. HOW CONDUCTEDBY WHOM CONDUCTED:

BY

THE

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, HOWEVER, CAN MAY, IN HIS DISCRETION , ASK THE CHILD.

JUDGE,

BASED ON FACTS NOT APPEARING OF RECORD? THE MATTER ON

HOW

SUBMIT QUESTIONS TO THE JUDGE THAT HE

COURT

MAY HEAR

THAT THE MATTER BE

AFFIDAVITS OR DEPOSITIONS
HEARD WHOLLY OR PARTLY ON ORAL

(SS6(D)) QUESTIONS
AND

ASKED: APPROPRIATE TO THE AGE LEVEL OF THE CHILD;

DEVELOPMENTAL

SHALL NOT BE RELATED TO THE ISSUES AT TRIAL; AND SHALL FOCUS ON THE ABILITY OF THE CHILD TO REMEMBER, DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TRUTH COMMUNICATE, AND

PRESENTED BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES BUT THE COURT MAY DIRECT TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITIONS.

(RULE 133, SECTION 7)

Rule on Examination of a Child Witness

APPLICABILITY OF THIS RULE SHALL
WHO ARE WITNESSES WITNESSES. TO THE

FALSEHOOD, AND APPRECIATE THE DUTY TO

III. A. B.

TESTIFY TRUTHFULLY.

THE

(SS6(E)) (SS6(F))

COURT HAS THE DUTY OF CONTINUOUSLY

ASSESSING THE COMPETENCE OF THE CHILD THROUGHOUT HIS TESTIMONY.

RULE. UNLESS
CRIME,

OTHERWISE PROVIDED, OF IN A CRIME, ALL AND

GOVERN THE EXAMINATION OF CHILD WITNESSES OF ACCUSED CRIME.

VICTIMS

TESTIFYING OATH: BEFORE

TESTIFYING, A CHILD SHALL TAKE AN

PROCEEDINGS AND NON-CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING CHILD

IT

SHALL

APPLY

CRIMINAL

(SS1) CHILD WITNESS I. DEFINITION (SS4(A)) 1.

OF GIVING TESTIMONY IS

2.
CHILD INCLUDES ONE

ANY PERSON WHO AT THE TIME < 18 YEARS. IN CHILD ABUSE CASES: A OVER EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS BUT

IS FOUND BY THE COURT AS UNABLE TO FULLY TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF OR PROTECT HIMSELF FROM ABUSE, NEGLECT, OF A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY OR CONDITION. OF A QUALIFIED OF PROOF CRUELTY, EXPLOITATION, OR DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE

(SS7) EXAMINATION 1. HOW CONDUCTED GENERAL RULE: OPEN COURT, UNLESS THE WITNESS IS INCAPACITATED TO SPEAK, OR THE QUESTION CALLS FOR A DIFFERENT MODE OF ANSWER , THE ANSWERS OF THE WITNESS SHALL BE GIVEN ORALLY. (SS8) EXCEPTION/S: A) EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC WHY MADE: TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF
THE CHILD OR

OATH OR AFFIRMATION TO TELL THE TRUTH.

IF

THE

COURT

DETERMINES

ON

THE

II.

COMPETENCY
PRESUMED BURDEN OF

PRESUMPTION COMPETENCE.

CHILD WITNESS: EVERY CHILD IS TO BE A WITNESS. TO REBUT THE COMPETENCE ENJOYED BY A CHILD, THE
LIES ON THE PARTY CHALLENGING EXAM HIS

RECORD THAT REQUIRING THE CHILD TO TESTIFY IN OPEN COURT WOULD CAUSE PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM TO HIM, HINDER THE ASCERTAINMENT OF TRUTH, OR RESULT IN HIS INABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE DUE TO EMBARRASSMENT, FEAR, OR TIMIDITY.

(SSSS6, 6(B)) 1. COMPETENCY A. WHEN CONDUCTED-

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

29 of 39

ONE UP LAW

IN

MAKING THE

ITS

ORDER , OF

THE THE

COURT

SHALL THE

THE

JUDGE MAY EXCLUDE ANY PERSON, THE ACCUSED, WHOSE

CONSIDER THE DEVELOPMENTAL LEVEL OF THE CHILD, NATURE CRIME, NATURE OF HIS TESTIMONY REGARDING THE CRIME, HIS RELATIONSHIP TO THE ACCUSED AND TO PERSONS ATTENDING THE TRIAL, HIS DESIRES, AND THE INTERESTS OF HIS PARENTS OR LEGAL GUARDIAN.

INCLUDING THE CHILD.

PRESENCE OR CONDUCT CAUSES FEAR TO

ORDER TV:

DENYING/GRANTING USE OF LIVE-LINK

THE

COURT OR

SHALL

ISSUE

AN

ORDER USE OF

THE
THE

COURT MAY, MOTU PROPRIO, EXCLUDE PUBLIC FROM THE COURTROOM IF THE

GRANTING

DENYING

THE

LIVE-LINK TELEVISION AND STATING THE REASONS THEREFOR.

EVIDENCE TO BE PRODUCED DURING TRIAL IS OF SUCH CHARACTER AS TO BE OFFENSIVE TO DECENCY OR PUBLIC MORALS.

FACTORS

CONSIDERED

BY

THE

COURT

IN

GRANTING/DENYING APPLICATION :

THE

COURT MAY ALSO, ON MOTION OF THE

ACCUSED, EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC FROM TRIAL, EXCEPT COURT PERSONNEL AND THE COUNSEL OF THE PARTIES. MAY ORDER THAT PERSONS ATTENDING SHALL NOT ENTER OR LEAVE THE

(1)THE (2)HIS
HEALTH,

AGE

AND

LEVEL

OF

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHILD; PHYSICAL AND MENTAL ANY MENTAL OR INCLUDING

B)

(SS23) THE COURT

THE TRIAL

PHYSICAL DISABILITY;

(3)ANY
BY HIM;

PHYSICAL, EMOTIONAL ,

COURTROOM DURING THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHILD.

OR PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY EXPERIENCED

c)

(SS24) MOTION
OR THE WITNESS IN THIS I.

(4)THE (5)ANY (6)HIS (7)HIS (8)HIS

NATURE

OF

THE

BY PARTY WHO PRESENTS A CHILD WITNESS GUARDIAN MAY, AD LITEM MOVE OF SUCH CHILD TO HOWEVER ,

ALLEGED ABUSE; CHILD;

THREATS AGAINST THE RELATIONSHIP REACTION TO WITH ANY

THE

COURT

ALLOW HIM TO TESTIFY IN THE MANNER PROVIDED

RULE (SS8):
TELEVISION CASES WHERE FOR CHILD TESTIMONY THE AN BE CHILD ORDER TAKEN IS IN A

THE ACCUSED OR ADVERSE PARTY; PRIOR ENCOUNTERS WITH THE ACCUSED IN COURT OR ELSEWHERE; REACTION THE PRIOR TOPIC TO OF OR OF TRIAL HIM WHEN BY

LIVE-LINK
CRIMINAL

VICTIM OR A WITNESS.

WHO

(SS25)
THAT IN A BE

MAY

APPLY OF THE THE

TESTIMONY ROOM

TESTIFYING WAS DISCUSSED WITH PARENTS SYMPTOMS PROFESSIONALS;

OUTSIDE

COURTROOM

AND

TELEVISED TO THE COURTROOM BY LIVE-LINK TELEVISION:

1 2

PROSECUTOR, COUNSEL OR THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR SUCH FIVE APPLICATION : AN THE ORDER DAYS COURT

(9)SPECIFIC

STRESS EXHIBITED BY THE CHILD IN THE DAYS PRIOR TO TESTIFYING;

PERIOD
SEEKING LEAST DATE,

THE

PERSON APPLY AT THE TRIAL

LAY WITNESSES;

(10)TESTIMONY

OF EXPERT OR

SHALL FINDS

(11)THE

CUSTODIAL SITUATION

(5)

BEFORE

THE ON

OF THE CHILD AND THE ATTITUDE OF THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY REGARDING THE EVENTS ABOUT WHICH HE WILL TESTIFY; AND

UNLESS

RECORD THAT THE NEED FOR SUCH AN ORDER WAS NOT REASONABLY FORESEEABLE.

HEARING

ON THE APPLICATION : COURT MAY MOTU PROPRIO HEAR

(12)OTHER

RELEVANT AS COURT

THE

FACTORS,

SUCH

AND DETERMINE, WITH NOTICE TO THE PARTIES, TESTIMONY THE OF NEED THE FOR TAKING THE CHILD THROUGH

ATMOSPHERE AND FORMALITIES OF COURT PROCEDURE.

LIVE-LINK TELEVISION.

THE
OF

COURT MAY ORDER THAT THE TESTIMONY THE CHILD IF BE THERE TAKEN IS A BY LIVE-LINK SUBSTANTIAL

THE

JUDGE MAY QUESTION THE CHILD IN

TELEVISION

CHAMBERS, OR IN SOME COMFORTABLE PLACE OTHER THAN THE COURTROOM, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SUPPORT PERSON, GUARDIAN AD LITEM, PROSECUTOR , AND COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHILD WOULD SUFFER TRAUMA FROM TESTIFYING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PROSECUTOR AS THE CASE MAY BE. ACCUSED, HIS COUNSEL OR THE

THE

THE

TRAUMA MUST BE OF A KIND WHICH WOULD IMPAIR THE COMPLETENESS OR TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHILD.

QUESTIONS OF THE JUDGE SHALL NOT BE RELATED TO THE ISSUES AT TRIAL BUT TO THE FEELINGS OF THE CHILD ABOUT TESTIFYING IN THE COURTROOM.

HOW

DONE:

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

30 of 39

ONE UP LAW

1 2

WHERE TESTIMONY IS TAKEN: IN A ROOM SEPARATE FROM THE COURTROOM WHO ARE PRESENT:

GUARDIAN

AD

LITEM

(CONSULTATION TV.

WITH PROSECUTOR OR COUNSEL AS IN APPLICATION FOR USE OF LIVE-LINK HIS ALSO REQUIRED)

i.

GUARDIAN AD LITEM; ONE OR BOTH OF

II. III. IV. V.

SUPPORT PERSONS; THE FACILITATOR AND A INTERPRETER , COURT IF

ORDER GRANTING 1 THE COURT

THE

APPLICATION: SHALL ISSUE AN ORDER

STATING THE REASONS AND DESCRIBING APPROVED COURTROOM ARRANGEMENT

ANY;

OFFICER

APPOINTED BY THE COURT; VI. OPERATE VII. PERSONS NECESSARY TO THE CLOSED-CIRCUIT

IF
TO

THE COURT GRANTS AN APPLICATION SHIELD THE CHILD FROM IN THE THE WHILE TESTIFYING

ACCUSED

TELEVISION EQUIPMENT; AND OTHER PERSONS WHOSE III. PRESENCE ARE DETERMINED BY THE COURT TO BE NECESSARY TO THE WELFARE AND WELL-BEING OF THE CHILD;

COURTROOM, THE COURTROOM SHALL BE ARRANGED TO ENABLE THE ACCUSED TO VIEW THE CHILD.

WHO

VIDEOTAPED
MAY AND

DEPOSITION. FOR IT AN BE

(SS27)
ORDER THAT A

APPLY THAT

DEPOSITION BE TAKEN OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHILD RECORDED AND PRESERVED ON VIDEOTAPE?

THE

THE

JUDGE, AND

PROSECUTOR , FOR THE

ACCUSED,

COUNSEL

PARTIES SHALL BE IN THE COURTROOM. TESTIMONY OF THE CHILD SHALL BE BY LIVE-LINK TELEVISION TRANSMITTED

1 2

PROSECUTOR, COUNSEL , OR

GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROSECUTOR OR

(CONSULTATION
COUNSEL AS

WITH IN

INTO THE COURTROOM FOR VIEWING AND HEARING BY THE JUDGE, PROSECUTOR , COUNSEL VICTIM, FOR THE PARTIES, ACCUSED, AND THE PUBLIC UNLESS

APPLICATION FOR USE OF LIVE-LINK ALSO REQUIRED)

TV.

WHEN
OPEN

ALLOWED:IF THE COURT FINDS THAT COURT AT TRIAL, IT SHALL ISSUE AN

EXCLUDED.

THE CHILD WILL NOT BE ABLE TO TESTIFY IN ORDER THAT THE DEPOSITION OF THE CHILD BE TAKEN AND PRESERVED BY VIDEOTAPE. IV.

IF

IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE CHILD

TO IDENTIFY THE ACCUSED AT TRIAL, THE COURT MAY ALLOW THE CHILD TO ENTER THE COURTROOM FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF IDENTIFYING THE ACCUSED, OR THE COURT MAY ALLOW THE CHILD TO IDENTIFY THE THE ACCUSED OF COURT THE THE BY OBSERVING ON A IMAGE LATTER SET

DEPOSITION-TAKING WHO ARE PRESENT 1 JUDGE

WHO SHALL PRESIDE AT THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF A CHILD;

TELEVISION MONITOR.

THE
OF

MAY

OTHER ON THE THAT IT

CONDITIONS TAKING INTO

AND LIMITATIONS TESTIMONY THE OF ON

2 PROSECUTOR; 3 DEFENSE COUNSEL; 4 GUARDIAN AD LITEM; 5 ACCUSED, PROVIDED

THAT, IF THE ORDER

FINDS JUST AND APPROPRIATE, TAKING CONSIDERATION BEST CHILD SIMILAR SHALL ORDER BE AS INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.

OF THE COURT IS BASED ON EVIDENCE THAT THE CHILD IS UNABLE TO TESTIFY IN THE PHYSICAL PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED, THE COURT MAY DIRECT THE LATTER TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE ROOM IN WHICH THE DEPOSITION IS CONDUCTED. EXCLUSION OF THE ACCUSED, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHILD BE TAKEN BY LIVE-LINK TELEVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION

THE
BE

TESTIMONY PRESERVED DISC, OR

THE

SHALL DIGITAL THE

VIDEOTAPE,

IN

CASE OF

OTHER AND

DEVICES WHICH SHALL BE MADE PART OF COURT TO RECORD A SUBJECT II. PROTECTIVE

PROVIDED IN SECTION

SCREENS,
DEVICES TO

ONE-WAY

31(B). MIRRORS, AND

RULE.
OTHER FROM

IF
THE

25

OF THIS IS NOT

THE

ACCUSED

IS IT

EXCLUDED

SHIELD CHILD FROM

(SS26) WHO MAY

ACCUSED.

DEPOSITION ,

NECESSARY THAT THE CHILD BE ABLE TO

APPLY FOR AN ORDER THAT THE

6 OTHER

VIEW AN IMAGE OF THE ACCUSED. PERSONS BY WHOSE THE PRESENCE TO IS BE DETERMINED COURT

CHAIR OF THE CHILD OR THAT A SCREEN OR OTHER DEVICE BE PLACED IN THE COURTROOM IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE CHILD CANNOT SEE THE ACCUSED WHILE TESTIFYING:

NECESSARY TO THE WELFARE AND WELLBEING OF THE CHILD;

7 SUPPORT 8 COURT

PERSON/S, THE FACILITATOR AND

PROSECUTOR OR

INTERPRETER, IF ANY;

STENOGRAPHER ; AND

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

31 of 39

ONE UP LAW

9 PERSONS

NECESSARY

TO

OPERATE

THE

WHEN FILIPINO

APPOINTED:WHEN

CHILD OR

VIDEOTAPE EQUIPMENT.

DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE

ENGLISH

LANGUAGE OR IS UNABLE TO DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY, LEVEL, OR FEAR, OTHER

OBJECTIONS
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

TO

TESTIMONY

OR

EVIDENCE;

COMMUNICATE IN SAID LANGUAGES DUE TO HIS SHYNESS,

1 OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE, OR PARTS THEREOF, AND THE

GROUNDS FOR THE OBJECTION SHALL BE STATED AND SHALL BE RULED UPON AT THE TIME OF THE TAKING OF THE DEPOSITION .

SIMILAR REASON

WHO

MAY BE INTERPRETER ? A WITNESS OR MEMBER OF THE OF THE CHILD CAN IS THE AS ONLY AN WHO SERVE

F I
FAMILY PERSON

2 THE
AND THE

RIGHTS TO

OF

THE

ACCUSED

DURING

TRIAL, ESPECIALLY THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL CONFRONT SHALL AND NOT CHILD, BE

INTERPRETER FOR THE CHILD, HE SHALL NOT BE DISQUALIFIED AND MAY SERVE AS THE INTERPRETER OF THE CHILD.

CROSS-EXAMINE VIOLATED

THE

DURING THE DEPOSITION.

INTERPRETER , HOWEVER , WHO IS ALSO A SHALL AND BE THE BE FOR WITNESS, SHALL TESTIFY AHEAD OF THE CHILD.

3 THE

VIDEOTAPED AND

DEPOSITION VIDEOTAPE

PRESERVED RECORDED. STENOGRAPHIC WHERE THE

STENOGRAPHICALLY SHALL PENDING

THE

NOTES CASE IS

AN

INTERPRETER

SHALL

TAKE

AN

TRANSMITTED TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT SAFEKEEPING AND SHALL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.

OATH OR AFFIRMATION TO MAKE A TRUE AND ACCURATE INTERPRETATION.

2.
THAT IT

THE
FINDS THE

COURT JUST AND

MAY

SET

OTHER TAKING OF THE

CONDITIONS ON THE TAKING OF THE DEPOSITION APPROPRIATE, RIGHTS INTO CONSIDERATION THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, CONSTITUTIONAL ACCUSED, AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS.

(b) FACILITATOR TO POSE QUESTIONS TO CHILD (SS10) HOW APPOINTED: THE COURT MOTU PROPRIO OR UPON MOTION, WHEN APPOINTED: CHILD IS UNABLE TO
UNDERSTAND OR RESPOND TO QUESTIONS ASKED.

WHO
AND TO A

MAY

BE

A MAY

FACILITATOR : BE A

THE
CHILD

3.
PROTECTIVE

THE

VIDEOTAPED SHALL AS

DEPOSITION BE SUBJECT IN

FACILITATOR PSYCHOLOGIST, WORKER, TEACHER,

STENOGRAPHIC

NOTES

PSYCHIATRIST, LEADER,

SOCIAL PARENT,

ORDER

PROVIDED

SECTION

GUIDANCE RELIGIOUS

COUNSELOR ,

31(B). 4.
COURT OF

OR RELATIVE.

THE

FACILITATOR SHALL

I F,
FINDS

AT

THE THE IS OF

TIME CHILD

OF IS

TRIAL, UNABLE FOR

THE TO ANY

TAKE AN OATH OR AFFIRMATION TO POSE QUESTIONS TO THE CHILD ACCORDING TO THE MEANING INTENDED BY COUNSEL.

THAT OR

TESTIFY FOR A REASON STATED IN SECTION THIS

RULE,

25(F)

UNAVAILABLE

REASON DESCRIBED IN SECTION OF THE

1997 RULES
OF AT THE THE

4(C), RULE 23 CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE

IN LIEU OF HIS SHALL

FUNCTION RESPECTIVE

OF

FACILITATOR :

COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

SHALL POSE QUESTIONS TO THE CHILD ONLY THROUGH THE FACILITATOR. QUESTIONS SHALL EITHER BE IN

COURT MAY ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY CHILD TRIAL.

THE
THE

ISSUE AN ORDER STATING THE REASONS THEREFOR .

THE

COURT

WORDS USED BY COUNSEL OR, IF THE CHILD IS NOT LIKELY TO UNDERSTAND THE SAME, IN WORDS TO THE THAT CHILD ARE AND COMPREHENSIBLE

5.

BUT BEFORE OR DURING TRIAL, ANY PARTY MAY FILE ANY MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL VIDEOTAPING ON THE GROUND OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. COURT MAY ORDER AN ADDITIONAL

AFTER

THE

ORIGINAL

VIDEOTAPING

WHICH CONVEY THE MEANING INTENDED BY COUNSEL. (c) SUPPORT PERSONS (SS11) A CHILD TESTIFYING AT SHALL HAVE THE

THE

VIDEOTAPED

DEPOSITION TO RECEIVE THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.

JUDICIAL TO BE

PROCEEDING OR MAKING A DEPOSITION RIGHT ACCOMPANIED BY ONE OR TWO PERSONS OF HIS OWN CHOOSING TO PROVIDE HIM EMOTIONAL SUPPORT.

C.
RESTED.

WHEN (SS14)

CONDUCTED:

THE

COURT MAY

ORDER THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHILD SHOULD BE TAKEN DURING A TIME OF DAY WHEN THE CHILD IS WELL-

D.

PROVISIONS

FOR EASE OF CHILD IN

(1)BOTH
PERSONS SHALL REMAIN HIS TESTIMONY.

SUPPORT WITHIN

TESTIFYING/ACCOMMODATIONS FOR A CHILD

(a) INTERPRETER FOR CHILD (SS9) HOW APPOINTED: THE COURT

PROPRIO OR UPON MOTION

THE VIEW OF THE CHILD DURING MOTU

(2)ONE

OF

THE

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

32 of 39

ONE UP LAW

SUPPORT PERSONS MAY ACCOMPANY THE CHILD TO THE WITNESS STAND, PROVIDED DOES NOT THE SUPPORT PERSON OBSCURE OR MAY TO COMPLETELY PARTY,

MAY

ALSO THE

BE

REARRANGED TO SEE AND

TO THE HIS

ALLOW

CHILD PARTY

OPPOSING

COUNSEL , IF HE CHOOSES TO LOOK AT THEM, WITHOUT BODY OR LEAVING STAND. TURNING HIS THE WITNESS

THE CHILD FROM THE VIEW OF THE OPPOSING JUDGE, COURT PERSON HEARING OFFICER. ALLOW THE

(3)THE
SUPPORT

4 5

THE

JUDGE NEED NOT WEAR HIS

JUDICIAL ROBE.

HOLD THE HAND OF THE CHILD OR TAKE OTHER APPROPRIATE STEPS TO PROVIDE EMOTIONAL SUPPORT TO THE CHILD IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS.

NOTHING

IN THIS SECTION OR ANY

OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, EXCEPT OFFICIAL IN-COURT IDENTIFICATION PROVISIONS, SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE A CHILD TO LOOK AT THE ACCUSED.

(4)THE
INSTRUCT NOT TO THE PROMPT,

COURT SHALL PERSONS OR SWAY,

SUPPORT

ACCOMMODATIONS
SUPPORTED BY A

FOR THE CHILD

UNDER THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE FINDING OF TRAUMA TO THE CHILD.

INFLUENCE THE CHILD DURING HIS TESTIMONY.

SUPPORT PERSON, ALSO A WITNESS 1 DISAPPROVED IF IT

SUFFICIENTLY PERSON OF THE ESTABLISHED THE

(f) RECESS DURING TESTIMONY (SS15) THE CHILD MAY BE ALLOWED

IS THAT REASONABLE WHILE PERIODS OF RELIEF DIRECT, OFTEN ON AS HIS UNDERGOING AS CROSS, RE-DIRECT, AND RE-CROSS EXAMINATIONS NECESSARY DEPENDING

THE ATTENDANCE OF THE SUPPORT DURING CHILD OR TESTIMONY POSE A OF THE WOULD RISK AFFECTING

SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCING THE CHILD.

CONTENT OF THE TESTIMONY OF

IF

DEVELOPMENTAL LEVEL. (g) TESTIMONIAL AIDS (SS16): USE OF DOLLS, ANATOMICALLY-CORRECT DOLLS, PUPPETS, DRAWINGS, MANNEQUINS, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE DEMONSTRATIVE DEVICE TO ASSIST HIM ITEM IN HIS TESTIMONY.

ALLOWED

HIS TESTIMONY

SHALL BE PRESENTED AHEAD OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHILD.

(d) WAITING (SS12)

WAITING PERSONS.

AREA THAT

FOR IS

CHILD

WITNESSES FROM OTHER BY

SEPARATE USED

(h) EMOTIONAL SECURITY WHILE TESTIFYING, A

(SS17):

CHILD SHALL BE

AREAS

ALLOWED TO HAVE AN ITEM OF HIS OWN CHOOSING SUCH AS A BLANKET, TOY, OR DOLL

(e) COURTROOM AIM: CREATE

ENVIRONMENT A MAY, AND OF MORE

(SS13)
COMFORTABLE

ENVIRONMENT FOR THE CHILD

COURT DIRECT

IN ITS DISCRETION, SUPERVISE MOVEMENT ALL INCLUDING PERSONS THE AND IN THE

(i) CONDUCT IN QUESTIONING THE WITNESS: I. CONDUCT OF COUNSEL : A

COUNSEL MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM APPROACHING IS FEARFUL A CHILD OF BY OR THE IF IT APPEARS THAT THE CHILD INTIMIDATED COUNSEL.

LOCATION , DEPORTMENT THE PARTIES,

COURTROOM

THEIR COUNSEL , CHILD, SUPPORT PERSONS,

WITNESSES,

(SS18)

GUARDIAN AD LITEM, FACILITATOR , AND COURT PERSONNEL.

II.MODE OF QUESTIONING :

- THE

COURT SHALL EXERCISE THE QUESTIONING THE THAT THE OF THE

THE THE

CHILD MAY BE ALLOWED TO

CONTROL

OVER

TESTIFY FROM A PLACE OTHER THAN THE WITNESS CHAIR.

OF CHILDREN SO AS TO ASCERTAINMENT OF THE TRUTH,

(1) (2)

FACILITATE ENSURE TO LEVEL

WITNESS FROM

CHAIR WHICH BE

OR THE

OTHER CHILD TO

PLACE

TESTIFIES

MAY

TURNED

QUESTIONS ARE STATED IN A FORM APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENTAL CHILD, FROM

FACILITATE HIS TESTIMONY BUT THE OPPOSING PARTY AND HIS COUNSEL MUST HAVE A FRONTAL OR PROFILE VIEW OF THE CHILD DURING THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHILD. WITNESS CHAIR OR OTHER

(3) (4)

PROTECT CHILDREN OR UNDUE OF

THE
PLACE

HARASSMENT AVOID

EMBARRASSMENT, AND WASTE

FROM WHICH THE CHILD TESTIFIES

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

33 of 39

ONE UP LAW

TIME. ALLOW III.

MENTAL

THE
CHILD

ILLNESS, TO

OR

WILL

BE

COURT WITNESS

MAY TO AND

EXPOSED

SEVERE ABSENT AND THE

THE

TESTIFY IN A NARRATIVE FORM.

PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY; OR

(2)IS

QUESTIONS (1)
LEADING

FROM

THE

HEARING

OBJECTIONS THERETO QUESTIONS IN ALL STAGES CHILD ALLOWED SAME FURTHER INTERESTS JUSTICE MAY IF OF BE THE WILL THE OF TO EXAMINATION OF A

PROPONENT OF HIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN UNABLE TO PROCURE HIS ATTENDANCE BY PROCESS OR OTHER REASONABLE MEANS.

WHEN

THE CHILD WITNESS

IS UNAVAILABLE, HIS HEARSAY TESTIMONY SHALL BE ADMITTED ONLY IF CORROBORATED BY OTHER ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE.

(SS20)

2)

IN

RULING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SUCH STATEMENT, THE INDICIA THE COURT CONTENT WHICH RELIABILITY. SHALL AND PROVIDE TIME, OF

(2) OBJECTIONS

HEARSAY CONSIDER SUFFICIENT C.

QUESTIONS SHOULD BE COUCHED IN A MANNER SO AS NOT TO CONFUSE, FRIGHTEN, INTIMIDATE CHILD. MISLEAD, OR THE

CIRCUMSTANCES

THEREOF

IT

SHALL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING FACTORS:

D. E. F. G.

(j) WEIGHT
REQUIRED CREDIBLE FACT,

(SS21)

GIVEN TO TESTIMONY OF CHILD

WITNESS: STRONG; CORROBORATION NOT

HIS

TESTIMONY, SHALL

IF BE

BY

ITSELF, OR

SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF CONCLUSION, IN JUDGMENT OF PROOF NONAND SUBJECT TO THE STANDARD REQUIRED CRIMINAL

WHETHER THERE IS A MOTIVE TO LIE; THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE DECLARANT CHILD; WHETHER MORE THAN ONE PERSON HEARD THE STATEMENT; WHETHER THE STATEMENT WAS SPONTANEOUS; THE TIMING OF THE STATEMENT AND
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COULD THE NOT DECLARANT CHILD AND WITNESS;

H.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
THE DECLARANT CHILD;

CRIMINAL CASES. (SS22) IV. QUESTIONS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. HEARSAY EXCEPTION IN CHILD ABUSE CASES (SS28) WHERE ADMITTED: CHILD ABUSE CASES, CRIMINAL OR NON-CRIMINAL HOW ADMITTED: 1) BEFORE SUCH HEARSAY STATEMENT MAY BE ADMITTED, ITS PROPONENT SHALL MAKE KNOWN TO THE ADVERSE PARTY THE INTENTION TO OFFER SUCH TO STATEMENT PROVIDE HIM AND A ITS FAIR PARTICULARS A.

SHOW THE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF I.

THE THE
THE

POSSIBILITY OF

OF THE

FAULTY DECLARANT

RECOLLECTION J.

CHILD IS REMOTE; AND CIRCUMSTANCES STATEMENT IS NO ARE REASON THE SURROUNDING SUCH TO THAT CHILD INVOLVEMENT SUPPOSE

THERE THE

DECLARANT

MISREPRESENTED OF THE ACCUSED.

B.

VIDEOTAPED
OR

AND AUDIOTAPED IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEWS IN CHILD ABUSE CASES

OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT.

DISCLOSURE

CHILD IS AVAILABLE THE COURT

REQUIRE THE

SHALL, CHILD

UPON BE

(SS29) WHEN 1

ADMISSIBLE: CHILD WITNESS

MOTION OF THE ADVERSE PARTY, TO PRESENT AT THE PRESENTATION OF THE HEARSAY STATEMENT FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ADVERSE PARTY. B. BY THE

THE

OF MEMORY, MENTAL

(1)IS

INFIRMITY,

DECEASED, SUFFERS FROM PHYSICAL LACK

ILLNESS, OR WILL BE EXPOSED TO SEVERE PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY; OR

CHILD IS

UNAVAILABLE THE FACT OF SUCH

(2)IS
UNABLE

ABSENT FROM THE HEARING AND THE OF HIS STATEMENT HIS HAS BEEN BY TO PROCURE ATTENDANCE

PROPONENT

CIRCUMSTANCE MUST BE PROVED BY THE PROPONENT.

WHEN UNAVAILABLE: (1)IS DECEASED,

SUFFERS INFIRMITY, FROM LACK OF PHYSICAL MEMORY,

PROCESS OR OTHER REASONABLE MEANS.

BEFORE

THE AN

VIDEOTAPE

OR

AUDIOTAPE TO VIEW

IS OR

OFFERED IN EVIDENCE, ALL PARTIES SHALL BE AFFORDED OPPORTUNITY

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

34 of 39

ONE UP LAW

LISTEN TO IT AND SHALL BE FURNISHED A COPY OF A WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS.

SPECIFICALLY FOR THE WHICH A IT

DESCRIBING IS FOR OFFERED, GOOD FILING

THE UNLESS CAUSE, FOR DURING

EVIDENCE AND STATING THE PURPOSE COURT, OR

BY

WHOM CONDUCTED:

DULY OR

TRAINED CHILD

MEMBERS

OF

A IN

REQUIRES FILING TRIAL; AND

DIFFERENT PERMITS

TIME

MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM OR REPRESENTATIVES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PROTECTIVE SERVICES SITUATIONS WHERE CHILD ABUSE IS SUSPECTED SO AS TO DETERMINE WHETHER CHILD ABUSE OCCURRED.

(2) SERVE 3

THE MOTION ON ALL

PARTIES AND THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM AT LEAST DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE MOTION.

PROOF

INDIVIDUAL CONDUCTING THE INTERVIEW OF THE SHALL BE AVAILABLE AT TRIAL FOR COURT

CHILD

EXAMINATION BY ANY PARTY. OF THE FOLLOWING MUST BE GIVEN BY PARTY OFFERING THE VIDEOTAPE OR AUDIOTAPE:

2. BEFORE
CHAMBERS DISCLOSES THE

ADMITTING SUCH EVIDENCE, THE CONDUCT AFFORD A THE HEARING CHILD, IN HIS AND

MUST

(1)THE (2)THE

VIDEOTAPE

OR

AUDIOTAPE

GUARDIAN AD LITEM, THE PARTIES, AND THEIR

IDENTITY OF ALL INDIVIDUALS PRESENT AND AT ALL TIMES INCLUDES THEIR IMAGES AND VOICES; STATEMENT WAS NOT MADE IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONING CALCULATED TO LEAD THE CHILD TO MAKE A PARTICULAR STATEMENT OR IS CLEARLY SHOWN TO BE THE STATEMENT OF THE CHILD AND NOT THE PRODUCT OF IMPROPER SUGGESTION ;

COUNSEL A RIGHT TO ATTEND AND BE HEARD.

THE

MOTION

AND

THE

RECORD

OF

THE

HEARING MUST BE SEALED AND REMAIN UNDER SEAL AND PROTECTED BY A PROTECTIVE ORDER SET FORTH IN SECTION HEARING CONSENT. IN

31(B). THE
EXCEPT

CHILD HIS

SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO TESTIFY AT THE CHAMBERS WITH

(3)THE (4)THE

VIDEOTAPE PERSON

AND

AUDIOTAPE THE

MACHINE DEVICE

OR WAS

DEVICE WAS CAPABLE OF RECORDING TESTIMONY; OPERATING COMPETENT TO OPERATE IT;

D. OTHER PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR E. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS. WHEN

AND ORDER OF THE COURT

THE CHILD

(SS31)

RECORDS MAY BE RELEASED: UPON WRITTEN REQUEST

(5)THE VIDEOTAPE OR AUDIOTAPE CORRECT; AND (6)IT HAS BEEN DULY PRESERVED. VALUE
DONE AS REQUIRED IN THIS INVESTIGATIVE BY ITSELF INTERVIEW A

IS AUTHENTIC AND

TO

WHOM MAY BE RELEASED:

OF AN INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW THAT WAS NOT

RULE: THE
IS NOT TO

FACT THAT AN OR FROM

ADMINISTRATIVE USE;

(1)

MEMBERS

OF

THE

COURT

STAFF

FOR

VIDEOTAPED EXCLUDE

AUDIOTAPED AS REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE BASIS EVIDENCE OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS OR TESTIMONY OF THE CHILD.

IT

MAY, HOWEVER, BE CONSIDERED IN

DETERMINING THE RELIABILITY OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE CHILD DESCRIBING ABUSE.

(2) THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY; (3) DEFENSE COUNSEL; (4) THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM; (5) AGENTS OF INVESTIGATING LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES; AND (6) OTHER PERSONS AS DETERMINED BY THE COURT. F. PROTECTIVE
ORDER

C.

SEXUAL ABUSE SHIELD RULE INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE

PROCEEDING ABUSE: INVOLVING

IN ALLEGED

ANY CHILD

CRIMINAL SEXUAL

WHAT

ARE COVERED:

ANY

VIDEOTAPE OR AUDIOTAPE OF A

CHILD THAT IS PART OF THE COURT RECORD

(1) EVIDENCE
ALLEGED VICTIM BEHAVIOR; AND

OFFERED

TO

PROVE IN

THAT

THE

PROVISOS

OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER : MAY BE VIEWED ONLY BY PARTIES, THEIR

ENGAGED

OTHER

SEXUAL LITEM.

(1) TAPES (2) NO

(2) EVIDENCE WHEN

COUNSEL , THEIR EXPERT WITNESS, AND THE GUARDIAN AD OFFERED TO PROVE THE SEXUAL TAPE, OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, SHALL BE

PREDISPOSITION OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM. ADMISSIBLE: OF

EVIDENCE

OF SPECIFIC BY THE

DIVULGED BY ANY PERSON MENTIONED IN SUB-SECTION TRIAL.

(A)

INSTANCES

SEXUAL

BEHAVIOR

TO ANY OTHER PERSON, EXCEPT AS NECESSARY FOR THE

ALLEGED VICTIM TO PROVE THAT A PERSON OTHER THAN THE ACCUSED WAS THE SOURCE OF SEMEN, INJURY, OR OTHER PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE.

TAPE, ITS TRANSCRIPTION OR ANY PART THEREOF UNLESS HE SIGNS A WRITTEN AFFIRMATION THAT HE HAS RECEIVED AND READ A COPY OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER ; THAT HE SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO THE

(3) NO

PERSON SHALL BE GRANTED ACCESS TO THE

HOW

ADMITTED:

SUCH EVIDENCE MUST:

1. A

PARTY

INTENDING

TO

OFFER

PROTECTIVE THE COURT.

ORDER ;

AND

THAT

IN

CASE

OF

VIOLATION

THEREOF, HE WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE CONTEMPT POWER OF

(1) FILE LEAST 15

A WRITTEN MOTION AT DAYS BEFORE TRIAL,

TRANSCRIPTS THEREOF MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PARTIES,

(4)

EACH

OF

THE

TAPE

CASSETTES

AND

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

35 of 39

ONE UP LAW

THEIR COUNSEL, AND RESPECTIVE AGENTS SHALL BEAR THE FOLLOWING CAUTIONARY NOTICE:

1.

YOUTHFUL
CITY OR MUNICIPAL

OFFENDER HAS BEEN CHARGED BEFORE ANY PROVINCIAL JUDGE PROSECUTOR THE OR BEFORE HAVE ANY BEEN AND CHARGES

THIS
AND THE SUBJECT TO

OBJECT A

OR

DOCUMENT ARE ORDER

CONTENTS

THEREOF

ORDERED DROPPED

PROTECTIVE

(CASE TITLE), (CASE NUMBER). THEY SHALL NOT BE EXAMINED, INSPECTED, READ, VIEWED, OR COPIED BY ANY PERSON, OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE PROTECTIVE ORDER. NO ADDITIONAL
ISSUED BY THE COURT IN COPIES OF THE TAPE OR ANY OF ITS PORTION SOLD, OR SHALL BE MADE, TO SUCH ANY GIVEN, PERSON SHOWN

ALL

THE RECORDS OF THE CASE

SHALL

BE CONSIDERED AS PRIVILEGED AND MAY NOT BE DISCLOSED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER.

2.

YOUTHFUL
COURT

OFFENDER HIM,

HAS OR

BEEN

CHARGED THE OF

AND CASE

THE OR

ACQUITS

DISMISSES

COMMITS HIM TO AN INSTITUTION AND SUBSEQUENTLY RELEASES HIM PURSUANT TO

CHAPTER 3

P. D. NO.

603, ALL
THE RECORDS OF HIS CASE SHALL ALSO BE CONSIDERED AS PRIVILEGED AND MAY NOT BE DISCLOSED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO ANYONE DEFENDANT

WITHOUT PRIOR COURT ORDER . PERSON POWER VIOLATING OF THE

ANY

PROTECTIVE AND OTHER

ORDER IS SUBJECT TO THE CONTEMPT COURT PENALTIES PRESCRIBED BY LAW.

EXCEPT
MAY OR IF

TO DETERMINE IF A HIS MAY BE SENTENCE OF

HAVE HE

SUSPENDED UNDER

SHOWN TO ANY PERSON EXCEPT AS ORDERED BY THE COURT.

(5) NO

TAPE SHALL BE GIVEN, LOANED, SOLD, OR DAYS FROM RECEIPT, ALL COPIES SHALL BE OF COURT FOR SAFEKEEPING

NO. 603

ARTICLE 192

P. D. P. D.
CIVIL BEEN

GRANTED HIS

PROBATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF

(6) WITHIN 30
RETURNED TO THE

OF THE TAPE AND ANY TRANSCRIPTS THEREOF CLERK

NO. 968 OR TO LIABILITY, IF SAID THE

LAW TO YOUTHFUL BE OF GUILTY OR HIS OR

ENFORCE LIABILITY

HAS

IMPOSED IN THE CRIMINAL ACTION . OFFENDER OF CONCERNED OR OF BY

UNLESS THE PERIOD IS EXTENDED BY THE COURT ON MOTION OF A PARTY.

(7) THIS

SHALL NOT BE HELD UNDER ANY PROVISION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER SHALL REMAIN IN FULL ORDERS. PERJURY TO CONCEALMENT REASON THE CASE MISREPRESENTATION ANY FACT

G. ADDITIONAL

FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. PROTECTIVE

MOTU PROPRIO OR ON MOTION OF PARENTS, LEGAL GUARDIAN, OR CHILD.

THE COURT MAY, ANY PARTY, THE CHILD, HIS THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM,

FAILURE RECITE

ACKNOWLEDGE RELATED

THERETO IN RESPONSE TO ANY INQUIRY MADE TO HIM FOR ANY PURPOSE.

ISSUE ADDITIONAL ORDERS TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF THE

H. PUBLICATION WHAT
IS

OF IDENTITY CONTEMPTUOUS. PROHIBITED:

VI.
OR CAUSING

PUBLICATION

PUBLICATION IN ANY FORMAT THE NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE

RULES OF COURT: COURT ON DEPOSITION, CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES, AND EVIDENCE SHALL BE APPLIED IN A SUPPLETORY CHARACTER. (SS32)
APPLICATION OF

SUPPLETORY

THE

PROVISIONS OF THE

RULES

OF

NUMBER, SCHOOL, OR OTHER IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OF A CHILD WHO IS OR IS ALLEGED TO BE A VICTIM OR ACCUSED OF A CRIME OR A WITNESS THEREOF, OR AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF THE CHILD

LIABILITY I. PHYSICAL 12 A
TO

OF VIOLATOR: CONTEMPT OF COURT SAFETY OF CHILD; EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE.

Rules on Evidence
SCOPE UNLESS
WHENEVER MESSAGE AN ELECTRONIC SS1) DOCUMENT

Electronic
RULES
SHALL APPLY DATA

OTHERWISE PROVIDED HEREIN, THESE OR

CHILD HAS A RIGHT AT ANY COURT PROCEEDING NOT TESTIFY REGARDING INCLUDING PERSONAL HIS NAME, IDENTIFYING ADDRESS,

ELECTRONIC

(R1,

INFORMATION,

TELEPHONE NUMBER, SCHOOL, AND OTHER INFORMATION THAT COULD ENDANGER HIS PHYSICAL SAFETY OR HIS FAMILY.

CASES COVERED. ALL CIVIL ACTIONS

AND PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS QUASI-JUDICIAL

AND ADMINISTRATIVE CASES.

(R1,

SS2)

13

THE

COURT MAY, HOWEVER, REQUIRE THE CHILD TO

TESTIFY REGARDING PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE INFORMATION GENERATED, SENT, RECEIVED ELECTRONIC , OPTICAL OR SIMILAR MEANS. (R2,

OR

STORED

BY

SS1G)

J.

DESTRUCTION

OF

VIDEOTAPES

AND

AUDIOTAPES

PRODUCED

UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS

RULE

OR OTHERWISE MADE

PART OF THE COURT RECORD SHALL BE DESTROYED AFTER

YEARS HAVE ELAPSED FROM THE DATE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.

ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES (R2, SS1J) REFERS TO ANY DISTINCTIVE MARK, CHARACTERISTIC AND/OR SOUND IN ELECTRONIC FORM, REPRESENTING THE IDENTITY OF A
PERSON AND ATTACHED TO OR LOGICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE OR ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT OR ANY

K.

RECORDS

OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER : PRIVILEGED

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

36 of 39

ONE UP LAW

METHODOLOGY OR PROCEDURE EMPLOYED OR ADOPTED BY A PERSON AND EXECUTED OR ADOPTED BY SUCH PERSON WITH THE INTENTION OF AUTHENTICATING, SIGNING OR APPROVING AN ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE OR ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT.

FIGURES, SYMBOLS OR OTHER MODES OF WRITTEN EXPRESSION, DESCRIBED OR HOWEVER REPRESENTED, BY WHICH A RIGHT IS EXTINGUISHED, OR BY WHICH A FACT MAY BE PROVED AND AFFIRMED, WHICH IS RECEIVED, RECORDED, TRANSMITTED, STORED, ESTABLISHED OR AN OBLIGATION

INCLUDES

DIGITAL SIGNATURES

REFERS

TO AN ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE CONSISTING OF A

TRANSFORMATION OF AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT OR AN ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE USING AN ASYMMETRIC OR PUBLIC CRYPTOSYSTEM SUCH THAT A PERSON HAVING THE INITIAL UNTRANSFORMED ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT AND THE SIGNERS PUBLIC KEY CAN ACCURATELY DETERMINE:

PROCESSED, RETRIEVED OR PRODUCED ELECTRONICALLY.

INCLUDES
PRINTOUT

DIGITALLY SIGNED DOCUMENTS AND ANY OR OUTPUT, READABLE OR BY SIGHT OR

OTHER MEANS, WHICH ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT. THE TERM MESSAGE. DATA MESSAGE ELECTRONIC

(I) WHETHER (II) WHETHER DIGITALLY

MADE.

THE

TRANSFORMATION

WAS

CREATED

FOR

PURPOSES OF THESE WITH

RULES,
DATA

USING THE PRIVATE KEY THAT CORRESPONDS TO THE SIGNERS PUBLIC KEY; AND, THE INITIAL ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT HAD SS1E) REFERS TO AN ELECTRONIC BEEN ALTERED AFTER THE TRANSFORMATION WAS

ELECTRONIC

DOCUMENT MAY BE USED

INTERCHANGEABLY

ELECTRONIC

(R2,

SIGNED

FUNCTIONAL SS1) ADMISSIBLE

EQUIVALENT

OF

PAPER-BASED

DOCUMENTS.

(R3,

DOCUMENT OR ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE BEARING A DIGITAL SIGNATURE VERIFIED BY THE PUBLIC KEY LISTED IN A CERTIFICATE.

IN EVIDENCE IF IT COMPLIES WITH THE RULES ON

ADMISSIBLE HOW

(R2,

SS1F)

ADMISSIBILITY PRESCRIBED BY THE

RULES

OF

COURT

AND RELATED

IN EVIDENCE AS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF THE

LAWS AND IS AUTHENTICATED IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THESE

SIGNATURE OF A PERSON ON A WRITTEN DOCUMENT. AUTHENTICATED?

(R6,

SS1)

RULES. (R3, CONFIDENTIAL

SS2) CHARACTER OF A PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION IS NOT

1. 2. 3.

BY BY BY

(R6,

SS2) A METHOD A OR PROCESS SIGNATURE WAS AND DIGITAL

EVIDENCE TO

THAT

LOST SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS IN THE FORM OF AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT.

UTILIZED

ESTABLISH

(R3,

SS3)

VERIFY THE SAME; ANY OTHER MEANS PROVIDED BY LAW; OR ANY OTHER MEANS SATISFACTORY TO THE JUDGE AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE ELECTRONIC

BEST EVIDENCE RULE: (R4) O AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT

EQUIVALENT READABLE O OF AN

SHALL BE REGARDED AS THE DOCUMENT MEANS, UNDER SHOWN THE TO

ESTABLISHING SIGNATURE.

ORIGINAL OR

BEST EVIDENCE RULE

BY SIGHT

IF IT IS A PRINTOUT OR OUTPUT OTHER

DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS RELATING TO E-SIGNATURES: (R6, SS3) 1. THE ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE IS THAT OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT CORRELATES; 2. THE ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE WAS AFFIXED BY THAT
PERSON WITH THE INTENTION OF AUTHENTICATING OR APPROVING THE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT TO WHICH IT IS RELATED OR TO INDICATE SUCH PERSONS CONSENT TO THE TRANSACTION EMBODIED THEREIN ; AND

REFLECT THE DATA ACCURATELY.

ORIGINALS AND COPIES: WHEN COPIES OR DUPLICATES ORIGINALS: 1. WHEN A DOCUMENT IS IN

REGARDED TWO

AS

OR MORE THE SAME

COPIES EXECUTED AT OR ABOUT

TIME WITH IDENTICAL CONTENTS, OR

2.

IS

A COUNTERPART PRODUCED BY THE SAME MATRIX,

IMPRESSION AS THE ORIGINAL, OR FROM THE SAME OR OR BY BY MECHANICAL OTHER OR ELECTRONIC RE-RECORDING, OR BY CHEMICAL REPRODUCTION, TECHNIQUES THE ORIGINAL. COPIES TO OR DUPLICATES SAME SHALL NOT AS BE THE THE EXTENT EQUIVALENT REPRODUCES THAT ACCURATELY

3.

THE

METHODS OR PROCESSES UTILIZED TO AFFIX OR

VERIFY THE ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE OPERATED WITHOUT ERROR OR FAULT.

DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS RELATING TO (R6, SS4) 1. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED CORRECT; 2. THE DIGITAL SIGNATURE WAS 3. 4. NO
REVOCABLE;

DIGITAL IN A

SIGNATURES: IS

WHEN

CERTIFICATE

ADMISSIBLE ORIGINAL:

CREATED

DURING

THE

OPERATIONAL PERIOD OF A CERTIFICATE; CAUSE EXISTS TO RENDER A CERTIFICATE INVALID OR

3.
4.

IF IF

A GENUINE QUESTION IS RAISED AS TO THE

AUTHENTICITY OF THE ORIGINAL; OR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD BE UNJUST OR INEQUITABLE TO ADMIT THE COPY IN LIEU OF THE ORIGINAL.

THE
AND,

MESSAGE ASSOCIATED WITH A DIGITAL SIGNATURE

HAS NOT BEEN ALTERED FROM THE TIME IT WAS SIGNED;

5.

CERTIFICATE HAD BEEN ISSUED BY THE CERTIFICATION

AUTHORITY INDICATED THEREIN .

AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS (R5) BURDEN OF PROVING AUTHENTICITY: PERSON

HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING ITS AUTHENTICITY.

SEEKING

TO

INTRODUCE AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING

ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT (R2, SS1H) INFORMATION OR THE REPRESENTATION

OF INFORMATION, DATA,

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

37 of 39

ONE UP LAW

MANNER

OF AUTHENTICATION

DOCUMENT OFFERED AS AUTHENTIC IS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE, ITS AUTHENTICITY MUST BE PROVED BY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MEANS:

BEFORE

ANY PRIVATE ELECTRONIC

BUSINESS BY A PERSON WHO IS NOT A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND WHO DID NOT ACT UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE PARTY USING IT.

(A ) (B )

BY EVIDENCE THAT IT HAD BEEN DIGITALLY SIGNED BY THE PERSON PURPORTED TO HAVE SIGNED THE SAME; BY EVIDENCE THAT OTHER APPROPRIATE SECURITY PROCEDURES OR DEVICES AS MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY THE

HEARSAY A
EVENTS,

RULE EXCEPTION:

MEMORANDUM, REPORT, RECORD OR DATA COMPILATION OF ACTS, CONDITIONS, OPINIONS, OR DIAGNOSES, MADE BY

SUPREME COURT

OR

BY

LAW

FOR

ELECTRONIC , OPTICAL OR OTHER SIMILAR MEANS AT OR NEAR THE TIME OF OR FROM TRANSMISSION OR SUPPLY OF INFORMATION BY A PERSON WITH KNOWLEDGE THEREOF, AND KEPT IN THE REGULAR COURSE OR CONDUCT OF A BUSINESS ACTIVITY, AND SUCH WAS THE OR DATA COMPILATION BY ELECTRONIC, OPTICAL OR SIMILAR MEANS, ALL OF WHICH ARE SHOWN BY THE TESTIMONY OF THE CUSTODIAN OR OTHER QUALIFIED WITNESSES. REGULAR PRACTICE TO MAKE THE MEMORANDUM, REPORT, RECORD,

AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS WERE

(C) A

APPLIED TO THE DOCUMENT; OR BY OTHER EVIDENCE SHOWING ITS INTEGRITY AND RELIABILITY TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE JUDGE.

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY NOTARIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES PROMULGATED BY THE

THE

SUPREME COURT

SHALL

BE

(R8,

SS1) BY EVIDENCE OF THE

CONSIDERED AS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND PROVED AS A NOTARIAL DOCUMENT UNDER THE

RULES

OF

COURT.

THIS

PRESUMPTION

MAY

BE

OVERCOME

UNTRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION OR THE

EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS (R7) FACTORS FOR ASSESSING EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT. (A) THE RELIABILITY OF THE MANNER OR METHOD IN WHICH IT WAS GENERATED, STORED OR COMMUNICATED,
INCLUDING ACCURACY MESSAGE BUT AND OR NOT LIMITED OF TO INPUT AND LIGHT IN AND OUTPUT FOR DATA THE ITS AND PROCEDURES, CONTROLS, RELIABILITY DOCUMENT, OF OF TESTS IN THE CHECKS OF ALL

METHOD OR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PREPARATION, TRANSMISSION OR STORAGE THEREOF.

(R8,

SS2) TO THE ADMISSIBILITY AND

HOW

ARE

MATTERS

RELATING

EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ESTABLISHED?

(R9)
BY AN AFFIDAVIT STATING RECORDS. FACTS OF DIRECT PERSONAL

THE

ELECTRONIC

CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS ANY RELEVANT AGREEMENT;

KNOWLEDGE OF THE AFFIANT OR BASED ON AUTHENTIC

(B) THE (C) THE

RELIABILITY INTEGRITY

THE

MANNER THE

WHICH

ORIGINATOR WAS IDENTIFIED; INFORMATION COMMUNICATION SYSTEM IN WHICH IT IS RECORDED OR STORED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE HARDWARE AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS OR SOFTWARE USED AS WELL AS PROGRAMMING ERRORS; FAMILIARITY OF THE WITNESS OR THE PERSON WHO THE ENTRY WITH THE COMMUNICATION AND MADE

THE THE

AFFIDAVIT

MUST

AFFIRMATIVELY

SHOW

THE

COMPETENCE OF THE AFFIANT TO TESTIFY ON THE MATTERS CONTAINED THEREIN .

AFFIANT

SHALL

BE

MADE

TO

AFFIRM

THE

CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN OPEN COURT AND MAY BE CROSS-EXAMINED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT BY THE ADVERSE PARTY.

(D) THE (E) THE

INFORMATION SYSTEM; NATURE AND QUALITY OF THE INFORMATION WHICH INTO THE COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION WENT

SYSTEM UPON WHICH THE ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE OR ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT WAS BASED; OR

EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES (R10) 1 ELECTRONIC TESTIMONY AFTER SUMMARILY HEARING THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO RULE 9 OF THESE RULES, THE COURT MAY AUTHORIZE THE
PRESENTATION MEANS. DETERMINE OF TESTIMONIAL SO FOR EVIDENCE THE SUCH BY ELECTRONIC SHALL AND

(F) OTHER

FACTORS WHICH THE COURT MAY CONSIDER AS THE ACCURACY OR INTEGRITY OF THE

BEFORE
THE

AUTHORIZING,

COURT

AFFECTING

ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT OR ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE.

NECESSITY

PRESENTATION

PRESCRIBE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES AND WITNESSES CONCERNED.

INTEGRITY OF AN INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM. IN ANY DISPUTE INVOLVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE INFORMATION
AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM IN WHICH AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT OR ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE IS RECORDED OR STORED, THE COURT MAY CONSIDER , AMONG OTHERS, THE FOLLOWING FACTORS:

WHEN

THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, STENO SHALL BE TRANSCRIBED RECORDER BY A TYPIST OR OTHER AUTHORIZED FOR THE

EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS IS DONE ELECTRONICALLY, STENOGRAPHER ,

(A) WHETHER

THE

INFORMATION

AND

COMMUNICATION

SYSTEM OR OTHER SIMILAR DEVICE WAS OPERATED IN A MANNER THAT DID NOT AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT, AND THERE ARE NO OTHER REASONABLE GROUNDS TO DOUBT THE INTEGRITY OF THE

PURPOSE, WHO SHALL CERTIFY AS CORRECT THE TRANSCRIPT DONE BY HIM.

THE

TRANSCRIPT SHOULD REFLECT THE FACT

THAT THE PROCEEDINGS, EITHER IN WHOLE OR IN PART, HAD BEEN ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED.

(B) WHETHER (C)WHETHER

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM ; THE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT WAS RECORDED OR STORED BY A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS WITH INTEREST ADVERSE TO THAT OF THE PARTY USING IT; OR THE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT WAS RECORDED OR STORED IN THE USUAL AND ORDINARY COURSE OF

THE
AS

ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AND RECORDING THEREOF AS WELL THE STENOGRAPHIC BE DEEMED NOTES SHALL FACIE FORM PART OF THE SUCH

RECORD OF THE CASE. SHALL PROCEEDINGS.

SUCH
PRIMA

TRANSCRIPT AND RECORDING EVIDENCE OF

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

38 of 39

ONE UP LAW

EPHEMERAL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION REFERS TO TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS, TEXT MESSAGES, CHATROOM SESSIONS, STREAMING AUDIO, STREAMING VIDEO,
AND OTHER ELECTRONIC FORMS OF COMMUNICATION THE EVIDENCE OF WHICH IS NOT RECORDED OR RETAINED. SS1K)

(R2,

SHALL
A

BE PROVEN BY THE TESTIMONY OF A PERSON WHO WAS TO THE SAME OR HAS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

PARTY

THEREOF.

WITNESSES, OTHER COMPETENT EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED.

IN

THE ABSENCE OR UNAVAILABILITY OF SUCH

(R11, AUDIO, AUDIO,

SS2)

PHOTOGRAPHIC AND VIDEO EVIDENCE

(R11,

SSSS1-2)

PHOTOGRAPHIC AND VIDEO EVIDENCE OF EVENTS, ACTS OR SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE PROVIDED IT SHALL BE

TRANSACTIONS

SHOWN , PRESENTED OR DISPLAYED TO THE COURT AND SHALL BE

IDENTIFIED, EXPLAINED OR AUTHENTICATED BY THE PERSON WHO MADE THE RECORDING OR BY SOME OTHER PERSON COMPETENT TO TESTIFY ON THE ACCURACY THEREOF. O

SAME

RULE COVERS A RECORDING OF THE TELEPHONE OR EPHEMERAL ELECTRONIC

CONVERSATION

COMMUNICATION SHALL BE COVERED BY THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING SECTION .

IF

EPHEMERAL, AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC AND VIDEO EVIDENCE ARE AUTHENTICATION ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS APPLY.

RECORDED OR EMBODIED IN AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT, THEN THE PROVISIONS

(R11,

SS2)

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

39 of 39

ONE UP LAW